natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
33 As regards, first, the seriousness of the infringement and, in particular, the effects on public and private interests of the failure to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, it must be held that the prohibition of the installation, operation and use of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, on all public or private premises apart from casinos, as laid down by the national legislation at issue in the case which led to that judgment, infringes the principles of the free movement of goods, the freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment as provided for in Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC. 
33 Prvo, što se tiče težine povrede i posebno posljedica neizvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka u pogledu privatnih i javnih interesa, valja utvrditi da zabrana instaliranja, korištenja i upotrebe svih električnih, elektromehaničkih i elektroničkih igara, uključujući sve igre na računalima, u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama osim casina, kako je predviđena dotičnim nacionalnim zakonodavstvom u predmetu koji je doveo do te presude, krši načelo slobode kretanja roba, slobode pružanja usluga i slobode poslovnog nastana, kako su utvrđena člancima 28. UEZ-a, 43. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a.
34 As the Court noted in paragraphs 29, 30, 51 and 55 of the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, those national rules did not only lead to a reduction in the volume of imports of such games from other Member States, but actually caused those imports to stop when that prohibition came into force. In addition, those rules prevent traders from other Member States from providing their services, or even establishing themselves in Greece for that purpose. 
34 Kako je Sud utvrdio u točkama 29., 30., 51. i 55. presude Komisija/Grčka, ti nacionalni propisi nisu samo doveli do smanjenja količine uvoza takvih igara iz drugih država članica, nego su, u stvari, doveli do obustave tih uvoza zbog uvođenja navedene zabrane. Osim toga, navedeni propisi sprečavaju gospodarske subjekte iz drugih država članica da pružaju svoje usluge ili čak osnivaju poslovni nastan u Grčkoj u tu svrhu.
35 Furthermore, as the Advocate General has noted in point 54 of his Opinion, the Hellenic Republic has not taken any measures to suspend application of the legislation at issue in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, and has therefore made traders subject to financial and custodial penalties on the basis of that legislation. It is therefore essential that the Hellenic Republic amend that legislation. 
35 Osim toga, kao što je istaknuo nezavisni odvjetnik u točki 54. svojeg mišljenja, Helenska Republika nije poduzela nikakve mjere kako bi se obustavila primjena spornog zakonodavstva u predmetu koji je doveo do presude Komisija/Grčka, te je stoga na osnovi toga zakonodavstva dopustila da gospodarski subjekti podliježu zatvorskim i novčanim kaznama. Zbog toga je nužno da Helenska Republika izmijeni to zakonodavstvo.
36 Lastly, account must also be taken of the fact that the infringement established in the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece is based on the failure to notify technical regulations as provided for in Article 8 of Directive 98/34. Compliance with that particular obligation was an essential precondition for full attainment of the objective pursued by that directive, as set out in recitals 2 and 3 in the preamble thereto, of promoting the smooth functioning of the internal market. 
36 Konačno, isto tako valja voditi računa o činjenici da se povreda utvrđena u presudi Komisija/Grčka temelji na neobavještavanju o tehničkim pravilima kako je predviđeno u članku 8. Direktive 98/34. Poštovanje ove posebne obveze predstavljalo je nužan preduvjet za potpuno ostvarenje cilja te direktive, kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 2. i 3. s ciljem osiguranja dobrog funkcioniranja unutarnjeg tržišta.
37 In addition, the purpose of the national rules at issue in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece was to combat the serious social problems caused by the fact that the games concerned could easily be converted into games of chance, which are prohibited in Greece outside casinos. At paragraph 38 of the judgment in that case, the Court accepted that the overriding public-interest reasons put forward by the Hellenic Republic might justify the barrier to the free movement of goods established in that case. At paragraph 41 of that judgment, however, the Court held that the prohibition of the games in question on all public and private premises apart from casinos constitutes a measure which is disproportionate in view of the objective pursued. 
37 Osim toga, cilj spornih nacionalnih propisa u predmetu koji je doveo do presude Komisija/Grčka bio je suzbijanje teških socijalnih problema uzrokovanih činjenicom da je dotične igre lako moguće pretvoriti u igre na sreću koje su u Grčkoj zabranjene izvan casina. Sud je u točki 38. te presude priznao da bi važni razlozi u općem interesu na koje se pozivala Helenska Republika mogli opravdati prepreku slobodi kretanja roba utvrđenu u tom predmetu. Međutim, u točki 41. navedene presude Sud smatra da zabrana navedenih igara u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama, osim casina, predstavlja neproporcionalnu mjeru u pogledu cilja kojem se teži.
38 In the light of those considerations, the coefficient designed to take account of the seriousness of the infringement should be set at 8, which appropriately reflects the particular nature of the infringement in question. 
38 Uzimajući u obzir ta razmatranja, koeficijent namijenjen određivanju stupnja težine povrede valja postaviti na 8, što primjereno odražava značajke dotične povrede.
39 As regards, second, the duration of the infringement, that must be appraised by reference to the time at which the Court assesses the facts in the proceedings brought under Article 228 EC, not the time at which the case is brought before it by the Commission (see Commission v Portugal, paragraph 45). 
39 Drugo, što se tiče trajanja povrede, treba je procijeniti s obzirom na trenutak u kojem Sud ocjenjuje činjenice u okviru postupka koji je pokrenut na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a, a ne na trenutak kada mu se obratila Komisija (vidjeti presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 45.).
40 In the present case, the Hellenic Republic’s failure to fulfil its obligation to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has lasted for more than two years, account being taken of the time that has elapsed since 26 October 2006, the date on which that judgment was delivered. 
40 U ovom slučaju povreda obveze Helenske Republike u pogledu izvršenja presude Komisija/Grčka traje dulje od dvije godine, uzevši u obzir vrijeme koje je proteklo od 26. listopada 2006., datuma proglašenja navedene presude.
41 In those circumstances, a coefficient of 1.5 (on a sliding scale of 1 to 3) appears appropriate in order to take account of the duration of the infringement. 
41 U tim se okolnostima koeficijent 1,5 (na ljestvici od 1 do 3) čini primjereniji s obzirom na trajanje povrede.
42 As regards, third, the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay, the Commission’s suggestion that a coefficient be selected which is based on the gross domestic product of the Member State in question and on the number of votes which it has in the Council is an appropriate way, in principle, of reflecting that criterion, while keeping the variation between Member States within a reasonable range (see, to that effect, Commission v Portugal, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited). 
42 Treće, što se tiče sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice, prijedlog Komisije da se zadrži koeficijent koji se temelji na bruto domaćem proizvodu dotične države članice i na broju glasova koji ima u Vijeću predstavlja u načelu primjeren način odražavanja toga kriterija, vodeći računa o razumnim razlikama između različitih država članica (vidjeti, u tom smislu, presudu Komisija/Portugal, t. 48., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
43 In the present case, the coefficient of 4.38 suggested by the Commission, and referred to in the communication of 13 December 2005 on the application of Article 228 of the EC Treaty, adequately reflects the evolution of the factors which form the basis of the evaluation of the Hellenic Republic’s capacity to pay. 
43 U ovom slučaju koeficijent 4,38 koji je predložila Komisija i koji je naveden u obavijesti o provedbi članka 228. Ugovora o EZ-u od 13. prosinca 2005., primjereno odražava razvoj čimbenika koji čine temelj procjene sposobnosti plaćanja Helenske Republike.
44 That is also true of the basic amount to which the multiplier coefficients are applied, which must be set at EUR 600. 
44 Isto vrijedi i za osnovni iznos na koji se primjenjuju koeficijenti množenja, a koji treba biti utvrđen na 600 eura.
45 In the light of all of the above, the multiplication of a basic amount of EUR 600 by coefficients, set at 8 for the seriousness of the infringement, at 1.5 for the duration of that infringement, and at 4.38 for the capacity of the Member State concerned to pay, amounts, in the present case, to a total of EUR 31 536 per day of delay. That amount must be regarded as adequate in the light of the purposes served by the periodic penalty payment as referred to in paragraph 28 above. 
45 S obzirom na sve prethodno navedeno, množenje osnovnog iznosa od 600 eura koeficijentima utvrđenima na 8 na temelju težine povrede, na 1,5 na temelju njezinog trajanja i na 4,38 na temelju sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice, dovodi u ovom slučaju do iznosa od 31 536 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja. Taj iznos treba smatrati primjerenim s obzirom na namjene novčane kazne kako su navedene u točki 28. ove presude.
46 In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the Hellenic Republic must be ordered to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, a penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary for compliance with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, from the delivery of judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-65/05 is complied with. 
46 Uzevši u obzir sva prethodna razmatranja, Helenskoj Republici valja naložiti da plati Komisiji na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice” novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 31 536 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih kako bi postupila u skladu s presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave te presude do izvršenja navedene presude Komisija/Grčka.
The lump sum payment 
Paušalni iznos
47 The Commission proposes that the Court order the Hellenic Republic to make a lump sum payment of EUR 9 636 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, from the day on which the judgment in that case was delivered until the day on which it has been fully complied with or until judgment is delivered in the present case, if the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has not been fully complied with by that date. 
47 Komisija predlaže Sudu da Helenskoj Republici naloži plaćanje paušalnog iznosa od 9 636 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja u izvršenju presude Komisija/Grčka, od dana donošenja te presude do dana njezinog potpunog izvršenja ili do dana donošenja presude u tom predmetu, pod pretpostavkom da navedena presuda Komisija/Grčka do toga dana nije u potpunosti izvršena.
48 That daily amount is arrived at by multiplying a basic amount of EUR 200 by the coefficient for seriousness of the infringement, set in this case at 11 on a scale of 1 to 20, and by the coefficient reflecting the Hellenic Republic’s capacity to pay, set at 4.38. 
48 Taj dnevni iznos proizlazi iz množenja osnovnog iznosa od 200 eura koeficijentom za težinu povrede, procijenjenim u ovom slučaju na 11 na ljestvici od 1 do 20, te koeficijentom koji odražava sposobnost plaćanja Helenske Republike, procijenjenim na 4,38.
49 The total lump sum payment requested amounts to EUR 3 420 780, which is arrived at by multiplying the daily amount of EUR 9 636 by 355, that it to say, by the number of days between 26 October 2006, the date on which the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece was delivered, and 17 October 2007, the date on which the Commission decided to bring the present action. 
49 Ukupan zahtijevani paušalni iznos je 3 420 780 eura, a dobiven je množenjem dnevnog iznosa od 9 636 eura s 355, tj. s brojem dana proteklih od 26. listopada 2006., datuma donošenja navedene presude Komisija/Grčka, do 17. listopada 2007., datuma odluke Komisije o podnošenju ove tužbe.
50 The Hellenic Republic contends that it should not be ordered to pay a lump sum, inasmuch as that financial penalty relates to its past conduct. Furthermore, in its view, the amount of the lump sum proposed by the Commission is disproportionate in relation to the seriousness and duration of the infringement and is excessive, particularly in view of the problematical nature of the rules on gaming in Greece. 
50 Helenska Republika tvrdi da joj nije trebalo biti naloženo plaćanje paušalnog iznosa budući da se novčana kazna odnosi na proteklo ponašanje dotične države članice. Osim toga, prema njezinom mišljenju, iznos paušalnog iznosa koji je predložila Komisija je neproporcionalan s obzirom na težinu i trajanje povrede i previsok osobito ako se uzme u obzir problematika propisa o igrama u Grčkoj.
51 The decision whether to impose a lump sum payment must, in each individual case, depend on all the relevant factors pertaining to both the particular nature of the infringement established and the individual conduct of the Member State involved in the procedure instigated pursuant to Article 228 EC (Case C-121/07 Commission v France, paragraph 62). 
51 Odluka o nalaganju paušalnog iznosa mora se u svakom pojedinom slučaju temeljiti na ukupnosti svih bitnih elementa koji se odnose kako na karakteristike utvrđene povrede tako i na stav dotične države članice u postupku pokrenutom na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a (presuda od 9. prosinca 2008., Komisija/Francuska, t. 62.).
52 If the Court decides to impose a periodic penalty payment or lump sum payment, it must do so, in exercising its discretion, in a manner that 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. More specifically as regards the imposition of a lump sum payment, the relevant factors to be taken into account include, in particular, factors such as how long the breach of obligations has persisted since the judgment which initially established it was delivered and the public and private interests involved (see Case C-121/07 Commission v France, paragraph 64 and the case-law cited). 
52 Ako Sud odluči nametnuti plaćanje novčane kazne ili paušalnog iznosa, na njemu je da prilikom izvršavanja svojih ovlasti procjene utvrdi tako da je, s jedne strane, prilagođena okolnostima i, s druge strane, proporcionalna utvrđenoj povredi kao i sposobnosti plaćanja dotične države članice. Što se tiče osobito nalaganja plaćanja paušalnog iznosa, relevantni čimbenici koje treba uzeti u obzir u tom pogledu su trajanje povrede obveze od donošenja presude kojom se ona utvrđuje te relevantni javni i privatni interesi (vidjeti presudu od 9. prosinca 2008., Komisija/Francuska, t. 64., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
53 In a situation such as that which is the subject of the present action, in light of the fact that the breach of obligations has persisted for a long period since the judgment which initially established it, of the public and private interests at issue, of the lack of a decision to suspend application of the legislation in question in order to prevent criminal prosecutions, and of the lack of any tangible move to undertake compliance with that judgment, payment of a lump sum must be imposed. 
53 U situaciji koja je predmet ove tužbe, s obzirom na trajanje povrede tijekom duljeg razdoblja od donošenja presude kojom je ona prvotno utvrđena, dotične javne i privatne interese, nedostatak odluke o obustavi primjene dotičnog zakonodavstva kako bi se spriječila provedba kaznenih progona i nedostatak opipljivog početka izvršenja te presude, nalaže se plaćanje paušalnog iznosa.
54 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the circumstances of the case are fairly assessed by setting the amount of the lump sum which the Hellenic Republic will have to pay at EUR 3 million. 
54 S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, utvrđivanjem paušalnog iznosa od tri milijuna eura koji Helenska Republika, radi se o pravednoj ocjeni okolnosti slučaja.
55 The Hellenic Republic must therefore be ordered to pay to the Commission, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 3 million. 
55 Stoga Helenskoj Republici valja naložiti da na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice” Komisiji plati paušalni iznos od tri milijuna eura.
56 Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings. Since the Commission has asked for costs and the Hellenic Republic has failed in its submissions, the Hellenic Republic must be ordered to pay the costs. 
56 U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. Poslovnika, na zahtjev protivne stranke, svakoj stranci koja izgubi spor nalaže se snošenje troškova. Budući da je Komisija postavila zahtjev da se Helenskoj Republici naloži snošenje troškova i da ona nije uspjela u postupku, Helenskoj Republici nalaže se snošenje troškova.
"1. Declares that, by not amending Articles 2(1) and 3 of Law No 3037/2002, laying down a prohibition, subject to the criminal and administrative penalties set out in Articles 4 and 5 of that law, on the installation and operation on all public or private premises, apart from casinos, of all electrical, electromechanical and electronic games, including all computer games, in accordance with Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC and Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998, the Hellenic Republic has not taken all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of 26 October 2006 in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece and has thus failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228 EC;" 
1. Ne izmijenivši članak 2. stavak 1. i članak 3. zakona br. 3037/2002 o zabrani, pod prijetnjom kaznenih ili administrativnih sankcija predviđenih člancima 4. i 5. istog zakona, instaliranja i korištenja svih električnih, elektromehaničkih i elektroničkih igara, uključujući sve igre na računalima, u svim javnim ili privatnim prostorijama, osim casinoa, u skladu s člancima 28. UEZ-a, 43. UEZ-a i 49. UEZ-a, kao i člankom 8. Direktive 98/34/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 22. lipnja 1998. o utvrđivanju postupka osiguravanja informacija u području tehničkih normi i propisa te o pravilima za usluge informacijskog društva, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 98/48/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 20. srpnja 1998., Helenska Republika nije poduzela sve mjere potrebne za izvršenje presude od 26. listopada 2006., Komisija/Grčka (C-65/05) i time nije ispunila obveze koje ima na temelju članka 228. UEZ-a.
"2. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a penalty payment of EUR 31 536 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece, from delivery of the present judgment until the judgment in Case C-65/05 Commission v Greece has been complied with;" 
2. Helenskoj Republici nalaže se da na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice” Komisiji plati novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 31 536 eura za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih kako bi postupila u skladu s presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave te presude do izvršenja navedene presude Komisija/Grčka.
"3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, into the ‘European Community own resources’ account, a lump sum of EUR 3 million;" 
3. Helenskoj Republici nalaže se da na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice” Komisiji plati paušalni iznos od tri milijuna eura.
4. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. 
4. Helenskoj Republici nalaže se snošenje troškova.
* Language of the case: Greek. 
* Jezik postupka: grčki.
25 July 2008 (*) 
25. srpnja 2008. (*)
(Directive 2004/38/EC – Right of Union citizens and their family members to move and reside freely in the territory of a Member State – Family members who are nationals of non-member countries – Nationals of non-member countries who entered the host Member State before becoming spouses of Union citizens) 
„Direktiva 2004/38/EZ – Pravo građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji slobodno se kretati i boraviti na državnom području država članica – Članovi obitelji koji su državljani trećih zemalja – Državljani trećih zemalja koji su ušli u državu članicu domaćina prije nego što su postali bračni drugovi građana Unije“
In Case C-127/08, 
U predmetu C-127/08,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court (Ireland), made by decision of 14 March 2008, received at the Court on 25 March 2008, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio High Court (Irska), odlukom od 14. ožujka 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 25. ožujka 2008., u postupku
Blaise Baheten Metock, 
Blaise Baheten Metock,
Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng, 
Hanette Eugenie Ngo Ikeng,
Christian Joel Baheten, 
Christian Joel Baheten,
Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten, 
Samuel Zion Ikeng Baheten,
Hencheal Ikogho, 
Hencheal Ikogho,
Donna Ikogho, 
Donna Ikogho,
Roland Chinedu, 
Roland Chinedu,
Marlene Babucke Chinedu, 
Marlene Babucke Chinedu,
Henry Igboanusi, 
Henry Igboanusi,
Roksana Batkowska 
Roksana Batkowska
v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 
protiv Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform,
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, A. Tizzano, U. Lõhmus, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka, C. Toader and J.-J. Kasel, Judges, 
u sastavu V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas i K. Lenaerts, predsjednici vijeća, A. Tizzano, U. Lõhmus, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič (izvjestitelj), J. Malenovský, J. Klučka, C. Toader i J.-J. Kasel, suci,
having regard to the decision of the President of the Court of 17 April 2008 to apply an accelerated procedure in accordance with Article 23a of the Statute of the Court of Justice and the first paragraph of Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure, 
uzimajući u obzir odluku predsjednika Suda od 17. travnja 2008. da se o predmetu odluči u ubrzanom postupku, u skladu s člankom 23.a Statuta Suda i prvim podstavkom članka 104.a Poslovnika,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 3 June 2008, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 3. lipnja 2008.,
– B. Baheten Metock, H.E. Ngo Ikeng, C.J. Baheten and S.Z. Ikeng Baheten, by M. de Blacam, SC, and J. Stanley, BL, instructed by V. Crowley, S. Burke and D. Langan, Solicitors, 
– za B. Baheten Metock, H.E. Ngo Ikeng, C.J. Baheten i S.Z. Ikeng Baheten, M. de Blacam, SC, i J. Stanley, BL, koje su opunomoćili V. Crowley, S. Burke i D. Langan, solicitors,
– H. Ikogho and D. Ikogho, by R. Boyle, SC, G. O’Halloran, BL, and A. Lowry, BL, instructed by S. Mulvihill, Solicitor, 
– za H. Ikogho i D. Ikogho, R. Boyle, SC, G. O’Halloran, BL, i A. Lowry, BL, koje je opunomoćio S. Mulvihill, solicitor,
– R. Chinedu and M. Babucke Chinedu, by A. Collins, SC, M. Lynn, BL, and P. O’Shea, BL, instructed by B. Burns, Solicitor, 
– za R. Chinedu i M. Babucke Chinedu, A. Collins, SC, M. Lynn, BL, i P. O’Shea, BL, koje je opunomoćio B. Burns, solicitor,
– H. Igboanusi and R. Batkowska, by M. Forde, SC, and O. Ladenegan, BL, instructed by K. Tunney and W. Mudah, Solicitors, 
– za H. Igboanusi i R. Batkowska, M. Forde, SC, i O. Ladenegan, BL, koje su opunomoćili K. Tunney i W. Mudah, solicitors,