natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
46 The Kingdom of Spain submits, first, that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive has the effect of preventing self-employed carriers by road from devoting all their time and effort to the prosperity of their undertaking and constitutes an impermissible infringement of their freedom to pursue an occupation and their freedom to conduct a business. 
46 Kraljevina Španjolska s jedne strane tvrdi da uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive ima učinak sprečavanja samozaposlenih cestovnih prijevoznika da sve svoje vrijeme i napore posvete napretku svoga poslovanja, te predstavlja nedopustivo zadiranje u njihovu slobodu obavljanja zanimanja i slobodu poduzetništva.
47 The Kingdom of Spain submits, second, that, contrary to what is said in the fourth and tenth recitals in the preamble to and in Article 1 of the contested directive, the objective of road safety cannot be achieved by that directive, which is social legislation whose sole object is to improve the living and working conditions of road transport workers. 
47 S druge strane, Kraljevina Španjolska tvrdi da protivno onome što navode četvrta i deseta uvodna izjava te članak 1. pobijane direktive, cilj sigurnosti na cestama ne može biti ostvaren tom direktivom koja pripada socijalnom zakonodavstvu i čiji je isključivi cilj unapređenje uvjeta života i rada radnika u cestovnom prijevozu.
It submits that while there is indeed justification for regulating the working time of employees, in view of their subordinate position as regards their employer, no such need for protection exists for self-employed workers, who must remain free to organise their activities as they wish. 
Ona tvrdi da, iako doista postoji opravdanje za uređenje radnog vremena zaposlenika s obzirom na njihov podređeni položaj u odnosu na njihove poslodavce, takva potreba za zaštitom ne postoji kod samozaposlenih radnika kojima se mora ostaviti sloboda da svoju djelatnost organiziraju kako žele.
48 The Republic of Finland submits, first, that the inclusion of self-employed drivers in the scope of the contested directive constitutes a breach of the principle of proportionality. 
48 Prvo, Republika Finska tvrdi da uključivanje samozaposlenih vozača u područje primjene pobijane direktive predstavlja povredu načela proporcionalnosti.
It submits that the objective of protection of persons is no justification for regulating the working time of those drivers; that the objective of road safety is already taken into consideration by Regulation No 3820/85 and would be served just as effectively and with less interference with the freedom to pursue an occupation by stricter supervision of compliance with that regulation; and that the contested directive does not specify to what extent it could contribute to realising the objective of aligning conditions of competition. 
Ona prvenstveno tvrdi da cilj zaštite osoba nije opravdanje za uređivanje radnog vremena tih vozača; drugo, da je cilj sigurnosti na cestama već uzet u obzir u Uredbi 3820/85 te da bi bio ostvaren jednako učinkovito i s manje zadiranja u slobodu obavljanja zanimanja da se strože nadgleda pridržavanje toga uređenja te, treće, da ta direktiva ne navodi u kojoj bi mjeri mogla doprinijeti ostvarenju cilja usklađivanja uvjeta tržišnog natjecanja.
49 The Republic of Finland argues, second, that the subjection of self-employed drivers to the contested directive breaches the principle of the freedom to pursue an occupation, under which an operator must be able to decide freely on the amount and the organisation of the working time he intends to devote to his business activities. 
49 S druge strane, Republika Finska tvrdi da podvrgavanje samozaposlenih vozača pobijanoj direktivi krši načelo slobode obavljanja zanimanja, prema kojemu poduzetnik mora moći slobodno odlučiti o važnosti i organizaciji radnog vremena koje namjerava posvetiti svojoj poslovnoj djelatnosti.
It asserts that, as regards self-employed drivers, the directive regulates a number of activities other than driving and requires them to keep a record of working time, which constitutes an impermissible interference with their right to organise their activities freely. 
Ona tvrdi da u odnosu na samozaposlene vozače direktiva uređuje niz aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja te od njih zahtijeva vođenje evidencije radnog vremena, što predstavlja nedopustivo zadiranje u njihovo pravo da slobodno organiziraju svoje djelatnosti.
50 It should be pointed out, as a preliminary point, that at the hearing the Kingdom of Spain explained that its plea, referred to in paragraph 47 above, that the contested directive does not have road safety as its object is directed against that directive's disproportionate interference with the freedom self-employed drivers must enjoy in the organisation of their occupational activities. 
50 Najprije valja naglasiti da je na raspravi Kraljevina Španjolska pojasnila da je njezin tužbeni razlog, spomenut prethodno u točki 47., da cilj pobijane direktive nije sigurnost na cestama, usmjeren protiv nerazmjernog zadiranja te direktive u slobodu koju samozaposleni vozači moraju imati u organizaciji svoje profesionalne djelatnosti.
That plea thus merges with the Kingdom of Spain's plea of breach of the freedom to pursue an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business. 
Taj se tužbeni razlog stoga objedinjuje s tužbenim razlogom Kraljevine Španjolske o povredi slobode obavljanja zanimanja i slobode poduzetništva.
51 Freedom to pursue an occupation is one of the general principles of Community law (Case C-177/90 Kühn [1992] ECR I-35, paragraph 16; Case C-280/93 Germany v Council [1994] ECR I-4973, paragraph 78; and SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf, paragraph 72). 
51 Sloboda obavljanja zanimanja jedno je od općih načela prava Zajednice (presude od 10. siječnja 1992., Kühn, C-177/90, Zb., str. I-35., t. 16.; od 5. listopada 1994., Njemačka/Vijeće, C-280/93, Zb., str. I-4973., t. 78.; kao i prethodno navedena presuda SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, t. 72.).
The same is true of freedom to conduct a business, which coincides with freedom to pursue an occupation (Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraphs 72 to 77). 
Isto vrijedi i za slobodu poduzetništva, koja se stapa sa slobodom obavljanja zanimanja (presuda od 21. veljače 1991., Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen i Zuckerfabrik Soest, C-143/88 i C-92/89, Zb., str. I-415., t. 72. do 77.).
52 Those freedoms are not absolute rights, however, but must be considered in relation to their social function. 
52 Te slobode ipak nisu apsolutna prava, no mora ih se promatrati u odnosu na njihovu socijalnu funkciju.
Consequently, restrictions may be imposed on their exercise, provided that the restrictions correspond to objectives of general interest and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see inter alia Case C-200/96 Metronome Musik [1998] ECR I-1953, paragraph 21). 
Shodno tome, moguće je nametnuti ograničenja na njihovo ostvarenje, pod uvjetom da ta ograničenja zaista odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa i da, s obzirom na željeni cilj, ne predstavljaju nerazmjeran i neprihvatljiv zahvat kojim se povređuje sama bit tako zajamčenih prava (vidjeti, među ostalim, presudu od 28. travnja 1998., Metronome Musik, C-200/96, Zb., str. I-1953., t. 21.).
53 In the present case, the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged by the contested directive is intended to improve road safety (see paragraphs 33 to 36 above) and consequently corresponds to an objective of general interest (see Case C-55/93 Van Schaik [1994] ECR I-4837, paragraph 19, and Case C-314/98 Snellers [2000] ECR I-8633, paragraph 55). 
53 U ovom predmetu uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno pobijanom direktivom namijenjeno je poboljšanju sigurnosti na cestama (vidjeti prethodno navedene točke 33. do 36.), te posljedično odgovara cilju od općeg interesa (vidjeti presude od 5. listopada 1994., Van Schaik, C-55/93, Zb., str. I-4837., t. 19., i od 12. listopada 2000., Snellers, C-314/98, Zb., str. I-8633., t. 55.).
54 As the Advocate General observes in paragraphs 112 to 116 of her Opinion, while that regulation does interfere with the way in which the occupation of self-employed driver is pursued, it does not affect the very existence of the freedom to pursue that occupation. 
54 Kao što nezavisni odvjetnik primjećuje u točkama 112. do 116. svojega mišljenja, iako to uređenje utječe na način na koji se obavlja zanimanje samozaposlenog vozača, ono ne utječe na samo postojanje slobode obavljanja tog zanimanja.
55 Moreover, as the Parliament and the Commission point out, the contested directive draws a clear distinction, as regards self-employed drivers, between on the one hand activities directly linked to road transport, such as those listed in Article 3(a)(1) of the directive, which are the subject of the measures of organisation of working time introduced by the directive, and on the other hand `general administrative work that is not directly linked to the specific transport operation under way', referred to in Article 3(a)(2), which is not concerned by the directive. 
55 Štoviše, kao što ističu Parlament i Komisija, pobijana direktiva u pogledu samozaposlenih vozača pravi jasnu razliku između, s jedne strane, aktivnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom koje su navedene u članku 3. stavku (a) točki 1. te direktive i koje su predmet mjera organizacije radnog vremena uvedenih tom direktivom te, s druge strane, „općih administrativnih poslova koji nisu izravno vezani uz određenu vožnju koja je u tijeku", spomenutih u točki 2. iste odredbe, a na koje se direktiva ne odnosi.
56 In view of the wide discretion it enjoys in adopting appropriate measures for a common transport policy (see SAM Schiffahrt and Stapf, paragraphs 23 to 25), the Community legislature was able to consider that measures intended to lay down rules governing the time spent on activities directly linked to road transport, without encroaching on the freedom of a driver who has chosen to be self-employed to organise the general work inherent in that status as he wishes, constitute measures which are appropriate and reasonable in relation to the objective of road safety. 
56 S obzirom na široko diskrecijsko pravo koje uživa pri donošenju odgovarajućih mjera za zajedničku prometnu politiku (vidjeti prethodno navedenu presudu SAM Schiffahrt i Stapf, t. 23. do 25.), zakonodavac Zajednice mogao je smatrati da mjere s ciljem utvrđivanja vremena namijenjenog za obavljanje aktivnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom, ne ometajući time slobodu samozaposlenog vozača da po svojoj volji organizira opće poslove svojstvene tom statusu, predstavljaju mjere koje su odgovarajuće i razumne u odnosu na cilj sigurnosti na cestama.
57 As to the principle of proportionality, it is settled case-law that that principle, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that the measures concerned should not exceed the limits of what is appropriate and necessary in order to attain the objectives pursued by the legislation in question, and that where there is a choice between several appropriate measures recourse must be had to the least onerous (see inter alia Case C-101/98 UDL [1999] ECR I-8841, paragraph 30, and Joined Cases C-27/00 and C-122/00 Omega Air and Others [2002] ECR I-2569, paragraph 62). 
57 U odnosu na načelo proporcionalnosti valja napomenuti da na temelju ustaljene sudske prakse to načelo, koje je jedno od općih načela prava Zajednice, zahtijeva da predmetne mjere ne prekoračuju granice onoga što je prikladno i nužno za ostvarenje zadanih legitimnih ciljeva predmetnog propisa, pri čemu, kad je moguće odabrati između više prikladnih mjera, valja primijeniti onu koja je najmanje ograničavajuća (vidjeti osobito presude od 16. prosinca 1999., UDL, C-101/98, Zb., str. I-8841., t. 30., i od 12. ožujka 2002., Omega Air i drugi, C-27/00 i C-122/00, Zb., str. I-2569, t. 62.).
58 In the present case, the considerations set out in paragraphs 54 to 56 above lead to the conclusion that the provisions of the contested directive relating to self-employed drivers, which aim to ensure that they do not adopt, as regards activities directly linked to road transport, a pattern of working liable to jeopardise road safety, without interfering with their freedom to organise their general administrative work as they think most in accordance with their interests, do not infringe the principle of proportionality. 
58 U ovom predmetu razmatranja prethodno navedena u točkama 54. do 56. dovode do zaključka da odredbe pobijane direktive koje se odnose na samozaposlene vozače, čiji je cilj osigurati da oni u odnosu na aktivnosti izravno povezane s cestovnim prijevozom ne usvoje takav radni obrazac kojim bi ugrozili sigurnost na cestama, ne zadirući u njihovu slobodu da organiziraju svoje opće administrativne poslove na način koji smatraju najprikladnijim svojim interesima, ne krše načelo proporcionalnosti.
59 It should be added that, contrary to the submissions of the Republic of Finland, stricter enforcement of the restrictions on driving time laid down by Regulation No 3820/85 cannot be regarded as an equally effective and less restrictive solution that the provisions at issue. 
59 Valja dodati da se, protivno očitovanjima Republike Finske, stroža provedba ograničenja radnog vremena utvrđena Uredbom br. 3820/85 ne može smatrati jednako učinkovitim i manje ograničavajućim rješenjem od predmetnih odredaba.
This would be of no assistance in confining within reasonable limits the duration of working time devoted by a self-employed driver to activities other than driving that are directly linked to road transport and are liable to have a bearing on his state of tiredness and his driving, to the detriment of road safety. 
To ne bi pomoglo da se razumno ograniči trajanje radnog vremena koje samozaposleni vozač posvećuje aktivnostima koje nisu vožnja, a izravno su povezane s cestovnim prijevozom i na njegov umor i vožnju mogu utjecati na štetu sigurnosti na cestama.
60 In the light of the foregoing, the regulation of the working time of self-employed drivers envisaged in the contested directive cannot be regarded as a disproportionate and intolerable interference impairing the very substance of the freedom to pursue an occupation and the freedom to conduct a business, or as a breach of the principle of proportionality. 
60 Vodeći računa o navedenom, uređenje radnog vremena samozaposlenih vozača predviđeno u pobijanoj direktivi ne može se smatrati nerazmjernim i neprihvatljivim zahvatom kojim se povređuje sama bit slobode obavljanja zanimanja i slobode poduzetništva, kao ni povredom načela proporcionalnosti.
61 It follows that these pleas must be rejected in their entirety. 
61 Iz toga slijedi da ove tužbene razloge valja odbiti u cijelosti.
Plea of breaches of the principle of non-discrimination and of Article 74 EC 
Tužbeni razlog vezan uz povredu načela nediskriminacije i članka 74. UEZ-a
62 The Kingdom of Spain submits that, as a result of their inclusion in the scope of the contested directive, self-employed carriers suffer unjustified discrimination in comparison with employed workers, since situations which are entirely different are treated in the same way although there is no objective justification for this. 
62 Kraljevina Španjolska ističe da samozaposleni prijevoznici, zbog toga što su uključeni u područje primjene pobijane direktive, trpe neopravdanu diskriminaciju u usporedbi sa zaposlenim radnicima, s obzirom na to da se potpuno različite situacije tretiraju na jednaki način iako za to ne postoji objektivno opravdanje.
It also submits that that inclusion infringes the provisions of Article 74 EC. 
Ona također smatra da se tim uključivanjem krše odredbe članka 74. UEZ-a.
63 The Kingdom of Spain adds that road safety and the ensuring of free competition do not constitute objective reasons capable of justifying self-employed drivers being treated in the same way as employed workers. 
63 Kraljevina Španjolska dodaje da sigurnost na cestama i osiguravanje slobodnog tržišnog natjecanja ne predstavljaju objektivne razloge koji bi mogli opravdati da se samozaposleni vozači tretiraju na jednaki način kao zaposleni radnici.
In its view, first, road safety is not the objective of the contested directive and, second, the exclusion of self-employed drivers from the scope of that directive is not liable to distort competition in the transport market, in view in particular of the limits on driving time laid down by Regulation No 3820/85. 
Ona smatra da, s jedne strane, sigurnost na cestama nije cilj pobijane direktive i, s druge strane, da isključivanje samozaposlenih vozača iz područja primjene te direktive ne može narušiti tržišno natjecanje na tržištu prijevoza, posebice s obzirom na ograničenja vremena vožnje utvrđena Uredbom br. 3820/85.
64 It is settled case-law that the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and different situations must not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified (see inter alia Omega Air and Others, paragraph 79, and Case C-137/00 Milk Marque and National Farmers' Union [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraph 126). 
64 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, načelo nediskriminacije zahtijeva da se u usporedivim situacijama ne postupa na različit način i da se u različitim situacijama ne postupa na jednak način, osim ako je takvo postupanje objektivno opravdano (vidjeti osobito prethodno navedenu presudu Omega Air i dr., t. 79. i presudu od 9. rujna 2003., Milk Marque i National Farmers' Union, C-137/00, Zb., str. I-7975., t. 126.).
65 In the present case, it must be noted that, with respect to the organisation of their working time, to which the contested directive relates, self-employed and employed drivers are not in the same situation. 
65 U ovom predmetu valja primijetiti da što se tiče organizacije radnog vremena na koju se odnosi pobijana direktiva, samozaposleni i zaposleni vozači nisu u istoj situaciji.
The former must, in addition to activities directly linked to road transport, take on general administrative work which does not concern the latter. 
Prvi, uz aktivnosti izravno povezane s cestovnim prijevozom, moraju preuzeti i opći administrativni posao koji se potonjih ne tiče.
66 A reading of the provisions of Article 3(a) of the contested directive which concern the definition of working time in the cases of employed mobile workers and self-employed drivers respectively shows that the Community legislature took account of that difference of situation. 
66 Iz odredaba članka 3. stavka (a) pobijane direktive, koje se odnose na definiciju radnog vremena u slučaju zaposlenih mobilnih radnika za razliku od slučaja samozaposlenih vozača, jasno je da je zakonodavac Zajednice vodio računa o toj razlici.
With respect to employed workers, the directive regulates the whole of their working time, namely the time devoted to road transport activities as listed in the first indent of Article 3(a)(1) and also `the times during which [the mobile worker] cannot freely dispose of his time and is required to be at his workstation, ready to take up normal work, with certain tasks associated with being on duty ...' (second indent of Article 3(a)(1)). 
U odnosu na zaposlene radnike, direktiva uređuje čitavo njihovo radno vrijeme, tj. vrijeme posvećeno djelatnostima cestovnog prijevoza navedenima u prvoj alineji članka 3. stavka (a) točke 1., kao i „vrijeme tijekom kojeg radnik ne može slobodno raspolagati svojim vremenom te mora biti na svojem radnom mjestu, spreman poduzeti svoje uobičajene poslove, pri čemu su neki poslovi povezani uz s dežurstvima [...]" (članak 3. stavak (a) točka 1. druga alineja).
With respect to self-employed drivers, it confines itself to regulating the part of their activities which they have in common with employed workers, namely the road transport activities mentioned above, while excluding from its scope the activities, peculiar to the status of self-employed worker, corresponding to the `general administrative work that is not directly linked to the specific transport operation underway' (Article 3(a)(2)). 
U odnosu na samozaposlene vozače, ona se ograničava na uređenje dijela njihovih aktivnosti koje su njima i zaposlenim radnicima zajedničke, a to su prethodno navedene aktivnosti cestovnog prijevoza, dok iz svojeg područja primjene isključuje aktivnosti svojstvene statusu samozaposlenog radnika koje odgovaraju „općim administrativnim poslovima koji nisu izravno vezani uz određenu vožnju koja je u tijeku" (članak 3.(a) točka 2.).
67 Moreover, it must be emphasised that activities linked to road transport mean the same thing for employed and self-employed drivers, and in both cases cover not only driving but also a number of other activities directly linked to road transport, such as loading and unloading, assisting passengers boarding and disembarking from the vehicle, cleaning and technical maintenance, and all work intended to ensure the safety of the vehicle, its cargo and passengers and to fulfil legal or regulatory obligations (administrative and customs formalities etc.). 
67 Štoviše, valja naglasiti da djelatnosti povezane s cestovnim prijevozom zaposlenim i samozaposlenim vozačima znače isto, te u oba slučaja obuhvaćaju ne samo vožnju nego i niz drugih djelatnosti izravno povezanih s cestovnim prijevozom, kao što su utovar i istovar, pomoć putnicima kod ulaska i izlaska iz vozila, čišćenje i tehničko održavanje, te svi ostali poslovi čija je svrha osiguravanje sigurnosti vozila, njegova tereta i putnika ili ispunjavanje pravnih i regulatornih obveza (administrativne i carinske formalnosti itd.).
Consequently, the argument of the Kingdom of Spain that the contested directive obliges only self-employed drivers to count activities other than driving towards their working time, and thus places employed workers in a more favourable position than self-employed drivers as regards attribution of the permitted length of working time to the driving time allowed by Regulation No 3820/85, is unfounded. 
Stoga je neutemeljen argument Kraljevine Španjolske da pobijana direktiva obvezuje isključivo samozaposlene vozače da u svoje radno vrijeme ubroje aktivnosti koje nisu vožnja, te da na taj način zaposlene radnike dovodi u povoljniji položaj od samozaposlenih vozača s obzirom na pripisivanje dozvoljene duljine radnog vremena vremenu vožnje koje dopušta Uredba br. 3820/85.
68 Finally, while accepting that the contested directive must be regarded as a measure taken `in respect of transport rates and conditions' within the meaning of Article 74 EC, the analysis in paragraphs 54 to 56 above and the conditions under which it is envisaged, in Article 2(1) of that directive, that self-employed drivers are to be included within its scope mean that the Community legislature did not fail to fulfil its obligation to take into account the economic circumstances of carriers, in this case self-employed ones. 
68 Naposljetku, dopuštajući da se pobijana direktiva mora smatrati mjerom poduzetom „u odnosu na prijevozne naknade i uvjete" u smislu članka 74. UEZ-a, prema analizi u točkama 54. do 56. ove presude i uvjetima prema kojima je u članku 2. stavku 1. te direktive predviđeno da samozaposleni vozači moraju biti uključeni u područje njezine primjene isključeno je da je zakonodavac Zajednice propustio ispuniti svoju obvezu da uzme u obzir gospodarski položaj prijevoznikâ, u ovom slučaju onih koji su samozaposleni.
Plea of breach of Articles 137(2) EC and 157 EC 
Tužbeni razlog vezan uz povredu članka 137. stavka 2. UEZ-a i članka 157. UEZ-a