natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3 Article 3 of that law, entitled ‘Undertakings providing internet services’, provides that ‘[t]he installation and operation of computers in undertakings providing internet services are not subject to the prohibition in Article 2. However, operating games on those computers, irrespective of the method used, is prohibited’. 
3 Članak 3. istoga zakona naslovljen „Poduzeća za internetske usluge” predviđa da „[s]e zabrana iz članka 2. ne primjenjuje na instalaciju i korištenje računala u poduzećima za internetske usluge. Međutim, upotreba igara na tim računalima, bez obzira na način korištenja, je zabranjena”.
4 Failure to comply with those prohibitions triggers the application of the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of that law respectively. 
4 Nepoštovanje navedenih zabrana ima za posljedicu kaznene sankcije predviđene člankom 4. navedenog zakona, kao i administrativne sankcije predviđene u njegovom članku 5.
5 Lastly, Article 9(1) of Law No 3037/2002 specifies that the provisions of that law ‘shall be without prejudice to the provisions of Law No 2206/1994 or to the other provisions relating to casinos’. 
5 Konačno, u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 1. toga istog zakona, njegove odredbe „ne dovode u pitanje odredbe zakona br. 2206/1994 kao niti druge odredbe u vezi s casinima”.
The judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece 
Presuda Komisija/Grčka
6 In paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Court of Justice held that: 
6 U točki 1. izreke presude Komisija/Grčka, Sud je presudio:
‘… by inserting into Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002 the prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of the same law, on the installation and operation of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive [98/34].’ 
„Uvodeći u članku 2. stavku 1. i članku 3. zakona br. 3037/2002 zabranu, pod prijetnjom kaznenih ili administrativnih sankcija predviđenih člancima 4. i 5. istog zakona, instalacije i korištenja svih električnih, elektromehaničkih i elektroničkih igara, uključujući sve igre na računalima, u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama osim casina, Helenska Republika nije ispunila obveze koje ima na temelju članaka 28. UEZ-a, 43. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a, kao i članka 8. Direktive [98/34].”
7 Having been asked by the Commission on 11 December 2006 to report on the implementation of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Hellenic Republic replied by letter of 12 February 2007. In that letter, the Greek authorities provided no specific information concerning the amendment of the national rules at issue in order to ensure compliance with that judgment. On the contrary, they emphasised the seriousness and complexity of that amendment, stating that the relevant ministries were cooperating in order to introduce acceptable rules complying with Community law and with the principle of proportionality. 
7 Komisija je 11. prosinca 2006. zatražila od Helenske Republike izvješće o izvršenju presude Komisija/Grčka, na što je Helenska Republika odgovorila dopisom od 12. veljače 2007. U tom dopisu,grčka tijela nisu dala nikakve konkretne podatke u vezi s izmjenama dotičnih nacionalnih propisa kako bi postupili u skladu s tom presudom. S druge strane, ističu ozbiljnost i složenost te izmjene, navodeći suradnju nadležnih ministarstava kako bi se uveli prihvatljivi propisi u skladu s pravom Zajednice i načelom proporcionalnosti.
8 Taking the view that the Hellenic Republic had not taken the necessary measures to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to that Member State, pursuant to Article 228 EC, on 23 March 2007. 
8 Mislivši da Helenska Republika nije poduzela potrebne mjere kako bi postupila u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka, Komisija je 23. ožujka 2007. toj državi članici uputila pismo opomene na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a.
9 Since the Hellenic Republic did not reply to that letter, on 29 June 2007 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to that Member State, calling upon it to adopt the measures necessary to ensure compliance with that judgment within two months of receipt of that opinion. 
9 S obzirom da Helenska Republika nije odgovorila na tu opomenu, Komisija je 29. lipnja 2007. uputila toj državi članici obrazloženo mišljenje, pozivajući je da poduzme potrebne mjere za izvršenje te presude u roku od dva mjeseca od primitka tog mišljenja.
10 Since the Hellenic Republic did not reply to the reasoned opinion or notify the Commission of any legislative measure intended to ensure compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Commission, taking the view that that Member State had failed to comply with that judgment, brought the present action. 
10 Budući da Helenska Republika nije odgovorila na obrazloženo mišljenje niti je Komisiju izvijestila o ikojoj zakonskoj mjeri kako bi postupila u skladu s navedenom presudom, Komisija je, smatrajući da je ta država članica propustila osigurati izvršenje presude Komisija/Grčka, podnijela ovu tužbu.
Developments in the course of the present proceedings 
Razvoj događaja tijekom ovog postupka
11 The Hellenic Republic replied to the reasoned opinion on 12 March 2008, that is to say, two days after the Commission had brought the present action, stating that a legislative drafting committee had been convened to draw up a draft amending law. 
11 Helenska Republika odgovorila je na obrazloženo mišljenje 12. ožujka 2008., tj. dva dana nakon podnošenja ove tužbe, navodeći da je sazvan odbor za izradu zakonodavstva kako bi izradio nacrt izmjene zakona.
12 It is also apparent from the oral argument that the Hellenic Republic sent to the Commission a first draft of an amending law on 7 May 2008, in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/34. The Commission submitted observations in a detailed opinion of 1 August 2008, to which the Hellenic Republic has not replied. However, a meeting between the parties was held in Athens on 1 December 2008. 
12 Osim toga, iz rasprava proizlazi da je Helenska Republika proslijedila Komisiji 7. svibnja 2008. prvi nacrt izmjene zakona, u skladu s člankom 8. Direktive 98/34. Komisija je podnijela očitovanja u obrazloženom mišljenju od 1. kolovoza 2008., na što Helenska Republika nije odgovorila. Sastanak između stranaka ipak se održao u Ateni 1. prosinca 2008.
13 The representative of the Hellenic Republic also indicated that a new draft amending law was to be approved shortly by the Greek Government, prior to notification to the Commission, for examination of its provisions in accordance with Article 8 of Directive 98/34. On completion of that procedure, the draft law would have to be voted on in Parliament, with a view to its adoption. 
13 Zastupnik Helenske Republike također je naveo da bi grčka vlada u kratkom roku trebala odobriti novi nacrt izmjene zakona prije nego što ga proslijedi Komisiji, kako bi se ispitala sukladnost njegovih odredaba s člankom 8. Direktive 98/34. Po završetku toga postupka nacrt zakona bi trebao biti izglasan u parlamentu kako bi se usvojio.
The failure to fulfil obligations 
O povredi obveze
14 Although Article 228 EC does not specify the period within which a judgment of the Court establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be complied with, it follows from settled case-law that the importance of immediate and uniform application of Community law means that the process of compliance must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible (see, inter alia, Case C-121/07 Commission v France [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). 
14 Iako članak 228. UEZ-a ne utvrđuje rok u kojem treba izvršiti presudu Suda o postojanju povrede obveze, iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da interes koji se vezuje uz hitnu i ujednačenu primjenu prava Zajednice zahtijeva da to izvršenje treba odmah započeti i dovršiti u najkraćim mogućim rokovima (vidjeti osobito presudu od 9. prosinca 2008., Komisija/Francuska, C-121/07, još neobjavljenu u Zborniku, t. 21., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
15 In addition, the reference date for assessing whether there has been a failure to fulfil obligations under Article 228 EC is the date of expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion issued under that provision (see, inter alia, Case C-503/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6153, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited). 
15 Osim toga, datum prema kojem se određuje postojanje povrede obveze na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a jest datum isteka roka određenog u obrazloženom mišljenju izdanom na temelju te odredbe (vidjeti osobito presudu od 18. srpnja 2007., Komisija/Njemačka, C-503/04, Zb., str. I-6153., t. 19., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
16 In the present case, it is quite clear that, by the date on which the two-month period laid down in the reasoned opinion of 29 June 2007 expired, the Hellenic Republic had not taken any of the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, since the draft of a first measure designed to comply with that judgment was not notified to the Commission until 7 May 2008. 
16 U ovom slučaju je očito da do datuma isteka dvomjesečnog roka utvrđenog u obrazloženom mišljenju od 29. lipnja 2007. Helenska Republika nije poduzela nijednu mjeru potrebnu za izvršenje presude Komisija/Grčka, s obzirom da je Komisija obaviještena o nacrtu prve mjere za izvršenje tek 7. svibnja 2008.
17 In those circumstances, it must be held that, as it itself acknowledges, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC. 
17 Pod tim uvjetima valja utvrditi da Helenska Republika, kako i sama priznaje, nije ispunila obveze koje ima na temelju članka 228. stavka 1. UEZ-a.
Financial penalties 
Novčane kazne
The periodic penalty payment 
Novčana kazna
18 On the basis of the method of calculation set out in its communication of 13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty (SEC(2005) 1658), the Commission proposes that the Court impose on the Hellenic Republic a penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, in order to punish such non-compliance, from the date on which judgment is delivered in the present case until such time as the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has been complied with. 
18 Na temelju načina izračuna utvrđenog u njezinoj obavijesti o provedbi članka 228. Ugovora o EZ-u [SEC(2005) 1658] od 13. prosinca 2005., Komisija predlaže Sudu da Helenskoj Republici naloži plaćanje novčane kazne u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja u izvršenju gore navedene presude Komisija/Grčka, računajući od dana objave presude u tom predmetu do dana izvršenja navedene presude Komisija/Grčka.
19 The Commission submits that an order imposing a periodic penalty payment is the most appropriate instrument for bringing as soon as possible to an end the infringement established and that, in the present case, a penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80 for each day of delay properly reflects the seriousness and duration of the infringement, while at the same time having regard to the need to make the penalty effective. That sum is calculated by multiplying a uniform basic amount of EUR 600 by a coefficient of 11 (on a scale of 1 to 20) to take account of the seriousness of the infringement, by a coefficient of 1.1 (on a scale of 1 to 3) to take account of the duration of the infringement, and by a coefficient of 4.38 (based on the gross domestic product of the Member State in question and the weighting of votes within the Council of the European Union), which is deemed to reflect the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay. 
19 Komisija tvrdi da je nalaganje plaćanja novčane kazne najprimjereniji instrument za najbrže okončanje utvrđene povrede i da je, u ovom slučaju, novčana kazna u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja prilagođena težini i trajanju povrede, vodeći pri tom računa o potrebi učinkovitosti kazne. Taj se iznos izračunava množenjem jedinstvene osnovice od 600 eura s koeficijentom 11 (na ljestvici od 1 do 20) za težinu povrede, s koeficijentom 1,1 (na ljestvici od 1 do 3) za trajanje povrede i s koeficijentom 4,38 (na osnovi bruto domaćeg proizvoda dotične države članice i ponderiranja glasova u Vijeću Europske unije), što se smatra da odražava sposobnost plaćanja dotične države članice.
20 As regards the seriousness of the infringement, the Commission observes that the national rules at issue infringe three of the four fundamental freedoms provided for by the Treaty. It also submits that the Greek authorities have not fulfilled their obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34 and that, furthermore, they did not cooperate fully with the Commission in the pre-litigation phase of the procedure initiated under Article 228 EC. 
20 Što se tiče težine povrede, Komisija ističe da predmetni nacionalni propisi krše tri od četiri temeljne slobode predviđene Ugovorom. Osim toga, tvrdi da grčka tijela nisu ispunila svoje obveze koje imaju na temelju članka 8. stavka 1. podstavka 1. Direktive 98/34 i da osim toga nisu surađivala u potpunosti s Komisijom u predsudskoj fazi postupka pokrenutog na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a.
21 The Hellenic Republic contends that the coefficient deemed to take account of the seriousness of the infringement established has been set at an extremely high level by the Commission and that it should not exceed 4. In that regard, it maintains that the infringement affected only a small sector of activity, that the national rules at issue are applied without discrimination and that, moreover, they represent the most appropriate solution to the economic and social problems caused by the unhealthy and uncontrolled way in which games are being exploited, with the result that the rules are justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. In addition, referring to the case-law of the Court, the Hellenic Republic contends that the coefficient in question infringes the principle of proportionality. 
21 Helenska Republika tvrdi da je Komisija izrazito visoko procijenila koeficijent kojim se uzima u obzir težina utvrđene povrede i da on ne bi smio biti viši od 4. S tim u vezi ističe da je povreda utjecala tek na malo područje djelatnosti, da se predmetni nacionalni propisi primjenjuju bez diskriminacije i da je, osim toga, najprimjerenije rješenje za gospodarske i socijalne probleme uzrokovane nezdravom i nekontroliranom upotrebom igara, na način da je opravdana važnim razlozima u općem interesu. Osim toga, pozivajući se na sudsku praksu Suda, tvrdi da navedeni koeficijent krši načelo proporcionalnosti.
22 As regards the duration of the infringement, the Commission takes into account the period of 11 complete months from delivery of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece until 17 October 2007, the date on which it decided to bring the present action. 
22 Što se tiče trajanja povrede, Komisija uzima u obzir razdoblje od punih 11 mjeseci koje je proteklo od objave presude Komisija/Grčka do 17. listopada 2007., datuma njezine odluke o podnošenju ove tužbe.
23 The Hellenic Republic claims that that coefficient should be reduced to a basic rate. It maintains that the infringement in fact started on expiry of the three-month period set in the letter of 11 December 2006, in which the Commission asked for information on the situation concerning compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece. 
23 Helenska Republika traži da se taj koeficijent smanji na najnižu stopu. Tvrdi da povreda obveza u stvari započinje po isteku tromjesečnog roka utvrđenog u dopisu od 11. prosinca 2006. kojim je Komisija zatražila podatke o stanju izvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka.
24 Since it has been established that the Hellenic Republic has failed to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, the Court may, under the third subparagraph of Article 228(2) EC, impose a lump sum or penalty payment on it. 
24 Utvrdivši da Helenska Republika nije postupila u skladu s presudom Komisija/Grčka, Sud može, na temelju članka 228. stavka 2. podstavka 3. UEZ-a, naložiti toj državi članici plaćanje paušalnog iznosa ili novčane kazne.
25 In that connection, it should be pointed out that it is for the Court to assess in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case, the financial penalties to be imposed (Case C-70/06 Commission v Portugal [2008] ECR I-1, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). 
25 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da Sud treba ocijeniti u svakom slučaju, s obzirom na okolnosti pojedinog slučaja, visinu novčanih kazni (presuda od 10. siječnja 2008., Komisija/Portugal, C-70/06, Zb. str. I-1., t. 31., i navedena sudska praksa).
26 In the present case, as stated in paragraph 18 above, the Commission asks the Court to impose on the Hellenic Republic, inter alia, a periodic penalty payment of EUR 31 798.80. 
26 U ovom slučaju, kako je navedeno u točki 18. ove presude, Komisija predlaže Sudu da osobito naloži Helenskoj Republici novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 31 798,80 eura.
27 In that connection, it must first of all be pointed out that the Commission’s suggestions cannot bind the Court and merely constitute a useful point of reference (see Case C-278/01 Commission v Spain [2003] ECR I-14141, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). Similarly, while guidelines such as those in the notices of the Commission do not bind the Court, they do help to ensure that the Commission acts in a manner which is transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France [2005] ECR I-6263, paragraph 85, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France [2006] ECR I-2461, paragraph 70). 
27 S tim u vezi najprije valja istaknuti da prijedlozi Komisije ne obvezuju Sud i predstavljaju tek korisnu referentnu točku (vidjeti presudu od 25. studenoga 2003., Komisija/Španjolska, C-278/01, Zb. str. I-14141., t. 41., i navedenu sudsku praksu). Isto tako, smjernice poput onih sadržanih u obavijestima Komisije ne obvezuju Sud, nego doprinose osiguranju transparentnosti, predvidljivosti i pravnoj sigurnosti u vezi s postupanjem Komisije (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 12. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Francuska, C-304/02, Zb., str. I-6263., t. 85. i od 14. ožujka 2006., Komisija/Francuska, C-177/04, Zb., str. I-2461., t. 70.).
28 The Court has also made clear that an order imposing a periodic penalty payment and/or a lump sum is intended to place a defaulting Member State under economic pressure which induces it to put an end to the infringement established. The financial penalties imposed must therefore be decided on according to the degree of persuasion needed for the Member State in question to alter its conduct (see, to that effect, Case C-304/02 Commission v France, paragraph 91, and Case C-177/04 Commission v France, paragraphs 59 and 60). 
28 Sud je isto tako pojasnio da je namjena nalaganja plaćanja novčane kazne i/ili paušalnog iznosa staviti državu članicu koja ne ispunjava svoje obveze pod ekonomski pritisak koji je potiče na okončanje utvrđene povrede. Nametnute novčane kazne moraju stoga biti određene u skladu sa stupnjem potrebnog uvjeravanja da dotična država članica izmijeni svoje ponašanje (vidjeti u tom smislu ranije navedene presude od 12. srpnja 2005., Komisija/Francuska, t. 91., kao i od 14. ožujka 2006., Komisija/Francuska, t. 59. i 60.).
29 In the present case, it must be stated that, during the hearing at the Court on 29 January 2009, the Hellenic Republic’s agent confirmed that no legislative provision putting an end to the infringement established by the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece had yet been voted on, let alone come into force. 
29 U predmetnom slučaju valja utvrditi da je tijekom rasprave na Sudu 29. siječnja 2009. agent Helenske Republike potvrdio da do toga dana nije bilo glasovanja o zakonodavnoj odredbi kojom bi se okončala povreda utvrđena presudom Komisija/Grčka i da, a fortiori, takva odredba nije stupila na snagu.
30 Given that the failure in question to fulfil obligations was still continuing on the date on which the Court examined the facts, an order imposing a periodic penalty payment on the Hellenic Republic, suggested by the Commission, constitutes an appropriate means by which to induce that Member State to take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited). 
30 S obzirom da je dotična povreda obveze još uvijek trajala na dan kada je Sud ispitivao činjenice, nalaganje plaćanja novčane kazne Helenskoj Republici, koju je predložila Komisija, predstavlja primjeren način da se ta država članica potakne na poduzimanje mjera potrebnih za izvršenje presude Komisija/Grčka (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 37., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
31 Next, as regards the method of calculation of the amount of such a periodic penalty payment, it is for the Court, in exercising its discretion, to set that periodic penalty payment so that it is appropriate to the circumstances and proportionate both to the breach that has been established and to the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay (see, inter alia, Commission v Portugal, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 
31 Nadalje, u vezi s načinima izračuna takve novčane kazne, na Sudu je da prilikom izvršavanja svojih ovlasti procjene odredi novčanu kaznu tako da je, s jedne strane, prilagođena okolnostima i, s druge strane, proporcionalna utvrđenoj povredi kao i sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice (vidjeti osobito navedenu presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 38., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
32 In that light, the basic criteria which must be taken into account in order to ensure that periodic penalty payments have coercive force and that Community law is applied uniformly and effectively are, in principle, the degree of seriousness of the infringement, its duration and the capacity of the Member State to pay. In applying those criteria, regard should be had in particular to the effects of failure to comply on private and public interests and to the urgency of inducing the Member State concerned to fulfil its obligations (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited). 
32 S toga stajališta, osnovni kriteriji koje treba uzeti u obzir kako bi se osigurala prisilna priroda novčane kazne u pogledu ujednačene i učinkovite primjene prava Zajednice su u načelu stupanj težine povrede, njezino trajanje i sposobnost plaćanja dotične države članice. Prilikom primjene tih kriterija posebno treba voditi računa o posljedicama neizvršenja u pogledu privatnih i javnih interesa kao i o hitnosti da se dotična država članica prisili na ispunjavanje svojih obveza (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 39., i navedenu sudsku praksu).