natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
37 As regards a right to compensation for such pecuniary damage, it follows from the Court's settled case-law that, under the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, Member States are required to nullify the unlawful consequences of a breach of European Union law. 
37 Što se tiče prava na naknadu takve imovinske štete, iz ustaljene prakse Suda proizlazi da, prema načelu lojalne suradnje utvrđenom u članku 4. stavku 3. UEU-a, države članice imaju obvezu otklanjanja protupravnih posljedica povreda prava Unije.
In that regard, the Court has already held that, in order to remedy the failure to carry out an environmental impact assessment of a project within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Directive 85/337, it is for the national court to determine whether it is possible under national law for a consent already granted to be revoked or suspended in order to subject the project in question to an assessment of its environmental impacts, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 85/337, or alternatively, if the individual so agrees, whether it is possible for the latter to claim compensation for the harm suffered (see Wells, paragraphs 66 to 69). 
U tom smislu, Sud je već presudio da je, kako bi se ispravilo neprovođenje procjene utjecaja projekta na okoliš u smislu članka 2. stavka 1. Direktive 85/337, na nacionalnom sudu da utvrdi je li prema unutarnjem pravu moguće već dani pristanak opozvati ili suspendirati kako bi se predmetni projekt podvrgnuo procjeni s obzirom na njegov utjecaj na okoliš u skladu sa zahtjevima iz Direktive 85/337 ili, alternativno, ako je pojedinac s time suglasan, postoji li mogućnost da taj pojedinac zatraži naknadu za pretrpljenu štetu (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Wells, t. od 66. do 69.).
38 The detailed procedural rules that are applicable are a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States, provided that they are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness) (see Wells, paragraph 67). 
38 Postupci koji se primjenjuju stvar su unutarnjeg pravnog poretka svake države članice, prema načelu postupovne autonomije država članica, pod uvjetom da nisu manje povoljni od onih koji uređuju slične unutarnje situacije (načelo ekvivalentnosti) i da u praksi ne onemogućavaju ili pretjerano otežavaju ostvarivanje prava koja se dodjeljuju pravnim poretkom Unije (načelo djelotvornosti) (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Wells, t. 67.).
39 Thus, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the Member State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or damage caused, provided that the conditions for reparation of that loss or damage laid down by national law ensure compliance with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness recalled in the previous paragraph (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame [1996] ECR I-1029, paragraph 67). 
39 Stoga, u okviru nacionalnog prava o odgovornosti država članica mora ispraviti posljedice prouzročenog gubitka ili štete ako uvjeti za naknadu tog gubitka ili štete predviđeni nacionalnim pravom osiguravaju poštovanje načela ekvivalentnosti i djelotvornosti spomenutih u prethodnoj točki (vidjeti presudu od 5. ožujka 1996., Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame, C-46/93 i C 48/93, Zb., str. I-1029., t. 67.).
40 It must, however, be pointed out that European Union law confers on individuals, under certain conditions, a right to compensation for damage caused by breaches of European Union law. 
40 Međutim, valja napomenuti da pravo Unije pod određenim uvjetima pojedincima daje pravo na naknadu štete uzrokovane povredom prava Unije.
According to the Court's settled case-law, the principle of State liability for loss or damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of European Union law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the treaties on which the European Union is based (see Case C-429/09 Fuß [2010] ECR I-12167, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited). 
Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, načelo odgovornosti države za gubitak ili štetu koju pojedincima uzrokuje povredom prava Unije koja joj se može pripisati, inherentno je sustavu ugovora na kojima se temelji Unija (vidjeti presudu od 25. studenoga 2010., Fuß, C‑429/09, Zb., str. I-12167., t. 45. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
41 In that respect, the Court has repeatedly held that individuals who have been harmed have a right to reparation if three conditions are met: the rule of European Union law infringed must be intended to confer rights on them; the breach of that rule must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between that breach and the loss or damage sustained by the individuals (see, Fuß, paragraph 47, and Case C-568/08 Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie and Others [2010] ECR I-12655, paragraph 87 and the case-law cited). 
41 S tim u vezi, Sud je već više puta presudio da oštećeni pojedinci imaju pravo na odštetu kada se ispune tri uvjeta, odnosno kada povrijeđeno pravo Unije ima za cilj dodijeliti im prava, kada je povreda dovoljno ozbiljna i kada postoji kauzalna veza između te povrede i štete koju je pretrpio pojedinac (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Fußt., t. 47. i presudu od 9. prosinca 2010., Combinatie Spijker Infrabouw-De Jonge Konstruktie i dr., C-568/08, Zb., str. I-12655., t. 87. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
42 Those three conditions are necessary and sufficient to found a right in individuals to obtain redress on the basis of European Union law directly, although this does not mean that the Member State concerned cannot incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law (see Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, paragraph 66). 
42 Ta su tri uvjeta potrebna i dovoljna da se utvrdi pravo pojedinaca na dobivanje odštete izravno na temelju prava Unije iako to ne znači da predmetne države članice ne mogu snositi odgovornost pod manje strogim uvjetima na temelju nacionalnog prava (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Brasserie du Pêcheur i Factortame t. 66.).
43 It is, in principle, for the national courts to apply the criteria, directly on the basis of European Union law, for establishing the liability of Member States for damage caused to individuals by breaches of European Union law, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court for the application of those criteria (see Case C-446/04 Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation [2006] ECR I-11753, paragraph 210 and the case-law cited). 
43 Načelno, nacionalni sudovi trebaju primijeniti uvjete koji omogućuju da se utvrdi odgovornost država članica za štete nastale pojedincima povredom prava Unije, u skladu s uputama za tu primjenu koje im je dao Sud (vidjeti presudu od 12. prosinca 2006., Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C-446/04, Zb., str. I-11753., t. 210. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
44 In that regard, it has already been established, in paragraphs 32 and 36 of the present judgment, that Directive 85/337 confers on the individuals concerned a right to have the effects on the environment of the project under examination assessed by the competent services, and that pecuniary damage, in so far as it is a direct economic consequence of the environmental effects of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337. 
44 U tom je pogledu u točkama 32. i 36. ove presude već utvrđeno da Direktiva 85/337 zainteresiranim pojedincima daje pravo da utjecaj predmetnog projekta na okoliš daju na procjenu nadležnim službama i da imovinska šteta, ako predstavlja neposrednu ekonomsku posljedicu utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš, bude obuhvaćena ciljem zaštite koji se želi postići Direktivom 85/337.
45 However, as indicated in paragraph 41 of the present judgment, the existence of a direct causal link between the breach in question and the damage sustained by the individuals is, in addition to the determination that the breach of European Union law is sufficiently serious, an indispensable condition governing the right to compensation. 
45 Međutim, kako je navedeno u točki 41. ove presude, osim procjenom da je povreda pravila prava Unije dovoljno ozbiljna, pravo na naknadu nužno je uvjetovano i postojanjem izravne kauzalne veze između dotične povrede i štete koju pojedinci trpe.
The existence of that direct causal link is also a matter for the national courts to ascertain, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Court. 
Utvrđivanje postojanja te izravne kauzalne veze u skladu s uputama koje im je dao Sud isto je tako i na nacionalnim sudovima.
46 To that end, the nature of the rule breached must be taken into account. 
46 U tom smislu, valja uzeti u obzir prirodu povrijeđenog pravila.
In the present case, that rule prescribes an assessment of the environmental impact of a public or private project, but does not lay down the substantive rules in relation to the balancing of the environmental effects with other factors or prohibit the completion of projects which are liable to have negative effects on the environment. 
U ovom slučaju to pravilo propisuje procjenu utjecaja javnog ili privatnog projekta na okoliš, ali ne utvrđuje materijalna pravila u vezi s uravnoteženjem utjecaja na okoliš s ostalim faktorima niti zabranjuje provedbu projekata koji bi mogli negativno utjecati na okoliš.
Those characteristics suggest that the breach of Article 3 of Directive 85/337, that is to say, in the present case, the failure to carry out the assessment prescribed by that article, does not, in principle, by itself constitute the reason for the decrease in the value of a property. 
Te značajke ukazuju na to da povreda članka 3. Direktive 85/337, odnosno u ovom slučaju, neprovođenje procjene koju propisuje taj članak, u načelu, samo po sebi ne predstavlja razlog za smanjenje vrijednosti nekretnine.
47 Consequently, it appears that, in accordance with European Union law, the fact that an environmental impact assessment was not carried out, in breach of the requirements of Directive 85/337, does not, in principle, by itself confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of environmental effects. 
47 Zbog toga izgleda da, u skladu s pravom Unije, činjenica da, protivno zahtjevima Direktive 85/337, procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije bila provedena, u načelu, sama po sebi ne daje pojedincu pravo na naknadu isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine do kojeg je došlo zbog utjecaja na okoliš.
However, it is ultimately for the national court, which alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts of the dispute before it, to determine whether the requirements of European Union law applicable to the right to compensation, in particular the existence of a direct causal link between the breach alleged and the damage sustained, have been satisfied. 
Međutim, samo je nacionalni sudac, kao jedina osoba kompetentna ocijeniti činjenice u sporu koji se pred njim vodi, nadležan utvrditi jesu li ispunjeni zahtjevi iz prava Unije koji se primjenjuju na pravo na naknadu, a posebno postojanje izravne kauzalne veze između navodne povrede i pretrpljene štete.
48 The answer to the questions referred is therefore that Article 3 of Directive 85/337 must be interpreted as meaning that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets. 
48 Stoga na postavljena pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 3. Direktive 85/337 treba tumačiti u smislu da procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena tim člankom, ne obuhvaća procjenu utjecaja koji predmetni projekt ima na vrijednost materijalnih dobara.
However, pecuniary damage, in so far as it is the direct economic consequence of the effects on the environment of a public or private project, is covered by the objective of protection pursued by Directive 85/337. 
Međutim, imovinska šteta, ako je ona neposredna ekonomska posljedica utjecaja na okoliš javnog ili privatnog projekta, obuhvaćena je ciljevima zaštite koji se žele postići Direktivom 85/337.
The fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of the requirements of that directive, does not, in principle, by itself, according to European Union law, and without prejudice to rules of national law which are less restrictive as regards State liability, confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of the environmental effects of that project. 
Činjenica da procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije bila provedena, što je protivno zahtjevima Direktive 85/337, u načelu, sama po sebi, prema pravu Unije i ne dovodeći u pitanje pravila nacionalnog prava koja su manje restriktivna u pogledu odgovornosti države, ne daje pojedincu pravo na naknadu isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine do kojeg je došlo zbog utjecaja tog projekta na okoliš.
However, it is for the national court to determine whether the requirements of European Union law applicable to the right to compensation, including the existence of a direct causal link between the breach alleged and the damage sustained, have been satisfied. 
Međutim, na nacionalnom je sudu da utvrdi jesu li ispunjeni zahtjevi iz prava Unije koji se primjenjuju na pravo na naknadu, a posebno postojanje izravne kauzalne veze između navodne povrede i pretrpljene štete.
Article 3 of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and by Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003, must be interpreted as meaning that the environmental impact assessment, as provided for in that article, does not include the assessment of the effects which the project under examination has on the value of material assets. 
Članak 3. Direktive 85/337 od 27. lipnja 1985. o procjeni učinaka određenih javnih i privatnih projekata na okoliš, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 97/11/EZ od 3. ožujka 1997. i Direktivom 2003/35/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 26. svibnja 2003. treba tumačiti u smislu da procjena utjecaja na okoliš, kako je predviđena tim člankom, ne obuhvaća procjenu utjecaja koji predmetni projekt ima na vrijednost materijalnih dobara.
The fact that an environmental impact assessment has not been carried out, in breach of the requirements of that directive, does not, in principle, by itself, according to European Union law, and without prejudice to rules of national law which are less restrictive as regards State liability, confer on an individual a right to compensation for purely pecuniary damage caused by the decrease in the value of his property as a result of the environmental effects of that project. 
Činjenica da procjena utjecaja na okoliš nije bila provedena, što je protivno zahtjevima te direktive, u načelu, sama po sebi, prema pravu Unije i ne dovodeći u pitanje pravila nacionalnog prava koja su manje restriktivna u pogledu odgovornosti države, ne daje pojedincu pravo na naknadu isključivo imovinske štete uzrokovane smanjenjem vrijednosti njegove nekretnine do kojeg je došlo zbog utjecaja tog projekta na okoliš.
‛Appeal -- Common foreign and security policy -- Restrictive measures adopted against persons and entities -- Sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU -- Period allowed for commencing proceedings -- Force majeure -- Armed conflict' 
„Žalba - Zajednička vanjska i sigurnosna politika - Mjere ograničavanja protiv osoba i subjekata - Članak 263. stavak 6. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije - Rok za podnošenje tužbe - Viša sila - Oružani sukob"
In Joined Cases C-478/11 P to C-482/11 P, 
U spojenim predmetima C-478/11 P do C-482/11 P,
Five APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 21 September 2011, 
povodom pet žalbi na temelju članka 56. Statuta Suda Europske unije podnesenih 21. rujna 2011.,
Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P), 
Laurent Gbagbo (C-478/11 P),
Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P), 
Katinan Justin Koné (C-479/11 P),
Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P), 
Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie (C-480/11 P),
Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P), 
Alcide Djédjé (C-481/11 P),
Affi Pascal N'Guessan (C-482/11 P), 
Affi Pascal N'Guessan (C-482/11 P),
represented by L. Bourthoumieux, lawyer, 
koje zastupa L. Bourthoumieux, odvjetnica,
the other party to the proceedings being: 
a druga stranka u postupku je:
Council of the European Union, represented by B. Driessen and M.-M. Joséphidès, acting as Agents, 
Vijeće Europske unije, koje zastupaju B. Driessen i M.-M. Joséphidès, u svojstvu agenata,
composed of V. Skouris, President, K. Lenaerts, Vice-President, A. Tizzano, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), G. Arestis, J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, U. Lõhmus, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, J.-J. Kasel, M. Safjan and D. Šváby, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, K. Lenaerts, potpredsjednik, A. Tizzano, M. Ilešič (izvjestitelj), G. Arestis, J. Malenovský, predsjednici vijeća, U. Lõhmus, J.-C. Bonichot, A. Arabadjiev, C. Toader, J.-J. Kasel, M. Safjan i D. Šváby, suci,
1 By their appeals, Mr Gbagbo, Mr Koné, Ms Boni-Claverie, Mr Djédjé and Mr N'Guessan request that the Court set aside the orders of the General Court of the European Union of 13 July 2011 in, respectively, Case T-348/11 Gbagbo v Council, Case T-349/11 Koné v Council, Case T-350/11 Boni-Claverie v Council, Case T-351/11 Djédjé v Council and Case T-352/11 N'Guessan v Council (`the orders under appeal'), whereby the General Court dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible their actions for the annulment of, first, Council Decisions 2011/17/CFSP of 11 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 31), 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire, and, secondly, Council Regulations (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1) and (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (`the contested measures'), in so far as those measures concern them. 
1 Svojim žalbama, L. Gbagbo, K. J. Koné, A. D. Boni-Claverie, A. Djédjé i A. P. N'Guessan zahtijevaju da Sud ukine rješenja Općeg suda Europske unije od 13. srpnja 2011. Gbagbo/Vijeće (T-348/11), Koné/Vijeće (T-349/11), Boni-Claverie/Vijeće (T-350/11), Djédjé/Vijeće (T-351/11) i N'Guessan/Vijeće (T-352/11) (dalje u tekstu: pobijana rješenja), kojima je Opći sud odbacio kao očito nedopuštene njihove tužbe za poništenje, prvo, Odluka Vijeća 2011/17/ZVSP od 11. siječnja 2011. (SL L 11, str.31.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 6., str. 175. - 179.), 2011/18/ZVSP od 14. siječnja 2011. (SL L 11, str. 36.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 10., str. 127.) i 2011/221/ZVSP od 6. travnja 2011. (SL L 93, str. 20.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 9., str. 191.) o izmjeni Odluke Vijeća 2010/656/ZVSP o produljenju mjera ograničavanja protiv Côte d'Ivoirea, i drugo, Uredbi Vijeća (EU) br. 25/2011 od 14. siječnja 2011. (SL L 11, str. 1.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 9., str. 142.) i (EU) br. 330/2011 od 6. travnja 2011. (SL L 93, str. 10.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 4., str. 161.) o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 560/2005 o uvođenju određenih posebnih mjera ograničavanja protiv određenih osoba i subjekata s obzirom na stanje u Côte d'Ivoireu (dalje u tekstu: sporne mjere), u dijelu u kojem se odnose na njih.
2 On 15 November 2004 the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1572 (2004) in which it declared, inter alia, that the situation in Côte d'Ivoire continued to pose a threat to international peace and security in the region and decided to impose certain restrictive measures against that country. 
2 Vijeće sigurnosti Ujedinjenih naroda donijelo je 15. studenoga 2004. Rezoluciju 1572 (2004) u kojoj je izjavilo, između ostaloga, da stanje u Côte d'Ivoireu i dalje predstavlja prijetnju međunarodnom miru i sigurnosti u regiji te je odlučilo uvesti određene mjere ograničavanja protiv te zemlje.
3 Paragraph 14 of Resolution 1572 (2004) established a committee (`the Sanctions Committee') whose tasks included the designation of persons and entities to be subject to the restrictive measures in respect of travel and freezing of funds, financial assets and economic resources imposed by paragraphs 9 and 11 of that resolution and the regular updating of the list of persons and entities. 
3 Člankom 14. Rezolucije 1572 (2004) osnovan je odbor („Odbor za sankcije") čije zadaće uključuju određivanje osoba i subjekata na koje bi se trebale primjenjivati mjere ograničavanja putovanja i zamrzavanja financijskih sredstava, financijske imovine i gospodarskih izvora predviđene u točkama 9. i 11. te rezolucije te redovito ažuriranje popisa osoba i subjekata.
4 On 13 December 2004 the Council of the European Union, considering that action by the European Community was necessary in order to implement Resolution 1572 (2004), adopted Common Position 2004/852/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2004 L 368, p. 50). 
4 Smatrajući da je za provođenje Rezolucije 1572 (2004) potrebno djelovanje Europske zajednice, Vijeće Europske unije je 13. prosinca 2004. donijelo Zajedničko stajalište 2004/852/ZVSP o mjerama ograničavanja protiv Côte d'Ivoirea (SL L 368, str. 50.) [neslužbeni prijevod].
6 Common Position 2004/852 was extended and amended on several occasions, before being repealed and replaced by Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2010 L 285, p. 28). 
6 Zajedničko stajalište 2004/852 u nekoliko je navrata produljeno i izmijenjeno prije nego što je stavljeno izvan snage i zamijenjeno Odlukom Vijeća 2010/656/ZVSP od 29. listopada 2010. o produljenju mjera ograničavanja protiv Côte d'Ivoirea (SL L 285, str. 28.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 18., svezak 6., str. 166.).
7 An election for the office of President of the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire was held on 31 October and 28 November 2010. 
7 Predsjednički izbori u Côte d'Ivoireu održani su 31. listopada i 28. studenoga 2010.
8 On 3 December 2010 the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for Côte d'Ivoire certified the final result of the second round of the presidential election, as declared by the president of the independent electoral commission on 2 December 2010, confirming the victory of Mr Alassane Ouattara in the Presidential election. 
8 Posebni izaslanik glavnog tajnika Ujedinjenih naroda za Côte d'Ivoire potvrdio je 3. prosinca 2010. konačne rezultate drugog kruga predsjedničkih izbora, koje je objavio predsjednik neovisnog izbornog povjerenstva 2. prosinca 2010., potvrdivši pobjedu Alassanea Ouattaraa na predsjedničkim izborima.
9 On 13 December 2010 the Council emphasised the importance of the Presidential election held on 31 October and 28 November 2010 for the return of peace and stability in Côte d'Ivoire and declared it to be imperative that the sovereign wish expressed by the Ivorian people should be respected. 
9 Vijeće je 13. prosinca 2010. istaknulo važnost predsjedničkih izbora održanih 31. listopada i 28. studenoga 2010. za povratak mira i stabilnosti u Côte d'Ivoire te ustvrdilo da je nužno da se poštuje suverena volja naroda Côte d'Ivoirea.