natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
89 Secondly, the Court of First Instance is said to have erred in its assessment by its reliance on manifestly erroneous reasoning when, in paragraph 84 of the judgment appealed against, it claimed that `it was only in the course of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance that the applicant gave examples of various alternative settlements which he considers should and could have been envisaged', even though it is clear from the evidence in the file, in particular Annex 26 where the applicant refers to the concept of `special adviser', that Mr Lamberts mentioned such solutions when his complaint was being investigated and before the Ombudsman took his decision, and that the latter never took account of them. 
89 Drugo, navodi se da je Prvostupanjski sud, oslonivši se na očigledno pogrešno rasuđivanje, počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava kada u točki 84. pobijane presude tvrdi da je „podnositelj pritužbe samo u toku postupka pred Prvostupanjskim sudom naveo kao primjer različita alternativna rješenja za koja on smatra da ih je trebalo i da ih se moglo predvidjeti", iako iz dokaza u spisu, posebno u Prilogu 26. u kojem se podnositelj pritužbe poziva na pojam „posebnog savjetnika", jasno proizlazi da je F. Lamberts spomenuo takva rješenja u tijeku ispitivanja njegove pritužbe i prije nego što je ombudsman donio odluku, te da ih potonji nikada nije uzeo u obzir.
90 Inasmuch as it refers to the whole of the evidence in the file, that critique of paragraph 84 of the judgment appealed against must be regarded as a criticism of the assessment of the evidence considered by the Court of First Instance, a matter which is not reviewable by the Court on an appeal, which is limited to points of law, in accordance with Article 225 EC and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. 
90 Budući da se odnosi na cjelokupne dokaze u spisu, prigovor na točku 84. pobijane presude valja smatrati prigovorom na ocjenu dokaza koju je dao Prvostupanjski sud, a koju Sud ne može ispitivati u postupku žalbe jer je u skladu s člankom 225. UEZ-a i člankom 58. Statuta Suda žalba ograničena na pitanja prava.
91 On the supposition that the reference to Annex 26 of the dossier submitted by Mr Lamberts to the Court of First Instance may be analysed as a plea alleging distortion of the clear sense of that document, it should be stated that that annex is constituted by correspondence between Mr Lamberts and the secretariat of the Ombudsman, and in particular by a letter of 12 March 1999 in which reference is made to the concept of `special adviser'. 
91 Pod pretpostavkom da se pozivanje na Prilog 26. spisu koji je F. Lambert dostavio Prvostupanjskom sudu može analizirati kao žalbeni razlog prema kojem se navodno iskrivljuje jasan smisao tog dokumenta, valja navesti da se Prilog sastoji od korespondencije između F. Lambertsa i tajništva ombudsmana i da sadržava posebno dopis od 12. ožujka 1999. u kojem se poziva na pojam „posebnog savjetnika".
In that letter Mr Lamberts refers to a practice of integration without prior competition, contrary to the rules concerning access to the Community civil service, as provided for by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, which was said to have been implemented in the context of the integration of the staff of the Schengen secretariat into the Secretariat-General of the Council of the European Union, and requests the appointing authority at the Commission to show flexibility in his regard. 
U tom se dopisu F. Lamberts poziva na praksu integracije bez prethodnog natječaja suprotno pravilima koja se odnose na pristup državnoj službi Zajednice kako je predviđeno u Pravilniku o osoblju za dužnosnike Europskih zajednica, za koju se tvrdi da je provedena u okviru integracije osoblja Schengenskog tajništva u Glavno tajništvo Vijeća Europske unije, te od tijela za imenovanje pri Komisiji zahtijeva da pokaže fleksibilnost u njegovom slučaju.
92 In light of the abovementioned documents it does not appear that, at a stage earlier than that of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, Mr Lamberts made concrete proposals as to the solutions which might be envisaged in preference to a fresh invitation to take the oral test. 
92 U svjetlu gore navedenih dokumenata ne čini se da je u fazi prije postupka pred Prvostupanjskim sudom F. Lamberts iznio konkretne prijedloge u pogledu rješenja kojima bi trebalo dati prednost pred novim pozivom na usmeni ispit.
Besides, the Court of First Instance was right not to take into consideration the proposal that flexibility should be shown to Mr Lamberts as an alternative solution capable of being envisaged. 
Osim toga, Prvostupanjski sud bio je u pravu kada nije uzeo u obzir prijedlog da pokazivanje fleksibilnosti prema slučaju F. Lambertsu bude alternativno rješenje koje je bilo moguće predvidjeti.
93 Thus, it was without distorting the clear sense of the evidence adduced before it that, in paragraph 84 of the judgment appealed against, the Court of First Instance took the view that Mr Lamberts had not proposed alternative solutions at a stage prior to the bringing of his action, with the result that the Ombudsman had been unable to take a view specifically on such proposals before that action was brought. 
93 Stoga je Prvostupanjski sud, bez iskrivljavanja smisla izvedenih dokaza, u točki 84. pobijane presude zauzeo stajalište da F. Lamberts nije predložio alternativna rješenja u fazi prije podnošenja tužbe, te slijedom toga ombudsman takve prijedloge nije mogao posebno razmotriti prije podnošenja dotične tužbe.
94 In light of the foregoing, the cross-appeal is to be dismissed in its entirety. 
94 S obzirom na gore navedeno, protutužbu treba odbiti u cijelosti.
Under Article 69(3) thereof, where each party succeeds on some and fails on other heads, or where the circumstances are exceptional, the Court may however order that the costs be shared or that the parties bear their own costs. 
U skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 3. Poslovnika, Sud može podijeliti troškove ili odlučiti da svaka stranka snosi vlastite troškove ako stranke djelomično uspiju u svojim zahtjevima ili ako postoje izvanredne okolnosti.
Since each of the parties has partially failed in its submissions, it is appropriate to order the parties to bear their own costs. 
Budući da svaka stranka djelomično nije uspjela u svojim zahtjevima, potrebno je odlučiti da svaka stranka snosi svoje troškove.
Moreover, under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Parliament, which intervened in the proceedings, is to bear its own costs. 
Nadalje, u skladu s člankom 69. stavkom 4. Poslovnika, Parlament, koji je intervenirao u postupak, snosi vlastite troškove.
hereby: 1. Dismisses the appeal and cross-appeal; 
proglašava i presuđuje: 1. Žalba i protužalba se odbijaju;
2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs. Skouris 
2. Strankama se nalaže snošenje vlastitih troškova.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)14 December 2004 
PRESUDA SUDA (veliko vijeće) 14. prosinca 2004. ()
(Environment - Free movement of goods - Packaging and packaging waste - Directive 94/62/EC - Deposit and return obligations for non-reusable packaging that depend on the overall percentage of reusable packaging) 
„Okoliš - Slobodno kretanje robe - Ambalaža i ambalažni otpad - Direktiva 94/62/EZ - Obveza naplate kaucije i vraćanja ambalaže za jednokratnu uporabu s obzirom na ukupni postotak ambalaže za višekratnu uporabuˮ
In Case C-309/02,REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 ECfrom the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany), made by order of 21 August 2002, received at the Court on 29 August 2002, in the proceedings 
U predmetu C-309/02, povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Upravni sud u Stuttgartu, Njemačka), odlukom od 21. kolovoza 2002., koju je Sud zaprimio 29. kolovoza 2002., u postupku
Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co.,S. Spitz KG 
Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co., S. Spitz KG protiv
v Land Baden-Württemberg, 
Land Baden-Württemberg,
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, P. Jann i K. Lenaerts (izvjestitelj), predsjednici vijeća, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr i J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, suci,
Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,Registrar: M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, 
nezavisni odvjetnik: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, tajnik: M.-F. Contet, glavna administratorica,
Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG, by R. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt, 
za Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. i S. Spitz KG, R. Karpenstein, Rechtsanwalt,
Land Baden-Württemberg, by L.-A. Versteyl, Rechtsanwalt, 
za Land Baden-Württemberg, L.-A. Versteyl, Rechtsanwalt,
the German Government, by W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann, acting as Agents, assisted by D. Sellner, Rechtsanwalt, - 
za njemačku vladu, W.-D. Plessing i A. Tiemann, u svojstvu agenata, uz asistenciju D. Sellnera, Rechtsanwalt,
the Austrian Government, by E. Riedl, acting as Agent, 
za austrijsku vladu, E. Riedl, u svojstvu agenta,
the French Government, by G. de Bergues and D. Petrausch, acting as Agents, 
za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues i D. Petrausch, u svojstvu agenata,
the Italian Government, by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, assisted by M. Fiorilli, avvocato dello Stato, - 
za talijansku vladu, I. M. Braguglia, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju M. Fiorillija, avvocato dello Stato,
the Netherlands Government, by S. Terstal and C. Wissels, acting as Agents, 
za nizozemsku vladu, S. Terstal i C. Wissels, u svojstvu agenata,
the Commission of the European Communities, by J. Grunwald and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, 
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, J. Grunwald i M. Konstantinidis, u svojstvu agenata,
1 The reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10) and Article 28 EC. 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje Direktive Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća 94/62/EZ od 20. prosinca 1994. o ambalaži i ambalažnom otpadu (SL 1994 L 365, str. 10.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 13., svezak 64., str. 12.) i članka 28. UEZ-a.
2 The reference was submitted in proceedings brought by Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. and S. Spitz KG, which are Austrian drinks producers, against Land Baden-Württemberg. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Radlberger Getränkegesellschaft mbH & Co. i S. Spitz KG, austrijskih proizvođača pića, i Land Baden-Württemberg.
3 According to Article 1(1), Directive 94/62 aims to harmonise national measures concerning the management of packaging and packaging waste in order, on the one hand, to prevent any impact thereof on the environment of all Member States as well as of third countries or to reduce such impact, thus providing a high level of environmental protection, and, on the other hand, to ensure the functioning of the internal market and to avoid obstacles to trade and distortion and restriction of competition within the Community. 
3 Cilj Direktive 94/62, u skladu s njezinim člankom 1. stavkom 1., jest usklađivanje nacionalnih propisa za gospodarenje ambalažom i ambalažnim otpadom kako bi, u jednu ruku, spriječila svaki njihov utjecaj na okoliš svih država članica jednako kao i na okoliš trećih zemalja ili kako bi smanjila takav utjecaj vodeći računa o visokom stupnju zaštite okoliša, i u drugu ruku, kako bi osigurala funkcioniranje unutarnjeg tržišta te izbjegla zapreke trgovini i ometanja i ograničenja natjecanja u Zajednici.
4 As stated in Article 1(2), the directive lays down `measures aimed, as a first priority, at preventing the production of packaging waste and, as additional fundamental principles, at reusing packaging, at recycling and other forms of recovering packaging waste and, hence, at reducing the final disposal of such waste'. 
4 Članak 1. stavak 2. te direktive određuje „mjere kojima je osnovni cilj sprečavanje proizvodnje ambalažnog otpada i kao dodatnim temeljnim načelima, oporabi ambalaže, recikliranju i drugim oblicima obnove ambalažnog otpada i, stoga, smanjenju konačnog odlaganja takvog otpadaˮ.
5 Article 5 of the directive provides: 
5 Članak 5. te Direktive predviđa:
`Member States may encourage reuse systems of packaging, which can be reused in an environmentally sound manner, in conformity with the Treaty.' 
„Države članice mogu poticati sustave za oporabu ambalaže, koja može biti u skladu sa Ugovorom oporabljena na za okoliš siguran način, u skladu s Ugovoromˮ.
6 Article 7 provides: 
6 Članak 7. predviđa:
`1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that systems are set up to provide for: 
„1. Države članice donose potrebne mjere kako bi osigurale da su uspostavljeni sustavi za:
(a) the return and/or collection of used packaging and/or packaging waste from the consumer, other final user, or from the waste stream in order to channel it to the most appropriate waste management alternatives; 
(a) povrat i/ili prikupljanje uporabljene ambalaže i/ili ambalažnog otpada kod potrošača, drugog krajnjeg korisnika, ili nekih drugih ambalažnih tokova u želji da ju usmjere prema drugim najprikladnijim oblicima gospodarenja otpadom;
(b) the reuse or recovery including recycling of the packaging and/or packaging waste collected, 
(b) oporabu ili obnovu uključujući reciklažu ambalaže i /ili prikupljenog ambalažnog otpada,
in order to meet the objectives laid down in this Directive. 
kako bi ispunile ciljeve iz ove Direktive.
These systems shall be open to the participation of the economic operators of the sectors concerned and to the participation of the competent public authorities. 
Ti su sustavi otvoreni za sudjelovanje gospodarskim subjektima iz tih sektora, kao i za sudjelovanje nadležnih javnih tijela.
They shall also apply to imported products under non-discriminatory conditions, including the detailed arrangements and any tariffs imposed for access to the systems, and shall be designed so as to avoid barriers to trade or distortions of competition in conformity with the Treaty. 
Oni se pod nediskriminirajućim uvjetima također primjenjuju na uvozne proizvode, uključujući podrobne dogovore i cijene određene za pristup takvom sustavu, te su ti sustavi osnovani kako bi se izbjegle trgovačke zapreke ili ometanje natjecanja u skladu s Ugovorom.
2. The measures referred to in paragraph 1 shall form part of a policy covering all packaging and packaging waste and shall take into account, in particular, requirements regarding the protection of environmental and consumer health, safety and hygiene; the protection of the quality, the authenticity and the technical characteristics of the packed goods and materials used; and the protection of industrial and commercial property rights.' 
2. Mjere iz stavka 1. ovog članka predstavljaju dio politike koja vrijedi za svu ambalažu i ambalažni otpad i uzima u obzir posebno zahtjeve koji se odnose na zaštitu okoliša i zdravlja, sigurnosti i higijene potrošača; zaštitu kvalitete, izvornosti i tehnička svojstva ambalažirane robe i uporabljenih materijala; te zaštitu prava nad industrijskim i trgovačkim vlasništvom.ˮ
7 Article 18 is worded as follows: 
7 Članak 18. glasi kako slijedi:
`Member States shall not impede the placing on the market of their territory of packaging which satisfies the provisions of this Directive.' 
„Države članice na svojem području ne sprečavaju stavljanje na tržište ambalaže koja ispunjava odredbe ove Direktive.ˮ
8 The Verordnung über die Vermeidung und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen (Regulation on the Avoidance and Recovery of Packaging Waste) of 21 August 1998 (BGBl. 1998 I, p. 2379; `the VerpackV') prescribes various measures to avoid and reduce the environmental impact of packaging waste. 
8 Verordnung über die Vermeidung und Verwertung von Verpackungsabfällen (Uredba o sprečavanju i oporabi ambalažnog otpada od 21. kolovoza 1998. (BGBl. 1998 I, str. 2379.; u daljnjem tekstu „uredba VerpackV") određuje razne mjere za sprečavanje i smanjenje utjecaja ambalažnog otpada na okoliš.
The VerpackV was intended, in particular, to transpose Directive 94/62 and replaced the Verordnung über die Vermeidung von Verpackungsabfällen (Regulation on the Avoidance of Packaging Waste) of 12 June 1991 (BGBl. 1991 I, p. 1234). 
Uredba VerpackV čiji cilj je posebno prenošenje Direktive 94/62 zamijenila je Verordnung über die Vermeidung von Verpackungsabfällen (Uredbu o sprečavanju i obnovi ambalažnog otpada) od 12. lipnja 1991. (BGBl. 1991 I, str. 1234.).
9 Paragraph 6(1) and (2) of the VerpackV lays down the following obligations: 
9 U članku 6. stavcima 1. i 2. uredbe VerpackV određene su sljedeće obveze:
`1. Distributors shall accept the return of used empty sales packaging from final consumers, free of charge, at, or in the immediate vicinity of, the actual point of delivery, recover the packaging in accordance with the requirements of point 1 of Annex I and fulfil the requirements of point 2 of Annex I. The recovery requirements may also be satisfied by reusing the packaging or passing it on to distributors or producers under subparagraph 2. 
„1. Distributeri moraju na mjestu stvarnog vraćanja ili u njegovoj neposrednoj blizini besplatno preuzeti iskorištenu praznu prodajnu ambalažu od krajnjih korisnika, oporabiti je u skladu sa zahtjevima iz točke 1. Priloga I. te ispuniti zahtjeve iz točke 2. Priloga I. Zahtjevi za oporabu mogu se također ispuniti ponovnom uporabom ili ponovnim slanjem ambalaže distributeru ili proizvođaču u skladu s podstavkom 2.
The distributor must draw the attention of the private final consumer, by means of clearly visible, legible notices, to the fact that the packaging may be returned in accordance with the first sentence. 
Distributer mora pojedinačnog krajnjeg korisnika upozoriti putem jasno vidljivih čitljivih natpisa na mogućnost povrata koja je određena u prvoj rečenici.
The obligation under the first sentence applies only to packaging of the type, form and size and to packaging of goods that the distributor carries in his range. 
Obveza sadržana u prvoj rečenici primjenjuje se samo na vrste, oblike i veličine ambalaže te na ambalažu robe iz asortimana distributera.
For distributors with a sales area of less than 200 square metres, the obligation to take back returned packaging applies only to packaging for brands which the distributor puts into circulation. 
Za distributere koji raspolažu prodajnim površinama manjim od 200 m², obveza povrata ograničena je na robne marke koje distributer stavlja na tržište.
In the case of a mail order business, the taking back of returned packaging shall be ensured by means of suitable return facilities within reasonable distance of the final consumer. 
U slučaju poslovanja putem poštanske narudžbe, povrat vraćene ambalaže osigurava se putem odgovarajućih lokacija za povrat koje se nalaze na razumnoj udaljenosti od krajnjeg korisnika.
The possibility of returning the packaging is to be referred to in the consignment and in catalogues. 
Na mogućnost povrata treba upozoriti i pri otpremi robe i u katalozima.
Where sales packaging does not come from private final consumers, the parties may make other arrangements regarding the place of return and the allocation of costs. 
Ako prodajna ambalaža ne potječe od pojedinačnih krajnjih korisnika, stranke se mogu drukčije dogovoriti u vezi s mjestom povrata i raspodjelom troškova.
Where distributors do not fulfil the obligations under the first sentence by accepting the return of packaging at the point of delivery, they shall ensure compliance with them by means of a system as provided for by subparagraph 3. 
Ako distributeri ne ispunjavaju obveze koje su određene u prvoj rečenici na način da ne preuzimaju ambalažu na mjestu za povrat, moraju osigurati poštovanje sustava koji je određen u podstavku 3.
In derogation from the first sentence, the recovery requirements in Paragraph 4(2) shall apply mutatismutandis to distributors of packaging who cannot participate in a system under subparagraph 3. 
Odstupajući od prve rečenice, zahtjevi za oporabu iz članka 4. stavka 2. primjenjuju se mutatis mutandis na distributere ambalaže koji ne mogu sudjelovati u sustavu iz podstavka 3.
2. Producers and distributors shall accept free of charge at the place of actual delivery packaging returned to distributors under subparagraph 1, recover the packaging in accordance with the requirements of point 1 of Annex I and fulfil the requirements of point 2 of Annex I. The recovery requirements may also be satisfied by reusing the packaging. 
2. Proizvođači i distributeri moraju besplatno preuzeti na mjestu stvarnog prikupljanja ambalažu vraćenu distributerima u skladu s podstavkom 1., oporabiti ambalažu u skladu sa zahtjevima iz točke 1. Priloga I. i ispuniti zahtjeve iz točke 2. Priloga I. Zahtjevi za oporabu mogu se ispuniti i oporabom ambalaže.
The obligations under the first sentence apply only to packaging of the type, form and size and to packaging of goods that the particular producer or distributor puts into circulation. 
Obveze iz prve rečenice primjenjuju se samo na vrste, oblike i veličine ambalaže te na ambalažu robe koju određeni proizvođač ili distributer stavlja na tržište.
The eighth, ninth and tenth sentences of subparagraph 1 shall apply mutatis mutandis.' 
Osma, deveta i deseta rečenica podstavka 1. primjenjuju se mutatis mutandis.ˮ
10 Under Paragraph 6(3), those obligations to take back and recover packaging may in principle also be met by participation of the producer or distributor in a global system for the collection of used sales packaging. 
10 U skladu s člankom 6. stavkom 3. te obveze povrata i oporabe ambalaže mogu se u načelu također ispuniti sudjelovanjem proizvođača ili distributera u globalnom sustavu sakupljanja korištene prodajne ambalaže.
The competent Land authority has the task of determining that the system fulfils the conditions imposed by the VerpackV with regard to its coverage rate. 
Nadležno regionalno tijelo ima obvezu odrediti ispunjava li taj sustav uvjete koje uredba VerpackV propisuje u pogledu postotka ambalaže koja je njima obuhvaćena.
11 By virtue of Paragraph 8(1) of the VerpackV, distributors who put liquids for consumption into circulation in non-reusable drinks packaging are required to charge the purchaser a deposit of at least EUR 0.25 including value added tax per item of packaging. 
11 Na temelju članka 8. stavka 1. uredbe VerpackV, distributeri koji stavljaju na tržište prehrambene tekućine u nepovratnim ambalažama za piće moraju kupcu naplaćivati kauciju od najmanje 0,25 EUR uključujući porez na dodanu vrijednost po komadu ambalaže.
Where the net volume exceeds 1.5 litres, the deposit is to be at least EUR 0.50 including value added tax. 
Ako neto zapremina prelazi 1,5 litara, iznos kaucije mora biti najmanje 0,50 EUR uključujući porez na dodanu vrijednost.
The deposit is to be charged by each further distributor at every stage in the chain of distribution until sale to the final consumer. 
Kaucija se naplaćuje svakom daljnjem distributeru na svim stupnjevima distribucije do prodaje krajnjem potrošaču.
The deposit is to be repaid when the packaging is returned under Paragraph 6(1) and (2) of the VerpackV. 
Kaucija se vraća pri povratu ambalaže u skladu s člankom 6. stavcima 1. i 2. uredbe VerpackV.
12 In accordance with Paragraph 9(1) of the VerpackV, this mandatory deposit is not to apply where the producer or distributor is exempt from the obligation to accept return of the packaging because he participates in a global collection system as referred to in Paragraph 6(3). 
12 U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 1. uredbe VerpackV ova obavezna kaucija se ne primjenjuje na ambalažu za koju je proizvođač ili distributer oslobođen obveze vraćanja jer sudjeluje u globalnom sustavu prikupljanja kako je određeno u članku 6. stavku 3.