natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
37 At the very most, the national court notes in this regard that Land Sachsen-Anhalt subsequently took advantage of the derogation provided for in Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88 in legislation adopted later for the transposition of that directive in regard, specifically, to fire fighters employed by the urban and municipal authorities in Sachsen-Anhalt. 
37 Nacionalni sud u tom pogledu najviše naglašava da je pokrajina Sachsen-Anhalt kasnije iskoristila odstupanje predviđeno u članku 22. stavku 1. prvom podstavku točki (b) Direktive 2003/88 u okviru propisa kasnije donesenog za prenošenje te direktive posebice u vezi vatrogasaca zaposlenih u gradskim i komunalnim tijelima te pokrajine.
However, those rules did not enter into force until 1 January 2008, that is to say, after the transfer decision had been taken. 
Međutim, ti su propisi stupili na snagu tek 1. siječnja 2008., tj. nakon donošenja odluke o premještaju.
38 It follows that, in the absence of measures of national law giving effect to the derogation available to Member States under the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Directive 2003/88, that provision is irrelevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings and, consequently, only Article 6(b) of that directive, in so far as it lays down the principle that Member States must ensure that the average working time for each seven-day period, including overtime, does not exceed 48 hours, must be taken into consideration. 
38 Iz toga proizlazi da, u nedostatku mjera nacionalnog prava kojima se predviđa provedba odstupanja koje je na raspolaganju državama članicama na temelju prvog podstavka članka 22. stavka 1. Direktive 2003/88, ta odredba nije bitna za rješavanje spora u glavnom postupku i da, posljedično, u obzir treba uzeti samo članak 6. točku (b) te direktive, u mjeri u kojoj utvrđuje načelo da države članice moraju osigurati da prosječno radno vrijeme svakog sedmodnevnog razdoblja, uključujući prekovremene sate, ne prelazi 48 sati.
39 It must be recalled in this regard that, in the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. 
39 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da je, u okviru suradnje između nacionalnih sudova i Suda ustanovljene u članku 267. UFEU-a, na Sudu da nacionalnom sucu da koristan odgovor koji će mu omogućiti da riješi spor koji je pred njim.
To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it. 
U tom smislu Sud prema potrebi mora preformulirati pitanja koja su mu postavljena.
The Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of European Union law which national courts require in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those provisions are not expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by those courts (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-45/06 Campina [2007] ECR I-2089, paragraphs 30 and 31; Joined Cases C-329/06 and C-343/06 Wiedemann and Funk [2008] ECR I-4635, paragraph 45; and Case C-66/09 Kirin Amgen [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 27). 
Naime, misija je Suda tumačiti sve odredbe prava Unije kada je to potrebno nacionalnim sudovima radi rješavanja predmeta u kojima vode postupke, čak i ako te odredbe nisu izričito naveli u pitanjima koja su uputili Sudu (vidjeti u tom smislu osobito presudu od 8. ožujka 2007., Campina, C-45/06, Zb., str. I-2089., t. 30. i 31.; od 26. lipnja 2008., Wiedemann i Funk, C-329/06 i C-343/06, Zb., str. I-4635., str. 45., kao i onu od 2. rujna 2010., Kirin Amgen, C-66/09, još neobjavljeno u Zb., str. 27.).
40 Consequently, even if, formally, the referring court has limited its questions to the interpretation of Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88, that does not prevent the Court from providing the referring court with all the elements of interpretation of European Union law which may be of assistance in adjudicating in the case pending before it, whether or not the referring court has referred to them in the wording of its questions. 
40 Dakle, iako je formalno sud koji je uputio zahtjev ograničio svoja pitanja na tumačenje članka 22. stavka 1. prvog podstavka točke (b) Direktive 2003/88, ta okolnost ne sprečava Sud da pruži sudu koji je uputio zahtjev sve elemente za tumačenje prava Unije koji bi mogli biti korisni za presudu u predmetu za koji je nadležan, bez obzira na to je li se sud koji je uputio zahtjev u svojim pitanjima na njih pozvao ili nije.
It is, in this regard, for the Court to extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the points of European Union law which require interpretation in view of the subject-matter of the dispute (see Case C-229/08 Wolf [2010] ECR I-0000, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 
U tom pogledu na Sudu je da iz svih elemenata koje je dao nacionalni sud, a posebno iz obrazloženja odluke o upućivanju zahtjeva, zaključi koji su relevantni elementi prava Unije koji zahtijevaju tumačenje, imajući u vidu predmet spora (vidjeti presudu od 12. siječnja 2010., Wolf, C-229/08, još neobjavljenu u Zb., t. 32. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
41 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the court before which the dispute in the main proceedings has been brought takes the view that, since the condition concerning the absence of detriment to the employee, laid down in Article 22(1)(b) of Directive 2003/88, applies where, in the case in which there are national measures implementing that provision, the employer has not obtained the employee's consent to derogate from Article 6(b) of the directive, that condition must apply a fortiori where, as in the circumstances of the present case, an employer imposes such a derogation, notwithstanding the absence of provisions of national law authorising it to do so, and the employee concerned objects to the derogation and insists on compliance with Article 6(b). 
41 U ovom slučaju iz odluke kojom se upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da sud pred kojim se vodi glavni postupak smatra da se, s obzirom da se uvjet koji se odnosi na nepostojanje štete za radnika, utvrđen člankom 22. stavkom 1. prvim podstavkom točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 primjenjuje kada, u slučaju kada postoje mjere unutarnjeg prava za provedbu te odredbe, poslodavac nije dobio suglasnost radnika za odstupanje od članka 6. točke (b) te direktive, taj uvjet mora primijeniti a fortiori kada, kao u okolnostima ovog slučaja, poslodavac nameće takvo odstupanje bez obzira na nepostojanje odredaba unutarnjeg prava koje ga na to ovlašćuju, a dotični se radnik protivi takvom odstupanju i zahtijeva poštovanje navedenog članka 6. točke (b).
42 The national court therefore suggests that, if the worker concerned does not suffer any detriment by reason of the fact that he did not agree to the exceeding of the upper limit of 48 hours laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 for the average maximum working week, it would not be contrary to that directive for his employer to be able to decide, on the basis of national law, to transfer him against his will to another service which does comply with the upper limit laid down in that provision, inasmuch as such a transfer puts an end to the infringement of that provision in regard to that employee. 
42 Nacionalni sud stoga predlaže da, ako dotični radnik ne trpi nikakvu štetu zbog činjenice da nije dao svoju suglasnost za rad dulji od gornje granice od 48 sati utvrđene člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 u pogledu prosječnog najduljeg radnog tjedna, ne bi bilo suprotno toj direktivi da njegov poslodavac može, na temelju unutarnjeg prava, odlučiti o premještaju radnika protiv njegove volje u drugu službu koja udovoljava gornjoj granici navedenoj u toj odredbi, u mjeri u kojoj takav premještaj okončava povredu te odredbe s obzirom na tog radnika.
43 In those circumstances, in order to provide a useful reply to the national court, the questions referred must be reformulated in such a way as to mean that the national court is asking, essentially, whether Article 6(b) of Directive 2088/97 must be interpreted as precluding national rules, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which allow a public-sector employer to transfer compulsorily to another service a worker employed as a fire fighter in an operational service on the ground that that worker has requested compliance, within the latter service, with the maximum average working week laid down in that provision, in a situation in which that worker suffers no detriment by reason of such a transfer. 
43 U tim okolnostima, kako bi se dao koristan odgovor nacionalnom sudu, upućena pitanja valja preformulirati na način da znače da nacionalni sud u biti pita treba li članak 6. točku (b) Direktive 2003/88 tumačiti tako da mu se protive nacionalni propisi, kao što su oni u glavnom postupku, koji omogućavaju poslodavcu u javnom sektoru prisilan premještaj u drugu službu radnika zaposlenog kao vatrogasca u interventnoj službi na osnovi toga što je taj radnik zatražio usklađivanje, unutar ove zadnje službe, s najduljim prosječnim tjednim radnim vremenom, u situaciji kada taj radnik ne trpi nikakvu štetu zbog takvog premještaja.
44 It must be recalled in that regard that, as was held in paragraph 61 of the order in Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg, the activities carried out by the operational crews of a public fire service - apart from exceptional circumstances of such gravity and scale that the aim of ensuring the proper functioning of services essential for the protection of public interests, such as public order, health and safety, must temporarily prevail over the aim of guaranteeing the health and safety of workers assigned to intervention and rescue teams, circumstances which do not obtain in the main proceedings in the present case - come within the scope of Directive 2003/88, with the result that, in principle, Article 6(b) thereof precludes exceeding the 48-hour ceiling prescribed as the maximum weekly working time, including time on call. 
44 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da, kako je utvrđeno u točki 61. rješenja Personalrat der Feuerwehr Hamburg ‒ aktivnosti koje obavlja interventno osoblje javne vatrogasne službe ‒ osim izvanrednih okolnosti takve ozbiljnosti i razmjera da cilj osiguravanja ispravnog funkcioniranja službi bitnog za zaštitu javnih interesa, kao što su javni poredak, zdravlje i sigurnost, treba privremeno prevladati nad ciljem jamstva zdravlja i sigurnosti radnika raspoređenih u interventne i spasilačke ekipe, koje nisu okolnosti iz glavnog postupka ovog predmeta - ulaze u područje primjene Direktive 2003/88, tako da se u načelu njezin članak 6. točka (b) protivi prekoračenju gornje granice od 48 sati propisane kao najdulje tjedno radno vrijeme, uključujući dežurstvo.
45 In the present case, however, it is common ground that the rules applicable in Land Sachsen-Anhalt at the time of the facts in the main proceedings imposed on fire fighters who, like Mr Fuß, were employed in the urban and municipal operational services of that Land a working period which exceeded the maximum weekly upper limit laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88. 
45 U ovom slučaju nije sporno da je propis koji se primjenjivao u pokrajini Sachsen-Anhalt u trenutku nastanka činjenica u glavnom postupku vatrogascima koji su poput G. Fußa bili zaposleni u gradskim i komunalnim interventnim službama te savezne pokrajine, nametao radno vrijeme koje je prekoračivalo gornju granicu najvećeg broja radnih sati tjedno utvrđenu u članku 6. točki (b) Direktive 2003/88.
46 Under those circumstances, in order to reply to the national court's question, it is necessary, first, to examine whether, as the national court suggests, the finding that there has been an infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 is subject to the condition that the worker concerned has suffered detriment and, secondly, to determine the consequences for national courts of a possible infringement of that provision. 
46 Kako bi se odgovorilo na pitanje nacionalnog suda, u tim okolnostima s jedne strane valja ispitati podliježe li, kako predlaže nacionalni sud, utvrđenje da je došlo do povrede članka 6. točke (b) Direktive 2003/88 uvjetu da je dotičan radnik pretrpio štetu i s druge strane utvrditi posljedice za nacionalne sudove mogućeg kršenja te odredbe.
47 With regard, first, to the relevance of the question whether the worker concerned must suffer detriment in order for there to be an infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, it must be recalled that, as will already be apparent from paragraph 33 of the present judgment, that provision constitutes a particularly important rule of European Union social law which requires the Member States to fix an upper limit of 48 hours for the maximum average weekly working time, including overtime, as is expressly laid down in that provision and from which, in the absence of implementation in national law of the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the directive, no derogation may be made in respect of activities such as those of fire fighters at issue in the main proceedings. 
47 Najprije u pogledu relevantnosti pitanja treba li dotični radnik pretrpjeti štetu kako bi se mogla utvrditi kršenje članka 6. točke (b) Direktive 2003/88 valja podsjetiti da, kao što već proizlazi iz točke 33. ove presude, ova odredba predstavlja iznimno važno pravilo socijalnog prava Unije koje zahtijeva da države članice utvrde gornju granicu od 48 sati u pogledu najduljeg prosječnog tjednog radnog vremena, uključujući prekovremene sate, kako je izričito navedeno u toj odredbi i od koje, u nedostatku provedbe u unutarnjem pravu prvog podstavka članka 22. stavka 1. te direktive, nisu moguća odstupanja s obzirom na djelatnosti poput onih koje obavljaju vatrogasci o kojima se raspravlja u glavnom postupku.
48 As has already been stated in paragraph 34 of the present judgment, only some of the provisions of Directive 2003/88, which are expressly referred to, may form the subject-matter of derogations by the Member States or the two sides of industry. 
48 Kako je već navedeno u točki 34. ove presude, samo neke od odredaba Direktive 2003/88 koje su izričito navedene, mogu biti predmet odstupanja država članica ili socijalnih partnera.
49 However, in the first place, Article 6 of Directive 2003/88 is referred to only in Article 17(1) thereof, even though it is common ground that the latter provision covers activities which bear no relation at all to those carried out by fire fighters. 
49 Međutim, s jedne strane, članak 6. Direktive 2003/88 navodi se samo u njezinom članku 17. stavku 1., iako je jasno da ova zadnja odredba obuhvaća djelatnosti koje nemaju nikakve veze s onima koje obavljaju vatrogasci.
By contrast, although Article 17(3)(c)(iii) refers to `activities involving the need for continuity of service', including in particular `fire ... services', that provision gives scope for derogating, not from Article 6 of the directive, but from other provisions thereof (see, by analogy, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 97). 
Suprotno tome, iako se članak 17. stavak 3. točka (c) alineja (iii) odnosi na „djelatnosti koje zahtijevaju neprekidno pružanje usluga", uključujući naročito „službe [...] vatrogasne zaštite", ta odredba ne predviđa mogućnost odstupanja od članka 6. te direktive, nego od njezinih ostalih odredbi (vidjeti, analogijom, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 97.).
50 In the second place, as is already apparent from paragraphs 35 and 36 of the present judgment, it is common ground that neither the Federal Republic of Germany nor Land Sachsen-Anhalt has availed itself of the derogation provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Directive 2003/88, which permits Member States not to apply Article 6 thereof provided that certain conditions, set out cumulatively, are satisfied (see, by analogy, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 98). 
50 S druge strane, kao što je već očito iz točaka 35. i 36. ove presude, jasno je da ni Savezna Republika Njemačka ni savezna pokrajina Sachsen-Anhalt nisu iskoristile odstupanje predviđeno prvim podstavkom članka 22. stavka 1. Direktive 2003/88, koje dozvoljava državama članicama neprimjenu njezinog članka 6. pod uvjetom da su određeni uvjeti, kumulativno navedeni, zadovoljeni (vidjeti, analogijom, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 98.).
51 In those circumstances, in order to ensure that Directive 2003/88 is fully effective, the Member States must prevent the maximum weekly working time laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 from being exceeded (Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 118). 
51 Kako bi se u tim okolnostima osigurala potpuna učinkovitost Direktive 2003/88, države članice trebaju spriječiti prekoračenje najvećeg broja radnih sati tjedno utvrđenog člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 (vidjeti ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t.
52 As the Court has already held, the Member States cannot therefore unilaterally determine the scope of that provision by attaching conditions or restrictions to the implementation of the right of workers to an average weekly working period which does not exceed 48 hours (Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 99). 
118.). 52 Kao što je Sud već utvrdio, države članice ne mogu stoga jednostrano utvrđivati područje primjene navedene odredbe postavljajući uvjete ili ograničenja za provedbu prava radnika na prosječno tjedno radno vrijeme koje ne prelazi 48 sati (vidjeti ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t.
53 Consequently, exceeding the maximum average weekly working time laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 constitutes, in itself, an infringement of that provision, without it also being necessary to show that a specific detriment has been suffered. 
99.). 53 Stoga prekoračenje najvećeg prosječnog broja radnih sati tjedno utvrđenog člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 samo po sebi predstavlja povredu ove odredbe, bez potrebe za dokazivanjem da je pretrpljena određena šteta.
In the absence of any national legal measure giving effect to the option to derogate provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of the directive, the concept of `detriment' in that provision is thus entirely irrelevant for purposes of the interpretation and application of Article 6(b). 
U nedostatku mjera nacionalnog prava kojima se predviđa provedba mogućnosti odstupanja predviđena prvim podstavkom članka 22. stavka 1. te direktive, pojam „šteta" u toj odredbi stoga je u potpunosti nebitan za potrebe tumačenja i primjene članka 6. točke (b).
54 In reality, as will be clear from paragraph 32 of the present judgment, since the purpose of Directive 2003/88 is to guarantee protection of the safety and health of workers by providing for adequate rest periods, the European Union legislature took the view that, inasmuch as it deprives workers of those rest periods, the exceeding of the maximum average weekly working time laid down in Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 in itself causes workers to suffer detriment since their safety and health are thus adversely affected. 
54 Zapravo, kako je jasno iz točke 32. ove presude, budući da je svrha Direktive 2003/88 zajamčiti zaštitu sigurnosti i zdravlja radnika predviđajući primjerena razdoblja odmora, zakonodavac Unije zauzeo je stajalište da, s obzirom da uskraćuje radnicima ova razdoblja odmora, prekoračenje najvećeg prosječnog broja radnih sati tjedno utvrđenog člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 samo po sebi uzrokuje da radnici trpe štetu s obzirom da su njihova sigurnost i zdravlje time ugroženi.
55 It follows that national rules, such as those in the main proceedings, which provided, in regard to a worker employed as a fire fighter in an operational service, for working time which exceeds the maximum limit laid down by Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 constitute an infringement of that provision, without there being any need to establish, in addition, whether that worker has been subjected to a specific detriment. 
55 Iz toga slijedi da nacionalna odredba kao što je ona u glavnom postupku, koja u pogledu radnika zaposlenog kao vatrogasca u interventnoj službi predviđa radno vrijeme koje prelazi najveće ograničenje utvrđeno člankom 6. točkom (b) Direktive 2003/88 predstavlja povredu te odredbe, bez ikakve potrebe za utvrđivanjem osim toga je li taj radnik pretrpio specifičnu štetu.
56 With regard, secondly, to the consequences for national courts of such an infringement of Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88, the Court has consistently held that, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon by individuals as against the State, including in its capacity as an employer, in particular when it has failed to transpose that directive into national law within the time-limit or has transposed it incorrectly (see, to that effect, Case 152/84 Marshall [1986] ECR 723, paragraphs 46 and 49, and Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 Angelidaki and Others [2009] ECR I-3071, paragraphs 193 and 194). 
56 S druge strane, s obzirom na posljedice za nacionalne sudove zbog takve povrede članka 6. točke (b) Direktive 2003/88, valja podsjetiti da iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da se, kad god se odredbe neke direktive s obzirom na njihov sadržaj čine bezuvjetnima i dovoljno preciznima, pojedinci mogu na njih pozvati protiv države, uključujući i kada ona nastupa kao poslodavac, posebno ako je ona propustila pravodobno prenijeti direktivu u nacionalno pravo ili je nije pravilno prenijela (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 26. veljače 1986., Marshall, 152/84, Zb., str. 723., t. 46. i 49., i od 23. travnja 2009., Angelidaki i dr., C-378/07 do C-380/07, Zb., str. I-3071., t. 193. i 194.).
57 Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 satisfies those criteria, as it imposes on Member States, in unequivocal terms, a precise obligation as to the result to be achieved, which is not coupled with any condition regarding application of the rule laid down by it, which provides for a 48-hour maximum, including overtime, as regards average weekly working time (see, to that effect, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 104). 
57 Članak 6. točka (b) Direktive 2003/88 zadovoljava ove kriterije jer državama članicama pod nedvosmislenim uvjetima nameće preciznu obvezu u pogledu rezultata koji treba postići, koja nije praćena nikakvim uvjetom u vezi s primjenom njome utvrđenog pravila te koja predviđa najdulje 48-satno radno vrijeme, uključujući prekovremene sate, s obzirom na prosječno tjedno radno vrijeme (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 104.).
58 In that regard, even though the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Directive 2003/88 permits the Member States to derogate from Article 6 thereof, that fact does not alter the precise and unconditional nature of Article 6(b). 
58 U tom pogledu, iako prvi podstavak članka 22. stavka 1. Direktive 2003/88 dozvoljava državama članicama odstupanje od njezinog članka 6., ta činjenica ne utječe na precizan i bezuvjetan karakter članka 6. točke (b).
The Member States' right not to apply Article 6 is subject to compliance with all of the conditions set out in the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of that directive, with the result that it is possible to determine the minimum protection which must be provided in any event (see, to that effect, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 105). 
Pravo država članica o neprimjeni članka 6. ovisi o poštovanju svih uvjeta navedenih u prvom podstavku članka 22. stavka 1. te direktive, tako da je moguće utvrditi najmanju zaštitu koja se mora osigurati u svakom slučaju (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 105.).
59 Article 6(b) of Directive 2003/88 thus fulfils all of the conditions necessary for it to produce direct effect (see, to that effect, Pfeiffer and Others, paragraph 106). 
59 Članak 6. točka (b) Direktive 2003/88 stoga ispunjava sve uvjete potrebne da proizvede izravni učinak (vidjeti, u tom smislu, ranije navedenu presudu Pfeiffer i dr., t. 106.).