natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(2) Is compliance with the requirement of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness which penalties for infringement of Community provisions must satisfy to be assessed in regard to the nature or type of penalty considered in the abstract, or rather in regard to its application in practice having regard to the structural characteristics of the legal system within which it takes effect? 
2. Treba li poštovanje zahtjeva za učinkovitim, razmjernim i odvraćajućim sankcijama u slučaju povrede odredbi Zajednice procijeniti s obzirom na prirodu ili vrstu apstraktno predviđene sankcije ili s obzirom na njezinu konkretnu primjenu, uzimajući u obzir strukturne karakteristike pravnog sustava unutar kojeg se primjenjuje?
(3) Are the principles set out in the Fourth and Seventh Companies Directives to be interpreted as precluding national legislation setting thresholds below which inaccurate statements in annual accounts and annual reports relating to public limited companies, limited partnerships and private limited companies are not punishable? 
3. Treba li načela iz Četvrte i Sedme direktive o trgovačkim društvima tumačiti tako da su protivne nacionalnom zakonodavstvu koje određuje ograničenja unutar kojih su neistiniti podaci iz godišnjih financijskih izvještaja i godišnjih izvješća dioničkih društava, komanditnih dioničkih društava i društava s ograničenom odgovornošću irelevantni?
38 In Case C-391/02, the Corte d'appello di Lecce (Lecce Appeal Court) decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
38 U predmetu C-391/02, Corte d'appello di Lecce (Prizivni sud Lecce) odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt "appropriate penalties" for the infringements established by Directives 65/151 and 78/660, must the directives themselves and in particular the combined provisions of Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in amending the system of penalties already in force in respect of company law offences concerning the infringement of the obligations imposed in order to safeguard the principle of public and accurate information on companies, lays down a system of sanctions which in the specific instance is not informed by the criteria of effectiveness, proportionality and dissuasiveness of the sanctions imposed in order to ensure that that principle is upheld? 
„1. S obzirom na obvezu svake države članice da donese ,odgovarajuće sankcije' za povrede utvrđene [Direktivom 68/151 i Direktivom 78/660], treba li te direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...] u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji prilikom izmjene sustava sankcija, koji je već bio na snazi u pogledu povreda prava društava u smislu kršenja obveza uvedenih radi zaštite načela javnog i točnog informiranja o društvima, utvrđuje sustav sankcija koji ne ispunjava konkretno kriterije učinkovitosti, razmjernosti i odvraćajućeg karaktera sankcija, koji osiguravaju takvu zaštitu?
(2) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information on certain company documents (including the balance sheet and the profit and loss account) where the disclosure of false company accounts or the failure to provide information result in a distortion of the financial results for a given period, or a distortion in the net assets, which does not exceed a certain percentage threshold? 
2. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605), [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje uvođenje kaznenog progona za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka o određenim aktima društva (uključujući bilancu i račun dobiti i gubitka) kada prikaz nepravilne bilance ili izostavljanje podataka uzrokuju odstupanja u financijskim rezultatima za dano razdoblje ili u neto imovini, koja ne prelaze određeni postotni prag?
(3) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information where statements are made which, although aimed at deceiving members or the public with a view to securing an unjust profit, are the consequence of estimated valuations which, taken individually, depart from actual values to an extent not greater than a certain threshold? 
3. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje kazneni progon za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka koji su, iako im je cilj prevariti članove ili javnost radi ostvarivanja nezakonite dobiti, posljedica procjena koje, ako se gledaju pojedinačno, odstupaju od stvarne vrijednosti za iznos koji nije veći od utvrđenog praga?
(4) Irrespective of progressive limits or thresholds, must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which does not make it a punishable offence for companies to infringe obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information where the false statements or the fraudulent omissions and, thus, the disclosures and statements which do not give a true and fair view of the company's assets and liabilities and financial position do not distort "to an appreciable extent" the company's assets, liabilities and financial position (even though it is for the national legislature to define the concept of "appreciable distortion")? 
4. Neovisno o progresivnim ograničenjima ili pragovima, treba li direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], u vezi s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (f) i člankom 6. Direktive 68/151 te člankom 2. stavcima 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji isključuje kazneni progon za društva koja krše obvezu objave i davanja točnih podataka, kada netočni podaci ili njihovo izostavljanje s ciljem prijevare te, u svakom slučaju, navodi i podaci koji lažno prikazuju imovinsko i financijsko stanje društva te njegov poslovni uspjeh ,osjetno' ne narušavaju imovinsko ili financijsko stanje društva (iako je na nacionalnom zakonodavcu da definira pojam ,osjetnog narušavanja')?
(5) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in response to an infringement by companies of those obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information imposed on them in order to safeguard "the interests of both members and third parties", allows only members and creditors to seek imposition of a penalty, thereby excluding third parties from any general and effective protection? 
5. Treba li navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a, članka 2. stavka 1. točke (f) i članka 6. Direktive 68/151 te članka 2. stavaka 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji u slučaju kršenja navedenih obveza koje trgovačko društvo ima u pogledu objave i davanja točnih podataka kako bi se zaštitili ,interesi kako članova tako i trećih strana' dozvoljava samo članovima i vjerovnicima da zahtijevaju uvođenje sankcija, što znači da je trećim osobama uskraćena bilo kakva opća i učinkovita zaštita?
(6) Must those directives and, in particular, Article 44(2)(g) EC, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of Directive 68/151 and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of Directive 78/660, as consolidated by Directives 83/349 and 90/605, be interpreted as meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member State which, in response to the infringement by companies of those obligations concerning disclosure and the provision of accurate information imposed on them in order to safeguard "the interests of both members and third parties", provides for prosecutory machinery and a system of sanctions which are markedly differentiated, whereby the possibility of the imposition of a punishment upon complaint being made, together with more serious and effective penalties, is reserved solely for infringements occasioning loss to members and creditors?' 
6. Treba li gore navedene direktive, a posebno odredbe članka 44. stavka 2. točke (g) UEZ-a [...], članka 2. stavka 1. točke (f) i članka 6. Direktive 68/151 te članka 2. stavaka 2. do 4. Direktive 78/660, kako je konsolidirana Direktivama 83/349 i 90/605, [...] tumačiti tako da se te odredbe protive zakonu države članice koji u slučaju kršenja navedenih obveza koje trgovačko društvo ima u pogledu objave i davanja točnih podataka kako bi se zaštitili ,interesi kako članova tako i trećih strana', predviđa mehanizam uvođenja kaznenog progona i sustava sankcija koji su posebno diferencirani, čime je mogućnost uvođenja kaznenog progona na temelju prijave, zajedno s ozbiljnijim i učinkovitijim sankcijama, rezervirana isključivo za povrede koje su prouzročile gubitak članovima ili vjerovnicima?ˮ
39 In Case C-403/02, the Tribunale di Milano decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
39 U predmetu C-403/02, Tribunale di Milano je odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja: „1. Može li se članak 6.
`(1) May Article 6 of Directive 68/151 be understood as requiring Member States to establish appropriate penalties not only for non-disclosure by commercial companies of balance sheets and profit and loss accounts but also for false disclosure of such documents, of other company documents addressed to members or to the public, or of any information on a company's assets and liabilities, and economic and financial situation which the company is required to provide in relation to itself or to the group of which it forms part? 
Direktive 68/151 [...] razumjeti tako da obvezuje države članice da utvrde odgovarajuće sankcije za trgovačka društva ne samo za neobjavljivanje bilance i računa dobiti i gubitka već i za falsificiranje takvih dokumenata i drugih obavijesti društva namijenjenih članovima ili javnosti, ili svih drugih podataka o ekonomskom, imovinskom ili financijskom stanju društva koje društvo mora objaviti o sebi ili o grupi društava kojoj pripada?
(2) Must the concept of the "appropriateness" of the penalty, for the purposes of Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, be understood in terms to be specifically assessed within the legislative scope (both criminal and procedural) of the Member States as requiring a penalty which is "efficacious, effective and genuinely dissuasive"? 
2. Treba li pojam ,odgovarajući karakter' sankcije, u smislu članka 5. Ugovora o EEZ-u, razumjeti tako da ju je moguće konkretno procijeniti u normativnom okviru (kako kaznenom tako i postupovnom) države članice, tj. kao sankciju koja je ,učinkovita, djelotvorna i uistinu odvraćajuća'?
(3) Do the combined provisions of the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Civil Code, as amended by Legislative Decree No [61/2002], satisfy those criteria: in particular, can Article 2621 of the Civil Code, which summarily punishes by a term of imprisonment of one year and six months offences in connection with false information in balance sheets not occasioning financial loss or occasioning loss but in respect of which no prosecution may be brought under Article 2622 of the Civil Code owing to the absence of a complaint, be described as "effectively dissuasive" and "genuinely appropriate"? 
3. Je li u okviru zajedničkih odredbi novih članaka 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, kako su izmijenjene Zakonodavnom uredbom br. [61/2002], udovoljeno tim kriterijima: posebno, može li se pravilo (iz članka 2621. navedenog građanskog zakonika) na temelju kojega se prekršajno kažnjavaju kaznom zatvora u trajanju od jedne godine i šest mjeseci povrede u vezi s neistinitim podacima u bilanci koje nisu prouzročile imovinsku štetu ili koje su prouzročile imovinsku štetu ali za koje se smatra da su takve da se protiv njih ne može podnijeti tužba bez podnošenja prijave na temelju članka 2622. građanskog zakonika, opisati kao ,stvarno odvraćajuće' ili ,zaista prikladno'?
Finally, is it appropriate, in terms not least of the specific protection of the collective interest in the "transparency" of the corporate market, and the possibility that that interest may assume a Community dimension, to provide in respect of offences under Article 2622(1) of the Civil Code (those committed in regard to companies not listed on the stock exchange) that proceedings may only be brought upon a complaint by members of the company concerned or its creditors?' 
Naposljetku, je li primjereno za kaznena djela iz članka 2622. stavka 1. građanskog zakonika (tj. počinjena u okviru trgovačkih društava koja ne kotiraju na burzi vrijednosnih papira) predvidjeti mogućnost da se podnese tužba samo na temelju prijave jedne strane (tj. članova ili vjerovnika) kako bi se stvarno zaštitio opći interes ,transparentnosti' tržišta društava, s aspekta da se on eventualno proširi na tržištu Zajednice?ˮ
40 By order of the President of the Court of 20 January 2003, Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and for the judgment. 
40 Rješenjem predsjednika Suda od 20. siječnja 2003., predmeti C-387/02, C-391/02 i C-403/02 spojeni su u svrhu pisanog i usmenog dijela postupka te donošenja presude.
41 Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri challenge the admissibility of the questions referred for preliminary ruling in Cases C-387/02 and C-403/02. 
41 S. Berlusconi i M. Dell'Utri postavljaju pitanje dopuštenosti prethodnih pitanja u predmetima C-387/02 i C-403/02.
The Italian Government also expresses doubts in that regard. 
Talijanska vlada također izražava sumnje u tom pogledu.
42 The questions referred, they argue, seek to circumvent application of the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code in such a way as to enable criminal proceedings to be brought on the basis of the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code, a provision which is significantly less favourable to the accused. 
42 Oni ističu da se prethodnim pitanjima nastoji zaobići primjena novih članaka 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika tako da bi se kazneni postupak mogao pokrenuti na temelju bivšeg članka 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, odredbe koja je znatno nepovoljnija za tuženike.
43 Even assuming, they argue, that the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code prove to be incompatible with the First or the Fourth Companies Directive, the accused cannot, in the absence of any applicable penal provision of national law, be prosecuted and have a different and more onerous penalty imposed on them on the basis of those directives. 
43 Oni tvrde da čak i ako se pokaže da novi članci 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika nisu u skladu s Prvom ili Četvrtom direktivom o trgovačkim društvima, isključeno je, ako ne postoji ni jedna primjenjiva kaznena odredba nacionalnog prava, da se tuženici mogu progoniti i da im se mogu nametnuti drukčije i strože sankcije na temelju navedenih direktiva.
44 They submit that it follows from the Court's case-law that a directive cannot, by itself, give rise to obligations on the part of an individual and for that reason cannot be relied on as such against that individual. 
44 Oni navode da iz sudske prakse Suda proizlazi da direktiva sama po sebi ne može stvoriti obveze za pojedinca te se stoga protiv njega nije moguće pozivati na nju kao takvu.
Nor can a directive have the effect, by itself and independently of any domestic legislation of a Member State adopted for its application, of determining or increasing the criminal liability of those who infringe its provisions. 
Direktiva sama po sebi i neovisno o unutarnjem zakonu države članice donesenom za njezinu provedbu ne može imati učinak određivanja ili povećavanja kaznene odgovornosti osoba koje krše njezine odredbe.
45 The reply sought from the Court, they continue, is irrelevant for the purposes of resolving the disputes pending before the courts which have made the references inasmuch as the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code cannot in any event be applied in the cases in the main proceedings. 
45 Odgovor koji se zahtijeva od Suda nije relevantan za rješavanje sporova koji se vode pred sudovima koji su uputili zahtjeve, jer u predmetima u glavnom postupku ni u jednom slučaju nije moguće primijeniti bivši članak 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika.
46 Mr Berlusconi and Mr Dell'Utri contend that the principle of the retroactive application to an accused person of more favourable criminal legislation, a fundamental right which, in the same way as the principle of legality, of which it constitutes an important aspect, forms part of the Community legal order, precludes such an outcome. 
46 Takav rezultat bi sprječavao uporabu načela retroaktivne primjene najpovoljnijeg kaznenog zakona za tuženika kao temeljnog prava, koje je na isti način kao i načelo zakonitosti važan aspekt pravnog poretka Zajednice.
47 The Commission, by contrast, argues that the questions submitted for preliminary ruling are admissible. 
47 Suprotno tome Komisija navodi da su prethodna pitanja dopuštena.
48 The admissibility of those questions, it submits, is not affected by any possible application of the principle of legality in the event that the reply to be given by the Court might give rise to incompatibility of the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code with Community law, with the possible consequence that proceedings may be brought on the basis of the former Article 2621 of that code, which is less favourable to the accused. 
48 Moguća uporaba načela zakonitosti ne bi utjecala na njihovu dopuštenost u slučaju u kojem bi iz odgovora Suda proizašlo da novi članci 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika nisu u skladu s pravom Zajednice, što bi moglo dovesti do uvođenja progona na temelju bivšeg članka 2621. navedenog zakonika, koji je nepovoljniji za tuženike.
49 It is, the Commission argues, important to point out that, at the time when the acts giving rise to the criminal proceedings against the accused in the cases in the main proceedings were confirmed, prosecutions could have been brought in respect of those acts, that is to say, on the basis of the former Article 2621 of the Italian Civil Code, and that it was only later that national provisions were adopted which were more favourable to the accused, but the compatibility of which with Community law has been questioned in some regards, with the result that the national court might, if appropriate, be obliged to set aside the application of those national provisions. 
49 Važno je naglasiti da su se u vrijeme kada su bila ustanovljena djela koja su predmet kaznenih postupaka pokrenutih protiv tuženika u predmetima u glavnom postupku, kazneni postupci za ta djela mogli pokrenuti na temelju bivšeg članka 2621. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika, i da su tek kasnije donesene nacionalne odredbe koje su povoljnije za tuženike, ali čija je sukladnost s pravom Zajednice upitna u određenom smislu, tako da bi nacionalni sud mogao, ako je primjereno, odstupiti od primjene tih nacionalnih odredbi.
50 In such a situation, the Commission continues, it would not be the Community legislation which determines or increases criminal liability. 
50 U takvoj situaciji zakonodavstvo Zajednice nije ono koje određuje ili povećava kaznenu odgovornost.
The case would involve simply maintaining the effects of the national legislation in force at the time of the acts and in conformity with Community law, by refraining from the application of later legislation which is more favourable but contrary to Community law. 
Radi se jednostavno o zadržavanju učinaka nacionalnog zakonodavstva koje je bilo na snazi u vrijeme nastanka djela i u skladu je s pravom Zajednice, pri čemu se ne primjenjuje kasnije zakonodavstva koje je povoljnije ali protivno pravu Zajednice.
51 The principle of the primacy of Community law, the Commission argues, precludes the application of new national provisions, which are more favourable to an accused person, to acts which pre-date those provisions if it should turn out that those provisions do not punish in an appropriate manner an infringement of the rules of Community law and are, for that reason, incompatible with Community law, as interpreted by the Court. 
51 Načelo prvenstva prava Zajednice protivi se primjeni novih nacionalnih odredbi koje su povoljnije za tuženika, za djela počinjena prije njihovog uvođenja, ako se pokaže da te odredbe ne kažnjavaju na odgovarajući način kršenje pravila prava Zajednice te stoga nisu u skladu s pravom Zajednice kako ga tumači Sud.
52 By the questions which they have referred, the national courts which have made the references are essentially seeking to ascertain whether, by reason of certain of their provisions, the new Articles 2621 and 2622 of the Italian Civil Code are compatible with the requirement imposed by Community law that penalties for infringement of Community law provisions be appropriate (see paragraph 36 of this judgment). 
52 Nacionalni sudovi koji su uputili zahtjeve svojim pitanjima u biti žele saznati jesu li novi članci 2621. i 2622. talijanskoga građanskog zakonika zbog određenih odredbi koje sadržavaju u skladu sa zahtjevom prava Zajednice da sankcije za kršenje odredbi prava Zajednice moraju biti odgovarajuće (vidjeti točku 36. ove presude).
The Community law requirement that penalties be appropriate 
Zahtjev prava Zajednice da sankcije moraju biti odgovarajuće