natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
23 Article 16 cannot be interpreted as allowing only national bodies responsible for the enforcement of Regulation No 261/2004 to sanction the failure of air carriers to comply with their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of that regulation to provide care. 
23 Članak 16. ne može se tumačiti tako da se samo nacionalnim tijelima odgovornim za provođenje Uredbe br. 261/2004 dopušta sankcioniranje zračnih prijevoznika za neispunjavanje njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. te Uredbe.
24 Consequently, it must be held that an air passenger may invoke before a national court the failure of an air carrier to comply with its obligation, laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004, to provide care in order to obtain compensation from that air carrier for the costs which it should have borne under those provisions. 
24 Stoga valja utvrditi da se putnik u zračnom prometu može pred nacionalnim sudom pozvati na to da zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi utvrđenu u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 kako bi od toga zračnog prijevoznika dobio odštetu za troškove koje je on trebao snositi u skladu s tim odredbama.
25 Since the questions are relevant to the outcome of the dispute, the request for a preliminary ruling is therefore admissible. 
25 Slijedom toga, kako su pitanja relevantna za ishod spora, zahtjev za prethodnu odluku je dopušten.
26 By its first question the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of the regulation to provide care or, on the contrary and because of their particular scale, go beyond the scope of that notion, thus releasing air carriers from that obligation. 
26 Svojim prvim pitanjem, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da okolnosti, kao što je zatvaranje dijela europskog zračnog prostora zbog erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull, predstavljaju „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu te uredbe koje ne oslobađaju zračne prijevoznike od njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. navedene uredbe ili, suprotno tome, i zbog njihovih posebnih razmjera, premašuju opseg tog pojma, oslobađajući time zračne prijevoznike od te obveze.
27 At the outset, it should be noted that the term `extraordinary circumstances' is not defined in Article 2 of Regulation No 261/2004 or in the other provisions of that regulation, even though a non-exhaustive list of those circumstances can be derived from recitals 14 and 15 in the preamble to the regulation. 
27 Najprije treba napomenuti da pojam „izvanredne okolnosti" nije definiran u članku 2. Uredbe br. 261/2004 ni u drugim odredbama te uredbe, iako se iz uvodnih izjava 14. i 15. te uredbe može izvesti netaksativan popis tih okolnosti.
28 It is settled case-law that the meaning and scope of terms for which European Union law provides no definition must be determined by considering their usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which they occur and the purposes of the rules of which they are part (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 17). 
28 Ustaljena je sudska praksa da se značenje i opseg pojmova za koje ne postoji definicija u pravu Europske unije moraju odrediti uvažavajući njihovo uobičajeno značenje u svakodnevnom govoru, uzimajući također u obzir kontekst u kojem se pojavljuju i svrhu pravila čiji su oni dio (gore navedena presuda Wallentin-Hermann, t. 17.).
29 In accordance with everyday language, the words `extraordinary circumstances' literally refer to circumstances which are `out of the ordinary'. 
29 U svakodnevnom govoru, riječi „izvanredne okolnosti" odnose se doslovce na okolnosti koje su „izvan uobičajenog".
In the context of air transport, they refer to an event which is not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the carrier concerned and is beyond the actual control of that carrier on account of its nature or origin (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 23). 
U kontekstu zračnog prijevoza, one se odnose na događaj koji nije svojstven redovnom obavljanju djelatnosti predmetnog zračnog prijevoznika te je izvan njegove stvarne kontrole zbog svoje naravi ili svojeg podrijetla (gore navedena presuda Wallentin-Hermann, t. 23.).
In other words, as the Advocate General noted in point 34 of his Opinion, they relate to all circumstances which are beyond the control of the air carrier, whatever the nature of those circumstances or their gravity. 
Drugim riječima, kako je napomenuo nezavisni odvjetnik u t. 34. svojeg mišljenja, one se odnose na sve okolnosti koje su izvan kontrole zračnog prijevoznika, bez obzira na to kakva je narav ili ozbiljnost tih okolnosti.
30 Regulation No 261/2004 contains nothing that would allow the conclusion to be drawn that it recognises a separate category of `particularly extraordinary' events, beyond `extraordinary circumstances' referred to in Article 5(3) of that regulation, which would lead to the air carrier being exempted from all its obligations, including those under Article 9 of the regulation. 
30 Uredba br. 261/2004 ne sadržava ništa na temelju čega bi se moglo zaključiti da se njome priznaje posebna kategorija „posebno izvanrednih" događaja koji su izvan opsega „izvanrednih okolnosti" iz članka 5. stavka 3. navedene Uredbe, zbog kojih bi zračni prijevoznik bio oslobođen svih svojih obveza, uključujući i one iz članka 9. te uredbe.
31 Next, as for the context of and the aims pursued by Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004, which prescribes the obligations of an air carrier in the event of cancellation of a flight, it must be noted, first, that when exceptional circumstances arise, Article 5(3) exempts the air carrier only from its obligation to pay compensation under Article 7 of that regulation. 
31 Nadalje, što se tiče konteksta i ciljeva članka 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004 kojim se propisuju obveze zračnog prijevoznika u slučaju otkazivanja leta, valja napomenuti da se člankom 5. stavkom 3., kada se pojave izvanredne okolnosti, zračni prijevoznik oslobađa samo obveze plaćanja odštete na temelju članka 7. te uredbe.
The European Union legislature thus took the view that the obligation on the air carrier to provide care under Article 9 of that regulation is necessary whatever the event which has given rise to the cancellation of the flight. 
Stoga je zakonodavac Europske unije smatrao da je obveza pružanja skrbi zračnog prijevoznika na temelju članka 9. potrebna, bez obzira na događaj zbog kojeg je došlo do otkazivanja leta.
Second, it is clear from recitals 1 and 2 of Regulation No 261/2004 that the regulation aims at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers and takes account of the requirements of consumer protection in general, inasmuch as cancellation of flights causes serious inconvenience to passengers (Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 18, and Nelson and Others, paragraph 72). 
Drugo, iz uvodnih izjava 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 261/2004 jasno proizlazi da je cilj ove Uredbe osiguravanje visoke razine zaštite putnika te da se njome vodi računa o zahtjevima u pogledu zaštite potrošača općenito budući da otkazivanje leta putnicima uzrokuje velike neugodnosti (gore navedene presude Wallentin-Hermann, t. 18. i Nelson i dr., t. 72.).
32 If circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings went beyond the scope of `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of Regulation No 261/2004 due in particular to their origin and scale, such an interpretation would go against not only the meaning of that notion in everyday language but also the objectives of that regulation. 
32 Kada bi okolnosti poput onih u glavnom postupku prelazile opseg „izvanrednih okolnosti" u smislu Uredbe br. 261/2004, posebno radi njihovog podrijetla i opsega, takvo bi tumačenje bilo protivno ne samo značenju tog pojma u svakodnevnom govoru, nego također i ciljevima te uredbe.
33 Such an interpretation would in fact mean that air carriers would be required to provide care pursuant to Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to air passengers who find themselves, due to cancellation of a flight, in a situation causing limited inconvenience, whereas passengers, such as the plaintiff in the main proceedings, who find themselves in a particularly vulnerable state in that they are forced to remain at an airport for several days would be denied that care. 
33 Takvo bi tumačenje u stvari značilo da se od zračnih prijevoznika zahtijeva pružanje skrbi u skladu s člankom 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 putnicima u zračnom prometu koji se zbog otkazivanja leta nađu u situaciji koja uzrokuje ograničenu neugodnost, dok bi se takva skrb uskratila putnicima, poput tužitelja u glavnom postupku, koji se nađu u posebno ranjivom stanju jer su prisiljeni ostati u zračnoj luci nekoliko dana.
34 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 5 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that circumstances such as the closure of part of European airspace as a result of the eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull volcano constitute `extraordinary circumstances' within the meaning of that regulation which do not release air carriers from their obligation laid down in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of the regulation to provide care. 
34 Slijedom navedenog, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 5. Uredbe br. 261/2004 treba tumačiti tako da znači da okolnosti poput zatvaranja dijela europskog zračnog prostora zbog erupcije vulkana Eyjafjallajökull jesu „izvanredne okolnosti" u smislu te uredbe, koje ne oslobađaju zračne prijevoznike od njihove obveze pružanja skrbi utvrđene u članku 5. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 9. te uredbe.
35 It follows from the answer given to the first question that there is no need to answer the second and third questions. 
35 Iz odgovora na prvo pitanje proizlazi da nije potrebno odgovoriti na drugo i treće pitanje.
The fourth and fifth questions 
Četvrto i peto pitanje
36 By its fourth and fifth questions, which should be examined together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of cancellation of a flight due to `extraordinary circumstances' such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation to provide care to passengers laid down in those provisions is limited in temporal or monetary terms and, if not, whether those provisions thus interpreted are invalid in the light of the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination, the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the Montreal Convention or Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. 
36 Svojim četvrtim i petim pitanjem, koje treba ispitati zajedno, sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe 261/2004 tumačiti tako da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti" poput onih u glavnom postupku, obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima utvrđena u tim odredbama ograničena u vremenskom ili novčanom smislu, i ako nije, jesu li te odredbe tumačene na taj način nevaljane s obzirom na načela proporcionalnosti i nediskriminacije, načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" sadržano u Montrealskoj konvenciji ili članke 16. i 17. Povelje.
37 It should be noted that, in the case of cancellation of a flight on account of `extraordinary circumstances', the European Union legislature sought to modify the obligations of air carriers laid down in Article 5(1) of Regulation No 261/2004. 
37 Valja napomenuti da je u slučaju otkazivanja leta zbog „izvanrednih okolnosti" zakonodavac Unije namjeravao urediti obveze zračnih prijevoznika predviđene u članku 5. stavku 1. Uredbe br. 261/2004.
38 Under recital 15 and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004, by way of derogation from the provisions of Article 5(1), the air carrier is thus exempted from its obligation to compensate passengers under Article 7 of that regulation if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken, namely circumstances which are beyond the air carrier's actual control (Nelson and Others, paragraph 39). 
38 U skladu s uvodnom izjavom 15. i člankom 5. stavkom 3. Uredbe br. 261/2004, odstupajući od odredaba članka 5. stavka 1., zračni prijevoznik se izuzima od obveze plaćanja odštete putnicima u skladu s člankom 7. te uredbe ako može dokazati da je otkazivanje uzrokovano izvanrednim okolnostima koje nisu mogle biti spriječene, čak i da su bile poduzete sve razumne mjere, to jest okolnostima koje su izvan stvarne kontrole zračnog prijevoznika (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 39.).
39 In that regard, the Court has held that, in such circumstances, the air carrier is only released from its obligation to provide compensation under Article 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 and that, consequently, its obligation to provide care in accordance with Article 9 of that regulation remains (see, to that effect, Case C-294/10 Eglītis and Ratnieks [2011] ECR I-3983, paragraphs 23 and 24). 
39 U vezi s tim Sud je istaknuo da se u takvim okolnostima zračni prijevoznik oslobađa samo obveze plaćanja odštete u skladu s člankom 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 te da, stoga, ostaje njegova obveza pružanja skrbi u skladu s člankom 9. te uredbe (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 12. svibnja 2011., Eglītis i Ratnieks, C-294/10, Zb., str. I-3983., t. 23. i 24.).
40 Furthermore, no limitation, whether temporal or monetary, of the obligation to provide care to passengers in extraordinary circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings is apparent from the wording of Regulation No 261/2004. 
40 Nadalje, iz teksta Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne vidi se nikakvo ograničenje, bilo vremensko ili novčano, u vezi s obvezom pružanja skrbi putnicima u izvanrednim okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku.
41 It follows from Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 that all the obligations to provide care to passengers whose flight is cancelled are imposed, in their entirety, on the air carrier for the whole period during which the passengers concerned must await their re-routing. 
41 Iz članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 proizlazi da su obveze pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji je let otkazan u cijelosti na zračnom prijevozniku, za cjelokupno razdoblje tijekom kojeg dotični putnici moraju čekati na preusmjeravanje.
To that effect, it is clear from Article 9(1)(b) that hotel accommodation is to be offered free of charge by the air carrier during the `necessary' period. 
U tom smislu iz članka 9. stavka 1. točke (b) proizlazi da zračni prijevoznik mora ponuditi besplatni hotelski smještaj tijekom razdoblja u kojem je to „potrebno".
42 Moreover, any interpretation seeking the recognition of limits, whether temporal or monetary, on the obligation of the air carrier to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled would have the effect of jeopardising the aims pursued by Regulation No 261/2004 recalled in paragraph 31 of this judgment, in that, beyond the limitation adopted, passengers would be deprived of all care and thus left to themselves. 
42 Osim toga, svako tumačenje kojim se žele priznati ograničenja, vremenska ili novčana, u vezi s obvezom zračnog prijevoznika da pruži skrb putnicima čiji je let otkazan, ugrozilo bi ciljeve Uredbe br. 261/2004 na koje je ukazano u točki 31. ove presude, budući da bi izvan usvojenih ograničenja, putnicima bila uskraćena sva skrb te bi tako bili prepušteni sami sebi.
As the Advocate General noted in point 52 of his Opinion, the provision of care to such passengers is particularly important in the case of extraordinary circumstances which persist over a long time and it is precisely in situations where the waiting period occasioned by the cancellation of a flight is particularly lengthy that it is necessary to ensure that an air passenger whose flight has been cancelled can have access to essential goods and services throughout that period. 
Kao što je nezavisni odvjetnik napomenuo u točki 52. svojeg mišljenja, pružanje skrbi takvim putnicima izuzetno je važno u slučaju izvanrednih okolnosti koje traju tijekom duljeg razdoblja i upravo je u situaciji kada je vrijeme čekanja uzrokovano otkazivanjem leta posebno dugo, potrebno osigurati da putnik u zračnom prometu čiji je let otkazan može tijekom cijelog tog razdoblja čekanja imati pristup osnovnim robama i uslugama.
43 Consequently, and contrary to what Ryanair claims, it cannot be deduced from Regulation No 261/2004 that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the obligation referred to in Articles 5 and 9 of that regulation to provide care to passengers must be subject to a temporal or monetary limitation. 
43 Stoga se, suprotno onome što tvrdi Ryanair, iz Uredbe br. 261/2004 ne može zaključiti da u okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku obveza pružanja skrbi putnicima iz članaka 5. i 9. te uredbe mora podlijegati vremenskom ili novčanom ograničenju.
44 However, it is necessary to ensure that the interpretation in the preceding paragraph does not conflict with the principles of proportionality, of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the Montreal Convention and of non-discrimination, or with Articles 16 and 17 of the Charter. 
44 Međutim, potrebno je osigurati da tumačenje u prethodnoj točki ne bude u suprotnosti s načelima proporcionalnosti, „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz Montrealske konvencije i nediskriminacije, ili s člancima 16. i 17. Povelje.
Under a general principle of interpretation, a European Union measure must be interpreted, as far as possible, in such a way as not to affect its validity and in conformity with primary law as a whole (Case C-149/10 Chatzi [2010] ECR I-8489, paragraph 43). 
Prema općem načelu tumačenja, akt Unije mora se tumačiti u najvećoj mogućoj mjeri tako da se ne dovede u pitanje njegova valjanost kao i u skladu s primarnim pravom kao cjelinom (presuda od 16. rujna 2010., Chatzi, C-149/10, Zb., str. I-8489., t. 43.).
45 As regards, first, the principle of proportionality, it must be noted that the Court has already had occasion to find, in Case C-344/04 IATA and ELFAA [2010] ECR I-403, paragraphs 78 to 92, that Articles 5 to 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 are not invalid by reason of infringement of the principle of proportionality. 
45 Što se tiče načela proporcionalnosti, prvo valja napomenuti da je Sud već imao priliku utvrditi, u presudi od 10. siječnja 2006., IATA i ELFAA, C-344/04, Zb., str. I-403., t. od 78. do 92., da članci od 5. do 7. Uredbe br. 261/2004 nisu nevaljani u smislu kršenja načela proporcionalnosti.
46 There is nothing to justify, even on the basis of the lack of a temporal or monetary limit on the obligation to provide care in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the finding of validity made by the Court in that case being called into question. 
46 Ne postoji ništa, čak ni na temelju nepostojanja vremenskog ili novčanog ograničenja u pogledu obveze pružanja skrbi u okolnostima poput onih o kojima je riječ u glavnom postupku, na temelju čega bi se dovela u pitanje utvrđenje valjanost u toj presudi Suda.
47 The fact that the obligation defined in Article 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care entails, as Ryanair claims, undoubted financial consequences for air carriers is not such as to invalidate that finding, since those consequences cannot be considered disproportionate to the aim of ensuring a high level of protection for passengers. 
47 Činjenica da obveza pružanja pomoći određena u članku 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 uključuje, kako tvrdi Ryanair, nedvojbene financijske posljedice za zračne prijevoznike nije takve prirode da uzrokuje poništenje ove ocjene budući da se te posljedice ne mogu smatrati neproporcionalnim u odnosu na cilj osiguravanja visoke razine zaštite za putnike.
48 The importance of the objective of consumer protection, which includes the protection of air passengers, may justify even substantial negative economic consequences for certain economic operators (Nelson and Others, paragraph 81 and the case-law cited). 
48 Važnost cilja zaštite potrošača, koja uključuje i zaštitu putnika u zračnom prometu, može opravdati čak i znatne negativne ekonomske posljedice za neke gospodarske subjekte (gore navedena presuda Nelson i dr., t. 81. i navedena sudska praksa).
49 In addition, as the Advocate General noted in points 58 and 60 of his Opinion, air carriers should, as experienced operators, foresee costs linked to the fulfilment, where relevant, of their obligation to provide care and, furthermore, may pass on the costs incurred as a result of that obligation to airline ticket prices. 
49 Osim toga, kako je nezavisni odvjetnik naveo u točkama 58. do 60. svojeg mišljenja, zračni prijevoznici bi kao iskusni operatori morali predvidjeti troškove povezane s ispunjavanjem, prema potrebi, svoje obveze pružanja skrbi, te bi štoviše, troškove koji nastaju kao posljedica te obveze mogli prenijeti na cijene zrakoplovnih karata.
50 It follows that Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 are not contrary to the principle of proportionality. 
50 Iz toga proizlazi da članak 5. stavak 1. točka (b) i članak 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004 nisu u suprotnosti s načelom proporcionalnosti.
51 None the less, an air passenger may only obtain, by way of compensation for the failure of the air carrier to comply with its obligation referred to in Articles 5(1)(b) and 9 of Regulation No 261/2004 to provide care, reimbursement of the amounts which, in the light of the specific circumstances of each case, proved necessary, appropriate and reasonable to make up for the shortcomings of the air carrier in the provision of care to that passenger, a matter which is for the national court to assess. 
51 Ipak, putnik u zračnom prometu može, putem odštete zbog toga što zračni prijevoznik nije ispunio svoju obvezu pružanja skrbi iz članka 5. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 9. Uredbe br. 261/2004, dobiti samo nadoknadu iznosa za koje se s obzirom na specifične okolnosti svakog slučaja dokaže da su potrebni, primjereni i razumni u smislu nadoknade propusta zračnog prijevoznika u pružanju skrbi tom putniku, što je na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi.
52 As regards, second, the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Montreal Convention, suffice it to note that the standardised and immediate compensatory measures laid down by Regulation No 261/2004, which include the obligation to provide care to passengers whose flight has been cancelled, are not among those whose institution is governed by the Montreal Convention (see, to that effect, Wallentin-Hermann, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 
52 Drugo, što se tiče načela „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz posljednje točke preambule Montrealske konvencije, dovoljno je napomenuti da se standardizirane i trenutačne mjere popravljanja štete utvrđene u Uredbi br. 261/2004, koje uključuju obvezu pružanja skrbi putnicima čiji su letovi bili otkazani, ne ubrajaju u one mjere čija se uspostava regulira Montrealskom konvencijom (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Wallentin-Hermann, t.
53 Therefore, there is no need to assess the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the principle of an `equitable balance of interests' referred to in that Convention. 
32. i navedenu sudsku praksu). 53 Stoga nema potrebe za ocjenom valjanosti gore navedenih odredaba u odnosu na načelo „pravedne uravnoteženosti interesa" iz te konvencije.