natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
8 The national court wishes to know what factors must be taken into account in order to decide whether an activity such as that of tax collectors is to be regarded as carried out independently within the meaning of that provision. 
8 Nacionalni sud želi znati koje čimbenike treba uzeti u obzir pri odlučivanju o tome treba li aktivnost poreznika smatrati aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno u smislu te odredbe.
9 In that regard, the first subparagraph of Article 4(4) states that: 
9 U tom pogledu u članku 4. stavku 4. prvom podstavku navodi se:
"The use of the word 'independently' in paragraph 1 shall exclude employed and other persons from the tax in so far as they are bound to an employer by a contract of employment or by any other legal ties creating the relationship of employer and employee as regards working conditions, remuneration and the employer' s liability." 
„Uporabom riječi ‚samostalno' u stavku 1. isključuju se iz oporezivanja zaposlene i ostale osobe ukoliko su vezane za poslodavca ugovorom o radu ili bilo kojim drugim pravnim vezama kojima se stvara odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika u pogledu uvjeta rada, nagrađivanja i odgovornosti poslodavca." [neslužbeni prijevod]
10 The documents before the Court show that tax collectors do not receive a salary and are not bound to the Commune by a contract of employment. 
10 Iz spisa proizlazi da poreznici ne primaju plaću i nisu vezani za Općinu ugovorom o radu.
It must therefore be considered whether their legal relationship with the Commune nevertheless creates the relationship of employer and employee referred to in Article 4(4) of the directive. 
Stoga valja razmotriti čini li njihov pravni odnos s Općinom ipak odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika iz članka 4. stavka 4. direktive.
11 With regard, firstly, to working conditions, there is no relationship of employer and employee since the tax collectors themselves procure and organize independently, within the limits laid down by the law, the staff and the equipment and materials necessary for them to carry out their activities. 
11 Kao prvo, s obzirom na uvjete rada, ne postoji odnos poslodavca i zaposlenika, jer sami poreznici samostalno, u granicama propisanim zakonom, nabavljaju i organiziraju osoblje, opremu i materijale koji su im potrebni za obavljanje aktivnosti.
12 That being so, the fact that in the performance of their functions tax collectors are tied to the local authority, which can give them instructions, and the fact that they are subject to disciplinary control by that authority are not decisive for the purpose of defining their legal relationship with the Commune for the purposes of Article 4(4) of the directive (see, with regard to disciplinary control, the judgment of the Court in Case 235/85 Commission v Netherlands [1987] ECR 1471, paragraph 14). 
12 S obzirom na to, činjenica da su poreznici u obavljanju svoje funkcije vezani za lokalna tijela, koja im mogu davati upute, i činjenica da podliježu disciplinskom nadzoru tih tijela, nisu odlučujuće pri utvrđivanju njihova pravnog odnosa s Općinom u smislu članka 4. stavka 4. direktive (u pogledu disciplinskog nadzora vidjeti presudu Suda od 26. ožujka 1987., Komisija/Nizozemska, C-235/85, Zb., str. 1471., t. 14.).
13 With regard, secondly, to remuneration, there is no relationship of employer and employee since tax collectors bear the economic risk entailed in their activity in so far as their profit depends not only on the amount of taxes collected but also on the expenses incurred on staff and equipment in connection with their activity. 
13 Kao drugo, s obzirom na nagrađivanje, ne postoji odnos zaposlenika i poslodavca, jer poreznici snose gospodarski rizik svoje aktivnosti zbog toga što njihova dobit ne ovisi samo o iznosu poreza koji su naplatili nego i o troškovima osoblja i opreme povezanih s tom aktivnošću.
14 With regard, finally, to employer' s liability, the fact that the Commune can be held liable for the conduct of tax collectors when they act as representatives of the public authority is not sufficient to establish the existence of a relationship of employer and employee. 
14 Naposljetku, s obzirom na odgovornost poslodavca, činjenica da se Općinu može smatrati odgovornom za postupanje poreznika kada nastupaju u svojstvu predstavnika javnog tijela nije dovoljna za utvrđivanje postojanja odnosa poslodavca i zaposlenika.
15 The decisive criterion for this purpose is the liability arising from the contractual relationships entered into by tax collectors in the course of their activity and their liability for any damage caused to third parties when they are not acting as representatives of the public authority. 
15 Odlučujući kriterij u tom smislu odgovornost je koja proizlazi iz ugovornih odnosa u koje poreznici ulaze tijekom obavljanja aktivnosti i njihova odgovornost za štetu nanesenu trećim osobama kada ne nastupaju u svojstvu predstavnika javnog tijela.
16 The reply to the first question must therefore be that Article 4(1) and (4) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that of tax collectors must be regarded as being carried out independently. 
16 Na prvo pitanje stoga valja odgovoriti da članak 4. stavke 1. i 4. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se aktivnost poreznika smatra aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno.
17 The second question concerns the interpretation of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive, the first subparagraph of which provides as follows: 
17 Drugo pitanje tiče se tumačenja članka 4. stavka 5. Šeste direktive, čiji prvi podstavak glasi kako slijedi:
"States, regional and local government authorities and other bodies governed by public law shall not be considered taxable persons in respect of the activities or transactions in which they engage as public authorities, even where they collect dues, fees, contributions or payments in connection with these activities or transactions." 
„Državne, regionalne i lokalne vlasti i ostali subjekti javnog prava ne smatraju se poreznim obveznicima u pogledu aktivnosti ili transakcija u kojima sudjeluju kao javna tijela, čak i u slučaju gdje ubiru davanja, pristojbe, doprinose ili plaćanja vezano uz te aktivnosti ili transakcije." [neslužbeni prijevod]
18 As the Court has held on numerous occasions, it is clear from that provision, when examined in the light of the aims of the directive, that two conditions must be fulfilled in order for the exemption to apply: the activities must be carried out by a body governed by public law and they must be carried out by that body acting as a public authority (judgments in Case 107/84 Commission v Germany [1985] ECR 2655, paragraph 11; Case 235/85 Commission v Netherlands, cited above, paragraph 21; Joined Cases 231/87 and 129/88 Comune de Carpaneto Piacentino and Others [1989] ECR 3233, paragraph 12). 
18 Kao što je Sud već više puta zaključio, kada se ta odredba proučava s obzirom na ciljeve Direktive, iz nje jasno proizlazi da za primjenu izuzeća moraju biti ispunjena kumulativno dva uvjeta: aktivnosti mora obavljati javnopravno tijelo i to ih mora obavljati u svojstvu javnog tijela (presuda od 11. srpnja 1985., Komisija/Njemačka, C-107/84, Zb., str. 2655., t. 11.; gore navedena presuda od 26. ožujka 1987., Komisija/Nizozemska, t. 21.; presuda od 17. listopada 1989., Comune di Carpaneto Piacentino i dr., C-231/87 i C-129/88, Zb., str. 3233., t. 12.).
19 With regard to the first of those two conditions, the Court has already held in its judgment in Commission v Netherlands (at paragraph 21) that an activity carried on by a private individual is not excluded from the scope of VAT merely because it consists in the performance of acts falling within the prerogatives of the public authority. 
19 Što se tiče prvoga od ta dva uvjeta, Sud je u presudi Komisija/Nizozemska (u točki 21.) već zaključio da aktivnosti koje obavlja pojedinac ne mogu biti isključene iz područja primjene PDV-a samo zbog toga što obuhvaćaju obavljanje radnji koje ulaze u ovlasti javnih tijela.
20 It follows that, if a commune entrusts the activity of collecting taxes to an independent third party, the exclusion from VAT provided for by the abovementioned provision is not applicable. 
20 Iz toga slijedi da se izuzeće od PDV-a propisano gore navedenom odredbom ne primjenjuje ako općina povjeri aktivnost naplate poreza samostalnoj trećoj osobi.
21 The reply to the second question must therefore be that Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that that provision is not applicable if the activity of a public authority is not engaged in directly but is entrusted to an independent third party. 
21 Stoga na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 4. stavak 5. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se ta odredba ne primjenjuje ako javno tijelo ne obavlja određenu aktivnost neposredno nego ju je povjerilo samostalnoj trećoj osobi.
22 The costs incurred by the Spanish Government and by the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. 
22 Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu koje su imale španjolska vlada i Komisija Europskih zajednica ne nadoknađuju se.
As these proceedings are in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Operative part 
Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka.
in answer to the questions submitted to it by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía, by order of 11 June 1990, hereby rules: 
odlučujući o pitanjima koja mu je Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía (Vrhovni sud u Andaluziji) uputio rješenjem od 11. lipnja 1990., odlučuje:
1. Article 4(1) and (4) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an activity such as that of a tax collector must be regarded as being carried out independently. 
1. Članak 4. stavke 1. i 4. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se aktivnost poreznika smatra aktivnošću koja se obavlja samostalno.
2. Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable if the activity of a public authority is not exercised directly but is entrusted to an independent third party. 
2. Članak 4. stavak 5. Šeste direktive treba tumačiti na način da se ta odredba ne primjenjuje ako javno tijelo ne obavlja određenu aktivnost neposredno nego ju je povjerilo samostalnoj trećoj osobi. [Potpisi]
Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000. 
PRESUDA SUDA 4. srpnja 2000. ()
Financial penalties - Periodic penalty payment - Waste - Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC. In Case C-387/97, 
Novčane kazne - Plaćanje periodične novčane kazne - Otpad - Direktive 75/442EEZ i 78/319/EEZ" U predmetu C-387/97,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Condou-Durande, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, 
Komisija Europskih zajednica, koju zastupaju M. Condou-Durande, članica pravne službe, u svojstvu agenta, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu kod C. Gomez de la Cruza, člana iste službe, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg,
applicant, 
tužiteljica,
supported by 
koju podupiru:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by J.E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, with an address for service at the British Embassy, 14 Boulevard Roosevelt, 
Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske, koju zastupa J. E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, u svojstvu agenta, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu u sjedištu veleposlanstva Ujedinjene Kraljevine, 14, boulevard Roosevelt,
intervener, 
intervenijent
v Hellenic Republic, represented by A. Samoni-Rantou, Legal Adviser in the Special Department for Community Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, E.-M. Mamouna, Assistant Lawyer in the same department, and G. Karipsiadis, Specialist Adviser in that department, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 117 Val Sainte-Croix, 
protiv Helenske Republike, koju zastupaju A. Samoni-Rantou, pravna savjetnica Posebnog odjela za europsko pravo Ministarstva vanjskih poslova, E. - M. Mamouna, sudski pripravnik iz istog odjela i G. Karipsiadis stručni savjetnik iz istog odjela, u svojstvu agenata, s izabranom adresom za dostavu u Luxembourgu u sjedištu veleposlanstva Grčke, 117, Val Sainte-Croix
defendant, 
tuženice,
APPLICATION for a declaration that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular, by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous waste from the area concerned without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account EC own resources, a daily penalty payment of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment, 
povodom tužbe radi utvrđivanja da je Helenska Republika povrijedila svoje obveze na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) jer nije poduzela neophodne mjere za postupanje u skladu s presudom Suda od 7. travnja 1992., Komisija/Grčka (C-45/91, Zb., str. I-2509.) te, posebno, jer još nije izradila niti provela planove i programe potrebne za zbrinjavanje otpada te toksičnog i opasnog otpada iz područja na koje se to odnosi i to na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu, kao i povodom naloga Helenskoj Republici da Komisiji na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice" uplati novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 24 600 ECU po danu za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih za postupanje u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave ove presude,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges, 
u sastavu: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, predsjednica, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward, L. Sevón i R. Schintgen, predsjednici vijeća, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. - P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (izvjestitelj), M. Wathelet i V. Skouris, suci,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, 
tajnik: L. Hewlett, administratorica,
after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 29 June 1999, 
saslušavši očitovanja stranaka na raspravi održanoj 29. lipnja 1999.,
gives the following 
donosi sljedeću:
1 By application lodged at the Court Registry on 14 November 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC) for a declaration that, by failing to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-2509 and, in particular, by still not having drawn up or implemented the plans necessary for the disposal of waste and toxic and dangerous waste from the area concerned without endangering human health and without harming the environment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article 228 EC), and for an order requiring the Hellenic Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account EC own resources, a daily penalty payment of ECU 24 600 for each day of delay in implementing the measures necessary to comply with the judgment in Case C-45/91, from notification of the present judgment. 
1 U tužbi koju je 14. studenoga 1997. Komisija Europskih zajednica podnijela tajništvu Suda na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) radi utvrđivanja da je Helenska Republika povrijedila svoje obveze na temelju članka 171. Ugovora o EZ-u (koji je postao članak 228. UEZ-a) jer nije poduzela neophodne mjere za postupanje u skladu s presudom Suda od 7. travnja 1992., Komisija/Grčka (C-45/91, Zb., str. I-2509.) te, posebno, jer još nije izradila niti provela planove i programe potrebne za zbrinjavanje otpada te toksičnog i opasnog otpada iz područja na koje se to odnosi i to na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne štetiti okolišu, kao i povodom naloga Helenskoj Republici da Komisiji na račun „Vlastita sredstva Europske zajednice" uplati novčanu kaznu u iznosu od 24 600 ECU po danu za svaki dan kašnjenja u provedbi mjera potrebnih za postupanje u skladu s navedenom presudom Komisija/Grčka, računajući od objave ove presude.
2 In the versions in force on the expiry of the period of two months set in the reasoned opinion which culminated in the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations in Case C-45/91, Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) and Council Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (OJ 1978 L 84, p. 43) provided for the harmonisation of national laws concerning the disposal of certain waste. 
2 U verziji koja je na snazi po isteku roka od dva mjeseca utvrđenog u obrazloženom mišljenju u kojem je utvrđena povreda obveza u gore navedenom predmetu Komisija/Grčka, Direktiva Vijeća 75/442/EEZ od 15. srpnja 1975. o otpadu (SL L 194, str. 39.) i Direktiva Vijeća 78/319/EEZ od 20. ožujka 1978. o toksičnom i opasnom otpadu (SL L 84, str. 43.) predviđaju usklađivanje nacionalnih zakonodavstava u pogledu zbrinjavanja određenih vrsta otpada.
As is apparent from the third recital in the preamble to Directive 75/442 and the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 78/319 respectively, those directives were designed, in particular, to protect human health and safeguard the environment against harmful effects caused by the collection, carriage, treatment, storage and tipping of such waste. 
Kao što je vidljivo iz treće uvodne izjave Direktive 75/442 i četvrte uvodne izjave Direktive 78/319, cilj navedenih direktiva je posebno zaštita zdravlja ljudi i zaštita okoliša od štetnih učinaka prouzročenih prikupljanjem, prijevozom, obradom, skladištenjem i odlaganjem takvog otpada.
3 In order to ensure achievement of that objective, Directives 75/442 and 78/319 required the Member States to adopt certain provisions and to take certain other measures. 
3 Kako bi se osiguralo postizanje tog cilja, direktivama 75/442 i 78/319 zahtijeva se da države članice donesu određene odredbe te poduzmu određene druge mjere.
4 First of all, under Article 4 of Directive 75/442 the Member States were to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste was disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. 
4 Prije svega, na temelju članka 4. Direktive 75/442 države članice trebale su poduzeti potrebne mjere kojima bi osigurale da se otpad zbrinjava na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu te posebno ne ugrožava vodu, zrak, tlo, životinje i biljke te ne uzrokuje neugodnosti u pogledu buke ili neugodnih mirisa i ne nanosi štetu lokalitetima i krajoliku.
5 Article 5(1) of Directive 78/319 provided that the Member States were to take the necessary measures to ensure that toxic and dangerous waste was disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment, and in particular without risk to water, air, soil, plants or animals, without causing a nuisance through noise or odours and without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest. 
5 U skladu s člankom 5. stavkom 1. Direktive 78/319 države članice trebale su poduzeti potrebne mjere kojima bi osigurale da se toksičan i opasan otpad zbrinjava na način koji ne ugrožava zdravlje ljudi i ne šteti okolišu te posebno ne ugrožava vodu, zrak, tlo, životinje i biljke te ne uzrokuje neugodnosti u pogledu buke ili neugodnih mirisa i ne nanosi štetu lokalitetima i krajoliku.
Under Article 5(2) of that directive, the Member States were in particular to take the necessary steps to prohibit the abandonment and uncontrolled discharge, tipping or carriage of toxic and dangerous waste, as well as its consignment to installations, establishments or undertakings other than those referred to in Article 9(1) of the directive. 
Na temelju članka 5. stavka 2. navedene direktive države članice trebale su posebno poduzeti potrebne mjere za zabranu ostavljanja, nekontroliranog bacanja, odlaganja ili prijevoza toksičnog i opasnog otpada, kao i njegovog pohranjivanja u postrojenjima, ustanovama ili poduzećima koja nisu ona iz članka 9. stavka 1. navedene direktive.
6 Article 5 of Directive 75/442 required the Member States to establish or designate the competent authority or authorities to be responsible, in a given zone, for the planning, organisation, authorisation and supervision of waste disposal operations. 
6 U skladu s člankom 5. Direktive 75/442 države članice imale su obvezu uspostaviti ili odrediti nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela odgovorna za planiranje, organizaciju, odobravanje i nadzor postupaka zbrinjavanja otpada na određenom području.
7 Under the first paragraph of Article 6 of Directive 75/442, the competent authority or authorities designated were required to draw up as soon as possible one or several plans relating, in particular, to the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of, general technical requirements, suitable disposal sites and any special arrangements for particular types of waste. 
7 Na temelju članka 6. stavka 1. Direktive 75/442 određeno nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela trebala su u najkraćem roku izraditi jedan ili više planova koji se posebno odnose na vrstu i količinu otpada koji treba zbrinuti, opće tehničke uvjete, lokacije prikladne za zbrinjavanje kao i sve posebne odredbe za određene vrste otpada.
The second paragraph of that article provided that the plan or plans could, for example, cover the natural or legal persons empowered to carry out the disposal of waste, the estimated costs of the disposal operations, and appropriate measures to encourage rationalisation of the collection, sorting and treatment of waste. 
Člankom 6. stavkom 2. te direktive predviđeno je da takav plan odnosno takvi planovi mogu primjerice obuhvatiti i fizičke ili pravne osobe ovlaštene za provedbu zbrinjavanja otpada, procjenu troškova postupaka zbrinjavanja te odgovarajuće mjere za poticanje racionalizacije prikupljanja, razvrstavanja i obrade otpada.
8 Under Article 6 of Directive 78/319, the Member States were to designate or establish the competent authority or authorities to be responsible, in a given area, for the planning, organisation, authorisation and supervision of operations for the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste. 
8 Na temelju članka 6. Direktive 78/319 države članice trebale su odrediti ili uspostaviti nadležno tijelo ili nadležna tijela odgovorna za planiranje, organizaciju, odobravanje i nadzor postupaka zbrinjavanja toksičnog i opasnog otpada na određenom području.
9 The first subparagraph of Article 12(1) of Directive 78/319 stated that the competent authorities had to draw up, and keep up to date, plans for the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste. 
9 U skladu s člankom 12. stavkom 1. podstavkom 1. Direktive 78/319 nadležna tijela trebala su izraditi i ažurirati planove za zbrinjavanje toksičnog i opasnog otpada.
Those plans were to cover in particular the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of, the methods of disposal, specialised treatment centres where necessary, and suitable disposal sites. 
Ti su planovi posebno trebali obuhvatiti vrstu i količinu otpada koji treba zbrinuti, metode zbrinjavanja, centre za posebnu obradu, prema potrebi, te lokacije prikladne za zbrinjavanje.