natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
27 The answer to the first question must therefore be that a national provision, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the alkohollagen, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages, must be assessed in the light of Article 28 EC and not in the light of Article 31 EC. 
27 Stoga na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da nacionalnu odredbu, kao što je ona koja proizlazi iz poglavlja 4. članka 2. prvog podstavka Zakona o alkoholu, prema kojoj se privatnim osobama zabranjuje uvoz alkoholnih pića, treba ocijeniti s obzirom na članak 28. UEZ-a, a ne s obzirom na članak 31. UEZ-a.
28 The second question is posed only in the event that the Court should take the view that the ban at issue in the main proceedings must be assessed in the light of Article 31 EC. 
28 Drugo pitanje postavljeno je samo u slučaju da Sud zauzme mišljenje da zabranu o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku treba ocijeniti s obzirom na članak 31. UEZ-a.
29 Having regard to the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question. 
29 S obzirom na odgovor na prvo pitanje, nije potrebno odgovoriti na drugo pitanje.
30 By its third question, the national court asks essentially whether a measure, such as that in the alkohollagen, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages amounts to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, even though that law requires the holder of the retail sale monopoly, on demand, to supply and therefore, if necessary, to import the beverages in question. 
30 Svojim trećim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita je li mjera, kao što je ona koja proizlazi iz Zakona o alkoholu, prema kojoj se privatnim osobama zabranjuje uvoz alkoholnih pića, količinsko ograničenje uvoza u smislu članka 28. UEZ-a čak i kad je prema tom zakonu nositelj monopola na maloprodaju dužan na zahtjev isporučiti, dakle prema potrebi i uvesti, dotična pića.
31 In that regard, it should be recalled that the free movement of goods is a fundamental principle of the Treaty which is expressed in the prohibition, set out in Article 28 EC, of quantitative restrictions on imports between Member States and all measures having equivalent effect (Case C-147/04 De Groot en Slot Allium and Bejo Zaden [2006] ECR I-245, paragraph 70). 
31 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da je slobodno kretanje robe temeljno načelo Ugovora, koje je izraženo u zabrani količinskih ograničenja na uvoz između država članica i svih mjera s istovrsnim učinkom utvrđenoj u članku 28. UEZ-a (presuda od 10. siječnja 2006., De Groot en Slot Allium i Bejo Zaden, C-147/04, Zb., str. I-245., t. 70.).
32 The prohibition of measures having an effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction, laid down in Article 28 EC, applies to all legislation of the Member States that is capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade (see, inter alia, Case 8/74 Dassonville [1974] ECR 837, paragraph 5; Case C-192/01 Commission v Denmark [2003] ECR I-9693, paragraph 39; Case C-41/02 Commission v Netherlands [2004] ECR I-11375, paragraph 39; and De Groot en Slot Allium and Bejo Zaden, paragraph 71). 
32 Zabrana mjera s učinkom koji je istovrstan količinskom ograničenju utvrđena u članku 28. UEZ-a odnosi se na svaku mjeru države članice koja može izravno ili neizravno, stvarno ili potencijalno ometati trgovinu unutar Zajednice (vidjeti osobito presude od 11. srpnja 1974., Dassonville, 8/74, Zb., str. 837., t. 5.; od 23. rujna 2003., Komisija/Danska, C-192/01, Zb., str. I-9693., t. 39.; od 2. prosinca 2004., Komisija/Nizozemska, C-41/02, Zb., str. I-11375., t. 39. i De Groot en Slot Allium i Bejo Zaden, t. 71.).
33 In the present case, it must be held, first of all, that the actual provisions of Chapter 5, Paragraph 5, of the alkohollagen, in the version in force at the date of the facts of the main proceedings, granted Systembolaget the possibility of refusing an order from a consumer for the supply and therefore, if necessary, the importation of beverages not included in the range offered by the monopoly. 
33 U ovom predmetu najprije treba podsjetiti da su odredbe poglavlja 5. članka 5. Zakona o alkoholu, u verziji koja je bila na snazi u trenutku nastanka činjenica iz glavnog postupka, davale društvu Systembolaget mogućnost odbijanja narudžbe potrošača za isporuku, dakle prema potrebi i uvoz, pića koja nisu uključena u asortiman koji monopol nudi.
In those circumstances, the fact that private individuals are prohibited from importing such beverages directly into Sweden, without personally transporting them, in the absence of a counter-balancing obligation in every case on the monopoly to import such beverages when requested to do so by private individuals, constitutes a quantitative restriction on imports. 
U tim okolnostima zabrana uvoza takvih pića izravno u Švedsku za privatne osobe koje ih osobno ne prevoze, koja nije kompenzirana obvezom monopola da uveze takva pića kad to od njega privatne osobe traže, jest količinsko ograničenje uvoza.
34 In fact, and independently of the possibility referred to in the preceding paragraph, it is not disputed that, when consumers use the services of Systembolaget to have alcoholic beverages imported, those concerned are confronted with a variety of inconveniences with which they would not be faced were they to import the beverages themselves. 
34 Neovisno o mogućnosti iz prethodne točke, nije sporno da se potrošači, kad koriste usluge društva Systembolaget kako bi se opskrbili alkoholnim pićima, suočavaju s nizom neugodnosti s kojima se ne bi suočavali da sami uvoze pića.
35 In particular, it appears, in the light of the information provided during the written procedure and at the hearing, that the consumers involved must complete an order form in one of the monopoly's shops, return to sign that order when the supplier's offer has been accepted, and then collect the goods after they have been imported. 
35 Posebno, s obzirom na podatke dostavljene tijekom pisanog postupka i na raspravi, očito je da dotični potrošači moraju popuniti obrazac za narudžbu u jednoj od trgovina monopola, vratiti se da bi potpisali narudžbu kad je ponuda od dobavljača prihvaćena i zatim preuzeti robu nakon što je uvezena.
Moreover, such an order is accepted only if it represents a minimum quantity of bottles to be imported. 
Osim toga, takva narudžba se prihvaća samo ako sadrži minimalnu količinu boca koje će se uvesti.
The consumer has no control over the conditions of transport or arrangements for the packaging of the beverages ordered and cannot choose the type of bottles he would like to order. 
Potrošač nema nikakav uvid u uvjete prijevoza ili način pakiranja naručenih pića i ne može izabrati vrstu boca koje bi želio naručiti.
It also appears that, for every import, the price demanded of the purchaser includes, in addition to the cost of the beverages invoiced by the supplier, reimbursement of the administrative and transport costs borne by Systembolaget and a margin of 17% which the purchaser would not, in principle, have to pay if he directly imported the goods himself. 
Osim toga pokazalo se da je za svaki uvoz u cijenu koja se zaračunava kupcu, uz trošak pića koji zaračunava dobavljač, uračunat i povrat administrativnih i prijevoznih troškova koje snosi Systembolaget kao i marža od 17 % koju kupac načelno ne bi trebao plaćati da sam izravno uvozi navedene proizvode.
36 Consequently, the answer to the third question must be that a measure, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the alkohollagen, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages amounts to a quantitative restriction on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC, even though that law requires the holder of the retail sale monopoly, on request, to supply and therefore, if necessary, to import the beverages in question. 
36 Prema tome, na treće pitanje valja odgovoriti da mjera kao što je ona koja proizlazi iz poglavlja 4. članka 2. prvog podstavka Zakona o alkoholu, prema kojoj se privatnim osobama zabranjuje uvoz alkoholnih pića, jest količinsko ograničenje uvoza u smislu članka 28. UEZ-a, čak i kad je prema tom zakonu nositelj monopola na maloprodaju dužan na zahtjev isporučiti, dakle prema potrebi i uvesti, dotična pića.
37 By its fourth question, the national court asks essentially whether a measure, such as that in the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the alkohollagen, under which private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages, can be regarded as justified, under Article 30 EC, on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans. 
37 Svojim četvrtim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li se mjera kao što je ona koja proizlazi iz poglavlja 4. članka 2. prvog podstavka Zakona o alkoholu, prema kojoj se privatnim osobama zabranjuje uvoz alkoholnih pića, smatrati opravdanom, na temelju članka 30. UEZ-a, razlozima zaštite zdravlja i života ljudi.
38 It is indeed true that measures constituting quantitative restrictions on imports within the meaning of Article 28 EC may be justified, inter alia, on the basis of Article 30 EC, on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans (see, to that effect, Franzén, paragraph 75). 
38 Točno je da se mjere koje jesu količinska ograničenja uvoza u smislu članka 28. UEZ-a mogu opravdati osobito, kako je predviđeno člankom 30. UEZ-a, razlozima zaštite zdravlja i života ljudi (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Franzén, t. 75.).
39 It is settled case-law that the health and life of humans rank foremost among the assets or interests protected by Article 30 EC and it is for the Member States, within the limits imposed by the Treaty, to decide what degree of protection they wish to assure (see Case C-322/01 Deutscher Apothekerverband [2003] ECR I-14887, paragraph 103, and case-law cited). 
39 U skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom, zdravlje i životi ljudi su na prvom mjestu vrijednosti i interesa koje štiti članak 30. UEZ-a i na državama članicama je da odluče, u okviru granica koje nameće Ugovor, o razini zaštite koju žele osigurati (vidjeti presudu od 11. prosinca 2003., Deutscher Apothekerverband, C-322/01, Zb., str. I-14887., t. 103. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
40 The Court has already ruled that legislation which has as its objective the control of the consumption of alcohol so as to prevent the harmful effects caused to health of humans and society by alcoholic substances, and which thus seeks to combat alcohol abuse, reflects health and public policy concerns recognised by Article 30 EC (see Case C-434/04 Ahokainen and Leppik [2006] ECR I-9171, paragraph 28). 
40 Sud je već ustanovio da propis koji ima za cilj nadzor nad potrošnjom alkohola kako bi se spriječili štetni učinci alkoholnih supstanci na zdravlje ljudi i na društvo i kojim se nastoji suzbiti zloupotreba alkohola odražava zabrinutost za javno zdravlje i javni poredak koju priznaje članak 30. UEZ-a (vidjeti presudu od 28. rujna 2006., Ahokainen i Leppik, C-434/04, Zb., str. I-9171, t. 28.).
41 Nevertheless, it is necessary, as required by Article 30 EC, that the measure under consideration should not constitute either a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States. 
41 Ipak je potrebno, kako zahtijeva članak 30. UEZ-a, da dotična mjera ne predstavlja ni proizvoljnu diskriminaciju ni prikriveno ograničenje trgovine između država članica.
42 In that respect, it should be pointed out that there is nothing before the Court to suggest that the public health grounds on which the Swedish authorities rely in the circumstances set out in paragraphs 44 and 48 of the present judgment have been diverted from their purpose and used in such a way as to discriminate against goods originating in other Member States or indirectly to protect certain national products (Case C-405/98 Gourmet International Products [2001] ECR I-1795, paragraph 32, and case-law cited). 
42 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti da nijedan element kojim raspolaže Sud ne ukazuje na to da su razlozi javnog zdravlja na koje se švedska tijela vlasti oslanjaju u okolnostima navedenim u točkama 44. i 48. ove presude iskrivljeni i upotrijebljeni tako da bi se diskriminirali proizvodi koji potječu iz drugih država članica ili posredno, da bi se zaštitili određeni nacionalni proizvodi (presuda od 8. ožujka 2001., Gourmet International Products, C-405/98, Zb., str. I-1795., t. 32. i navedena sudska praksa).
43 Furthermore, national rules or practices likely to have a restrictive effect, or having such an effect, on imports are compatible with the Treaty only to the extent to which they are necessary for the effective protection of health and life of humans. 
43 Osim toga, nacionalna pravila ili prakse za koje je vjerojatno da mogu imati ograničavajući učinak, ili imaju takav učinak na uvoz, u skladu su s Ugovorom samo u onoj mjeri u kojoj su potrebni za učinkovitu zaštitu zdravlja i života ljudi.
A national rule or practice cannot benefit from the derogation provided for in Article 30 EC if the health and life of humans may be protected just as effectively by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade (see, to that effect, Deutscher Apothekerverband, paragraph 104). 
Nacionalno pravilo ili praksa ne može koristiti odstupanje predviđeno u članku 30. UEZ-a ako se zdravlje i životi ljudi mogu zaštititi jednako učinkovito mjerama koje manje ograničavaju trgovinu unutar Zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Deutscher Apothekerverband, t. 104.).
44 In that regard, the Swedish Government seeks first of all to justify the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings on the ground of the general need to limit the consumption of alcohol. 
44 U tom pogledu, zabranu o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku švedska vlada nastoji u prvom redu opravdati potrebom da se općenito ograniči potrošnja alkohola.
45 However, it must be noted that, although the prohibition on private individuals directly importing alcoholic beverages reduces the sources available to the consumer and may contribute, to a certain extent, because of the difficulty of supply, to prevention of the harmful effects of those beverages, the fact none the less remains that, pursuant to Chapter 5, Paragraph 5, of the alkohollagen, the consumer may still ask Systembolaget to supply him with those goods. 
45 Međutim, treba utvrditi da, iako zabrana izravnog uvoza alkoholnih pića za privatne osobe smanjuje izvore dostupne potrošaču i može doprinijeti u određenoj mjeri, zbog poteškoća u nabavi, sprečavanju štetnih učinaka tih pića, ipak ostaje činjenica da, u skladu s poglavljem 5. člankom 5. Zakona o alkoholu, potrošač i dalje može zahtijevati od društva Systembolaget da mu isporuči tu robu.
46 It is true, as is apparent from paragraph 33 of this judgment, that, pursuant to Chapter 5, Paragraph 5, of the alkohollagen, in the version in force at the time of the facts in the main proceedings, the duty to supply alcoholic beverages to order was balanced by the fact that it was possible for Systembolaget to refuse such an order. 
46 Istina je, kao što to proizlazi iz točke 33. ove presude, da u skladu s poglavljem 5. člankom 5. Zakona o alkoholu, u verziji koja je bila na snazi u trenutku nastanka činjenica iz glavnog postupka, uz obvezu nabave alkoholnih pića po narudžbi Systembolaget ima mogućnost odbiti takvu narudžbu.
However, that paragraph of the alkohollagen did not state the grounds on which such a refusal could be made. 
Međutim, u tom članku Zakona o alkoholu nisu navedeni razlozi za odbijanje narudžbe.
It does not follow, in any event, from the information available to the Court that, in practice, Systembolaget has refused to make such a supply by reference to maximum quantities of alcohol which may be ordered or, at the very least, with regard to such maximum quantities for beverages with the highest alcohol content. 
U svakom slučaju iz elemenata kojima raspolaže Sud ne proizlazi da je Systembolaget u praksi odbio takvu isporuku pozivajući se na najveće količine alkohola koje se mogu naručiti ili barem zbog takve najveće količine pića s najvećim udjelom alkohola.
47 In those circumstances, the fact that private individuals are prohibited from importing alcoholic beverages directly appears to be a means of favouring a distribution channel for those goods by directing requests for the importation of beverages to Systembolaget. 
47 U tim okolnostima zabrana izravnog uvoza alkoholnih pića za privatne osobe, pri čemu se zahtjevi za uvoz pića usmjeravaju na Systembolaget, izgleda kao davanje prednosti distribucijskom lancu za tu robu.
However, in the light of the alleged objective, that is to say, limiting generally the consumption of alcohol in the interest of protecting the health and life of humans, that prohibition, because of the rather marginal nature of its effects in that regard, must be considered unsuitable for achievement of that objective. 
Međutim, s obzirom na navedeni cilj, odnosno općenito ograničavanje potrošnje alkohola zbog brige za zaštitu zdravlja i života ljudi, ta je zabrana, zbog njenih prilično marginalnih učinaka u tom smislu, neprikladna za postizanje tog cilja.
48 The Swedish Government goes on to submit that the prohibition at issue in the main proceedings, by directing the demand to Systembolaget, fulfils the objective of protecting younger persons against the harmful effects of alcohol consumption since Systembolaget, which is obliged to check the age of persons placing orders, may supply alcoholic beverages only to those who are at least 20 years of age. 
48 Švedska vlada zatim tvrdi da zabrana o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, kojom se potražnja usmjerava na Systembolaget, ispunjava cilj zaštite mladih osoba od štetnih učinaka potrošnje alkohola, jer Systembolaget, koji ima obvezu provjeriti dob osoba koje šalju narudžbe, može isporučiti alkoholna pića samo onima koji imaju najmanje 20 godina.
The second subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the alkohollagen also precludes, moreover, the importation of alcohol into Sweden by such persons as travellers, which is not the case with regard to older persons. 
Poglavlje 4. članak 2. drugi podstavak Zakona o alkoholu također zabranjuje da takve osobe, za razliku od onih starijih, kao putnici uvoze alkohol u Švedsku.
49 It cannot be disputed that if the ban at issue in the main proceedings thus proves to be a means effectively of preventing younger persons from becoming purchasers of alcoholic beverages and therefore of reducing the risk of their becoming consumers of such beverages, it must be regarded as being justified in the light of the objective of protection of public health referred to in Article 30 EC. 
49 Nije sporno da ako se zabrana o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku pokaže kao sredstvo koje učinkovito sprečava mlade osobe da postanu kupci alkoholnih pića i stoga sprečava rizik da postanu potrošači takvih pića, treba je smatrati opravdanom u smislu cilja zaštite javnog zdravlja iz članka 30. UEZ-a.
50 However, since a ban such as that which arises from the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings amounts to a derogation from the principle of the free movement of goods, it is for the national authorities to demonstrate that those rules are consistent with the principle of proportionality, that is to say, that they are necessary in order to achieve the declared objective, and that that objective could not be achieved by less extensive prohibitions or restrictions, or by prohibitions or restrictions having less effect on intra-Community trade (see, to that effect, Case C-17/93 Van der Veldt [1994] ECR I-3537, paragraph 15; Franzén, paragraphs 75 and 76; and Ahokainen and Leppik, paragraph 31). 
50 Međutim, s obzirom na to da zabrana kao što je ona koja proizlazi iz nacionalnog propisa koji je predmet u glavnom postupku predstavlja odstupanje od načela slobodnog kretanja robe, na nacionalnim je tijelima da dokažu da je taj propis u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti, što znači da je potrebna kako bi se postigao željeni cilj i da se taj cilj ne može postići blažim zabranama ili ograničenjima, ili zabranama ili ograničenjima koja imaju manji učinak na trgovinu unutar Zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 14. srpnja 1994., Van der Veldt, C-17/93, Zb., str. I-3537., t. 15.; gore navedenu Franzén, t. 75. i 76.; i gore navedenu Ahokainen i Leppik, t. 31.).
51 The ban on imports at issue in the main proceedings applies to everyone, irrespective of age. 
51 Zabrana uvoza o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku vrijedi za sve, bez obzira na dob.
Accordingly, it goes manifestly beyond what is necessary for the objective sought, which is to protect younger persons against the harmful effects of alcohol consumption. 
Stoga očito prelazi ono što je potrebno za ostvarenje željenog cilja, a to je zaštita mladih ljudi od štetnih učinaka potrošnje alkohola.
52 With regard to the need for age checks, it should be noted that, by limiting, as a result of the ban at issue in the main proceedings, the sale of imported alcoholic beverages to the Systembolaget shops, the national legislation seeks to make distribution of such beverages subject to a centralised and coherent operation which must allow the monopoly's agents, in accordance with the objective pursued, to satisfy themselves in a consistent manner that the goods are provided only to persons of more than 20 years of age. 
52 U pogledu potrebe za provjerom dobi, valja primijetiti da ograničavanjem prodaje uvezenih alkoholnih pića na trgovine Systembolaget, zbog zabrane o kojoj je riječ u glavnom postupku, nacionalnim propisom nastoji se učiniti da distribucija takvih pića podliježe centraliziranom i preglednom sustavu koji mora omogućiti djelatnicima monopola da se, u skladu sa željenim ciljem, primjereno uvjere da se proizvodi isporučuju samo osobama starijim od 20 godina.
53 That being the case, it follows from the information before the Court that, although Systembolaget does have, in principle, recourse to such methods of distribution and checking the age of purchasers, there are other methods of distribution of alcoholic beverages, thus conferring on third parties the responsibility for such checks. 
53 S obzirom da je tako, iz informacija kojima raspolaže Sud proizlazi da iako Systembolaget načelno ima pristup takvim metodama distribucije i provjere dobi kupaca, postoje drugi načini distribucije alkoholnih pića u kojima je odgovornost za takve provjere prenesena na treće osobe.
In particular, it is not disputed that Systembolaget accepts that age checks may be made by a great number of agents when alcoholic beverages are supplied, outside the monopoly's shops, for example in food shops or service stations. 
Posebno nije sporno da Systembolaget prihvaća da provjeru dobi može obavljati veliki broj subjekata u trenutku isporuke alkoholnih pića, izvan objekata monopola, na primjer u prodavaonicama hrane ili na benzinskim postajama.
Furthermore, the existence of such checks is itself not clearly established and verifiable in the event that the alcoholic beverages are supplied by Systembolaget, inter alia, as stated by the Swedish Government, `by post or by any other suitable means of transport to the nearest station or coach stop'. 
Osim toga, postojanje takve kontrole samo po sebi nije jasno uspostavljeno i provjerljivo u slučaju da alkoholna pića Systembolaget isporučuje osobito, kako navodi švedska vlada, „poštom ili drugim odgovarajućim načinom prijevoza do najbliže željezničke ili autobusne staniceˮ.
54 In that context, it does not appear that there is, in all circumstances, an irreproachable level of effectiveness with respect to the checking of the age of private individuals to whom those beverages are delivered and the objective pursued by the present system is met only in part. 
54 U tom kontekstu nije očito da je u svim okolnostima postignuta besprijekorna razina učinkovitosti u pogledu provjere dobi privatnih osoba kojima se ta pića dostavljaju, a željeni cilj kojemu teži sadašnji sustav postignut je samo djelomično.