natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
30 In order to reply to that question, it should be recalled that, in Case C-473/00 Cofidis [2002] ECR-10875, paragraph 34, the Court has held that the protection which the Directive confers on consumers extends to cases in which a consumer who has concluded with a seller or supplier a contract containing an unfair term fails to raise the unfairness of the term, whether because he is unaware of his rights or because he is deterred from enforcing them on account of the costs which judicial proceedings would involve. 
30 Kako bi se na to pitanje odgovorilo, treba podsjetiti da je Sud u presudi od 21. studenoga 2002., Cofidis (C-473/00, Zb., str. I-10875., t. 34.), utvrdio da se zaštita koju Direktiva pruža potrošačima proteže i na slučajeve u kojima potrošač koji je s prodavateljem robe ili pružateljem usluge sklopio ugovor koji sadržava nepoštenu odredbu ne ističe nepoštenost odredbe bilo zato što nije upoznat sa svojim pravima bilo zato što ga od njihova ostvarivanja odvraćaju troškovi koji bi nastali uslijed sudskog postupka.
31 It should also be pointed out that the Court has held, in Mostaza Claro, paragraph 38, that the nature and importance of the public interest underlying the protection which the Directive confers on consumers justify the national court being required to assess of its own motion whether a contractual term is unfair, compensating in this way for the imbalance which exists between the consumer and the seller or supplier. 
31 Također treba istaknuti da je Sud u točki 38. prethodno citirane presude Mostaza Claro zaključio da narav i važnost javnog interesa na kojem se temelji zaštita koju Direktiva osigurava potrošačima opravdavaju dužnost nacionalnoga suda da po službenoj dužnosti ocijeni je li ugovorna odredba nepoštena i tako izravna neravnotežu koja postoji između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge.
32 The court seised of the action is therefore required to ensure the effectiveness of the protection intended to be given by the provisions of the Directive. Consequently, the role thus attributed to the national court by Community law in this area is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task, including when it is assessing whether it has territorial jurisdiction. 
32 Stoga je sud pred kojim se vodi postupak dužan osigurati koristan učinak zaštite koja se nastoji zajamčiti odredbama Direktive. Slijedom navedenoga, uloga koju je u tom području pravo Zajednice tako dodijelilo nacionalnom sudu nije ograničena tek na puku ovlast presuđivanja o možebitnoj nepoštenosti određene ugovorne odredbe, nego obuhvaća i obvezu razmatranja tog pitanja po službenoj dužnosti ako sud raspolaže za to potrebnim pravnim i činjeničnim elementima, uključujući kada presuđuje o vlastitoj mjesnoj nadležnosti.
33 In carrying out that obligation, the national court is not, however, required under the Directive to exclude the possibility that the term in question may be applicable, if the consumer, after having been informed of it by that court, does not intend to assert its unfair or non-binding status. 
33 Izvršavajući tu obvezu, nacionalni sud nije, međutim, na temelju navedene Direktive obvezan isključiti primjenu predmetne odredbe ako potrošač, nakon što ga na to upozori sud, ne želi istaknuti njezinu nepoštenost i neobvezatnost.
34 In those circumstances, the specific characteristics of the procedure for determining jurisdiction, which takes place under national law between the seller or supplier and the consumer, cannot constitute a factor which is liable to affect the legal protection from which the consumer must benefit under the provisions of the Directive. 
34 U tim okolnostima posebne značajke postupka ocjenjivanja nadležnosti, koji se vodi u okviru nacionalnog prava između prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge i potrošača, ne mogu predstavljati čimbenik koji bi mogao utjecati na pravnu zaštitu koju potrošač uživa na temelju odredaba Direktive.
35 The reply, therefore, to the second question is that the national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction. 
35. Stoga na drugo pitanje treba odgovoriti da je nacionalni sud dužan po službenoj dužnosti razmotriti nepoštenost ugovorne odredbe ako raspolaže sa za to potrebnim pravnim i činjeničnim elementima. Ako takvu odredbu smatra nepoštenom, ne primjenjuje je, osim ako se potrošač tomu ne usprotivi. Nacionalni sud dužan je tako postupiti i kada ocjenjuje svoju mjesnu nadležnost.
36 By this question, the national court seeks guidance on the factors which it must consider in assessing the possible unfairness of a contractual term. 
36 Tim pitanjem nacionalni sud traži upute u svezi s čimbenicima koje mora uzeti u obzir prilikom ocjenjivanja možebitne nepoštenosti ugovorne odredbe.
37 In order to reply to that question, it should be noted that in referring to concepts of good faith and significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, Article 3 of the Directive merely defines in a general way the factors that render unfair a contractual term that has not been individually negotiated (Case C-237/02 Freiburger Kommunalbauten [2004] ECR I-3403, paragraph 19). 
37 Kako bi se odgovorilo na to pitanje, valja istaknuti da se čimbenici koji ugovornu odredbu o kojoj se stranke nisu pojedinačno dogovorile čine nepoštenom definiraju člankom 3. Direktive tek općenito, pozivanjem na pojmove dobre vjere i znatne neravnoteže između prava i obveza stranaka (presuda od 1. travnja 2004., Freiburger Kommunalbauten, C-237/02, Zb., str. I-3403., t. 19.).
38 In that context, the Annex to which Article 3(3) of the Directive refers contains only an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair (Freiburger Kommunalbauten, paragraph 20). 
38 U tom kontekstu, prilog na koji se članak 3. stavak 3. Direktive poziva sadržava tek indikativan i netaksativni popis odredaba koje se mogu smatrati nepoštenima (prethodno citirana presuda Freiburger Kommunalbauten, t. 20.).
39 Furthermore, Article 4 of the Directive provides that the unfairness of a contractual term is to be assessed taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of it. 
39 Nadalje, člankom 4. Direktive predviđa se da se nepoštenost ugovorne odredbe treba ocjenjivati uzimajući u obzir prirodu robe ili usluga koje su predmet ugovora te pozivajući se, u trenutku sklapanja ugovora, na sve okolnosti koje su pratile sklapanje ugovora.
40 However, as regards the term which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, it should be borne in mind that, in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraphs 21 to 24, the Court has held that, in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier within the meaning of the Directive, a term, drafted in advance by the seller or supplier – which was not subject to individual negotiation – the purpose of which is to confer jurisdiction in respect of all disputes arising under the contract on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller has his principal place of business, satisfies all the criteria necessary for it to be judged unfair for the purposes of the Directive. 
40 Međutim, što se tiče odredbe koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, treba podsjetiti da je u točkama od 21. do 24. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores Sud utvrdio da odredba koju je u ugovor sklopljen između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge u smislu Direktive prethodno unio prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge, a koja nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora i u skladu s kojom je za sve sporove koji proizlaze iz ugovora nadležan sud na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja zadovoljava sve kriterije da bi se u smislu Direktive mogla kvalificirati nepoštenom.
41 As the Court stated in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraph 22, a term of this kind obliges the consumer to submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of a court which may be a long way from his domicile. This may make it difficult for him to enter an appearance. In the case of disputes concerning limited amounts of money, the costs relating to the consumer’s entering an appearance could be a deterrent and cause him to forgo any legal remedy or defence. The Court therefore concluded that such a term falls within the category of terms which have the object or effect of excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action, a category referred to in subparagraph (q) of paragraph 1 of the Annex to the Directive. 
41 U stvari, kao što je Sud istaknuo u točki 22. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores, takva odredba obvezuje potrošača da se podredi isključivoj nadležnosti suda koji je možda vrlo udaljen od njegova prebivališta, što može otežati njegovo pojavljivanje pred sudom. U slučaju sporova manje vrijednosti, troškovi vezani uz potrošačevo pojavljivanje pred sudom mogli bi na potrošača djelovati odvraćajuće te ga navesti da odustane od pravnog sredstva ili obrane. Stoga je Sud u navedenoj točki 22. zaključio da takva odredba spada u kategoriju odredaba iz točke 1.(q) Priloga Direktivi čiji je predmet ili svrha isključenje ili ograničenje prava potrošača na tužbu.
42 While it is true that the Court, in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 234 EC, in Océano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores, paragraph 22, interpreted the general criteria used by the Community legislature in order to define the concept of unfair terms, it cannot however rule on the application of those general criteria to a particular term, which must be considered in the light of the particular circumstances of the case in question (see Freiburger Kommunalbauten, paragraph 22). 
42 Iako je točno da je Sud, izvršavajući nadležnost koja mu je dodijeljena člankom 234. UEZ-a, u točki 22. prethodno citirane presude Océano Grupo Editorial i Salvat Editores protumačio opće kriterije koje zakonodavac Zajednice koristi kako bi definirao pojam nepoštene odredbe, on ne može odlučivati o primjeni tih općih kriterija na određenu odredbu koja treba biti razmotrena u svjetlu posebnih okolnosti konkretnog predmeta (vidjeti prethodno citiranu presudu Freiburger Kommunalbauten, t. 22.).
43 It is for the national court, in the light of the foregoing, to assess whether a contractual term may be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive. 
43 S obzirom na navedeno, na nacionalnom je sudu da ocijeni može li se ugovorna odredba kategorizirati kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive.
44 In those circumstances, the reply to the third question is that it is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of the Directive. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair. 
44 Pod tim okolnostima, na treće pitanje treba odgovoriti da je na nacionalnom sudu da odluči zadovoljava li ugovorna odredba, poput one koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, kriterije potrebne da bi se kvalificirala kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive. Pritom nacionalni sud mora voditi računa o činjenici da se odredba ugovora sklopljenog između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge koja je unesena u ugovor, a nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora te kojom se isključiva nadležnost dodjeljuje sudu na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja može smatrati nepoštenom.
1. Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993, on unfair terms in consumer contracts, must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand. 
1. Članak 6. stavak 1. Direktive 93/13/EEZ od 5. travnja 1993. o nepoštenim uvjetima u potrošačkim ugovorima treba tumačiti tako da nepoštena ugovorna odredba ne obvezuje potrošača i da u tom pogledu nije potrebno da je potrošač prethodno uspješno ospori.
2. The national court is required to examine, of its own motion, the unfairness of a contractual term where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task. Where it considers such a term to be unfair, it must not apply it, except if the consumer opposes that non-application. That duty is also incumbent on the national court when it is ascertaining its own territorial jurisdiction. 
2. Nacionalni sud dužan je po službenoj dužnosti razmotriti nepoštenost ugovorne odredbe ako raspolaže sa za to potrebnim pravnim i činjeničnim elementima. Ako takvu odredbu smatra nepoštenom, ne primjenjuje je, osim ako se potrošač tomu ne usprotivi. Nacionalni sud dužan je tako postupiti i kada ocjenjuje svoju mjesnu nadležnost.
3. It is for the national court to determine whether a contractual term, such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, satisfies the criteria to be categorised as unfair within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 93/13. In so doing, the national court must take account of the fact that a term, contained in a contract concluded between a consumer and a seller or supplier, which has been included without being individually negotiated and which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business may be considered to be unfair. 
3. Na nacionalnom je sudu da odluči zadovoljava li ugovorna odredba, poput one koja je predmetom glavnog postupka, kriterije potrebne da bi se kvalificirala kao nepoštena u smislu članka 3. stavka 1. Direktive 93/13. Pritom nacionalni sud mora voditi računa o činjenici da se odredba ugovora sklopljenog između potrošača i prodavatelja robe ili pružatelja usluge koja je unesena u ugovor, a nije bila predmetom pojedinačnog dogovora te kojom se isključiva nadležnost dodjeljuje sudu na čijem području prodavatelj robe ili pružatelj usluge ima glavno mjesto poslovanja može smatrati nepoštenom.
* Language of the case: Hungarian. 
* Jezik postupka: mađarski.
3 June 2010 (*) 
3. lipnja 2010. (*)
(Article 49 EC – Restrictions on the freedom to provide services – Games of chance – Offer of games of chance via the internet – Legislation reserving a licence to a single operator – Refusal to grant an operating licence to an operator who is licensed in other Member States – Justification – Proportionality – Review of each specific measure applying national legislation) 
„Članak 49. UEZ-a – Ograničenja slobode pružanja usluga – Igre na sreću – Ponuda igara na sreću na internetu – Propis kojim se odobrenje rezervira za samo jedan subjekt – Odbijanje da se odobrenje za obavljanje djelatnosti dodijeli subjektu koji ima odobrenje u drugim državama članicama – Opravdanost – Proporcionalnost – Ispitivanje svake konkretne mjere za provedbu nacionalnog propisa”
In Case C-258/08, 
U predmetu C-258/08,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 13 June 2008, received at the Court on 18 June 2008, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska), odlukom od 13. lipnja 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 18. lipnja 2008., u postupku
– Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd, by W. Hoyng and M. Meulenbelt, advocaten, instructed by S. Kon and M. Evans, Solicitors, 
– za Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd i Ladbrokes International Ltd, W. Hoyng i M. Meulenbelt, advocaten, koje su ovlastili S. Kon i M. Evans, solicitors,
– Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, by E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. van Manen and M. van Wissen, advocaten, 
– za Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, E. Pijnacker Hordijk, J. van Manen i M. van Wissen, advocaten,
– the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels, M. de Grave and Y. de Vries, acting as Agents, 
– za nizozemsku vladu, C. Wissels, M. de Grave i Y. de Vries, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Belgian Government, by A. Hubert and L. Van den Broeck, acting as Agents, and by P. Vlaemminck, advocaat, 
– za belgijsku vladu, A. Hubert i L. Van den Broeck, u svojstvu agenata, uz asistenciju P. Vlaemmincka, advocaat,
– the Danish Government, by J. Bering Liisberg and V. Pasternak Jørgensen, acting as Agents, 
– za dansku vladu, J. Bering Liisberg i V. Pasternak Jørgensen, u svojstvu agenata,
– the German Government, by M. Lumma and B. Klein, acting as Agents, 
– za njemačku vladu, M. Lumma i B. Klein, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Greek Government, by A. Samoni-Rantou, O. Patsopoulou and M. Tassopoulou, acting as Agents, 
– za grčku vladu, A. Samoni-Rantou, O. Patsopoulou i M. Tassopoulou, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Spanish Government, by F. Díez Moreno, acting as Agent, 
– za španjolsku vladu, F. Díez Moreno, u svojstvu agenta,
– the Austrian Government, by C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent, 
– za austrijsku vladu, C. Pesendorfer, u svojstvu agenta,
– the Norwegian Government, by P. Wennerås and K. Moe Winther, acting as Agents, 
– za norvešku vladu, P. Wennerås i K. Moe Winther, u svojstvu agenata,
– the Commission of the European Communities, by E. Traversa, A. Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents, 
– za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, E. Traversa, A. Nijenhuis i S. Noë, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 December 2009, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 17. prosinca 2009.,
2 The reference has been made in proceedings between the Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, a foundation governed by Netherlands law (‘De Lotto’), and Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd and Ladbrokes International Ltd, companies established in the United Kingdom (‘the Ladbrokes companies’), concerning the possibly unlawful conduct of those companies on the Netherlands market for games of chance. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Stichting de Nationale Sporttotalisator, zaklade koja se ravna prema nizozemskom pravu (u daljnjem tekstu: De Lotto) i Ladbrokes Betting & Gaming Ltd i Ladbrokes International Ltd, društava s poslovnim nastanom u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini (u daljnjem tekstu: društva Ladbrokes), u vezi s mogućim nezakonitim postupanjem tih društava na nizozemskom tržištu igara na sreću.
"3 Article 1 of the Law on games of chance (Wet op de kansspelen; ‘the Wok’) provides:" 
3 Članak 1. Zakona o igrama na sreću (Wet op de kansspelen, u daljnjem tekstu: Wok) propisuje:
‘Subject to the provisions of Title Va of this Law, the following are prohibited: 
„U skladu s odredbama glave V.a ovog zakona, zabranjuje se sljedeće:
"(a) providing an opportunity to compete for prizes if the winners are designated by means of any calculation of probability over which the participants are generally unable to exercise a dominant influence, unless a licence therefor has been granted pursuant to this Law;" 
"(a) pružanje mogućnosti za sudjelovanja u igrama na sreću za novčane ili druge dobitke ako se dobitnici određuju samo na temelju slučajnosti na koju sudionici općenito nemaju nikakav prevladavajući utjecaj, osim ako je za to izdano odobrenje na temelju ovog Zakona;"
"(b) promoting participation either in an opportunity as referred to under (a), provided without a licence pursuant to this Law, or in a similar opportunity, provided outside the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Europe, or to maintain a stock of materials intended to publicise or disseminate knowledge of such opportunities; …’" 
"(b) poticanje sudjelovanja u priredbama iz točke (a) bez odobrenja izdanog u skladu s ovim Zakonom ili u sličnoj priredbi izvan Kraljevine Nizozemske u Europi, ili pohranjivanje dokumenata za oglašavanje ili objavu u tu svrhu; […]”"
‘1. The Minister for Justice and the Minister for Welfare, Public Health and Culture may grant to one legal person with full legal capacity a licence, for a period to be determined by them, to organise sports-related prize competitions in the interests of bodies operating for public benefit, particularly in the area of sport and physical education, culture, social welfare and public health. 
„1. Ministar pravosuđa i ministar socijalne skrbi, javnog zdravlja i kulture mogu potpuno pravno sposobnoj pravnoj osobi dodijeliti na razdoblje koje oni odrede odobrenje za priređivanje nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportom radi promicanja interesa institucija koje djeluju u općem interesu, osobito u području sporta i tjelesnog odgoja, kulture, socijalne skrbi i javnog zdravlja.
2. The proceeds from prize competitions … shall be applied in respect of the interests which the legal person intends to serve by organising and operating sports-related prize competitions. 
2. Prihodi od nagradnih igara […] upotrebljavaju se za interese koje pravna osoba namjerava ostvariti priređivanjem nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportskim događajima i njihovim upravljanjem.
3. At least 47.5% of total proceeds from games of chance organised pursuant to this Title and to Title IVa, to be calculated on the basis of a calendar year, shall be allocated to the distribution of prizes. …’ 
3. Najmanje 47,5 % ukupnih prihoda od igara na sreću koje su priređene u skladu s ovom glavom i glavom IV.a, izračunanih na temelju kalendarske godine, dodjeljuje se za podjelu nagrada. […]”
"a. the number of competitions to be organised;" 
"(a) broj nagradnih igara koje će se prirediti;"
"b. the method of determining results and the prize scheme;" 
"(b) način određivanja rezultata i sustav nagrada;"
"c. the management and covering of organisational costs;" 
"(c) upravljanje troškovima priređivanja i njihovo pokrivanje;"
"d. the allocation of revenue from competitions organised;" 
"(d) raspodjelu prihoda od priređenih nagradnih igara;"
"e. the constitution and regulations of the legal person;" 
"(e) statut i pravilnik pravne osobe;"
"f. monitoring of compliance with the legislation by the authorities;" 
"(f) nadzor usklađenosti s propisom koji provode nadležna tijela;"
g. delivery and publication of the report to be drawn up annually by the legal person concerning its activities and financial results.’ 
(g) predstavljanje i objavljivanje izvješća o aktivnostima i financijskim rezultatima koje pravna osoba izrađuje svake godine.”
8 De Lotto is a non-profit-making foundation governed by private law which holds a licence for the organisation of sports-related prize competitions, the lottery and numbers games. Its objects, according to its constitution, are the collection of funds by means of the organisation of games of chance and the distribution of those funds among institutions working in the public interest, particularly in the fields of sport, physical education, general welfare, public health and culture. 
8 De Lotto je neprofitna zaklada privatnog prava koja ima odobrenje za priređivanje nagradnih igara povezanih sa sportom, lutrijskih igara i brojčanih igara. U skladu s njezinim statutom, cilj je zaklade De Lotto prikupljanje sredstava priređivanjem igara na sreću i raspodjela tih sredstava među institucijama koje djeluju u općem interesu, osobito u području sporta, tjelesnog odgoja, opće socijalne skrbi, javnog zdravlja i kulture.