natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
35 In addition, a traffic prohibition for semi-trailer units and lorries with trailers of over 7.5 t not complying with standard Euro II was introduced between the municipalities of Zirl and Kufstein with effect from 1 January 2007. Since 1 November 2008 that measure has also applied to motor vehicles of that kind which do not comply with standard Euro III. Since 1 November 2009 a general traffic ban has applied to all lorries of over 7.5 t whose emissions do not comply with standard Euro II. 
35 Osim toga, počevši od 1. siječnja 2007. između općina Zirl i Kufstein uvedena je zabrana prometa za poluprikolice i teretna vozila s prikolicama preko 7,5 t koja ne zadovoljavaju normu Euro II. Od 1. studenog 2008. ta se mjera primjenjivala i na motorna vozila koja ne zadovoljavaju normu Euro III. Od 1. studenog 2009. opća zabrana prometa primjenjivala se na sva teretna vozila preko 7,5 t čije emisije ne zadovoljavaju normu Euro II.
36 Finally, with effect from 1 January 2007, the geographical scope of the night traffic ban applying to lorries on a section of the A 12 motorway was extended. An exception had been introduced temporarily for lorries in classes Euro IV and Euro V, but it was abolished on 31 October 2009. 
36 Konačno, počevši od 1. siječnja 2007. teritorijalni opseg zabrane noćne vožnje za teretna vozila na dionici autoceste A 12 je proširen. Privremeno je bilo uvedeno izuzeće za teretna vozila iz razreda Euro IV i Euro V, ali je ukinuto 31. listopada 2009.
37 The sectoral traffic prohibition and the other measures mentioned in paragraphs 34 to 36 above form part of a plan drawn up by the Austrian authorities, pursuant to Article 8(3) of Directive 96/62, in order to ensure, in the Province of Tyrol, compliance with the limit value for nitrogen dioxide fixed in Section I of Annex II to Directive 1999/30. 
37 Zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste i druge mjere, gore navedene u točkama od 34. do 36., dio su plana koji su austrijske vlasti sastavile u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 3. Direktive 96/62 kako bi u pokrajini Tirol osigurale usklađenost s graničnom vrijednosti za dušikov dioksid određenom u odjeljku I. Priloga II. Direktivi 1999/30.
38 The proposed sectoral traffic prohibition was communicated to the Commission by the Republic of Austria on 11 January 2007, in the prior consultation procedure provided for by Council Decision of 21 March 1962 instituting a procedure for prior examination and consultation in respect of certain laws, regulations and administrative provisions concerning transport proposed in Member States (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 96), as amended by Council Decision 73/402/EEC of 22 November 1973 (OJ 1973 L 347, p. 48). 
38 U postupku prethodnog savjetovanja koji je predviđen Odlukom Vijeća od 21. ožujka 1962. o uspostavljanju postupka prethodnog ispitivanja i savjetovanja u odnosu na određene zakone i druge propise u vezi s prijevozom, predloženim u državama članicama (SL 1962, 23, str. 720.), kako je izmijenjena Odlukom Vijeća 73/402/EEZ od 22. studenoga 1973. (SL L 347, str. 48.), Republika Austrija je 11. siječnja 2007. Komisiju obavijestila o predviđenoj zabrani prometa na dionici autoceste.
39 The Commission reacted by issuing an opinion on 20 July 2007, in which it concluded that the sectoral traffic prohibition would, if adopted, constitute a restriction of the free movement of goods, contrary to the obligations under Articles 28 EC and 29 EC. 
39 Komisija je reagirala donošenjem mišljenja od 20. srpnja 2007. u kojem je zaključila da bi zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste, ako bude prihvaćena, značila ograničenje slobode kretanja robe koje je u suprotnosti s obvezama prema člancima 28. UEZ-a i 29. UEZ-a.
40 Since the contested regulation was none the less adopted on 17 December 2007 and entered into force on 1 January 2008, the Commission on 31 January 2008 sent the Republic of Austria a letter of formal notice confirming its previous position and inviting the Republic of Austria to submit is observations within 15 days from receipt of the letter. 
40 Budući da je sporna uredba, unatoč tomu, prihvaćena 17. prosinca 2007. i stupila je na snagu 1. siječnja 2008., Komisija je 31. siječnja 2008. Republici Austriji uputila pismo opomene u kojem potvrđuje svoje prethodno stajalište i poziva Republiku Austriju da dostavi svoje primjedbe u roku od 15 dana od primitka pisma.
41 In its reply of 15 February 2008, the Republic of Austria disputed the Commission’s complaint. It stated that the sectoral traffic prohibition, which aimed to improve the air quality on the A 12 motorway, had the objective of transferring to rail goods that had an ‘affinity with rail’. The prohibition therefore did not constitute a restriction of the free movement of goods, and was in any event justified by objectives of the protection of health and the environment. The geographical situation of Austria should also be taken into account. The rapid growth of road transport in the European Union had brought about increased pressure on the environment in the Alpine corridors and their immediate surroundings. 
41 U svojem odgovoru od 15. veljače 2008. Republika Austrija osporavala je prigovor Komisije. Navodi se da je cilj zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, usmjerene na poboljšanje kvalitete zraka na autocesti A 12, preusmjeravanje robe koja je „prikladna za prijevoz željeznicom” na to prijevozno sredstvo. Dakle, zabrana ne znači ograničenje slobode kretanja robe i u svakom slučaju opravdana je ciljevima zaštite zdravlja i okoliša. Treba također uzeti u obzir zemljopisni položaj Austrije. Nagli porast cestovnog prometa u Uniji uzrokovao je povećani pritisak na okoliš u alpskim koridorima i njihovom neposrednom okolišu.
42 As that reply failed to convince the Commission, it sent the Republic of Austria a reasoned opinion on 8 May 2008, inviting it to take the necessary measures to comply with the opinion within one month from the date of its receipt. 
42 Kako taj odgovor nije uvjerio Komisiju, ona je Republici Austriji uputila obrazloženo mišljenje od 8. svibnja 2008. u kojem je poziva da poduzme potrebne mjere za usklađivanje s tim mišljenjem u roku od mjesec dana od datuma primitka pisma.
43 The Republic of Austria replied to the reasoned opinion by letter of 9 June 2008, maintaining its previous position. In a further letter of 2 December 2008, it informed the Commission that, for the section to the west of the city of Innsbruck, the sectoral traffic prohibition would not enter into force until 1 January 2011. 
43 Na obrazloženo mišljenje Republika Austrija odgovorila je pismom od 9. lipnja 2008. ostajući pri svojem prethodnom stajalištu. U dodatnom pismu od 2. prosinca 2008. obavijestila je Komisiju da će za dionicu zapadno od grada Innsbrucka zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste stupiti na snagu tek 1. siječnja 2011.
44 Since the Commission was not satisfied with those explanations, it decided to bring the present action. 
44 Budući da Komisija nije bila zadovoljna tim obrazloženjima, odlučila je podnijeti ovu tužbu.
45 By order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2009, the Italian Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands were given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission. 
45 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 19. lipnja 2009. Talijanskoj Republici i Kraljevini Nizozemskoj odobrena je intervencija u potporu zahtjevu Komisije.
46 By order of the President of the Court of 19 August 2009, the Kingdom of Denmark was given leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Republic of Austria. After the Kingdom of Denmark informed the Court, by letter of 2 March 2010, that it was withdrawing its intervention, the President of the Court, by order of 7 May 2010, ordered the Kingdom of Denmark to be removed from the register as an intervener in the case. 
46 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 19. kolovoza 2009. Kraljevini Danskoj odobrena je intervencija u potporu zahtjevu Republike Austrije. Nakon što je pismom od 2. ožujka 2010. Kraljevina Danska obavijestila Sud o povlačenju svoje intervencije, predsjednik Suda je 7. svibnja 2010. naložio da se Kraljevina Danska ukloni iz upisnika kao intervenijent u predmetu.
47 The Republic of Austria raises a plea of inadmissibility against the statement in intervention of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. It submits that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is attempting to extend the subject-matter of the action by arguing that the sectoral traffic prohibition constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it does not affect all lorry traffic, but only traffic by lorries of over 7.5 t. 
47 Republika Austrija iznosi prigovor o nedopuštenosti intervencijskog podneska Kraljevine Nizozemske. Navodi da Kraljevina Nizozemska pokušava proširiti predmet spora tvrdeći da zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste znači neizravnu diskriminaciju time što se ne odnosi na cjelokupan promet teretnih vozila, nego samo teretnih vozila preko 7,5 t.
48 The Republic of Austria also raises a plea of inadmissibility against the statement in intervention of the Italian Republic. It submits that the Italian Republic is putting forward a new plea in law by mentioning, as an alternative to the sectoral traffic prohibition, a measure that was not considered by the Commission, namely the possibility of introducing a prohibition of traffic relating to passenger and commercial vehicles of less than 7.5 t, according to the Euro class to which they belong. 
48 Republika Austrija također iznosi prigovor o nedopuštenosti intervencijskog podneska Talijanske Republike. Navodi da Talijanska Republika ističe novi prigovor kada spominje da Komisija nije, kao alternativu zabrani prometa na dionici autoceste, razmotrila mogućnost uvođenja zabrane prometa za osobna i gospodarska vozila ispod 7,5 t ovisno o razredu Euro kojem pripadaju.
49 The latter plea of inadmissibility was contested by the Italian Republic at the hearing. 
49 Talijanska vlada osporavala je taj prigovor tijekom rasprave.
"50 In assessing whether the pleas of inadmissibility raised against the statements in intervention are well founded, it must be recalled that under the fourth paragraph of Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union an application to intervene is to be limited to supporting the form of order sought by one of the parties. That provision does not, however, preclude an intervener from putting forward arguments that are new or different from those of the party it supports, as long as its purpose is to support the form of order sought by that party (see, inter alia, Case 30/59 De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg v High Authority [1961] ECR 1; Case C-150/94 United Kingdom v Council [1998] ECR I-7235, paragraph 36; and Case C-334/08 Commission v Italy [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 53 to 55)." 
50 Kod ocjenjivanja osnovanosti prigovorâ o nedopuštenosti intervencijskih postupaka, valja podsjetiti da prema četvrtom stavku članka 40. Statuta Suda Europske unije zahtjev za intervenciju treba ograničiti na potporu tužbenom zahtjevu jedne od stranaka. Tom se uredbom, međutim, ne sprječava mogućnost da intervenijent iznese nove argumente ili argumente koji se razlikuju od argumenata stranke koju podupire, sve dok je njihov cilj poduprijeti tužbeni zahtjev te stranke (vidjeti osobito presude od 23. veljače 1961., De Gezamenlijke Steenkolenmijnen in Limburg/Vrhovno tijelo, C-30/59, Zb., str. 1., od 19. studenog 1998., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-150/94, Zb., str. I-7235., t. 36., i od 8. srpnja 2010., Komisija/Italija, C-334/08, Zb., str.I-6869., t. od 53. do 55.).
51 The argument of the Kingdom of the Netherlands relates to the Commission’s complaint that the sectoral traffic prohibition is discriminatory. The argument of the Italian Republic relates to the allegedly disproportionate nature of that prohibition, and more particularly to the complaint that the Republic of Austria failed to examine closely the possibility of having recourse to measures that were less restrictive of the free movement of goods. 
51 Argument Kraljevine Nizozemske odnosi se na prigovor Komisije da je zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste diskriminirajuća. Argument Talijanske Republike odnosi se na navodnu neproporcionalnost te zabrane, tj. na prigovor da Republika Austrija nije pomno ispitala mogućnost primjene mjera koje manje ograničavaju slobodu kretanja robe.
52 While those arguments differ from those of the Commission, they none the less relate to complaints raised by the Commission and are intended to support the form of order sought by it. They are intended to contribute to the success of the action for failure to fulfil obligations by shedding further light on the dispute (see, to that effect, Case C-185/00 Commission v Finland [2003] ECR I-14189, paragraph 92). 
52 Iako se ti argumenti razlikuju od argumenata Komisije, oni su ipak povezani s prigovorima koje je iznijela Komisija i cilj im je podržati njezin tužbeni zahtjev. Njima se dodatnim razjašnjavanjem okolnosti spora želi pridonijeti uspješnosti tužbe zbog povrede obveze (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 27. studenoga 2003., Komisija/Finska, C-185/00, Zb., str. I-14189., t. 92.).
53 It follows that the pleas of inadmissibility must be rejected. 
53 Iz prethodno navedenog proizlazi da te prigovore nedopuštenosti treba odbaciti.
54 The Commission starts by emphasising that it by no means underestimates the problems connected with transalpine traffic. It also acknowledges that since 2002 values in excess of the limit value for nitrogen dioxide fixed in Section I of Annex II to Directive 1999/30 have been found on the A 12 motorway, and that Directive 96/62 laid down an obligation in such circumstances for the Republic of Austria to take action. While most of the proposed measures intended to improve air quality in the zone in question could have been approved, the fact remains that the contested regulation is not consistent with European Union law. 
54 Komisija prije svega ističe da ni u kojem slučaju ne podcjenjuje probleme vezane uz prekoalpski promet. Također potvrđuje da su od 2002. na autocesti A 12 zabilježena prekoračenja granične vrijednosti za dušikov dioksid kako je utvrđena u odjeljku I. Priloga II. Direktivi 1999/30 te da Direktiva 96/62 u takvim okolnostima propisuje obvezu da Republika Austrija poduzme mjere. Iako bi se većina predloženih mjera za poboljšanje kvalitete zraka u dotičnom području mogla odobriti, i dalje ostaje da sporna uredba nije usklađena s pravom Unije.
55 In the Commission’s view, the sectoral traffic prohibition is a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Articles 28 EC and 29 EC, in so far as it hinders the free movement of goods, in particular their free transit. 
55 Prema mišljenju Komisije zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste mjera je s istovrsnim učinkom kao količinska ograničenja u smislu članaka 28. UEZ-a i 29. UEZ-a budući da sprječava slobodno kretanje robe, a posebno slobodan provoz.
56 The fact that the contested regulation forms part of a package of measures adopted by the Austrian authorities has no bearing on whether or not there is a restriction of the exercise of that freedom, since all national measures have to be assessed individually to establish whether they are compatible with those articles. 
56 Činjenica da je sporna uredba dio paketa mjera koje su donijele austrijske vlasti nema utjecaja na postojanje ili nepostojanje ograničenja ostvarivanja te slobode budući da radi utvrđivanja usklađenosti s tim člancima svaku nacionalnu mjeru treba pojedinačno ocijeniti.
57 The present case concerns a measure that is more radical than that at issue in Case C-320/03 Commission v Austria. The traffic concerned by the implementation of the prohibition is not only that on the ‘north-south axis’ (the Italy-Brenner-Innsbruck-Langkampfen-Germany link) and the ‘north-west axis’ (the Vorarlberg-Eastern Europe link) but also that on the ‘south-west axis’ (the Italy-Innsbruck-Vorarlberg/Lake Constance region link). According to estimates, when the first stage of the sectoral traffic prohibition was implemented on 2 May 2008, 35 000 journeys a year by lorry were affected. With the implementation of the second stage on 1 January 2009, the measure was to affect 200 000 journeys a year, representing 7.3% of total journeys by lorry on the A 12 motorway. The effects of the measure extended to about 300 km of the Austrian network of fast highways. 
57 Ovaj se predmet odnosi na mjeru koja je radikalnija od one iz predmeta C-320/03 Komisija/Austrija. Provođenje zabrane na utječe samo na promet na „pravcu sjever-jug” (veza Italija-Brenner-Innsbruck-Langkampfen-Njemačka) i „pravcu sjever-zapad” (veza Vorarlberg-istočna Europa), nego i na promet na „pravcu jug-zapad” (veza Italija-Innsbruck-Vorarlberg/regija Bodenskog jezera). Procjenjuje se da je od uvođenja prve faze zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste tj. od 2. svibnja 2008. ta zabrana utjecala na 35 000 vožnji teretnih vozila godišnje. Uvođenjem druge faze od 1. siječnja 2009. mjera je utjecala na 200 000 vožnji godišnje, što čini 7,3 % ukupnih vožnji teretnih vozila na autocesti A 12. Učinci te mjere proširili su se na otprilike 300 km austrijske mreže brzih cesta.
58 The Commission submits that, to transport the goods mentioned in the contested regulation, it is necessary either to use rail transport or to use longer routes by road, which creates additional costs for the operators concerned. The sectoral traffic prohibition thus has substantial economic repercussions not only for the transport industry but also for manufacturers of the goods concerned by the regulation, who will have to bear higher transport costs, which will affect their competitiveness. 
58 Komisija tvrdi da za prijevoz robe iz sporne uredbe treba koristiti ili željeznički prijevoz ili duže cestovne pravce, što stvara dodatne troškove za predmetne gospodarske subjekte. Zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste, dakle, ima značajne ekonomske posljedice ne samo na sektor prijevoza, nego i na proizvođače robe obuhvaćene uredbom, koji moraju snositi veće troškove prijevoza, što utječe na njihovu konkurentnost.
59 According to the Commission, the contested regulation is discriminatory. Since local and regional traffic is excepted from the scope of the sectoral traffic prohibition, the prohibition de facto affects predominantly the international transit of goods. In addition, it may be feared that transport undertakings able to benefit from that exception will take advantage of the exception provisions to offer long-distance road transport which can no longer be offered by undertakings established outside the region. 
59 Prema mišljenju Komisije sporna je uredba diskriminirajuća. Budući da je lokalni i regionalni promet izuzet iz područja primjene zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, ona de facto utječe, prije svega, na međunarodni provoz robe. Osim toga, postoji bojazan da bi prijevozna poduzeća koja imaju pravo na izuzeće mogla imati koristi od odredbi o izuzeću tako da nude cestovni prijevoz na duge relacije, što poduzeća s poslovnim nastanom izvan regije više ne mogu nuditi.
60 Moreover, in so far as the sectoral traffic prohibition does not relate directly to the emissions produced by goods vehicles but to the goods to be transported by them, it may have a discriminatory effect on trade between Member States. The Commission observes that inter alia the trade in wood and wood products and the trade in marble and travertine could be affected. 
60 Osim toga, budući da zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste nije izravno povezana s emisijama iz teretnih vozila, nego s robom koju ona prevoze, to bi moglo imati diskriminirajući učinak na trgovinu između država članica. Komisija ističe da bi zabrana mogla utjecati osobito na trgovinu drvom i drvnim proizvodima te na trgovinu mramorom i travertinom.
61 As to the existence of a possible justification for the sectoral traffic prohibition, the Commission accepts that the prohibition may contribute to attaining the objective of protection of the environment. It calls into question, however, the compatibility of the measure with the principle of proportionality. 
61 Što se tiče mogućeg obrazloženja zabrane prometa na dionici autoceste, Komisija prihvaća da bi zabrana mogla pridonijeti postizanju cilja zaštite okoliša. Ona ipak dovodi u pitanje spojivost mjere s načelom proporcionalnosti.
62 The sectoral traffic prohibition is vitiated by internal contradictions, so that it has not been shown to be appropriate to the objective sought. 
62 Zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste sadržava unutarnje proturječnosti, tako da nije dokazana njezina primjerenost s obzirom na predviđeni cilj.
63 According to the Commission, the principal objective of the contested regulation is not to reduce the emissions produced by motor vehicles but to reduce road traffic. Such a reduction has only an indirect influence on air quality. 
63 Komisija smatra da glavni cilj sporne uredbe nije smanjenje emisija iz motornih vozila, nego smanjenje cestovnog prometa. Takvo smanjenje ima samo neizravni učinak na kvalitetu zraka.
64 Since the sectoral traffic prohibition relates to the goods to be transported, not directly to the emissions produced by goods vehicles, it has the consequence that lorries producing more pollution are permitted if they carry goods that do not fall within the scope of the prohibition, while less polluting lorries are prohibited if they carry ceramic tiles, for example. 
64 Budući da se zabrana prometa na dionici autoceste odnosi na robu koja se prevozi, a ne izravno na emisije iz teretnih vozila, slijedi da se promet teretnih vozila koja više onečišćuju dopušta ako prevoze robu koja ne potpada pod područje primjene zabrane, dok se zabranjuje promet teretnih vozila koja manje onečišćuju, ali prevoze, na primjer, keramičke pločice.
65 Moreover, the decision to direct goods with an ‘affinity with rail’ towards that mode of transport ignores the fact that the possibility of having recourse to rail transport often depends on various logistic parameters of the transport operation to be performed, such as the volume to be transported. In addition, that criterion is too vague, and it is not impossible that the goods to which the prohibition was to apply were selected in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner, the selection later being extended to cover other classes of goods. 
65 Osim toga, odlukom da se roba koja je „prikladna za prijevoz željeznicom” usmjeri na to prijevozno sredstvo zanemaruje se činjenica da mogućnost korištenja željezničkim prijevozom često ovisi o različitim logističkim parametrima traženog prijevoza, kao što je obujam robe koja se prevozi. Nadalje, spomenuti kriterij je preopćenit i nije isključeno da je roba na koju se zabrana primjenjuje odabrana proizvoljno ili na diskriminirajući način i da taj odabir kasnije bude proširen na ostale vrste robe.
66 In the Commission’s view, not all the conceivable alternatives to the sectoral traffic prohibition were examined and, if appropriate, adopted by the Austrian authorities. The various measures that would be less restrictive of the free movement of goods include, in its opinion, replacing the variable speed limit by a permanent 100 km/h speed limit. 
66 Komisija smatra da austrijske vlasti nisu ispitale sve moguće alternative zabrani prometa na dionici autoceste i, prema potrebi, donijele takve mjere. Razne mjere koje bi, prema njezinom mišljenju, manje ograničavale slobodu kretanja robe uključuju zamjenu promjenjivog ograničenja brzine trajnim ograničenjem na 100 km/h.