natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
14 It is possible for the Court to refuse to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court only where, inter alia, it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of Community law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical (British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 35, and Intertanko and Others, paragraph 32). 
14 Sud može odbiti donošenje odluke povodom prethodnog pitanja koje je uputio nacionalni sud samo kada, između ostaloga, očito proizlazi da tumačenje ili valjanost propisa Zajednice koje traži taj sud nije ni u kakvom odnosu s činjenicama ili svrhom glavnog postupka ili kada je problem hipotetske naravi (gore navedene presude British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 35., i Intertanko i dr., t. 32.).
15 In the case in the main proceedings, it is clear from the order for reference that Afton brought before the High Court an action for judicial review of the legality of the ‘intention and/or obligation’ of the United Kingdom Government to implement Directive 2009/30 even though, when that action was brought, the prescribed period for the transposition of that directive had not yet expired and no national measure transposing that directive had been adopted. Moreover, the mere fact that the Secretary of State for Transport has declared his intention to implement Directive 2009/30 justifies the view being taken that there is some disagreement between Afton and the Secretary of State (see, to that effect, British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 36). 
15 U glavnom postupku, iz odluke kojom se upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da je Afton podnio High Courtu zahtjev za sudski nadzor zakonitosti „namjere i/ili obveze” vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine da prenese Direktivu 2009/30 iako, kada je taj zahtjev upućen, rok propisan za prenošenje te direktive još nije istekao i nije donesena nijedna nacionalna mjera kojom se ta direktiva prenosi. Osim toga, sama činjenica da je Secretary of State for Transport izjavio da ima namjeru provesti Direktivu 2009/30 dovoljna je da se može smatrati da između Aftona i spomenutog Secretary of State postoji određeno neslaganje (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 36.).
16 Nor is it disputed before the Court of Justice that the questions submitted are relevant to the outcome of the main proceedings, as the adoption of national measures designed to transpose a directive into domestic law in the United Kingdom may be subject to the condition that the directive be valid (Intertanko and Others, paragraph 34). 
16 Na Sudu se ne osporava ni to da su upućena pitanja relevantna za ishod glavnog postupka budući da donošenje nacionalnih mjera s namjerom prenošenja direktive u pravni poredak Ujedinjene Kraljevine može biti podložno uvjetu da ta direktiva treba biti valjana (Intertanko i dr., t. 34.).
17 Accordingly, it is not obvious that the ruling sought by the referring court on the validity of Directive 2009/30 bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or is concerned with a hypothetical problem. 
17 U skladu s tim, nije očito da prethodna odluka koju sud koji je uputio zahtjev traži o valjanosti Direktive 2009/30 nije povezana s činjeničnim stanjem glavnog postupka ili s njegovim predmetom ili da se odnosi na problem hipotetske naravi.
18 As regards, secondly, the question of whether accepting the admissibility of an order for reference seeking a decision on validity in a situation such as that in the main proceedings could be tantamount to circumventing the requirements of Article 230 EC, it must be stated that, in the complete system of legal remedies and procedures established by the EC Treaty with a view to ensuring judicial review of the legality of acts of the institutions, where natural or legal persons cannot, by reason of the conditions for admissibility laid down in the fourth paragraph of that article, directly challenge Community measures of general application, they are able, depending on the case, either indirectly to plead the invalidity of such acts before the Community judicature under Article 241 EC or to do so before the national courts and ask them, since they have no jurisdiction themselves to declare those measures invalid, to make a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on validity (see British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 39). 
18 Što se tiče, kao drugo, pitanja o tome bi li prihvaćanje dopuštenosti zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti, u situaciji kao što je ova u glavnom postupku moglo biti ravno zaobilaženju odredaba iz članka 230. UEZ-a, valja istaknuti da u cijelom sustavu pravnih sredstava i postupaka koji su Ugovorom o EZ-u uspostavljeni s ciljem osiguravanja sudskog nadzora zakonitosti akata institucija, u kojem fizičke ili pravne osobe ne mogu, zbog uvjeta dopuštenosti utvrđenih u četvrtom stavku tog članka, izravno pobijati akte Zajednice opće primjene, te osobe mogu se, ovisno o slučaju, na temelju članka 241. UEZ-a, na nevaljanost tih akata neizravno pozivati pred sudom Zajednice ili pred nacionalnim sudovima i od njih tražiti da, budući da oni sami nemaju nadležnost proglasiti te akte nevaljanim, zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti upute Sudu (vidjeti British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 39.).
19 The question therefore arises whether an action for annulment by Afton, under the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, challenging the contested provisions, would undoubtedly have been admissible on the ground that those provisions were of direct and individual concern to it (see, to that effect, Case C-241/95 Accrington Beef and Others [1996] ECR I-6699, paragraph 15, and Case C-343/07 Bavaria and Bavaria Italia [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 40). 
19 Stoga se postavlja pitanje bi li tužba za poništenje koju je pokrenuo Afton, na temelju četvrtog stavka članka 230. UEZ-a, u kojem se osporavaju sporne odredbe, nesumnjivo bio dopušten kada bi se te odredbe „odnosile izravno i osobno” na njega (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 12. prosinca 1996., Accrington Beef i dr., C-241/95, Zb., str. I-6699., t. 15. i od 2. srpnja 2009., Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, C-343/07, Zb., str. I-5491., t. 40.).
20 In that regard, it must be observed that Afton cannot be regarded, for the purpose of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, as undoubtedly ‘directly and individually concerned’ by the contested provisions (Bavaria and Bavaria Italia, paragraph 41). 
20 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da se ne može smatrati, za potrebe četvrtog stavka članka 230. UEZ-a, da se sporne odredbe „odnose izravno i osobno” na Afton (gore navedena presuda Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, t. 40.).
21 According to settled case-law, in order for traders to be regarded as being individually concerned by the measure they seek to have annulled, their legal position must be affected by reason of circumstances which differentiate them from all other persons and distinguish them individually just as in the case of the person addressed (see Case 25/62 Plaumann v Commission [1963] ECR 95, 107, and Case C-309/89 Codorniu v Council [1994] ECR I-1853, paragraph 20). 
21 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, za akt čije poništenje gospodarski subjekti traže smatra se da se odnosi na njih osobno samo ako akt utječe na njihov pravni položaj zbog neke činjenične situacije koja ih razlikuje od bilo koje druge osobe, izdvajajući ih uslijed toga pojedinačno, poput osoba kojima je akt upućen (vidjeti presude od 15. srpnja 1963., Plaumann/Komisija, 25/62, Zb., str. 197., 223., i od 18. svibnja 1994. Codorniu/Vijeće, C-309/89, Zb., str. I-1853., t. 20.).
22 In the case in the main proceedings, it is clear that the provisions of Directive 2009/30 which the applicant seeks to annul concern all producers of MMT. 
22 U glavnom postupku jasno je da se odredbe Direktive 2009/30, čije se poništenje traži, odnose na sve proizvođače MMT-a.
23 Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30 does not specifically refer to Afton and is of concern to it only in its objective capacity as a producer of MMT in the same way as any other trader which is currently or potentially in the same situation. 
23 Članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30 ne odnosi se izričito na Afton i tiče ga se samo u njegovom objektivnom svojstvu proizvođača MMT-a jednako kao što se tiče bilo kojeg drugog gospodarskog subjekta koji je trenutačno ili potencijalno u istoj situaciji.
24 Moreover, it must also be borne in mind that the possibility of determining more or less precisely the number, or even the identity, of the persons to whom a measure applies by no means implies that it must be regarded as being of individual concern to them, as long as it is established that, as in the present case, that application takes effect by virtue of an objective legal or factual situation defined by the measure in question (see, inter alia, Case C-451/98 Antillean Rice Mills v Council [2001] ECR I-8949, paragraph 52, and order of 8 April 2008 in Case C-503/07 P Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland v Commission [2008] ECR I-2217, paragraph 70). 
24 Valja također podsjetiti da mogućnost da se s više ili manje točnosti odredi broj ili čak identitet pravnih subjekata na koje se primjenjuje neka mjera ni u kojem slučaju ne znači kako treba smatrati da se ta mjera osobno odnosi na te subjekte sve dok se njezina primjena ostvaruje, kao u ovom predmetu, na temelju objektivnih pravnih ili činjeničnih okolnosti određenih u predmetnom aktu (vidjeti osobito presudu od 22. studenoga 2001., Antillean Rice Mills/Vijeće, C-451/98, Zb., str. I-8949., t. 52., i rješenje od 8. travnja 2008., Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland/Komisija, C-503/07 P, Zb., str. I-2217., t. 70.).
25 The court must therefore find that Afton did not undoubtedly have standing to bring an action for annulment against the contested provisions on the basis of Article 230 EC. Consequently, Afton is entitled, in an action brought in accordance with national law, to plead the invalidity of those provisions even though it did not bring an action for their annulment before the Community judicature within the period laid down in Article 230 EC (see, to that effect, Bavaria and Bavaria Italia, paragraph 46). 
25 Valja dakle utvrditi da nije bilo nedvojbeno da Afton ima postupovnu legitimaciju za pokretanje postupka za poništenje spornih odredaba na temelju članka 230. UEZ-a. Slijedom navedenog, u postupku pokrenutom u skladu s nacionalnim pravom Afton ima pravo pozivati se na nevaljanost tih odredaba čak i ako postupak za njihovo poništenje pred sudom Zajednice nije pokrenuo u roku utvrđenom u članku 230. UEZ-a (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu Bavaria i Bavaria Italia, t. 46.).
26 It follows from all of the foregoing that the questions referred by the referring court are admissible. 
26 Iz svega gore navedenog proizlazi da su pitanja suda koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopuštena.
27 By its first question, the referring court seeks, in essence, to ascertain whether Article 1(8) of Directive 2009/30, which inserts Article 8a(2) in Directive 98/70, is invalid inasmuch as it limits the use of MMT in fuel after 1 January 2011. 
27 Svojim prvim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku u biti pita je li članak 1. stavak 8. Direktive 2009/30, kojim se u Direktivu 98/70 umeće članak 8.a stavak 2., nevaljan u dijelu u kojem ograničava uporabu MMT-a u gorivu nakon 1. siječnja 2011.
Whether there was a manifest error of assessment 
Postojanje očite pogreške u ocjeni
28 First, the point must be made that, in an area of evolving and complex technology such as that in the case in the main proceedings, the European Union legislature has a broad discretion, in particular as to the assessment of highly complex scientific and technical facts in order to determine the nature and scope of the measures which it adopts, whereas review by the Community judicature has to be limited to verifying whether the exercise of such powers has been vitiated by a manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers, or whether the legislature has manifestly exceeded the limits of its discretion. In such a context, the Community judicature cannot substitute its assessment of scientific and technical facts for that of the legislature on which the Treaty has placed that task (see to that effect Case C-425/08 Enviro Tech (Europe) [2009] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47 and case-law there cited). 
28 Prvo, valja napomenuti da u području složene tehnologije koja se neprestano razvija, kao što je ona u glavnom postupku, zakonodavac Unije ima široku diskrecijsku ovlast, posebno u pogledu procjene izrazito složenih i tehničkih činjenica radi određivanja prirode i opsega mjera koje donosi, dok nadzor od strane suda Zajednice treba ograničiti na provjeru toga sadrži li izvršavanje takvih ovlasti očitu pogrešku u ocjeni ili zloporabu ovlasti, ili nije li zakonodavac očito prešao granice svoje diskrecijske ovlasti. U tom kontekstu, sud Zajednice ne može svoju procjenu znanstvenih i tehničkih činjenica zamijeniti procjenom zakonodavca kojem je ta zadaća povjerena Ugovorom (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 15. listopada 2009., Enviro Tech (Europe), C-425/08, Zb., str. I-10035., t. 47. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
29 Afton claims that the imposition of limits for MMT content are the result of a manifest error of assessment of the facts by the Council and the Parliament. In support of that claim, Afton comments that there is no support for the imposition of those limits in the Commission’s conclusion as recorded in the impact assessment annexed to the proposal for a directive, and that those limits are unworkable and arbitrary. 
29 Afton tvrdi da je nametanje graničnih vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a rezultat očite pogreške u ocjeni činjenica koju su počinili Vijeće i Parlament. Kao potporu toj tvrdnji, Afton napominje da zaključak Komisije kako je formuliran u procjeni utjecaja priloženoj prijedlogu direktive ne daje osnove za nametanje tih graničnih vrijednosti i da su one neprovedive i proizvoljne.
30 In that regard, it should first be observed that the impact assessment carried out by the Commission, which was annexed to its proposal for a directive and which envisaged neither the prohibition of metallic additives nor setting a figure on the limit for the MMT content of fuel, was not binding on either the Council or the Parliament, who, under the co-decision legislative procedure laid down by Article 251 EC, were entitled to make amendments to that proposal. 
30 U tom pogledu prvo valja primijetiti da procjena utjecaja koju je provela Komisija, koja je priložena njezinom prijedlogu direktive i kojom nije bilo predviđeno ni da se metalni aditivi zabrane ni da se odredi iznos granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu, nije obvezujuća ni za Vijeće ni za Parlament koji, prema zakonodavnom postupku suodlučivanja utvrđenom člankom 251. UEZ-a, imaju pravo donijeti izmjene tog prijedloga.
31 Secondly, under Article 95(3) EC, the Commission is to take as a base a high level of protection taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts. Within their respective powers, the Parliament and the Council are also to seek to achieve that objective. 
31 Kao drugo, na temelju članka 95. stavka 3. UEZ-a, na Komisiji je da kao osnovu uzme visoku razinu zaštite uzimajući u obzir posebno moguća nova dostignuća na temelju znanstvenih činjenica. Na Parlamentu i na Vijeću je isto tako da u granicama svojih ovlasti nastoje ostvariti taj cilj.
32 Moreover, Article 174(1) EC provides that the European Union policy on the environment is to contribute to a number of objectives, one of which is the protection of human health. Article 174(3) EC provides that in preparing its policy on the environment, the European Union is obliged to take account of available scientific and technical data. That obligation applies, particularly, to the procedure under Article 95(3) EC, for which it is necessary that new data be taken into account (see, to that effect, Case C-405/07 P Netherlands v Commission [2008] ECR I-8301, paragraph 61). 
32 Osim toga, člankom 174. stavkom 1. UEZ-a predviđa se da Unija svojom politikom u području okoliša doprinosi ostvarenju nizu ciljeva, a zaštita zdravlja ljudi jedan je od tih ciljeva. Stavkom 3. tog članka predviđa se da pri oblikovanju politike u području okoliša Unija uzima u obzir dostupne znanstvene i tehničke podatke. Ta se obveza odnosi, posebno, na postupak iz članka 95. stavka 3. UEZ-a, za koji je potrebno da se u obzir uzimaju novi podaci (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 6. studenoga 2008., Nizozemska/Komisija, C-405/07 P, Zb., str. I-8301., t. 61.).
33 Nevertheless, it must be stated that the European Union legislature’s broad discretion, which implies limited judicial review of its exercise, applies not only to the nature and scope of the measures to be taken but also, to some extent, to the finding of the basic facts (see, inter alia, Case C-120/99 Italy v Council [2001] ECR I-7997, paragraph 44, and Case C-310/04 Spain v Council [2006] ECR I-7285, paragraph 121). 
33 Ipak, valja reći da se široka diskrecijska ovlast zakonodavca Unije, koja podrazumijeva ograničeni sudski nadzor izvršavanja njegovih ovlasti, ne odnosi samo na prirodu i opseg mjera koje treba poduzeti nego i, u određenoj mjeri, na utvrđivanje osnovnih činjenica (vidjeti, između ostalog, presude od 25. listopada 2001., Italija/Vijeće, C-120/99, Zb., str. I-7997., t. 44., i od 7. rujna 2006., Španjolska/Vijeće, C-310/04, Zb., str. I-7285., t. 121.).
34 However, even though such judicial review is of limited scope, it requires that the Community institutions which have adopted the act in question must be able to show before the Court that in adopting the act they actually exercised their discretion, which presupposes the taking into consideration of all the relevant factors and circumstances of the situation the act was intended to regulate (Spain v Council, paragraph 122). 
34 Međutim, iako je takav sudski nadzor ograničenog opsega, on zahtijeva da institucije Zajednice koje su donijele dotični akt budu sposobne dokazati pred Sudom da su u donošenju akta zaista izvršile svoju diskrecijsku ovlast, što pretpostavlja da su uzele u obzir sve relevantne čimbenike i okolnosti situacije koju se dotičnim aktom namjerava urediti (gore navedena presuda Španjolska/Vijeće, t.122.).
35 In the case in the main proceedings, it is clear from a reading of the draft report of the Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety dated 19 July 2007 that that Committee recommended banning the use of MMT in fuel from 1 January 2010 on the ground that the use of that additive and other metallic additives is very damaging to the environment, without stating the scientific basis for that opinion. 
35 U glavnom postupku, jasno je iz tumačenja prijedloga izvješća Parlamentarnog odbora za okoliš, javno zdravlje i sigurnost hrane od 19. srpnja 2007. da je taj Odbor preporučio zabranu uporabe MMT-a u gorivu od 1. siječnja 2010. s obrazloženjem da su taj aditiv i drugi metalni aditivi jako štetni za okoliš, ne navodeći znanstvenu osnovu za takvo mišljenje.
36 However, in the proceedings before the Court, the Parliament stated that the abovementioned Committee organised not only general workshops on the revision of Directive 2003/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 2003 amending Directive 98/70/EC relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels (OJ 2003 L 76, p. 10), but also a specific workshop on MMT on 3 April 2008, in the course of which Afton was one of the parties heard. The Parliamentary Committee also took into consideration various studies challenging the safety of MMT, among them the Sierra research report of 29 August 2008, carried out in Canada by the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association and the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, which, in any event, could not be taken into account by the Commission when it published the impact assessment because the study was released subsequently. 
36 Međutim, u postupku pred Sudom Parlament je naveo da je gore spomenuti Odbor organizirao ne samo „općenite radionice” o preispitivanju Direktive 2003/17/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 3. ožujka 2003. o kakvoći benzina i dizelskoga goriva (SL L 76, str. 10.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 13., svezak 55., str. 34.) nego i „posebnu radionicu” o MMT-u 3. travnja 2008., tijekom koje je upravo Afton bio jedna od saslušanih stranaka. Parlamentarni odbor isto je tako uzeo u obzir razne studije koje dovode u sumnju sigurnost MMT-a, među kojima izvješće o istraživanju odnosno tzv. „Sierra research” od 29. kolovoza 2008. koje su u Kanadi provela udruženja Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association i Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada, koje ni u kojem slučaju Komisija nije mogla uzeti u obzir kada je objavljivala procjenu utjecaja jer je ta druga studija objavljenja naknadno.
37 The Council maintains that it took into account, during the legislative procedure, studies carried out in 2004 by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) which demonstrated that the use of MMT is damaging to human health and to the proper functioning of emissions control systems and the Declaration of Brescia on the prevention of the neurotoxicity of metals of 17 and 18 June 2006 which recommends, inter alia, that the addition of organic manganese compounds to fuels should be halted. 
37 Vijeće smatra da je tijekom zakonodavnog postupka uzelo u obzir studije koje je 2004. proveo International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) (Međunarodno vijeće za čisti prijevoz) kojima je dokazano da je uporaba MMT-a štetna za zdravlje ljudi i pravilno funkcioniranje sustava nadzora emisija, kao i takozvanu Izjavu iz Bresciae o sprečavanju neurotoksičnosti metala od 17. i 18. lipnja 2006. kojom se preporučuje, između ostalog, da se zaustavi dodavanje spojeva organskog mangana gorivima.
38 It is true that on 29 December 2008 Afton sent to the Council, the Parliament and the Commission, on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43) a request that it should be sent the scientific documents and evidence which were taken into consideration when the decision setting the limit for the MMT content of fuel was made and that none of the documents sent to it contained scientific information relating to risks associated with the use of MMT. 
38 Točno je da je 29. prosinca 2008. Afton poslao Vijeću, Parlamentu i Komisiji, na temelju Uredbe 1049/2001 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 30. svibnja 2001. o javnom pristupu dokumentima Europskog parlamenta, Vijeća i Komisije (SL L 145, str. 43.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 1., svezak 16., str. 70.), zahtjev za dostavu znanstvene dokumentacije i dokaznih materijala koji su uzeti u obzir kada je donesena odluka o utvrđivanju granične vrijednosti sadržaja MMT-a u gorivu, i da nijedan od dokumenata koje je primio ne sadrži znanstvene podatke o rizicima koji se povezuju s uporabom MMT-a.
39 It must however be observed that, besides the fact that the Council is not necessarily in possession of scientific documents used by the Member States at meetings, all of the abovementioned documents are in the public domain and therefore accessible to any individual or undertaking who has an interest in the matter. 
39 Ipak valja primijetiti, uz činjenicu da Vijeće nužno ne posjeduje znanstvene dokumente kojima se države članice koriste na sastancima, i da su svi gore spomenuti dokumenti javno dobro pa su dakle dostupni svakom pojedincu ili poduzetniku zainteresiranom za predmet.
40 Consequently, it cannot be maintained that those scientific documents were not taken into account during the legislative procedure. 
40 Slijedom navedenog, ne može se smatrati da tijekom zakonodavnog postupka ta znanstvena dokumentacija nije bila uzeta u obzir.