natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"– it is, however, incumbent upon the Member States to ensure that their legislation contains criteria which enable those persons to obtain a decision on their application for entry and residence that is founded on an extensive examination of their personal circumstances and, in the event of refusal, is justified by reasons;" 
"– države članice ipak moraju osigurati da njihovo zakonodavstvo sadržava kriterije koji tim osobama omogućuju dobivanje odluke o njihovom zahtjevu za ulazak i boravak koja se temelji na opsežnom ispitivanju njihovih osobnih okolnosti i koja je, u slučaju odbijanja, obrazložena;"
"– the Member States have a wide discretion when selecting those criteria, but the criteria must be consistent with the normal meaning of the term ‘facilitate’ and of the words relating to dependence used in Article 3(2) and must not deprive that provision of its effectiveness; and" 
"– države članice imaju široku marginu prosudbe kod odabira tih kriterija, ali ti kriteriji moraju biti u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza „olakšava” i izrazima iz navedenog članka 3. stavka 2. koji se odnose na uzdržavanje i tu odredbu ne smiju lišiti njezina korisnog učinka; i"
– every applicant is entitled to a judicial review of whether the national legislation and its application satisfy those conditions. 
– svaki podnositelj zahtjeva ima pravo pred sudom provjeriti ispunjavaju li nacionalno zakonodavstvo i njegova primjena te uvjete.
27 By its third and fourth questions, which should also be examined together, the national tribunal asks in essence whether, in order to fall within the category, referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, of family members who are ‘dependants’ of a Union citizen, it is necessary to have resided in the same State as that citizen and to have been a dependant of that citizen shortly before or at the time when the latter settled in the host Member State. 
27 Trećim i četvrtim pitanjem, koje također valja ispitati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita mora li neka osoba, da bi bila svrstana u kategoriju „uzdržavanih” članova obitelji građanina Unije iz članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38, boraviti u istoj državi kao i taj građanin i biti uzdržavanik toga građanina malo prije ili u trenutku nastanjivanja potonjeg u državi članici domaćinu.
28 As has been submitted by the Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre), the Netherlands Government and the Commission in particular, the wording of Directive 2004/38 does not support the conclusion that family members of a Union citizen who do not fall under the definition in Article 2(2) of that directive and who have duly demonstrated their situation of dependence on that citizen can be excluded from the scope of Article 3(2) of the directive solely because they have not resided in the same State as that citizen. 
28 Kao što su istakli osobito Centre for Advice on Individual Rights in Europe (AIRE Centre), nizozemska vlada i Komisija, tekst Direktive 2004/38 ne omogućuje zaključak da članovi obitelji građanina Unije koji nisu obuhvaćeni definicijom iz članka 2. stavka 2. te direktive a propisno su dokazali da ih taj građanin uzdržava mogu biti isključeni iz područja primjene članka 3. stavka 2. navedene Direktive samo zato jer nisu boravili u istoj državi kao i navedeni građanin.
29 Under Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the Member States are to facilitate, in accordance with their national legislation, entry and residence for ‘any other family members … who, in the country from which they have come, are dependants or members of the household of the Union citizen having the primary right of residence’. 
29 U skladu s navedenim člankom 3. stavkom 2., države članice olakšavaju, u skladu s nacionalnim zakonodavstvom, ulazak i boravak „bilo kojim drugim članovima obitelji […] koji su u zemlji iz koje dolaze uzdržavanici ili članovi kućanstva građanina Unije, nositelja primarnog prava na boravak”.
30 Also, Article 10(2)(e) of Directive 2004/38, relating to issue of residence cards, authorises the Member States to require family members referred to in Article 3(2) of the directive to present a ‘document issued by the relevant authority in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving certifying that they are dependants … of the Union citizen’. 
30 Isto tako, člankom 10. stavkom 2. točkom (e) Direktive 2004/38, koji se odnosi na izdavanje boravišne dozvole, dopušta se državama članicama da od članova obitelji iz članka 3. stavka 2. iste direktive zahtijevaju predočenje „isprave koju je izdalo nadležno tijelo u zemlji podrijetla ili zemlji iz koje dolaze, kojom se potvrđuje da su uzdržavanici […] građanina Unije”.
31 As the Advocate General has explained in points 91, 92 and 98 of his Opinion, there is nothing to indicate that the term ‘country from which they have come’ or ‘country from which they are arriving’ [‘pays de provenance﻿ used in those provisions must be understood as referring to the country in which the Union citizen resided before settling in the host Member State. On the contrary, it is clear, on reading those provisions together, that the country referred to is, in the case of a national of a third State who declares that he is a ‘dependant’ of a Union citizen, the State in which he was resident on the date when he applied to accompany or join the Union citizen. 
31 Kao što je naveo nezavisni odvjetnik u točkama 91., 92. i 98. svojeg mišljenja, ništa ne ukazuje na to da se izraz „zemlja iz koje dolaze”, koji se upotrebljava u tim odredbama, mora shvaćati tako da se odnosi na državu u kojoj je građanin Unije boravio prije nego što se nastanio u državi članici domaćinu. Suprotno tome, iz povezanog čitanja navedenih odredbi proizlazi da je, kad je riječ o državljaninu treće zemlje koji navodi da je „uzdržavanik” građanina Unije, „zemlja iz koje dolaz[i]” država u kojoj je boravio na datum kad je podnio zahtjev da prati građanina Unije ili da mu se pridruži.
32 So far as concerns the time at which the applicant must be in a situation of dependence in order to be considered a ‘dependant’ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, it is to be noted that, as follows from recital 6 in the directive’s preamble, the objective of that provision is to ‘maintain the unity of the family in a broader sense’ by facilitating entry and residence for persons who are not included in the definition of family member of a Union citizen contained in Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38 but who nevertheless maintain close and stable family ties with a Union citizen on account of specific factual circumstances, such as economic dependence, being a member of the household or serious health grounds. 
32 Što se tiče trenutka u kojemu podnositelj zahtjeva mora biti u odnosu ovisnosti da bi ga se moglo smatrati „uzdržavanikom” u smislu članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38, valja ustvrditi da je cilj te odredbe, kao što proizlazi iz uvodne izjave 6. navedene direktive, „[sačuvati] jedinstvo obitelji u širem smislu” omogućavanjem ulaska i boravka osobama koje nisu obuhvaćene definicijom članova obitelji građanina Unije iz članka 2. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38, ali koje ipak imaju bliske i stabilne obiteljske veze s građaninom Unije zbog posebnih činjeničnih okolnosti, kao što su ekonomska ovisnost, zajedničko kućanstvo ili ozbiljni zdravstveni razlozi.
33 It is clear that such ties may exist without the family member of the Union citizen having resided in the same State as that citizen or having been a dependant of that citizen shortly before or at the time when the latter settled in the host State. On the other hand, the situation of dependence must exist, in the country from which the family member concerned comes, at the time when he applies to join the Union citizen on whom he is dependent. 
33 Međutim, valja utvrditi da te veze mogu postojati a da član obitelji građanina Unije i nije boravio u istoj državi kao i taj građanin ni bio njegov uzdržavanik malo prije ili u trenutku nastanjivanja potonjeg u državi domaćinu. S druge strane, odnos ovisnosti mora postojati u zemlji iz koje dolazi predmetni član obitelji u trenutku kada podnosi zahtjev da se pridruži građaninu Unije koji ga uzdržava.
34 In the main proceedings, it is for the national tribunal to establish, on the basis of the guidance as to interpretation provided above, whether the respondents in the main proceedings were dependants of the Union citizen, in this instance Mrs Rahman, in the country from which they have come, Bangladesh, at the time when they applied to join her in the United Kingdom. It is only if they can prove that dependence in the country from which they have come, in accordance with Article 10(2) of Directive 2004/38, that the host Member State will have to facilitate their entry and residence in accordance with Article 3(2) of that directive, as interpreted in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the present judgment. 
34 U glavnom postupku, sud koji je uputio zahtjev mora na temelju gore iznesenih elemenata tumačenja provjeriti jesu li tuženici u glavnom postupku bili uzdržavanici građanina Unije, u ovom slučaju gospođe Rahman, u zemlji iz koje dolaze, Bangladešu, u trenutku kad su podnijeli zahtjev da joj se pridruže u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Samo ako budu mogli dokazati to uzdržavanje u zemlji iz koje dolaze, u skladu s člankom 10. stavkom 2. Direktive 2004/38, država članica domaćin morat će im omogućiti ulazak i boravak u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 2. navedene Direktive, kako se tumači u točkama od 22. do 25. ove presude.
35 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third and the fourth question referred is that, in order to fall within the category, referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, of family members who are ‘dependants’ of a Union citizen, the situation of dependence must exist in the country from which the family member concerned comes, at the very least at the time when he applies to join the Union citizen on whom he is dependent. 
35 Uzimajući u obzir gore navedeno, na treće i četvrto postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da, kako bi neka osoba bila svrstana u kategoriju „uzdržavanih” članova obitelji građanina Unije iz članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38, odnos ovisnosti mora postojati u zemlji iz koje dolazi predmetni član obitelji, barem u trenutku u kojem zahtijeva da se pridruži građaninu Unije koji ga uzdržava.
36 By its fifth question, the national tribunal asks, in essence, whether a Member State may impose particular requirements as to the nature or duration of dependence as referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, in order to satisfy itself that such dependence is genuine and stable and has not been brought about with the sole objective of obtaining entry into and residence in its territory. 
36 Petim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li država članica propisati posebne zahtjeve u pogledu vrste ili trajanja uzdržavanja iz članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38 kako bi se uvjerila da je to uzdržavanje stvarno i trajno te da nije uspostavljeno samo zato da omogući ulazak na njezino državno područje ili boravak na njemu.
37 As has been stated in answering the first and the second question, the Member States have a wide discretion as regards the selection of the factors to be taken into account when examining applications for entry and residence submitted by family members of a Union citizen who are envisaged in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38. 
37 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti, kao što je navedeno u odgovoru na prvo i drugo pitanje, da države članice imaju široku marginu procjene kod odabira faktora koje će uzimati u obzir pri razmatranju zahtjeva za ulazak i boravak koje podnesu članovi obitelji građanina Unije iz članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38.
38 As the Advocate General has observed in point 105 of his Opinion, the Member States may, in the exercise of that discretion, lay down in their legislation particular requirements as to the nature and duration of dependence, in order in particular to satisfy themselves that the situation of dependence is genuine and stable and has not been brought about with the sole objective of obtaining entry into and residence in the host Member State. 
38 Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik ustvrdio u točki 105. svojeg mišljenja, države članice mogu, u okviru te margine prosudbe, u svojem zakonodavstvu utvrditi posebne zahtjeve u pogledu vrste i trajanja uzdržavanja, osobito kako bi se uvjerile da je uzdržavanje stvarno i trajno te da nije uspostavljeno samo zato da omogući ulazak i boravak u državi članici domaćinu.
39 It is necessary however, as has been held in paragraph 24 of the present judgment, that those requirements be consistent with the normal meaning of the words relating to the dependence referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38 and do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness. 
39 Međutim, važno je da, kao što je već utvrđeno u točki 24. ove presude, ti zahtjevi budu u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza iz članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) Direktive 2004/38 koji se odnose na uzdržavanje i da tu odredbu ne lišavaju njezina korisnog učinka.
40 Accordingly, the answer to the fifth question referred is that, on a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the Member States may, in the exercise of their discretion, impose particular requirements relating to the nature and duration of dependence, provided that those requirements are consistent with the normal meaning of the words relating to the dependence referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of the directive and do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness. 
40 Slijedom navedenoga, na peto postavljeno pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 3. stavak 2. Direktive 2004/38 treba tumačiti na način da države članice mogu, u okviru svoje margine prosudbe, propisati posebne zahtjeve u pogledu vrste i trajanja uzdržavanja, pod uvjetom da su ti zahtjevi u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza iz članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) Direktive 2004/38 koji se odnose na uzdržavanje i da tu odredbu ne lišavaju njezina korisnog učinka.
41 By its sixth question, the national tribunal asks, in essence, whether issue of the residence card referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 may be conditional on the requirement that the situation of dependence for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of that directive has endured in the host Member State. 
41 Šestim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li se izdavanje boravišne iskaznice iz članka 10. Direktive 2004/38 uvjetovati zahtjevom da se uzdržavanje u smislu članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) te direktive mora nastaviti u državi članici domaćinu.
42 With regard to issue of the residence card referred to by Directive 2004/38, the European Union legislature essentially confined itself to listing, in Article 10 of that directive, the documents to be presented in order to obtain such a card, which is then to be furnished within six months from the date on which the application was submitted. 
42 U tom pogledu valja ustvrditi da se, kad je riječ o izdavanju dozvole boravka predviđene Direktivom 2004/38, zakonodavac Unije u biti ograničio na to da u članku 10. Te direktive nabroji dokumente koje treba predočiti kako bi se dobila takva dozvola, koja potom treba biti izdana u roku od šest mjeseci od podnošenja zahtjeva.
43 So far as concerns the applicants envisaged in Article 3(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38, Article 10 of the directive states that those applicants must present inter alia ‘a document issued by the relevant authority in the country of origin or country from which they are arriving certifying that they are dependants … of the Union citizen’. 
43 Što se tiče podnositelja zahtjeva iz članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) Direktive 2004/38, u navedenom članku 10. navodi se da podnositelji zahtjeva moraju predočiti, između ostalog, „ispravu koju je izdalo nadležno tijelo u zemlji podrijetla ili zemlji iz koje dolaze, kojom se potvrđuje da su uzdržavanici […] građanina Unije”.
44 The legislature did not settle, either in that provision or in other provisions of Directive 2004/38, the question whether family members of a Union citizen who do not fall under the definition in Article 2(2) of the directive and who apply for issue of a residence card by presenting a document, issued in the country from which they have arrived, certifying their dependence on that Union citizen can be refused a residence card on the ground that, after their entry into the host Member State, they have ceased to be dependants of that citizen. 
44 Valja utvrditi da zakonodavac nije ni tom odredom ni drugim odredbama Direktive 2004/38 riješio pitanje može li se članovima obitelji građanina Unije koji nisu obuhvaćeni definicijom iz članka 2. stavka 2. te direktive i koji podnesu zahtjev za izdavanje boravišne iskaznice uz predočenje isprave izdane u zemlji iz koje dolaze kojom se potvrđuje njihova ovisnost o tom građaninu Unije odbiti izdavanje te boravišne iskaznice zbog toga što su nakon ulaska u državu članicu domaćina prestali biti uzdržavanici toga građanina.
45 The answer to the sixth question therefore is that the question whether issue of the residence card referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 may be conditional on the requirement that the situation of dependence for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of that directive has endured in the host Member State does not fall within the scope of the directive. 
45 Na šesto pitanjem valja stoga odgovoriti da pitanje može li se izdavanje boravišne iskaznice iz članka 10. Direktive 2004/38 uvjetovati zahtjevom da se uzdržavanje u smislu članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) te direktive mora nastaviti u državi članici domaćinu nije obuhvaćeno područjem primjene navedene direktive.
46 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national tribunal, the decision on costs is a matter for that tribunal. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 
46. Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.
1. On a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC: 
„1. Članak 3. stavak 2. Direktive 2004/38/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2004. o pravu građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji na slobodno kretanje i boravište [boravak] na području države članice, kojom se izmjenjuje Uredba (EEZ) br. 1612/68 i stavljaju izvan snage direktive 64/221/EEZ, 68/360/EEZ, 72/194/EEZ, 73/148/EEZ, 75/34/EEZ, 75/35/EEZ, 90/364/EEZ, 90/365/EEZ i 93/96/EEZ treba tumačiti na način da:
"– the Member States have a wide discretion when selecting those criteria, but the criteria must be consistent with the normal meaning of the term ‘facilitate’ and of the words relating to dependence used in Article 3(2) and must not deprive that provision of its effectiveness; and" 
"– države članice imaju široku marginu prosudbe kod odabira tih kriterija, ali ti kriteriji moraju biti u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza „olakšava” i izraza iz navedenog članka 3. stavka 2. koji se odnose na uzdržavanje, i tu odredbu ne smiju lišiti njezina korisnog učinka; i"
2. In order to fall within the category, referred to in Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, of family members who are ‘dependants’ of a Union citizen, the situation of dependence must exist in the country from which the family member concerned comes, at the very least at the time when he applies to join the Union citizen on whom he is dependent. 
2. Da bi neka osoba bila svrstana u kategoriju „uzdržavanih” članova obitelji građanina Unije iz članka 3. stavka 2. Direktive 2004/38, odnos uzdržavanja mora postojati u zemlji iz koje dolazi predmetni član obitelji barem u trenutku u kojem zahtijeva da se pridruži građaninu Unije koji ga uzdržava.
3. On a proper construction of Article 3(2) of Directive 2004/38, the Member States may, in the exercise of their discretion, impose particular requirements relating to the nature and duration of dependence, provided that those requirements are consistent with the normal meaning of the words relating to the dependence referred to in Article 3(2)(a) of the directive and do not deprive that provision of its effectiveness. 
3. Članak 3. stavak 2. Direktive 2004/38 treba tumačiti na način da države članice mogu, u okviru svoje margine prosudbe, propisati posebne zahtjeve u pogledu vrste i trajanja uzdržavanja, pod uvjetom da su ti zahtjevi u skladu s uobičajenim značenjem izraza iz članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) Direktive 2004/38 koji se odnose na uzdržavanje i da tu odredbu ne lišavaju njezina korisnog učinka.
4. The question whether issue of the residence card referred to in Article 10 of Directive 2004/38 may be conditional on the requirement that the situation of dependence for the purposes of Article 3(2)(a) of that directive has endured in the host Member State does not fall within the scope of the directive. 
4. Pitanje može li se izdavanje boravišne iskaznice iz članka 10. Direktive 2004/38 uvjetovati zahtjevom da se uzdržavanje u smislu članka 3. stavka 2. prvog podstavka točke (a) te direktive mora nastaviti u državi članici domaćinu nije obuhvaćeno područjem primjene navedene direktive.
6 November 2012 (*) 
6. studenoga 2012.(*)
(Representation of the European Union before national courts – Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU – Claim for damages in respect of loss caused to the European Union by a cartel – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Right to fair hearing – Right of access to a tribunal – Equality of arms – Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003) 
„Zastupanje Europske unije pred nacionalnim sudovima – Članci 282. UEZ-a i 335. UFEU-a – Zahtjev za naknadu štete koja je Uniji prouzročena zabranjenim sporazumom – Članak 47. Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima – Pravo na pošteno suđenje – Pravo na pristup pravosuđu – Jednakost oružja – Članak 16. Uredbe br. 1/2003”
In Case C-199/11, 
U predmetu C-199/11,
Otis NV, 
Otis NV,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 March 2012, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 14. ožujka 2012.,
– Otis NV, by H. Speyart, S. Brijs and G. Borremans, advocaten, 
– za Otis NV, H. Speyart, S. Brijs i G. Borremans, advocaten,
– Kone Belgium NV, by D. Paemen, avocat, D. Vermeiren, advocaat, and T. Vinje, Solicitor, 
– za Kone Belgium NV, D. Paemen, avocat, D. Vermeiren, advocaat, i T. Vinje, Solicitor,
– Schindler NV, by P. Wytinck, advocaat, 
– za Schindler NV, P. Wytinck, advocaat,
– ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, by O. Brouwer, N. Lorjé and A. Pliego Selie, advocaten, 
– za ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs NV, O. Brouwer, N. Lorjé i A. Pliego Selie, advocaten,
– the European Commission, by H. Krämer and C. ten Dam, acting as Agents, 
– za Europsku komisiju, H. Krämer i C. ten Dam, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Council of the European Union, by B. Driessen, acting as Agent, 
– za Vijeće Europske unije, B. Driessen, u svojstvu agenta,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 26 June 2012, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 26. lipnja 2012.,