natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
37 It is true that the Court has consistently held that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual and cannot therefore be relied on as such against an individual (see, inter alia, Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 20; Case C-192/94 El Corte Inglés [1996] ECR I-1281, paragraph 15; Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 108; and Kücükdeveci, paragraph 46). 
37 Točno je da u skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom direktiva ne može stvarati obveze za pojedinca te se stoga protiv njega nije moguće pozivati na direktivu kao takvu (vidjeti, osobito, presudu od 14. srpnja 1994., Faccini Dori, C-91/92, Zb., str. I-3325., t. 20.; od 7. ožujka 1996., El Corte Inglés, C-192/94, Zb., str. I-1281., t. 15.; ranije navedene presude Pfeiffer i dr., t. 108. i Kücükdeveci, C-555/07, Zb., str. I-365., t. 46.).
38 It should also be recalled however that, where a person is able to rely on a directive not as against an individual but as against the State he may do so regardless of the capacity in which the latter is acting, whether as employer or as public authority. 
38 Valja međutim također podsjetiti da, kada su stranke u sporu u mogućnosti pozvati se na direktivu u postupku protiv države a ne protiv pojedinca, mogu to učiniti bez obzira na svojstvo u kojem država djeluje, kao poslodavac ili javna vlast.
In either case it is necessary to prevent the State from taking advantage of its own failure to comply with European Union law (see, inter alia, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 49; Case C-188/89 Foster and Others [1990] ECR I-3313, paragraph 17; and Case C-343/98 Collino and Chiappero [2000] ECR I-6659, paragraph 22). 
U jednom i drugom slučaju treba, naime, izbjeći situaciju u kojoj bi država mogla imati koristi od svog nepoštovanja prava Unije (vidjeti osobito presudu od 26. veljače 1986., Marshall, 152/84, Zb., str. 723., t. 49.; od 12. srpnja 1990., Foster i dr., C-188/89, Zb., str. I-3313., t. 17. i od 14. rujna 2000., Collino i Chiappero, C-343/98, Zb., str. I-6659., t. 22.).
39 Thus the entities against which the provisions of a directive that are capable of having direct effect may be relied upon include a body, whatever its legal form, which has been made responsible, pursuant to a measure adopted by the State, for providing a public service under the control of the State and has for that purpose special powers beyond those which result from the normal rules applicable in relations between individuals (see, inter alia, Foster and Others, paragraph 20; Collino and Chiappero, paragraph 23; and Case C-356/05 Farrell [2007] ECR I-3067, paragraph 40). 
39 Stoga entiteti protiv kojih se može oslanjati na odredbe direktive koje su sposobne za izravni učinak obuhvaćaju tijelo, koji god da mu je pravni oblik, koje je odgovorno, temeljem mjere koju usvoji država, pružati javnu uslugu pod kontrolom države i koje u tu svrhu ima specijalne ovlasti izvan onih koje rezultiraju iz uobičajenih pravila primjenjivih u odnosima među pojedincima (vidjeti osobito ranije navedenu presudu Foster i dr., t. 20.; Collino i Chiappero, t. 23. i od 19. travnja 2007., Farrell, C-356/05, Zb., str. I-3067, t. 40.).
40 It is therefore for the national court to determine whether Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against the CICOA. 
40 Nacionalni sudac stoga treba odrediti može li se protiv CICOA pozvati na članak 7. stavak 1. Direktive 2003/88.
41 If that is the case, as Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 fulfils the conditions required to produce a direct effect, the consequence would be that the national court would have to disregard any conflicting national provision. 
41 Ako je to slučaj, članak 7. Direktive 2003/88, koji ispunjava uvjete potrebne za stvaranje izravnog učinka, imao bi za posljedicu to da bi nacionalni sud trebao zanemariti svaku suprotnu nacionalnu odredbu.
42 If that is not the case, it should be borne in mind that even a clear, precise and unconditional provision of a directive seeking to confer rights or impose obligations on individuals cannot of itself apply in proceedings exclusively between private parties (see Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 109). 
42 Ako to nije slučaj, valja podsjetiti da se čak i jasna, precizna i bezuvjetna odredba direktive koja dodjeljuje prava ili nameće obveze pojedincima ne može primijeniti kao takva u okviru spora koji suprotstavlja isključivo pojedince (vidjeti ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 109.).
43 In such a situation, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can none the less rely on the judgment in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357 in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained. 
43 U takvoj situaciji stranka koja je oštećena zbog neusklađenosti nacionalnog prava s pravom Unije može se pozvati na sudsku praksu proizašlu iz presude od 19. studenoga 1991., Francovich i dr. (C-6/90 i C-9/90, Zb., str. I-5357.), kako bi prema potrebi ostvarila naknadu pretrpljene štete.
44 The answer to the second question is therefore that 
44 Stoga na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti:
-- it is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail. -- 
uzimajući u obzir cjelokupno unutarnje pravo, a osobito članak L. 223-4 Zakonika o radu, i primjenjujući metode tumačenja koje su njime priznate, nacionalni sud treba utvrditi može li pronaći tumačenje tog prava koje dozvoljava izjednačavanje izostanka radnika zbog nesreće na putu na posao ili s posla s jednom od situacija obuhvaćenih tim člankom Zakonika o radu, kako bi se osigurala potpuna učinkovitost Direktive 2003/88 i postigao ishod dosljedan cilju koji se time želi postići.
if such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them. 
ako takvo tumačenje nije moguće, nacionalni sud treba utvrditi može li se, s obzirom na pravnu prirodu tuženika u glavnom postupku, pozvati na izravan učinak članka 7. stavka 1. Direktive 2003/88 protiv njih.
if the national court is unable to achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can none the less rely on the judgment in Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained. 
ako nacionalni sud nije u mogućnosti postići cilj utvrđen člankom 7. Direktive 2003/88, stranka koja je oštećena zbog neusklađenosti nacionalnog prava s pravom Unije može se pozvati na ranije navedenu presudu Francovich i dr., kako bi prema potrebi ostvarila naknadu pretrpljene štete.
45 By its third question, the national court asks, essentially, whether Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive. 
45 Svojim trećim pitanjem nacionalni sud u biti pita treba li članak 7. stavak 1. Direktive 2003/88 tumačiti tako da mu je protivna nacionalna odredba koja, ovisno o razlogu izostanka radnika zbog bolovanja, predviđa razdoblje plaćenog godišnjeg odmora koje je dulje ili jednako najkraćem razdoblju od četiri tjedna koje je zajamčeno tom direktivom.
46 In that regard, it should be noted, as was held in paragraph 30 above, that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 does not make any distinction, on grounds of the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, duly granted, and any worker, whether he be on sick leave following an accident at his place of work or elsewhere, or as the result of sickness of whatever nature or origin, is entitled to at least four weeks' paid annual leave. 
46 U tom smislu valja podsjetiti da, kako je navedeno u t. 30. ove presude, članak 7. Direktive 2003/88 ne radi nikakvu razliku na temelju razloga izostanka radnika zbog bolovanja koje je uredno odobreno te svaki radnik, bilo da je na bolovanju zbog nesreće na svojem radnom mjestu ili drugdje, ili zbog bolesti bez obzira na njezinu prirodu ili podrijetlo, ima pravo na najmanje četiri tjedna plaćenog godišnjeg odmora.
47 However, as stated both by the Advocate General in point 178 of her Opinion and by the European Commission in its written observations, the finding made in the preceding paragraph does not mean that Directive 2003/88 precludes national provisions giving entitlement to more than four weeks' paid annual leave, granted under the conditions for entitlement to, and granting of, the right to paid annual leave laid down by that national law. 
47 Međutim, kako su naveli nezavisna odvjetnica u točki 178. svojeg mišljenja i Europska komisija u svojim pisanim očitovanjima, utvrđenje iz prethodne točke ne znači da Direktiva 2003/88 isključuje nacionalne odredbe koje daju pravo na više od četiri tjedna plaćenog godišnjeg odmora, odobreno na temelju uvjeta za ostvarivanje i dodjelu prava na plaćeni godišnji odmor određenih tim nacionalnim pravom.
48 As appears expressly from Article 1(1) and (2)(a) and from Articles 7(1) and 15 of Directive 2003/88, the purpose of the directive is merely to lay down minimum safety and health requirements for the organisation of working time and it does not affect Member States' right to apply national provisions more favourable to the protection of workers. 
48 Kako izričito proizlazi iz članka 1. stavka 1. i stavka 2. točke (a) te članka 7. stavka 1. i članka 15. Direktive 2003/88, svrha direktive je samo utvrditi minimalne sigurnosne i zdravstvene uvjete za organizaciju radnog vremena te ona ne utječe na pravo država članica da primijene nacionalne odredbe koje su povoljnije za zaštitu radnika.
49 Thus it is permissible for Member States to provide that entitlement to paid annual leave under national law may vary according to the reason for the worker's absence on health grounds, provided that the entitlement is always equal to or exceeds the minimum period of four weeks laid down in Article 7 of that directive. 
49 Stoga je državama članicama dopušteno da predvide kako se pravo na plaćeni godišnji odmor, dodijeljeno na temelju nacionalnog prava, može razlikovati prema uzroku izostanka radnika zbog zdravstvenih razloga, pod uvjetom da je taj odmor uvijek dulji ili jednak najkraćem razdoblju od četiri tjedna kako je predviđeno u članku 7. navedene direktive.
50 It follows from the foregoing that Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive. 
50 Iz navedenog slijedi da članak 7. stavak 1. Direktive 2003/88 treba tumačiti tako da se ne protivi nacionalnoj odredbi koja, ovisno o razlogu izostanka radnika zbog bolovanja, predviđa razdoblje plaćenog godišnjeg odmora koje je dulje ili jednako najkraćem razdoblju od četiri tjedna, i koje je zajamčeno tom direktivom.
1. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time must be interpreted as precluding national provisions or practices which make entitlement to paid annual leave conditional on a minimum period of ten days' or one month's actual work during the reference period; 
1. Članak 7. stavak 1. Direktive 2003/88 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 4. studenoga 2003. o određenim vidovima organizacije radnog vremena treba tumačiti tako da su mu protivne nacionalne odredbe ili praksa, u skladu s kojom se pravo na plaćeni godišnji odmor uvjetuje razdobljem od najmanje deset dana ili mjesec dana stvarnog rada tijekom referentnog razdoblja.
2. It is for the national court to determine, taking the whole body of domestic law into consideration, in particular Article L. 223-4 of the Code du travail, and applying the interpretative methods recognised by domestic law, with a view to ensuring that Article 7 of Directive 2003/88 is fully effective and achieving an outcome consistent with the objective pursued by it, whether it can find an interpretation of that law that allows the absence of the worker due to an accident on the journey to or from work to be treated as being equivalent to one of the situations covered by that article of the Code du travail. 
2. Uzimajući u obzir cjelokupno unutarnje pravo, a osobito članak L. 223-4 Zakonika o radu, i primjenjujući metode tumačenja koje su njime priznate, nacionalni sud treba provjeriti može li pronaći tumačenje tog prava koje dozvoljava izjednačavanje izostanka radnika zbog nesreće na putu na posao ili s posla s jednom od situacija obuhvaćenih tim člankom Zakonika o radu, kako bi se osigurala potpuna učinkovitost članka 7. Direktive 2003/88 i postigao ishod dosljedan cilju koji se time želi postići.
If such an interpretation is not possible, it is for the national court to determine whether, in the light of the legal nature of the respondents in the main proceedings, the direct effect of Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 may be relied upon against them. 
Ako takvo tumačenje nije moguće, nacionalni sud treba utvrditi može li se, s obzirom na pravnu prirodu tuženika u glavnom postupku, pozvati na izravan učinak članka 7. stavka 1. Direktive 2003/88 protiv njih.
If the national court is unable to achieve the objective laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/88, the party injured as a result of domestic law not being in conformity with European Union law can none the less rely on the judgment of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others in order to obtain, if appropriate, compensation for the loss sustained. 
Ako nacionalni sud nije u mogućnosti postići cilj utvrđen člankom 7. Direktive 2003/88, stranka koja je oštećena zbog neusklađenosti nacionalnog prava s pravom Unije može se pozvati na presudu od 19. studenoga 1991., Francovich i dr. (C-6/90 i C-9/90), kako bi prema potrebi ostvarila naknadu pretrpljene štete. 3. Članak 7. stavak 1.
3. Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/88 must be interpreted as not precluding a national provision which, depending on the reason for the worker's absence on sick leave, provides for a period of paid annual leave equal to or exceeding the minimum period of four weeks laid down in that directive. 
Direktive 2003/88 treba tumačiti tako da mu nije protivna nacionalna odredba koja, ovisno o razlogu izostanka radnika zbog bolovanja, predviđa razdoblje plaćenog godišnjeg odmora koje je dulje ili jednako najkraćem razdoblju od četiri tjedna, i koje je zajamčeno tom direktivom.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Directive 2008/101/EC - Inclusion of aviation activities in that scheme - Validity - Chicago Convention - Kyoto Protocol - EU-United States Air Transport Agreement - Principles of customary international law - Legal effects thereof - Whether they may be relied upon - Extraterritoriality of European Union law - Meaning of `charges', `fees' and `taxes') 
„Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku - Direktiva 2003/87/EZ - Sustav trgovanja emisijskim jedinicama stakleničkih plinova - Direktiva 2008/101/EZ - Uključivanje zrakoplovnih djelatnosti u taj sustav - Valjanost - Čikaška konvencija - Kyotski protokol - Sporazum o zračnom prijevozu EU/Sjedinjene Države - Načela međunarodnog običajnog prava - Pravni učinci - Mogućnost pozivanja - Izvanteritorijalnost prava Unije - Značenje pojmova: ,nakadeʼ, ,pristojbeʼ i ,poreziʼ"
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), made by decision of 8 July 2010, received at the Court on 22 July 2010, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 267. UFEU-a, koji je uputio High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queenʼs Bench Division (Upravni sud), odlukom od 8. srpnja 2010., koju je Sud zaprimio 22. srpnja 2010., u postupku
Air Transport Association of America, 
Air Transport Association of America,
American Airlines Inc., 
American Airlines Inc.,
Continental Airlines Inc., 
Continental Airlines Inc.,
United Airlines Inc. 
United Airlines Inc.
v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, 
protiv Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,
interveners: 
uz sudjelovanje:
International Air Transport Association (IATA), 
International Air Transport Association (IATA),
National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), 
National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC),
Aviation Environment Federation, 
Aviation Environment Federation,
WWF-UK, 
WWF-UK,
European Federation for Transport and Environment, 
European Federation for Transport and Environment,
Environmental Defense Fund, 
Environmental Defense Fund,
Earthjustice, 
Earthjustice,
composed of V. Skouris, President, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot and A. Prechal, Presidents of Chambers, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Levits, A. Ó Caoimh, L. Bay Larsen, C. Toader (Rapporteur) and E. Jarašiūnas, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, A. Tizzano, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot i A. Prechal, predsjednici vijeća, A. Rosas, R. Silva de Lapuerta, E. Levits, A. Ó Caoimh, L. Bay Larsen, C. Toader (izvjestiteljica) i E. Jarašiūnas, suci,
the Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. and United Airlines Inc., by D. Wyatt QC and M. Hoskins and M. Chamberlain, Barristers, instructed by D. Das, Solicitor, 
za Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. i United Airlines Inc., D. Wyatt, QC, M. Hoskins i M. Chamberlain, barristers, koje je ovlastio D. Das, solicitor,
the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), by C. Quigley QC, 
za International Air Transport Association (IATA) i National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), C. Quigley, QC,
the Aviation Environment Federation, WWF-UK, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, Environmental Defense Fund and Earthjustice, by J. Turner QC and L. John, Barrister, instructed by K. Harrison, Solicitor, 
za Aviation Environment Federation, WWF-UK, European Federation for Transport and Environment, Environmental Defense Fund i Earthjustice, J. Turner, QC, i L. John, barrister, koje je ovlastio K. Harrison, solicitor,
the United Kingdom Government, by L. Seeboruth, acting as Agent, and S. Wordsworth, Barrister, 
za vladu Ujedinjene Kraljevine, L. Seeboruth, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju S. Wordswortha, barrister,
the Belgian Government, by T. Materne, acting as Agent, 
za belgijsku vladu, T. Materne, u svojstvu agenta,
the Danish Government, by C. Vang, acting as Agent, 
za dansku vladu, C. Vang, u svojstvu agenta,
the German Government, by T. Henze, J. Möller and N. Graf Vitzthum, acting as Agents, 
za njemačku vladu, T. Henze, J. Möller i N. Graf Vitzthum, u svojstvu agenata,
the Spanish Government, by M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent, 
za španjolsku vladu, M. Muñoz Pérez, u svojstvu agenata,
the French Government, by G. de Bergues, S. Menez and M. Perrot, acting as Agents, 
za francusku vladu, G. de Bergues, S. Menez i M. Perrot, u svojstvu agenata,
the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato, 
za talijansku vladu, G. Palmieri, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju P. Gentilija, avvocato dello Stato,
the Netherlands Government, by C. Wissels and J. Langer, acting as Agents, 
za nizozemsku vladu, C. Wissels i J. Langer, u svojstvu agenata,
the Polish Government, by M. Szpunar, M. Nowacki and K. Zawisza, acting as Agents, 
za poljsku vladu, M. Szpunar, M. Nowacki i K. Zawisza, u svojstvu agenata,
the Icelandic Government, by I. Lind Sæmundsdóttir, acting as Agent, 
islandsku vladu, I. Lind Sæmundsdóttir, u svojstvu agenta,
the Norwegian Government, by K. Moe Winther and M. Emberland, acting as Agents, 
za norvešku vladu, K. Moe Winther i M. Emberland, u svojstvu agenata,
the European Parliament, by I. Anagnostopoulou, R. Kaškina and A. Troupiotis, acting as Agents, 
za Europski parlament, I. Anagnostopolou, R. Kaškina i A. Troupiotis, u svojstvu agenata,
the Council of the European Union, by K. Michoel, E. Karlsson and A. Westerhof Löfflerová, acting as Agents, 
za Vijeće Europske unije, K. Michoel, E. Karlsson i A. Westerhof Löfflerová, u svojstvu agenata,
the European Commission, by E. White, K. Simonsson, K. Mifsud-Bonnici and S. Boelaert, acting as Agents, 
za Europsku komisiju, E. White, K. Simonsson, K. Mifsud-Bonnici i S. Boelaert, u svojstvu agenata,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns, first, the circumstances in which principles of customary international law and provisions of international treaties may be relied upon in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a measure and, secondly, the validity, in the light of international treaty law and customary international law, of Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ 2009 L 8, p. 3). 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se, s jedne strane, na okolnosti u kojima se u okviru zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti mjera može pozvati na načela međunarodnog običajnog prava i odredbe međunarodnih ugovora i, s druge strane, na valjanost Direktive 2008/101/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 19. studenoga 2008. o izmjeni Direktive 2003/87/EZ radi uključivanja zrakoplovnih djelatnosti u sustav trgovanja emisijskim jedinicama stakleničkih plinova unutar Zajednice, s obzirom na pravo međunarodnih ugovora i međunarodno običajno pravo (SL L 2009 L 8, str. 3.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 15., svezak 29., str. 213.).
2 The reference has been made in proceedings brought by the Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. and United Airlines Inc. (collectively `ATA and others') against the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change concerning the validity of the measures implementing Directive 2008/101 that have been adopted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između Air Transport Association of America, American Airlines Inc., Continental Airlines Inc. i United Airlines Inc. (dalje u tekstu zajedno: ATA i dr.), s jedne strane, i Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, s druge strane, u vezi s valjanošću mjera za provedbu Direktive 2008/101 koje je donijela Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske.
I - Legal context 
I - Pravni okvir
A - International law 
A - Međunarodno pravo
1. The Chicago Convention 
1. Čikaška konvencija
3 The Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago (United States) on 7 December 1944 (`the Chicago Convention'), has been ratified by all the Member States of the European Union, but the European Union is not itself a party to it. 
3 Konvenciju o međunarodnom civilnom zrakoplovstvu, potpisanu u Chicagu (Sjedinjene Države) 7. prosinca 1944. (dalje u tekstu: Čikaška konvencija) ratificirale su sve države članice Europske unije, ali sama Europska unija nije stranka te konvencije.