natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
78 The same applies with regard to the other legislative measures referred to by the claimants in the respective main proceedings. These relate to the content of products (Directives 70/524 and 1999/29) or procedures relating to food safety (Regulation No 178/2002), but none of these contains any provision imposing an obligation to indicate the ingredients on a product. Those legislative measures thus do not enable the authorities concerned or the person using a product to have sufficient information for the immediate adoption of appropriate preventive measures in the event of a food crisis. 
78 Isto vrijedi i za druge propise na koje upućuju tužitelji u glavnom postupku. Ti se propisi odnose na sadržaj proizvoda (Direktive 70/524 i 1999/29) ili na postupke povezane sa sigurnošću hrane (Uredba br. 178/2002), međutim nijedan ne sadržava odredbe kojima se određuje obveza navođenja sastojaka na proizvodu. Tim se propisima stoga dotičnim tijelima ili korisniku proizvoda ne omogućuje da na raspolaganju imaju informacije dostatne da u slučaju krize u području hrane mogu odmah poduzeli prikladne preventivne mjere.
79 The different claimants in the respective main proceedings argue that the indication of the exact percentages of the ingredients of a product is no guarantee that the compound feedingstuff is safe or that its ingredients are not contaminated. It must, however, be pointed out that the purpose of the obligation to indicate the ingredients is not to guarantee that there is no contamination but rather, in the event that those ingredients are contaminated, to allow rapid identification of the feedingstuffs containing those ingredients. 
79 Različiti tužitelji u glavnom postupku ističu da navođenje točnih postotaka sastojaka proizvoda nije jamstvo da je krmna smjesa sigurna ili da njezini sastojci nisu kontaminirani. Međutim, valja istaknuti da cilj obveze navođenja sastojaka nije jamstvo izostanka kontaminacije, već omogućavanje brze identifikacije hrane za životinje koja sadržava te sastojke u slučaju da su kontaminirani.
81 Apart from the indication of data within brackets, that is to say, with a margin of tolerance of ± 15% of the declared value, which must feature on the labelling of the product pursuant to Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2, the manufacturer is required, on request by a customer, to notify the latter in writing of the exact percentages by weight of the feed materials used in the feedingstuff, in accordance with Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2. 
81 Osim navođenja podataka u zagradama uz odstupanje od ±15 % od deklarirane vrijednosti koja mora biti navedena na oznaci proizvoda u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 4. Direktive 2002/2, proizvođač je obvezan na zahtjev obavijestiti korisnika u pisanom obliku o točnim masenim udjelima krmiva upotrijebljenih u hrani za životinje, u skladu s člankom 1. stavkom 1. točkom (b) te direktive.
83 An obligation of this kind cannot be justified by the objective of protecting public health which is being pursued and manifestly goes beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. It must be pointed out, inter alia, that this obligation is independent of any problem relating to foodstuff contamination and has to be met only if the customer so requests. Furthermore, it is clear from the explanations provided and from the examples submitted to the Court that the indication, on the labelling, of the percentages within brackets should normally make it possible to identify a foodstuff suspected of being contaminated, in order to assess the degree of danger which it represents in relation to the weight indicated and to decide, if necessary, to withdraw it temporarily pending the results of laboratory analyses, or for the establishment of the traceability of the product by the public authorities concerned. 
83 Takva se obveza ne može opravdati ciljem zaštite javnog zdravlja koji se nastoji ostvariti i njome se očito prelazi ono što je potrebno za njegovo ostvarivanje. Osobito valja istaknuti da ta obveza ne ovisi ni o jednom problemu koji se odnosi na kontaminaciju hrane za životinje i da se ona mora ispuniti samo na zahtjev korisnika. Osim toga, iz objašnjenja i primjera dostavljenih Sudu proizlazi da navođenjem postotaka u zagradama na oznaci uobičajeno treba omogućiti identifikaciju hrane za životinje za koju se sumnja da je kontaminirana kako bi se ocijenio stupanj opasnosti koju ona predstavlja u odnosu na navedenu masu i, ako je to potrebno, donijela odluka o njezinom privremenom povlačenju dok se čekaju rezultati laboratorijskih analiza odnosno kako bi dotična javna tijela uspostavila sljedivost proizvoda.
85 Regard being had to those factors, it must be held that Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2, which requires manufacturers of compound feedingstuffs to indicate, at a customer’s request, the exact composition of a feedingstuff, is invalid in the light of the principle of proportionality. By contrast, examination of the question submitted has not revealed any factor capable of affecting the validity of Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in the light of that principle. 
85 S obzirom na te elemente valja utvrditi da je članak 1. stavak 1. točka (b) Direktive 2002/2, kojim se od proizvođača krmnih smjesa za životinje zahtijeva da na zahtjev korisnika navedu točan sastav hrane za životinje, nevaljan s obzirom na načelo proporcionalnosti. Suprotno tome, ispitivanjem postavljenog pitanja nije otkriven nijedan element koji bi mogao utjecati na valjanost članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2 s obzirom na to načelo.
87 It must be noted in this regard that, as is clear from settled case-law, the right to property, in the same way as the freedom to pursue an economic activity, forms part of the general principles of Community law. However, those principles are not absolute but must be viewed in relation to their social function. Consequently, the exercise of the right to property and the freedom to pursue an economic activity may be restricted, provided that any restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of general interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute in relation to the aim pursued a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the rights guaranteed (see, most recently, Alliance for Natural Health and Others, cited above, paragraph 126). 
87 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da je pravo vlasništva, jednako kao i pravo slobodnog obavljanja gospodarske djelatnosti, dio općih načela prava Zajednice. Međutim, ta načela nisu apsolutna već ih valja promatrati imajući na umu njihovu ulogu u društvu. Shodno tome, ostvarivanje prava vlasništva i prava slobodnog obavljanja gospodarske djelatnosti mogu se ograničiti pod uvjetom da ta ograničenja doista odgovaraju ciljevima od općeg interesa koje Zajednica nastoji ostvariti i ne predstavljaju u odnosu na zadani cilj nerazmjeran i nedopustiv zahvat kojim se ugrožava sama bit tako zajamčenih prava (najnovija gore navedena presuda Alliance for Natural Health i dr., t. 126.).
90 Ferrari Mangimi Srl and the Spanish Government submit that this must be the case. They point out that the previous legislation imposed an obligation to indicate the feed materials in accordance with a provisional list and, in the event that that list could not be used, imposed the alternative obligation to declare the general categories of feed materials, such as those indicated in the annex to Directive 91/357. Directive 2002/2, they argue, repealed that legislation and provided for the establishment, by the Commission, of a positive list of feed materials. Following a study, however, the Commission concluded that the definition of such a list would not be entirely conclusive for the purpose of guaranteeing the safety of animal feedingstuffs and it did not submit any proposal for the establishment of such a list. The Commission’s report, they continue, stressed that it was impossible to include on a positive list thousands of separate products manufactured at different sites with a variety of technological methods and liable to present divergent levels of safety and differing nutritional and technical characteristics. That report also pointed out that the safety risk lay, not in the feed materials themselves, but rather in the possibility that they could be accidentally or maliciously contaminated. 
90 Ferrari Mangimi Srl i španjolska vlada tvrde da to mora biti tako. Upozoravaju da je prethodnim propisom bila određena obveza navođenja krmiva u skladu s privremenim popisom i, u slučaju nemogućnosti primjene tog popisa, alternativna obveza deklariranja općih kategorija krmiva, kao što su kategorije navedene u prilogu Direktivi 91/357. Tvrde da je Direktivom 2002/2 taj propis stavljen izvan snage te je predviđeno da će Komisija uspostaviti pozitivan popis krmiva. Međutim, nakon studije ta je institucija zaključila da utvrđivanje takvog popisa nije odlučujuće za osiguravanje sigurnosti hrane za životinje i nije podnijela prijedlog za uspostavljanje takvog popisa. U izvješću Komisije istaknuto je da nije bilo moguće u pozitivan popis uključiti tisuće različitih proizvoda proizvedenih na različitim lokacijama i različitim tehnologijama, koji se vjerojatno razlikuju prema razini sigurnosti te prehrambenim i tehničkim svojstvima. U tom se izvješću osim toga podsjeća i na to da rizik za sigurnost nisu sama krmiva, već mogućnost njihove slučajne ili zlonamjerne kontaminacije.
92 The Greek Government finds that, as the registration, on a single list, of the substances liable to be used has not been harmonised by Community legislation, the regulation of this is accordingly a matter for national law. That de facto situation does not, it argues, prevent effective application of Directive 2002/2 in the Member States. 
92 Grčka vlada smatra da je, budući da upis tvari koje se mogu upotrebljavati u jedinstveni popis nije usklađeno sa zakonodavstvom Zajednice, uređenje tog pitanja stvar nacionalnog prava. Tom se činjeničnom situacijom ne sprečava učinkovita primjena Direktive 2002/2 u državama članicama.
93 The Parliament, the Council and the Commission take the view that there is no connection between the adoption of the positive list envisaged in recital (10) in the preamble to Directive 2002/2, which is no more than an aspiration without any independent legal status and engages the Commission only in a political sense, and the implementation of the provisions on labelling. The Member States are therefore required to apply that directive independently of the adoption of such a list by confining themselves to insisting on the use of the common designations of the feed materials. 
93 Parlament, Vijeće i Komisija smatraju da ne postoji povezanost između donošenja pozitivnog popisa predviđenog desetom uvodnom izjavom Direktive 2002/2, koji je samo želja bez normativne vrijednosti i kojim se Komisija obvezuje samo u političkom smislu, i provedbe odredaba o označivanju. Stoga se od država članica zahtijeva primjena te direktive neovisno o donošenju takvog popisa, pri čemu se države članice ograničavaju na to da zahtijevaju primjenu zajedničkih naziva krmiva.
95 It follows from the wording of that recital that the establishment of a proposal for a positive list of feed materials can constitute only an aspiration on the part of the Community legislature. That recital envisages merely the carrying-out of a feasibility study, the drafting of a report and the submission of an appropriate proposal which takes account of the conclusions reached in that report. 
95 Iz teksta te uvodne izjave proizlazi da izrada prijedloga za pozitivan popis krmiva može značiti samo želju zakonodavca Zajednice. Uvodnom izjavom predviđeni su samo provedba studije izvedivosti, izrada izvješća i podnošenje odgovarajućeg prijedloga u kojem se uzimaju u obzir zaključci tog izvješća.
96 Moreover, the content of that recital is not reproduced in the operative part of the directive and examination of the directive does not in any way indicate that its implementation is contingent on the adoption of that positive list. More specifically, it does not appear that the labelling obligation cannot be complied with in the absence of such a list. 
96 Osim toga, sadržaj te uvodne izjave nije preuzet u izreci direktive, a ispitivanjem direktive ničime se ne upućuje na to da je njezina provedba uvjetovana donošenjem tog pozitivnog popisa. Točnije, čini se da se obveza označivanja može poštovati čak i ako ne postoji takav popis.
99 By its second question, the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage asks whether, if the conditions are satisfied under which a national court of a Member State is entitled to suspend implementation of a contested measure of the Community institutions, in particular where the question concerning the validity of that contested measure has already been referred by a national court of that Member State to the Court of Justice, the competent national authorities of the other Member States are themselves also entitled, without judicial intervention, to suspend application of that measure until such time as the Court of Justice has given a ruling on its validity. 
99 Svojim drugim pitanjem Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage pita imaju li, ako su zadovoljeni uvjeti prema kojima nacionalni sud države članice ima pravo suspendirati primjenu osporavanog akta institucija Zajednice, a osobito ako je nacionalni sud te države članice Sudu već postavio pitanje koje se odnosi na valjanost tog spornog akta, i nadležna nacionalna tijela drugih država članica pravo bez posredovanja sudova suspendirati primjenu tog akta dok Sud ne donese odluku o njegovoj valjanosti.
100 Nevedi, the claimant in the main proceedings in Case C-194/04, submits that the national court addressed its second question to the Court of Justice by reason of the fact that, as the body with competence to issue regulations applicable in matters of livestock feed in the Netherlands, the Productschap was about to suspend of its own motion, that is to say, without judicial intervention, the application of the open declaration rules pending a ruling by the Court in Case C-453/03. It was because of the refusal of the Minister concerned to suspend the applicable rules that Nevedi was constrained to institute legal proceedings and to request the Rechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, acting pursuant to its jurisdiction to grant interim relief, to suspend those rules. 
100 Nevedi, tužitelj u glavnom postupku u predmetu C-194/04, tvrdi da je sud koji je uputio zahtjev Sudu postavio drugo pitanje jer je Productschap, kao tijelo nadležno za donošenje propisa primjenjivih u području stočne hrane u Nizozemskoj, po službenoj dužnosti, odnosno bez posredovanja sudova, namjeravao suspendirati primjenu pravila o otvorenoj deklaraciji do donošenja odluke Suda u predmetu C-453/03. Zbog odbijanja dotičnog ministra da suspendira primjenjivi propis, Nevedi je bio prisiljen pokrenuti sudski postupak i zatražiti od suca privremene pravne zaštite suspendira taj propis.
101 Nevedi points out that, when the conditions which, according to the Court’s case-law, govern the possibility of relying on the provisions of a directive before a national court are satisfied, all authorities, including the administrative authorities, are themselves also obliged to apply those provisions (see Case 103/88 Fratelli Costanzo [1989] ECR 1839, paragraphs 31 and 32). If those administrative authorities are obliged, in the same way as the judicial authorities, to apply the provisions of a directive, they ought also to be authorised, on grounds of procedural economy, to suspend application of a disputed Community measure under the same conditions as are those judicial authorities. 
101 Nevedi podsjeća da ako su zadovoljeni uvjeti kojima je prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda uređena mogućnost pozivanja na odredbe direktive pred nacionalnim sudom, sva tijela, uključujući upravna tijela, i sama su dužna primjenjivati te odredbe (vidjeti presudu od 22. lipnja 1989., Fratelli Costanzo, 103/88, Zb., str. 1839., t. 31. i 32.). Ako su ta upravna tijela obvezna, jednako kao i pravosudna tijela, primjenjivati odredbe direktive, trebaju zbog ekonomičnosti postupka biti ovlaštena i za suspenziju primjene osporavanog akta Zajednice pod jednakom uvjetima kao i ta pravosudna tijela.
102 The Italian, Netherlands and Greek Governments, together with the Commission, refer to the Court’s case-law on interim measures, the guarantees of impartiality and independence provided by a national court, the need for a uniform application of Community law, and the objectives of the preliminary-ruling procedure. 
102 Talijanska, nizozemska i grčka vlada te Komisija podsjećaju na sudsku praksu Suda u području privremenih mjera, na osiguravanje nepristranosti i neovisnosti nacionalnih sudova, na potrebu za jedinstvenom primjenom prava Zajednice i na ciljeve prethodnog postupka.
"103 As the Court has held in its judgment in Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraph 18 (‘Zuckerfabrik’), references for preliminary rulings on the validity of a measure, like actions for annulment, allow the legality of acts of the Community institutions to be reviewed. In the context of actions for annulment, Article 242 EC enables applicants to request enforcement of the contested act to be suspended and empowers the Court to order such suspension. The coherence of the system of interim legal protection therefore requires that national courts should also be able to order suspension of enforcement of a national administrative measure based on a Community regulation, the legality of which is contested (see also Case C-465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I) [1995] ECR I-3761, paragraph 22, and Case C-68/95 T. Port [1996] ECR I-6065, paragraph 49; on the Court’s lack of jurisdiction to order interim measures in the context of preliminary-ruling proceedings, see the order of the President of the Court in Case C-186/01 R Dory [2001] ECR I-7823, paragraph 13)." 
103 Kao što je Sud istaknuo u presudi od 21. veljače 1991., Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen i Zuckerfabrik Soest (C-143/88 i C-92/89, Zb., str. I-415., t. 18., u daljnjem tekstu: presuda Zuckerfabrik), zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o procjeni valjanosti, jednako kao i tužba za poništenje, je vrsta nadzora zakonitosti akata tijela Zajednice. Članak 242. UEZ-a, u okviru tužbe za poništenje, tužitelju daje mogućnost da zahtijeva suspenziju primjene pobijanog akta, a Sudu ovlast da je odredi. Koherentnost sustava privremene zaštite stoga zahtijeva da nacionalni sudac može jednako tako odrediti suspenziju primjene nacionalnog upravnog akta koji se temelji na propisu Zajednice čija se valjanost osporava (vidjeti i presude od 9. studenoga 1995., Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), C-465/93, Zb., str. I-3761., t. 22., i od 26. studenoga 1996., T. Port, C-68/95, Zb., str. I-6065., t. 49., u vezi s nenadležnošću Suda za odlučivanje o privremenim mjerama u okviru prethodnog postupka vidjeti rješenje predsjednika Suda od 24. listopada 2001., Dory, C-186/01 R, Zb., str. I-7823., t. 13.).
"105 The Court has pointed out in particular that, in order to determine whether the conditions relating to urgency and the risk of serious and irreparable damage have been satisfied, the national court dealing with the application for interim relief must examine the circumstances particular to the case before it and consider whether immediate enforcement of the measure which is the subject of the application for interim relief would be likely to result in irreversible damage to the applicant which could not be made good if the Community act were to be declared invalid (Zuckerfabrik, paragraph 29; Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), cited above, paragraph 41)." 
105 Sud je osobito naveo da nacionalni sud koji odlučuje o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu mora, kada utvrđuje jesu li ispunjeni uvjeti koji se odnose na hitnost te rizik velike i nenadoknadive štete, ispitati okolnosti svojstvene svakom pojedinom slučaju i procijeniti elemente koji omogućavaju da se utvrdi uzrokuje li tužitelju neodgodiva primjena akta koji je predmet zahtjeva za suspenziju nenadoknadivu štetu, koju ne bi bilo moguće popraviti da akt Zajednice treba proglasiti nevaljanim (gore navedene presude Zuckerfabrik, t. 29., i Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 41.).
106 As the court responsible for applying, within the framework of its jurisdiction, the provisions of Community law and consequently under an obligation to ensure that Community law is fully effective, the national court, when dealing with an application for interim relief, must take account of the damage which the interim measure may cause to the legal regime established by a Community measure for the Community as a whole. It must consider, on the one hand, the cumulative effect which would arise if a large number of courts were also to adopt interim measures for similar reasons and, on the other, those special features of the applicant’s situation which distinguish it from the other operators concerned (Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), paragraph 44). 
106 Nacionalni sud, kao sud koji je odgovoran za primjenu odredaba prava Zajednice u okviru svoje nadležnosti i koji je stoga obvezan osigurati puni učinak prava Zajednice, treba pri odlučivanju o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu uzeti u obzir štetu koju bi privremena mjera mogla uzrokovati pravnom sustavu koji je aktom Zajednice uspostavljen za Zajednicu kao cjelinu. On treba razmotriti, s jedne strane, kumulativni učinak koji bi nastao kada bi veliki broj sudova jednako tako donio privremene mjere iz sličnih razloga i, s druge strane, specifičnost situacije tužitelja prema kojoj se razlikuje od drugih zainteresiranih gospodarskih subjekata (gore navedena presuda Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 44.).
"107 In particular, if the grant of interim relief may represent a financial risk for the Community, the national court must also be in a position to require the applicant to provide adequate guarantees, such as the deposit of money or other security (Zuckerfabrik, paragraph 32; Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I), paragraph 45)." 
107 Osobito ako odobrenje privremene pravne zaštite može imati za posljedicu financijski rizik za Zajednicu, nacionalni sud treba usto imati mogućnost tužitelju naložiti davanje odgovarajućeg jamstva, poput uplate pologa ili drugog osiguranja (gore navedene presude Zuckerfabrik, t. 32., i Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I), t. 45.).
109 In this context, it is in particular appropriate to point out that the actual status of those authorities is not in general such as to guarantee that they have the same degree of independence and impartiality as that which national courts are recognised as having. Likewise, it is not certain that such authorities would benefit from the exercise of the adversarial principle inherent to judicial proceedings, which allows account to be taken of the arguments put forward by the different parties before the interests in issue are weighed one against the other at the time when a decision is being taken. 
109 U tom kontekstu osobito valja istaknuti da se općenito već zbog samog položaja tih tijela ne može jamčiti jednaki stupanj njihove neovisnosti i nepristranosti kao onaj koji se priznaje nacionalnim sudovima. Jednako tako nije sigurno da će takva tijela imati koristi od načela kontradiktornosti koje je svojstveno sudskom postupku i na temelju kojeg se omogućuje uzimanje u obzir argumenata različitih stranaka prije nego se postojeći interesi odvagnu pri donošenju odluke.