natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2. Without prejudice to the exchange and to the use of information foreseen in Articles 11, 12, 14, 15 and 27, the Commission and the competition authorities of the Member States, their officials, servants and other persons working under the supervision of these authorities as well as officials and civil servants of other authorities of the Member States shall not disclose information acquired or exchanged by them pursuant to this Regulation and of the kind covered by the obligation of professional secrecy. 
2. Ne dovodeći u pitanje razmjenu i korištenje informacija iz članaka 11., 12., 14., 15. i 27., Komisija i tijela država članica nadležna za tržišno natjecanje, njihove službene osobe, zaposlenici i ostale osobe koje rade pod nadzorom navedenih tijela kao i službene osobe i zaposlenici drugih tijela država članica ne smiju otkriti informacije koje su pribavili ili razmijenili u skladu s ovom Uredbom te onom koja uređuje obvezu čuvanja poslovne tajne.
This obligation also applies to all representatives and experts of Member States attending meetings of the Advisory Committee pursuant to Article 14.' 
Ova obveza se također odnosi na sve predstavnike i stručnjake država članica koji prisustvuju sastancima Savjetodavnog odbora u skladu s člankom 14."
The Financial Regulation 
Financijska uredba
10 Under Article 50 of the Financial Regulation, the Commission is to confer on the other institutions the requisite powers for the implementation of the sections of the budget relating to them. 
10 Na temelju članka 50. Financijske uredbe Komisija dodjeljuje ostalim institucijama potrebne ovlasti za izvršenje dijelova proračuna koji se na njih odnose.
11 Pursuant to Article 59 of the Financial Regulation: 
11 U skladu s člankom 59. Financijske uredbe:
`1. The institution shall perform the duties of authorising officer. 
„1. Institucija izvršava dužnosti dužnosnika za ovjeravanje.
... 2. Each institution shall lay down in its internal administrative rules the staff of an appropriate level to whom it delegates in compliance with the conditions in its rules of procedure the duties of authorising officer, the scope of the powers delegated and the possibility for the persons to whom these powers are delegated to sub delegate them. 
[...] 2. Svaka institucija određuje u svojim unutarnjim administrativnim pravilima osobe odgovarajuće stručnosti, na koje u skladu s uvjetima iz svojeg poslovnika delegira dužnosti dužnosnika za ovjeravanje, opseg delegiranih ovlasti, kao i mogućnost za osobe na koje su te ovlasti delegirane da ih dalje delegiraju na druge osobe.
12 Under Article 60(1) of the Financial Regulation, the authorising officer is to be responsible in each institution for implementing revenue and expenditure in accordance with the principles of sound financial management and for ensuring that the requirements of legality and regularity are complied with. 
12 Prema članku 60. stavku 1. Financijske uredbe, dužnosnik za ovjeravanje odgovoran je u svakoj instituciji za izvršenje prihoda i rashoda, u skladu s načelima dobrog financijskog upravljanja, te za osiguranje usklađenosti sa zahtjevima zakonitosti i pravilnosti.
13 Article 103 of the Financial Regulation provides as follows: 
13 Članak 103. Financijske uredbe određuje:
`Where the award procedure proves to have been subject to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud, the institutions shall suspend the procedure and may take whatever measures are necessary, including the cancellation of the procedure. 
„Ako se u postupku sklapanja ugovora pojave značajne pogreške, nepravilnosti ili prijevara, institucije suspendiraju postupak te mogu poduzeti sve potrebne mjere, uključujući i poništenje postupka.
Where, after the award of the contract, the award procedure or the performance of the contract prove to have been subject to substantial errors, irregularities or fraud, the institutions may, depending on the stage reached in the procedure, refrain from concluding the contract or suspend performance of the contract or, where appropriate, terminate the contract. 
Ako se nakon sklapanja ugovora utvrdi da je u postupku sklapanja ugovora ili pri izvršenju ugovora bilo značajnih pogrešaka, nepravilnosti ili prijevara, institucije mogu, ovisno o fazi u kojoj se nalazi postupak, odustati od sklapanja ugovora ili suspendirati izvršenje ugovora ili, ako je potrebno, raskinuti ugovor.
Where such errors, irregularities or fraud are attributable to the contractor, the institutions may in addition refuse to make payments, may recover amounts already paid or may terminate all the contracts concluded with this contractor, in proportion to the seriousness of the errors, irregularities or fraud.' 
Ako se takve pogreške, nepravilnosti ili prijevara mogu pripisati izvoditelju, institucije dodatno mogu odbiti izvršiti plaćanje ili mogu zahtijevati povrat već plaćenih iznosa, proporcionalno težini pogrešaka, nepravilnosti ili prijevare."
14 Article 104 of that regulation provides that: 
14 Članak 104. te uredbe određuje:
`The Community institutions shall be deemed to be contracting authorities in the case of contracts awarded on their own account. ...' 
„Institucije Zajednice smatraju se javnim naručiteljima u slučaju ugovora koje sklapaju u svoje ime. [...]"
Commission Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC 
Komunikacija Komisije o suradnji između Komisije i nacionalnih sudova u primjeni članaka 81. i 82. UEZ-a
15 In accordance with point 26 of the Commission Notice on the co-operation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ 2004 C 101, p. 54), `... [t]he Commission will not transmit to national courts information voluntarily submitted by a leniency applicant without the consent of that applicant'. 54), `... [t]he Commission will not transmit to national courts information voluntarily submitted by a leniency applicant without the consent of that applicant'. 
15 U skladu s točkom 26. komunikacije Komisije o suradnji između Komisije i nacionalnih sudova u primjeni članaka 81. i 82. UEZ-a (SL 2004 C 101, str. 54.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 8., svezak 1., str. 242.), [...] „Komisija [...] nacionalnom sudu neće proslijediti informacije dostavljene naklonošću podnositelja bez njegova pristanka."
16 Article 17 of the code on civil procedure provides that: 
16 Članak 17. Zakonika o parničnom postupku određuje:
`An action shall not be admissible if the claimant does not have locus standi and sufficient legal interest to bring it.' 
„Tužba nije dopuštena ako tužitelj nema procesnu legitimaciju ni dostatni pravni interes da je podigne."
17 Article 1382 of the Civil code provides: 
17 Članak 1382. Građanskog zakonika određuje:
`Any act of an individual, which causes damage to another, obliges the one whose fault has caused it, to make good the damage.' 
„Svako postupanje pojedinca koje uzrokuje štetu drugom pojedincu obvezuje onoga čijom je krivnjom šteta uzrokovana da nadoknadi štetu."
Background to the main proceedings 
Okolnosti spora u glavnom postupku
18 After receiving a number of complaints, the Commission, in 2004, began an investigation into the possible existence of a cartel among the four major European manufacturers of elevators and escalators, namely the Otis, Kone, Schindler and ThyssenKrupp groups. 
18 Nakon što je primila nekoliko pritužbi, Komisija je 2004. započela istragu o mogućem postojanju sporazuma četiri velika europska proizvođača dizala i pokretnih stepenica, poimence grupâ Otis, Kone, Schindler i ThyssenKrupp.
The investigation culminated in Commission Decision C(2007) 512 final of 21 February 2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case COMP/E-1/38.823 ‐ Elevators and Escalators) (`the decision of 21 February 2007'). 
Kao rezultat istrage donesena je Odluka Komisije od 21. veljače 2007. o postupku primjene članka 81. Ugovora o EZ-u (predmet COMP/E-1/38.823 - Dizala i pokretne stepenice) [C(2007) 512 final] (dalje u tekstu: Odluka od 21. veljače 2007.).
19 In that decision the Commission found that the undertakings to which it was addressed, including the defendants in the main proceedings, had infringed Article 81 EC by allocating tenders and other contracts in Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands in order to share markets and fix prices, by agreeing on a compensation scheme in certain cases, by exchanging information on sales volumes and prices and by participating in regular meetings and by establishing other contacts in order to decide on the abovementioned restrictions and implement them. 
19 U toj odluci Komisija je utvrdila da su poduzetnici kojima je upućena, uključujući tuženike u glavnom postupku, povrijedili članak 81. UEZ-a time što su si pozive na nuđenje i druge ugovore u Belgiji, Njemačkoj, Luksemburgu i Nizozemskoj međusobno raspoređivali s ciljem podjele tržišta i utvrđivanja cijena dogovarajući se u određenim slučajevima o mehanizmu naknada, razmjenjujući informacije o obujmu prodaje i cijenama, sudjelujući na redovnim sastancima i uspostavljajući druge kontakte kako bi odredili i proveli gore spomenuta ograničenja.
The Commission imposed fines totalling more than EUR 990 million in respect of those infringements. 
Za te je povrede Komisija izrekla novčane kazne u ukupnom iznosu od preko 992 milijuna eura.
20 Several companies, including the defendants in the main proceedings, brought actions for annulment of that decision before the General Court of the European Union. 
20 Nekoliko društava, uključujući tuženike u glavnom postupku, podnijelo je pred Općim sudom Europske unije tužbe za poništenje te odluke.
21 By judgments of 13 July 2011 in Case T-138/07 Schindler Holding and Others v Commission [2011] ECR II-4819 [HYPERLINK: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/query.html?DN=62007T?0138&locale=EN], Cases T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 and T-146/07 General Technic-Otis v Commission [2011] ECR II-4977, Cases T-144/07, T-147/07 to T-150/07 and T-154/07 ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs v Commission [2011] ECR II-5129 and Case T-151/07 Kone and Others v Commission [2011] ECR II-5313, the General Court dismissed those actions, with the exception of the actions brought by the ThyssenKrupp group, which it upheld in part with regard to the amounts of the fines. 
21 Presudama od 13. srpnja 2011., Schindler Holding i dr./Komisija (T-138/07, Zb., str. II-4819.), General Technic-Otis/Komisija (T-141/07, T-142/07, T-145/07 i T-146/07, Zb., str. II-4977.), ThyssenKrupp Liften Ascenseurs/Komisija (T-144/07, T-147/07 do T-150/07 i T-154/07, Zb., str. II-5129.), i Kone i dr./Komisija (T-151/07, Zb., str. II-5313.), Opći sud odbio je te tužbe, uz izuzetak onih koje je podnijela grupa ThyssenKrupp, koje su djelomično prihvaćene u pogledu iznosa novčanih kazni.
22 The applicants went on to bring appeals before the Court of Justice, seeking to have those judgments set aside. 
22 Slijedom toga tužitelji su Sudu podnijeli žalbe radi ukidanja tih presuda.
The appeals were registered under case numbers C-493/11 P, C-494/11 P, C-501/11 P, C-503/11 P to 506/11 P, C-510/11 P, C-516/11 P and C-519/11 P. By orders of 24 April and 8 May 2012, the President of the Court ordered Cases C-503/11 P to 506/11 P, C-516/11 P and C-519/11 P to be removed from the register of the Court. By orders of 15 June 2012 in United Technologies v Commission and Otis Luxembourg and Others v Commission, the Court dismissed the appeals in Cases C-493/11 P and C-494/11 P. Cases C-501/11 P and C-510/11 P are pending before the Court. 
Žalbe su uvedene u upisnik pod brojevima C-493/11 P, C-494/11 P, C-501/11 P, C-503/11 P do 506/11 P, C-510/11 P, C-516/11 P i C-519/11 P. Rješenjima od 24. travnja i 8. svibnja 2012. predsjednik Suda izbrisao je iz upisnika Suda predmete C-503/11 P do 506/11 P, C-516/11 P i C-519/11 P. Rješenjima od 15. lipnja 2012., United Technologies/Komisija i Otis Luxembourg i dr./Komisija, odbijene su žalbe u predmetima C-493/11 P i C-494/11 P. Predmeti C-501/11 P i C-510/11 P u tijeku su pred Sudom.
Proceedings before the referring court 
Postupak pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev
23 By an originating summons dated 20 June 2008, the European Community, now the European Union (`the EU'), represented by the Commission, brought proceedings before the referring court, seeking, primarily, an order that the defendants in the main proceedings pay the EU the provisional sum of EUR 7 061 688 (exclusive of interest and costs) in respect of the loss sustained by it as a result of the anti-competitive practices established in the decision of 21 February 2007. 
23 Uvodnim pozivom od 20. lipnja 2008. Europska zajednica, sada Europska unija, koju zastupa Komisija, podnijela je tužbu pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev tražeći u prvom redu da se izda nalog da tuženici u glavnom postupku Uniji plate privremeni iznos od 7 061 688 eura (bez kamata i troškova postupka) za gubitak koji je Unija imala zbog protutržišne prakse utvrđene odlukom od 21. veljače 2007.
The EU had concluded with the defendants in the main proceedings several contracts for the installation, maintenance and renewal of elevators and escalators in various buildings, located in Belgium and Luxembourg, of the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the Commission, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions of the European Union and the Publications Office of the European Union. 
Unija je ustvari s tuženicima u glavnom postupku sklopila nekoliko ugovora za ugradnju, održavanje i obnovu liftova i pokretnih stepenica u raznim zgradama Vijeća Europske unije, Europskog parlamenta, Komisije, Europskoga gospodarskog i socijalnog odbora, Odbora regija Europske unije i Ureda za publikacije Europske unije, smještenim u Belgiji i Luksemburgu.
In the alternative, the EU requested that an expert be appointed in order to determine, inter alia, the entirety of the loss sustained. 
Podredno, Unija je zahtijevala da se odredi stručnjak koji će utvrditi osobito sveukupnost pretrpljene štete.
24 The defendants in the main proceedings dispute the Commission's capacity to act as the EU's representative in the absence of express authorisation to that effect from the other EU institutions that have allegedly suffered harm as a result of the infringement in question. 
24 Tuženici u glavnom postupku osporavaju ovlast Komisije da postupa kao zastupnik Unije bez izričitog odobrenja drugih institucija Unije koje su navodno oštećene zbog dotične povrede.
They have also maintained that there is an infringement of the principles of judicial independence and equality of arms on account of the special role played by the Commission in proceedings relating to infringements of Article 81(1) EC. 
Osim toga istaknuli su i povredu načela neovisnosti suda i jednakosti oružja zbog posebne uloge koju Komisija ima u postupku u okviru postupka primjene članka 81. stavka 1. UEZ-a. Uzimajući u obzir činjenicu da je, u skladu s člankom 16.
They submit that, if account is taken of the fact that, under Article 16 of Regulation No 1/2003, the decision of 21 February 2007 is binding on the referring court, there is also an infringement of the principle that no one can be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in sua causa). 
Uredbe br. 1/2003, odluka od 21. veljače 2007. ograničavajuća za sud koji je uputio zahtjev, povrijeđeno je i načelo prema kojem nitko ne može biti sudac u vlastitoj stvari (nemo judex in sua causa).
25 The referring court has declared that it does not have jurisdiction with regard to the loss caused by the defendants in the main proceedings which are established in Luxembourg. 
25 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev proglasio se nenadležnim za štetu koju su uzrokovali tuženici u glavnom postupku s poslovnim nastanom u Luxembourgu.
26 In those circumstances, the Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Brussels Commercial Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
26 U tim je uvjetima Rechtbank van koophandel te Brussel (Trgovački sud u Bruxellesu) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) (a) The Treaty states in Article 282, now Article [3]35 [TFEU], that the [EU] is to be represented by the Commission. 
„1. (a) Na temelju članka 282. UEZ-a, koji je postao članak 335. UFEU-a, Uniju zastupa Komisija;
Article 335 TFEU, on the one hand, and Articles 103 and 104 of the Financial Regulation, on the other, state that, in administrative matters relating to their operation, the institutions concerned are to represent the [EU], with the possible result that [it] is the institutions, whether or not exclusively, ... which may be parties to legal proceedings. 
članak 335. UFEU-a, s jedne strane, i članci 103. i 104. Financijske uredbe, s druge strane, određuju da u administrativnim pitanjima povezanima s funkcioniranjem tih institucija dotične institucije zastupaju Uniju, a to može podrazumijevati da su te institucije ovlaštene, bez obzira na to imaju li izričito ovlaštenje ili ne, same se zastupati pred sudom;
There is no doubt that receipt by, amongst others, contractors of payment of inflated prices as a result of collusive practices comes within the concept of fraud. 
nema sumnje, osobito za poduzetnike, da je stvaranje kartela kojim su postigli pretjerano visoke cijene obuhvaćeno pojmom prijevare;
In Belgian national law there is the principle of `Lex specialis generalibus derogat'. To the extent to which that principle of law also finds acceptance in [EU] law, is it then not the case that the initiative for bringing the claims (except where the Commission itself was the contracting authority) was vested in the institutions concerned? 
u belgijskom nacionalnom pravu postoji načelo ‚lex specialis generalibus derogat'; budući da to načelo vrijedi i u europskom pravu, ne bi li trebalo smatrati da (osim u slučaju kada je sama Komisija naručitelj) inicijativa pokretanja postupka pripada dotičnim institucijama?
(b) (Subsidiary question) Ought the Commission not at least to have been conferred with authorisation by the institutions to represent them for the purpose of safeguarding their interests before the courts? 
(b) (podredno pitanje) Ne bi li Komisija u najmanju ruku trebala imati ovlaštenje institucija da ih zastupa u svrhu obrane njihovih interesa na sudu?
(2) (a) Article 47 of the [Charter] and Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human [Rights] and Fundamental Freedoms [signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 (the `ECHR')] guarantee every person's right to a fair trial as well as the related principle that no one can be a judge in his own cause. 
2. (a) Članak 47. [Povelje] i članak 6. stavak 1. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava [i temeljnih sloboda, potpisane 4. studenoga 1950. u Rimu (dalje u tekstu: EKLJP)] jamče pravo svake osobe na pošteno suđenje kao i na s tim povezano načelo da nitko ne može biti sudac u vlastitoj stvari;
Is it reconcilable with that principle if the Commission, in an initial phase, acts as the competition authority and penalises the conduct complained of - namely, the formation of a cartel - as a breach of Article 81 [EC], now Article 101 [TFEU] after it has itself conducted the investigation in that regard, and subsequently, in a second phase, prepares the proceedings for seeking compensation before the national court and takes the decision to bring those proceedings, while the same Member of the Commission is responsible for both matters, which are connected, a fortiori as the national court seised of the matter cannot depart from the decision imposing penalties? 
je li u skladu s tim načelom da, ako Komisija u početnoj fazi, nakon što je sama provela istragu u tom pogledu, postupa kao tijelo nadležno za tržišno natjecanje i kažnjava sporno ponašanje, odnosno stvaranje kartela, kao povredu članka 81. UEZ-a, koji je postao članak 101. UFEU-a, a naknadno, u drugoj fazi, priprema postupak u kojem pred nacionalnim sudom traži naknadu štete i donosi odluku da pokrene taj postupak, pri čemu je isti član Komisije odgovoran za obje stvari, koje su međusobno povezane, tim više što a fortiori nacionalni sud pred kojim se predmet vodi ne može odstupiti od odluke o kažnjavanju?
(b) (Subsidiary question) If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the [negative], (there is irreconcilability), how then must the victim (the Commission and/or the institutions and/or the [EU]) of an unlawful act (the formation of the cartel) assert its entitlement to compensation under [EU] law, which is likewise a fundamental right?' 
(b) (podredno pitanje) Ako je odgovor na pitanje iz točke 2.(a) [negativan] (u smislu da nespojivost postoji), kako je moguće da stranka (Komisija, institucije ili Unija) oštećena nezakonitim činom (stvaranjem kartela) sama mora isticati u pravu Unije svoje pravo na odštetu, koje je jedno od temeljnih prava?"
First question 
Prvo pitanje
27 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 282 EC and 335 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission is empowered to represent the EU before a national court in a civil action for damages in respect of loss caused to the EU by an agreement or practice prohibited by Articles 81 EC and 101 TFEU which may have affected certain public contracts awarded by various EU institutions and bodies, although it does not have authorisation from the other institutions or bodies concerned to represent them. 
27 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev svojim prvim pitanjem u biti pita treba li članke 282. UEZ-a i 335. UFEU-a tumačiti na način da Komisija ima ovlasti zastupati Uniju pred nacionalnim sudom u parničnom postupku za naknadu štete koja je Uniji prouzročena sporazumom ili praksom koji su zabranjeni člancima 81. UEZ-a i 101. UFEU-a, a mogli su utjecati na određene ugovore o javnoj nabavi koje su sklopile razne institucije i razna tijela Unije, iako za zastupanje dotičnih drugih institucija ili tijela nema ovlaštenje.
28 Until 1 December 2009, the date on which the FEU Treaty entered into force, Community representation before the courts of the Member States was governed by Article 282 EC. 
28 Do 1. prosinca 2009., dana stupanja na snagu UFEU-a, zastupanje Zajednice pred sudovima država članica bilo je uređeno člankom 282. UEZ-a.
29 Since the action before the referring court was brought prior to that date, consideration should be given to whether that article enabled the Commission to represent the Community in such an action. 
29 Budući da je tužba iz glavnog postupka podnesena prije toga datuma, prvo valja ispitati je li tim člankom Komisija bila ovlaštena zastupati Zajednicu u okviru takve tužbe.
30 It is clear from the wording of Article 282 EC that the Community may be a party to legal proceedings in each of the Member States and that, for that purpose, it is to be represented by the Commission. 
30 Iz odredaba članka 282. UEZ-a proizlazi da Zajednica može biti stranka u sudskom postupku u svakoj državi članici i da je u tu svrhu zastupa Komisija.
31 The defendants in the main proceedings contend, however, that Article 282 EC is only a general rule, from which Articles 274 EC and 279 EC derogate. 
31 Međutim, tuženici u glavnom postupku ističu da je članak 282. UEZ-a tek opće pravilo od kojeg se odstupa u člancima 274. UEZ-a i 279. UEZ-a.
They argue that the latter provisions have been implemented by the Financial Regulation, Articles 59 and 60 of which authorise each EU institution to implement its own budgetary items. 
Odredbe ta dva članka provedene su Financijskom uredbom, čiji članci 59. i 60. svakoj instituciji Unije dodjeljuju ovlasti za izvršenje vlastitih proračunskih stavaka.
They also maintain that it follows from Articles 103 and 104 of the Financial Regulation that it falls to each of those institutions - if they consider themselves to have suffered harm as a result of the infringement in question - to bring an action for damages, given that most of the contracts were awarded in their own name and on their own behalf. 
Nadalje, iz članaka 103. i 104. Financijske uredbe proizlazi da je na svakoj od tih institucija, ako se smatra oštećenom zbog dotične povrede, da pokrene tužbu za naknadu štete, budući da većinu ugovora dodjeljuju u svoje ime i za svoj račun.