natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
69 The Republic of Finland states that the limits on working time in the contested directive burden mainly small and medium-sized undertakings, which, unlike large undertakings, do not have the human resources needed to carry out a division of tasks which would allow drivers to make use of the entire driving time permitted by that directive while other employees took on, free of any limitations on working time under that directive, the activities other than driving vehicles. 
69 Republika Finska navodi da ograničenja radnog vremena u pobijanoj direktivi opterećuju uglavnom mala i srednja poduzeća koja, za razliku od velikih poduzeća, nemaju potrebne ljudske resurse za provedbu podjele rada kojom bi vozačima omogućila iskorištenje cjelokupnog vremena vožnje koje dozvoljava ta direktiva, dok bi ostali zaposlenici, neopterećeni ograničenjima radnog vremena koja proizlaze iz te direktive, obavljali aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja vozila.
It therefore concludes that there has been a breach of Article 137(2) EC. 
Ona stoga zaključuje da je došlo do povrede članka 137. stavka 2. UEZ-a.
70 It further submits that the limitation of the working time of self-employed drivers inhibits the development of small undertakings, since to the risks inherent in any business it adds unjustified restrictions of the freedom to devote the time desired to the management of the business, which runs counter to the objective of the competitiveness of European industry stated in Article 157 EC. 
70 Ona nadalje ističe da ograničenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača koči razvoj malih poduzeća, jer rizicima svojstvenima svakom poslu dodaje neopravdana ograničenja slobode posvećivanja željenog vremena upravljanju poslovanjem, što je u suprotnosti s ciljem konkurentnosti europske industrije utvrđenim u članku 157. UEZ-a.
It asserts that application of the contested directive to self-employed drivers is likely to have the effect of strengthening the position of large transport undertakings, weakening competition and reducing the possibilities of employment in small and medium-sized undertakings. 
Ona potvrđuje da primjena pobijane direktive na samozaposlene vozače može proizvesti učinak jačanja položaja velikih prijevoznika, slabeći tržišno natjecanje i smanjujući mogućnosti zapošljavanja u malim i srednjim poduzećima.
71 It should be observed, as regards Article 137(2) EC, that the Republic of Finland refers in particular to the provision in the second sentence of indent (b) of the first subparagraph, under which directives based on Article 137(2) and aimed at the protection of workers' health and safety within the meaning of Article 137(1)(a) must avoid imposing administrative, financial and legal constraints in a way which would hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. 
71 Valja primijetiti da se u odnosu na članak 137. stavak 2. UEZ-a Republika Finska poziva posebice na odredbu u drugoj rečenici prve alineje točke (b), prema kojoj direktive koje se temelje na članku 137. stavku 2. i za cilj imaju zaštitu zdravlja i sigurnosti radnika u smislu članka 137. stavka 1. točke (a), neće sadržavati upravna, financijska ili pravna ograničenja kojima bi se otežavalo osnivanje i razvoj malih i srednjih poduzeća.
72 While acknowledging that the provisions of the contested directive relating to self-employed drivers, the only ones challenged in the present case, are based on Article 137(2) EC as well as on Article 71 EC, it must be pointed out that the provision of the EC Treaty referred to in the preceding paragraph indeed means that the particular economic interests of small and medium-sized undertakings are to be taken into account when measures falling under Article 137(1)(a) EC are adopted, but does not preclude those undertakings from being the subject of binding measures (see, with respect to the second subparagraph of Article 118(2) of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC), Case C-84/94 United Kingdom v Council [1996] ECR I-5755, paragraph 44). 
72 Dopuštajući da se odredbe pobijane direktive o samozaposlenim vozačima, jedine koje se osporavaju u ovom predmetu, temelje ne samo na članku 137. stavku 2. UEZ-a nego i na članku 71. UEZ-a, valja istaknuti da odredba Ugovora o EZ-u iz prethodne točke doista znači da posebne ekonomske interese malih i srednjih poduzeća treba uzeti u obzir pri donošenju mjera obuhvaćenih člankom 137. stavkom 1. točkom (a) UEZ-a, no ne sprečava da se ta poduzeća podvrgnu ograničavajućim mjerama (vidjeti, u odnosu na drugi podstavak članka 118. stavka 2. Ugovora o EZ-u (članci 117. do 120. Ugovora o EZ-u zamijenjeni su člancima 136. UEZ-a do 143. UEZ-a), presudu od 12. studenoga 1996., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-84/94, Zb., str. I-5755, t. 44.).
73 The regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive expresses, as explained in paragraphs 53 to 56 above, a balanced consideration of the objective of road safety on the one hand and the particular features of the status of self-employed worker linked to the general administrative work of his business on the other. 
73 Uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom izraz je, kao što je pojašnjeno u točkama 53. do 56. ove presude, uravnoteženog razmatranja cilja sigurnosti na cestama s jedne strane i posebnih obilježja statusa samozaposlenog radnika u vezi s općim administrativni poslom, s druge strane.
In those circumstances, it cannot be regarded as imposing constraints such as to hold back the creation and development of small and medium-sized undertakings. 
U tim se okolnostima ne može smatrati da ono stvara ograničenja kojima bi se otežavalo osnivanje i razvoj malih i srednjih poduzeća.
74 Article 157 EC for its part provides that, to ensure that the conditions necessary for the competitiveness of the Community's industry exist, action taken by the Community as part of its industrial policy or under other provisions of the Treaty must inter alia encourage an environment favourable to initiative and to the development of undertakings throughout the Community, particularly small and medium-sized undertakings. 
74 Ono što, pak, predviđa članak 157. UEZ-a jest da radi osiguranja uvjeta potrebnih za konkurentnost industrije Zajednice, akcije koje Zajednica poduzima kao dio svoje industrijske politike ili u okviru odredaba Ugovora moraju, između ostalog, poticati okruženje pogodno za inicijativu i razvoj poduzetnika diljem Zajednice, a posebno malih i srednjih poduzetnika.
75 In the present case, however, in addition to what has been stated in paragraph 73 above, it is clear that the Republic of Finland's argument that there has been an infringement of Article 157 EC is based in part on the premiss, which is incorrect in view of the exclusion of general administrative work from the definition of the working time of self-employed drivers, that the contested directive aims to regulate the time devoted by those drivers to the general management of the business, and in part on pure conjecture as to the supposed impact that directive may be expected to have on the respective positions of large undertakings and small and medium-sized ones. 
75 Međutim, u ovom je predmetu, osim navedenog u točki 73., razvidno da se argument Republike Finske o povredi članka 157. UEZ-a dijelom temelji na pretpostavci koja je netočna s obzirom na isključenje općeg administrativnog posla iz definicije radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača, da pobijana direktiva za cilj ima urediti vrijeme koje ti vozači posvećuju općem vođenju poslovanja, a dijelom na pukom nagađanju o pretpostavljenom učinku koji bi ta direktiva mogla imati na položaj velikih odnosno malih i srednjih poduzeća.
76 This plea must accordingly be rejected. 
76 Ovaj tužbeni razlog stoga valja odbiti.
Pleas of failure to state reasons 
Tužbeni razlozi povezani s propuštanjem navođenja razloga
77 The Kingdom of Spain submits that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive is not based on any proper justification. 
77 Kraljevina Španjolska smatra da se uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive ne temelji na odgovarajućem opravdanju.
It complains of the lack of logic and precision in the eighth recital in the preamble to the directive and points to the absence of solid reasoning on the part of the legislature. 
Ona se žali na nedostatak logike i preciznosti u osmoj uvodnoj izjavi direktive te naglašava da obrazloženje zakonodavca nije čvrsto.
It adds that, in view of the exceptional nature of the introduction of limits on the time devoted by a self-employed operator to the pursuit of his activities, such a measure requires a more detailed statement of reasons than the brief summary in that recital. 
Dodaje da, s obzirom na iznimnu prirodu uvođenja ograničenja vremena koje samozaposleni subjekt posvećuje obavljanju svojih aktivnosti, takva mjera umjesto kratkog sažetka u toj uvodnoj izjavi iziskuje detaljnije obrazloženje.
78 The Republic of Finland submits that the Parliament and the Council failed to comply with the requirement to give reasons, since the preamble to the contested directive does not specify the distortions of competition it purports to abolish or the means adopted for that purpose. 
78 Republika Finska smatra da se Parlament i Vijeće nisu pridržavali obveze obrazlaganja, s obzirom na to da se u uvodnim izjavama pobijane direktive ne spominju narušavanja tržišnog natjecanja koja bi ona trebala ukinuti, kao ni sredstva predviđena u tu svrhu.
It adds that the directive, without going so far as to state reasons for every technical choice made by the legislature, should at least have identified, with respect to each aim pursued, the existing problems and the means envisaged for eliminating them, in view in particular of the directive's interference with the freedom to conduct a business. 
Ona dodaje da bi direktiva trebala, ako ne navesti razloge za svaki odabir zakonodavca u tehničkom smislu, onda barem u odnosu na svaki željeni cilj utvrditi postojeće probleme i načine koje predviđa za njihovo otklanjanje, posebno s obzirom na zadiranje tog zakonodavstva u slobodu poduzetništva.
79 It must be pointed out, however, that the considerations concerning the gaps in the existing legislation, set out in the first and second recitals in the preamble to the contested directive, and the general objectives of road safety and harmonisation of conditions of competition, identified in the fourth, tenth and eleventh recitals in that preamble, also concern self-employed drivers and are therefore sufficient from the point of view of the requirements defined in the case-law for measures of general application (see Case C-150/94 United Kingdom v Council [1998] ECR I-7235, paragraphs 25 and 26, and Case C-168/98 Luxembourg v Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I-9131, paragraphs 62 and 66) to justify the possible future application of the directive to that class of persons performing mobile transport activities. 
79 Valja, međutim, istaknuti da se razmatranja o prazninama u postojećem zakonodavstvu, iznesena u prvoj i drugoj uvodnoj izjavi pobijane direktive, te o općim ciljevima sigurnosti na cestama i usklađivanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja koja su iznesena u četvrtoj, desetoj i jedanaestoj uvodnoj izjavi te direktive, odnose također na samozaposlene vozače, pa su stoga dostatne u pogledu obveza obrazlaganja koje je sudska praksa utvrdila za akte opće primjene (vidjeti presude od 19. studenoga 1998., Ujedinjena Kraljevina/Vijeće, C-150/94, Zb., str. I-7235., t. 25. i 26., i od 7. studenoga 2000., Luksemburg/Parlament i Vijeće, C-168/98, Zb., str. I-9131., t. 62. i 66.), radi opravdanja moguće buduće primjene direktive na tu skupinu osoba koje obavljaju mobilne djelatnosti prijevoza.
80 Moreover, as the Parliament and the Commission rightly observe, the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland were, by taking part in the work of the Council, directly involved in the process of drawing up the contested directive, and are therefore aware of the reasons which formed the basis of the provisions of that directive relating to self-employed drivers (see, to that effect, Case C-54/91 Germany v Commission [1993] ECR I-3399, paragraph 11). 
80 Povrh toga, kao što Parlament i Komisija ispravno primjećuju, Kraljevina Španjolska i Republika Finska su sudjelujući u radu Vijeća bile neposredno uključene u postupak izrade pobijane direktive te su prema tome upoznate s razlozima koji su činili osnovu za odredbe te direktive koje se odnose na samozaposlene vozače (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 22. lipnja 1993., Njemačka/Komisija, C-54/91, Zb., str. I-3399., t. 11.).
81 It follows that these pleas must be rejected. 
81 Iz toga proizlazi da ispitane tužbene razloge valja odbiti.
82 In the light of the foregoing, the applications must be dismissed in their entirety. 
82 U svjetlu prethodno navedenoga, tužbe valja odbiti u cijelosti.
83 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. 
83 U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 2. Poslovnika, svakoj stranci koja ne uspije u postupku nalaže se snošenje troškova ako je postavljen takav zahtjev.
Since the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Finland have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered, in accordance with the pleadings of the Parliament and the Council, to bear their own costs and pay those of the defendant institutions. 
Budući da Kraljevina Španjolska i Republika Finska nisu uspjele u svojim tužbenim zahtjevima, treba im u skladu sa zahtjevima Parlamenta i Vijeća naložiti snošenje vlastitih troškova i troškova tuženih institucija.
Under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, institutions which intervene in a case are to bear their own costs. 
U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 4. Poslovnika, institucije koje interveniraju u postupak snose vlastite troškove.
The Commission, which has intervened, must therefore bear its own costs. 
Komisija koja je intervenirala mora stoga snositi vlastite troškove.
1. Dismisses the actions; 
1. Tužbe se odbijaju.
2. Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and pay those of the defendants; 
2. Tužiteljima se nalaže snošenje vlastitih troškova, kao i troškova tuženikâ.
3. Orders the Commission to bear its own costs. 
3. Komisiji se nalaže snošenje vlastitih troškova.
Signatures. 
[Potpisi]
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (sitting as a full Court ) 19 October 2004 
ZHU I CHEN PRESUDA SUDA (puni sastav)19. listopada 2004. ()
(Right of residence - Child with the nationality of one Member State but residing in another Member State - Parents nationals of a non-member country - Mother's right to reside in the other Member State) 
„Pravo boravka - Dijete koje ima državljanstvo jedne države članice, ali boravi u drugoj državi članici - Roditelji državljani treće zemlje - Majčino pravo boravka u drugoj državi članiciˮ
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Immigration Appellate Authority (United Kingdom), made by decision of 27 May 2002, received at the Court on 30 May 2002, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Immigration Appellate Authority (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), odlukom od 27. svibnja 2002., koju je Sud zaprimio 30. svibnja 2002., u postupku
Kunqian Catherine Zhu,Man Lavette Chen, 
Kunqian Catherine Zhu, Man Lavette Chen,
v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 
protiv Secretary of State for the Home Department,
THE COURT (sitting as a full Court ),, 
SUD (puni sastav),
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta i K. Lenaerts, predsjednici vijeća, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr i J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (izvjestitelj), suci,
Advocate General: A. Tizzano,Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, 
nezavisni odvjetnik: A. Tizzano, tajnik: L. Hewlett, glavna administratorica,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 11 November 2003,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 11. studenoga 2003., uzimajući u obzir očitovanja koja su podnijeli:
Man Lavette Chen, by R. de Mello and A. Berry, barristers, assisted by M. Barry, solicitor, 
za Man Lavette Chen, R. de Mello i A. Berry, barristers, uz asistenciju M. Barryja, solicitor,
the Irish Government, by D.J. O'Hagan, acting as Agent, assisted by P. Callagher SC, and P. McGarry, BL, 
za irsku vladu, D. J. O'Hagan, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju P. Callaghera, SC, i P. McGarryja, BL,
the United Kingdom Government, by J.E. Collins, R. Plender QC, and R. Caudwell, acting as Agents, - 
za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, J. E. Collins, R. Plender, QC, i R. Caudwell, u svojstvu agenata,
the Commission of the European Communities, by C. O'Reilly, acting as Agent, 
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, C. O'Reilly, u svojstvu agenta,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services (OJ 1973 L 172, p. 14), of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) and of Article 18 EC. 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje Direktive Vijeća 73/148/EEZ od 21. svibnja 1973. o ukidanju ograničenja kretanja i boravka u Zajednici za državljane država članica u vezi s poslovnim nastanom i pružanjem usluga (SL L 172, str. 14.), Direktive Vijeća 90/364/EEZ od 28. lipnja 1990. o pravu boravka (SL L 180, str. 26.) i članka 18. UEZ-a.
2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought by Kunqian Catherine Zhu (hereinafter `Catherine'), of Irish nationality, and her mother, Man Lavette Chen (hereinafter `Mrs Chen'), a Chinese national, against the Secretary of State for the Home Department concerning the latter's rejection of applications by Catherine and Mrs Chen for a long-term permit to reside in the United Kingdom. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Kunqian Catherine Zhu (u daljnjem tekstu: Catherine), irske državljanke, njezine majke Man Lavette Chen (u daljnjem tekstu: M. L. Chen), kineske državljanke, i Secretary of State for the Home Department jer je potonji odbio zahtjeve Catherine i M. L. Chen za dozvolu dugotrajnog boravka u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini.
Community legislation 
Pravo Zajednice 3 Člankom 1.
3 Article 1 of Directive 73/148 provides: 
Direktive 73/148 predviđeno je:
`1. The Member States shall, acting as provided in this Directive, abolish restrictions on the movement and residence of: 
„1. Države članice, postupajući u skladu s odredbama ove Direktive, ukidaju ograničenja kretanja i boravka:
(a) nationals of a Member State who are established or who wish to establish themselves in another Member State in order to pursue activities as self-employed persons, or who wish to provide services in that State; 
(a) državljana države članice koji imaju poslovni nastan ili koji žele imati poslovni nastan u drugoj državi članici radi obavljanja djelatnosti kao samozaposlene osobe ili koji žele pružati usluge u toj državi članici;
(b) nationals of Member States wishing to go to another Member State as recipients of services; 
(b) državljana država članica koji žele otići u drugu državu članicu kao korisnici usluga;
(c) the spouse and the children under 21 years of age of such nationals, irrespective of their nationality; 
(c) bračnog druga i djece mlađe od 21 godine tih državljana bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo;
(d) the relatives in the ascending and descending lines of such nationals and of the spouse of such nationals, which relatives are dependent on them, irrespective of their nationality. 
(d) srodnika u uzlaznim i silaznim linijama tih državljana i bračnog druga tih državljana koji su uzdržavanici bez obzira na njihovo državljanstvo.
2. Member States shall favour the admission of any other member of the family of a national referred to in paragraph 1(a) or (b) or of the spouse of that national, which member is dependent on that national or spouse of that national or who in the country of origin was living under the same roof.' 
2. Države članice omogućuju ulazak svih drugih članova obitelji državljanina iz stavka 1. točaka (a) ili (b) ili bračnog druga tog državljanina koje taj državljanin ili bračni drug tog državljanina uzdržavaju ili koji su u zemlji podrijetla s njima živjeli pod istim krovom.ˮ [neslužbeni prijevod]
4 Article 4(2) of the same directive states: 
4 U članku 4. stavku 2. iste Direktive navedeno je:
`The right of residence for persons providing and receiving services shall be of equal duration with the period during which the services are provided. 
„Pravo boravka za osobe koje pružaju usluge ili se njima koriste vrijedi jednako dugo kao i razdoblje pružanja usluga.
Where such period exceeds three months, the Member State in the territory of which the services are performed shall issue a right of abode as proof of the right of residence. 
Ako je to razdoblje dulje od tri mjeseca, država članica na čijem se državnom području pružaju usluge priznaje opravdanost boravka kao dokaz prava boravka.
Where the period does not exceed three months, the identity card or passport with which the person concerned entered the territory shall be sufficient to cover his stay. 
Ako to razdoblje nije dulje od tri mjeseca, dovoljna je osobna iskaznica ili putovnica s kojom je dotična osoba ušla na državno područje.
The Member State may, however, require the person concerned to report his presence in the territory.' 
Međutim, država članica može od dotične osobe zahtijevati da prijavi svoj boravak na državnom području." [neslužbeni prijevod]
5 Under Article 1 of Directive 90/364: 
5 U skladu s člankom 1. Direktive 90/364:
`1. Member States shall grant the right of residence to nationals of Member States who do not enjoy this right under other provisions of Community law and to members of their families as defined in paragraph 2, provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. 
„1. Države članice odobravaju pravo boravka državljanima država članica koji to pravo ne ostvaruju na temelju drugih odredaba prava Zajednice i članovima njihovih obitelji kako je utvrđeno stavkom 2., pod uvjetom da su oni sami i članovi njihovih obitelji zdravstveno osigurani u pogledu svih rizika u državi članici domaćinu i da imaju dostatna sredstva da ne postanu teret sustavu socijalne pomoći države članice domaćina tijekom svojeg boravka.
The resources referred to in the first subparagraph shall be deemed sufficient where they are higher than the level of resources below which the host Member State may grant social assistance to its nationals, taking into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and, where appropriate, the personal circumstances of persons admitted pursuant to paragraph 2. 
Sredstva iz prvog podstavka smatraju se dostatnima ako su veća od razine sredstava ispod koje država članica domaćin može dodijeliti socijalnu pomoć svojim državljanima, uzimajući pritom u obzir osobne okolnosti podnositelja zahtjeva i prema potrebi osobne okolnosti osoba kojima je odobren ulazak u skladu sa stavkom 2.
Where the second subparagraph cannot be applied in a Member State, the resources of the applicant shall be deemed sufficient if they are higher than the level of the minimum social security pension paid by the host Member State. 
Ako se drugi podstavak ne može primijeniti, sredstva podnositelja zahtjeva smatraju se dostatnima ako su veća od najniže mirovine koju jamči socijalna sigurnost i koju isplaćuje država članica domaćin.