natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
46 The Court has also stressed that it is important for the referring court to set out the precise reasons why it was unsure as to the interpretation of Community law and why it considered it necessary to refer questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling. 
46 Sud je također naglasio da je važno da nacionalni sudac navede jasne razloge koji su ga naveli na to da postavi pitanje o tumačenju prava Zajednice i objasni zašto je smatrao nužnim upućivanje prethodnih pitanja Sudu.
The Court has thus ruled that it is essential that the referring court provide at the very least some explanation of the reasons for the choice of the Community provisions which it requires to be interpreted and of the link it establishes between those provisions and the national legislation applicable to the dispute (see, inter alia, the order in Viacom, cited above, paragraph 16, and the judgment in Case C-318/00 Bacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins [2003] ECR I-905, paragraph 43). 
Prema tome, Sud je presudio da je nužno da nacionalni sudac minimalno obrazloži razloge zbog kojih je izabrao odredbe prava Zajednice čije tumačenje zahtijeva i povezanost između tih odredaba i nacionalnog zakonodavstva mjerodavnog za spor (vidjeti osobito gore navedeno rješenje Viacom, t. 16., i presudu od 21. siječnja 2003., Bacardi-Martini i Cellier des Dauphins, C-318/00, Zb., str. I-905., t. 43.).
47 One of the reasons for those requirements is that the information provided in orders for reference must not only be such as to enable the Court to reply usefully but must also enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice (orders in Case C-422/98 Colonia Versicherung and Others [1999] ECR I-1279, paragraph 5, and in Viacom, paragraph 14; judgment in Keller, cited above, paragraph 30). 
47 Jedan od razloga za te zahtjeve jest da podaci dostavljeni u zahtjevima za prethodnu odluku ne služe samo tome da omoguće Sudu da pruži korisne odgovore, već i da omoguće vladama država članica kao i drugim zainteresiranim osobama podnošenje očitovanja u skladu s člankom 23. Statuta Suda (rješenje od 2. ožujka 1999., Colonia Versicherung i dr., C-422/98, Zb., str. I-1279., t. 5., gore navedeno rješenje Viacom, t. 14., i gore navedena presuda Keller, t. 30.).
48 In the case in the main proceedings, the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage, ruling in an application for interim relief, indicated the factual and legal context of the questions which it referred. 
48 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev i koji je odlučivao o zahtjevu za privremenu pravnu zaštitu u glavnom je postupku obrazložio činjenični i pravni okvir pitanja koja je postavio.
It set out, concisely but adequately, the reasons which led it to refer those questions. 
Sažeto, ali u dovoljnoj mjeri opisao je razloge zbog kojih je postavio ta pitanja.
49 Furthermore, it must be pointed out that the Rechtbank 's-Gravenhage made reference to the questions submitted by the United Kingdom court concerning the same subject. 
49 Osim toga, valja naglasiti da taj sud upućuje na pitanja koja je sud Ujedinjene Kraljevine postavio u vezi s jednakim predmetom.
The Parliament, Council and Commission could not have failed to identify Case C-453/03, in which each of those institutions had just submitted observations at the moment when the decision to refer underlying Case C-194/04 was notified to them. 
Parlament, Vijeće i Komisija nisu mogli previdjeti predmet C-453/03, u kojem je svaka od tih institucija podnijela očitovanja upravo u trenutku kada im je bila dostavljena odluka kojom se upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku u predmetu C-194/04.
There are consequently no grounds on which those institutions can argue that it was impossible for them to submit observations in full knowledge of the facts. 
Stoga te institucije neutemeljeno tvrde da nisu mogle podnijeti očitovanja uz potpuno poznavanje činjenica.
50 Finally, with regard to the second question, this cannot be regarded as being hypothetical on the ground that the claimant in the main proceedings in any event requested a national court to suspend application of the Community measure. 
50 Naposljetku, drugo pitanje ne može se smatrati hipotetskim zbog toga što je tužitelj u glavnom postupku od nacionalnog suda u svakom slučaju zahtijevao da suspendira primjenu akta Zajednice.
It is clear from the observations submitted by that claimant that it is challenging the refusal of the competent minister to repeal the national legislation transposing Directive 2002/2 and the need to request a court to suspend application of that legislation, and that it also makes reference to the associated costs and to the harm occasioned thereby to the individual concerned. 
Iz očitovanja koja je podnio taj tužitelj proizlazi da on osporava odbijanje nadležnog ministra da izvan snage stavi nacionalni propis kojim se prenosi Direktiva 2002/2 i potrebu da se od suda traži suspenzija primjene tog propisa, zatim utvrđuje povezane troškove i štetu uzrokovanu dotičnom pojedincu.
The question thus does not appear to be manifestly bereft of relevance within the context of the dispute in the main proceedings. 
Stoga u kontekstu glavnog postupka to pitanje nije očito irelevantno.
51 The questions referred in Case C-194/04 must for those reasons be declared admissible. 
51 Zbog navedenih razloga pitanja postavljena u okviru predmeta C-194/04 valja proglasiti dopuštenima.
The questions referred for preliminary ruling 
O prethodnim pitanjima
The legal basis 
Pravna osnova
52 By heading (a) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, Question 1 in both Case C-11/04 and Case C-12/04, and Question 1(a) in Case C-194/04, the respective referring courts are essentially asking the Court to rule on the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2, on the ground that Article 152(4)(b) EC is not an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of those provisions, having particular regard to the fact that they relate to the labelling of plant-based animal feedingstuffs. 
52 Točkom (a) pitanja u predmetu C-453/03, prvim pitanjem u predmetima C-11/04 i C-12/04 te prvim pitanjem točkom (a) u predmetu C-194/04 sudovi koji su uputili zahtjev u biti od Suda traže da donese odluku o valjanosti članka 1. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2, uz obrazloženje da članak 152. stavak 4. točka (b) UEZ-a nije prikladna pravna osnova za donošenje tih odredaba, uzimajući pritom osobito u obzir činjenicu da se odnose na označivanje hrane za životinje biljnog podrijetla.
53 As the Council has stated in its observations and argued at the hearing, if the contested measure had not directly had the objective of safeguarding public health, it could have come under Article 37 EC, which also confers competence on the Community legislature. 
53 Kako je Vijeće pojasnilo u svojim očitovanjima i tvrdilo na raspravi, kada izravan cilj osporavane mjere ne bi bila zašita javnog zdravlja, mogao bi se primijeniti članak 37. UEZ-a, kojim se također dodjeljuje nadležnost zakonodavcu Zajednice.
Review of the legal basis of Directive 2002/2 does, however, remain relevant for the purpose of verifying whether the procedure for the adoption of that directive was vitiated by any irregularity (see, in this connection, Case C-491/01 British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, paragraph 111). 
Međutim, preispitivanje pravne osnove Direktive 2002/2 i dalje je relevantno kako bi se provjerilo je li postupak donošenja te direktive zahvaćen nepravilnostima (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 10. prosinca 2002., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, C-491/01, Zb., str. I-11453, t. 111.).
54 According to settled case-law, in the context of the organisation of the powers of the European Community the choice of the legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review. 
54 Prema ustaljenoj praksi, izbor pravne osnove akta Europske zajednice mora se temeljiti na objektivnim elementima koji podliježu sudskoj kontroli.
Those factors include in particular the aim and content of the measure (see, in particular, Case C-269/97 Commission v Council [2000] ECR I-2257, paragraph 43, Case C-36/98 Spain v Council [2001] ECR I-779, paragraph 58, and British American Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, cited above, paragraph 93). 
Među tim elementima su cilj i sadržaj tog akta (vidjeti osobito presude od 4. travnja 2000., Komisija/Vijeće, C-269/97, Zb., str. I-2257., t. 43. i od 30. siječnja 2001., Španjolska/Vijeće, C-36/98, Zb., str. I-779., t. 58., te gore navedenu presudu British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 93.).
55 Directive 2002/2 is based on Article 152(4)(b) EC, which allows the adoption of measures in the veterinary and phytosanitary fields having as their direct objective the protection of public health. 
55 Direktiva 2002/2 temelji se na članku 152. stavku 4. točki (b) UEZ-a, kojim je u veterinarskom i fitosanitarnom području dopušteno donošenje mjera kojima je neposredni cilj zaštita javnog zdravlja.
56 The third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Directive 2002/2 set out the position in law with regard to the indication of feed materials for animal feedingstuffs as it existed prior to the adoption of that directive and the need for more detailed information, as evidenced by the BSE and dioxin crises. 
56 Trećom i četvrtom uvodnom izjavom Direktive 2002/2 utvrđena je pravna situacija u području navođenja sastojaka hrane za životinje koja je postojala prije donošenja te direktive i potreba za detaljnijim informacijama koja je uočena u krizama povezanima s BSE-om i dioksinom.
According to the fifth recital in the preamble to Directive 2002/2, detailed quantitative information may help to ensure that potentially contaminated feed materials can be traced to specific batches, which will be beneficial to public health. 
U skladu s petom uvodnom izjavom Direktive 2002/2, detaljnim informacijama o količini može se doprinijeti osiguravanju mogućnosti praćenja potencijalno kontaminiranih krmiva do specifičnih šarži, što će biti korisno za javno zdravlje.
57 It follows from an examination of those recitals that the objective pursued by the Community legislature, when it adopted the provisions relating to the indication of feed materials for animal feedingstuffs, was to safeguard the protection of public health. 
57 Iz ispitivanja tih uvodnih izjava proizlazi da je cilj zakonodavca Zajednice pri donošenju odredaba o označivanju sastojaka hrane za životinje bio osigurati zaštitu javnog zdravlja.
58 Contrary to what has been stated by the Consiglio di Stato in its referral decisions underlying Cases C-11/04 and C-12/04, plant-based feedingstuffs may present health risks that are comparable to those found in feedingstuffs of animal origin. 
58 Suprotno onome što tvrdi Consiglio di Stato u svojim odlukama kojima upućuje zahtjev za prethodnu odluku u predmetima C-11/04 i C-12/04, hrana za životinje biljnog podrijetla može predstavljati rizik za zdravlje koji je usporediv s rizikom povezanim s hranom za životinje životinjskog podrijetla.
Fratelli Martini and the institutions which have submitted observations in those cases referred correctly to the problems posed by aflatoxin B1, which is a carcinogenic, genotoxic toxin produced by certain types of fungus present on cereals and nuts, to the 1999 dioxin crisis, which had an impact on the manufacture of compound feedingstuffs in Belgium, and to cases of contamination of cereals by herbicides and the presence, in waste water used for the production of animal feedingstuffs, of a hormone used in the manufacture of human contraceptives. 
Fratelli Martini i institucije koje su podnijele očitovanja u tim predmetima pravilno su uputili na probleme uzrokovane aflatoksinom B1, genotoksičnim karcinogenim otrovom koji proizvodi određene vrste gljivica prisutne u žitaricama i orašastim plodovima, na krizu iz 1999. povezanu s dioksinom, kojom su bili pogođeni proizvođači krmnih smjesa u Belgiji, na slučajeve kontaminacije žitarica herbicidima i na prisutnost hormona koji se upotrebljava u proizvodnji humanih kontracepcijskih sredstava u otpadnim vodama koje se upotrebljavaju za proizvodnju hrane za životinje.
59 As the Agent of the Danish Government stated at the hearing, it appears that the indication of the percentages of the components of a product allows for targeted examination in the event of contamination and makes it possible rapidly to remove suspect feedingstuffs from the market. 
59 Kao što je na raspravi naveo agent danske vlade, čini se da se navođenjem postotaka sastojaka proizvoda omogućuje ciljano ispitivanje u slučaju kontaminacije i brzo povlačenje sumnjive hrane za životinje s tržišta.
According to the Danish Government, the indication of a high percentage of biological maize contained in a feedingstuff administered by a farmer to cattle allowed the Danish authorities, in 2004, to identify that component as being the likely source of a high level of aflatoxin B1 present in the milk produced by that farmer and intended for human consumption. 
Prema mišljenju danske vlade, navođenjem povećanog postotka biološkog kukuruza sadržanog u hrani za životinje koju uzgajivač daje stoci danskoj je vladi 2004. bila omogućena identifikacija tog sastojka kao vjerojatnog izvora povećane razine aflatoksina B1 prisutnog u mlijeku namijenjenom prehrani ljudi, koje je proizveo taj uzgajivač.
This made it possible to withdraw immediately the contaminated product, without any need to await the result of laboratory analyses. 
Time je bilo omogućeno povlačenje kontaminiranog proizvoda bez odlaganja i bez potrebe za čekanjem na rezultate laboratorijskih analiza.
60 It must accordingly be held that the provisions of Directive 2002/2 which are under challenge in the cases in the main proceedings are likely to contribute directly to the pursuit of the objective of safeguarding public health. 
60 Stoga valja utvrditi da se odredbama Direktive 2002/2 koje se osporavaju u glavnom predmetu vjerojatno izravno doprinosi ostvarivanju cilja zaštite javnog zdravlja.
61 It follows that the objections alleging that those provisions are invalid by reason of an incorrect legal basis are unfounded. 
61 Iz gore navedenog proizlazi da su prigovori prema kojima su te odredbe nevaljane zbog netočne pravne osnove neosnovani.
Infringement of the principle of equal treatment 
Povreda načela jednakog postupanja
62 By its fourth question in Case C-12/04, the Consiglio di Stato asks whether Directive 2002/2 is to be declared unlawful as infringing the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination by reason of the fact that manufacturers of animal feedingstuffs are subject to a regime under which they are required to provide quantitative information on the feed materials used in the manufacture of the compound animal feedingstuffs, whereas manufacturers of foodstuffs intended for human consumption are not so required. 
62 Svojim četvrtim pitanjem u predmetu C-12/04 Consiglio di Stato pita treba li Direktivu 2002/2 smatrati nezakonitom zbog povrede načela jednakog postupanja i nediskriminacije na temelju činjenice da proizvođači hrane za životinje podliježu režimu kojim se od njih zahtijeva navođenje informacija o količini krmiva koja se upotrebljavaju u proizvodnji krmnih smjesa za životinje, pri čemu se to ne zahtijeva od proizvođača hrane namijenjene prehrani ljudi.
63 It is settled case-law that the principle of equal treatment requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified (Arnold André, cited above, paragraph 68; Swedish Match, cited above, paragraph 70; and Joined Cases C-154/04 and C-155/04 Alliance for Natural Health and Others [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 115). 
63 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi, načelo jednakog postupanja zahtijeva da se u usporedivim situacijama ne postupa na različit način i da se u različitim situacijama ne postupa na jednak način, osim ako je takvo postupanje objektivno opravdano (gore navedene presude Arnold André, t. 68., i Swedish Match, t. 70., te presuda od 12. srpnja 2005. Alliance for Natural Health i dr., C-154/04 i C-155/04, Zb., str. I-6451., t. 115.).
64 The objective pursued by Directive 2002/2 is the protection of public health. 
64 Cilj koji se želi ostvariti Direktivom 2002/2 jest zaštita javnog zdravlja.
Such an objective may justify a difference in treatment, particularly when one bears in mind the obligation under Article 152(1) EC to ensure a high level of human health protection in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities. 
Takvim se ciljem može opravdati različito postupanje, osobito ako se na umu ima obveza iz članka 152. stavka 1. UEZ-a da se u utvrđivanju i provedbi svih politika i aktivnosti Zajednice osigurava visok stupanj zaštite zdravlja ljudi.
65 Furthermore, as the Council has quite correctly stressed, even though one might be able to demonstrate that equally restrictive measures may also be justified in areas in which such measures have not yet been taken, such as that of foodstuffs intended for human consumption, that does not constitute a sufficient reason for taking the view that the measures adopted within the area which is the subject of the Community measures in issue are not lawful on the ground of their discriminatory character. 
65 Osim toga, kako je Vijeće točno naglasilo, čak i ako bi se moglo dokazati da su jednako restriktivne mjere možda opravdane i u područjima u kojima takve mjere još nisu poduzete, kao što je područje hrane namijenjene prehrani ljudi, to nije dovoljan razlog na temelju kojeg se može utvrditi da su mjere donesene u području na koje se primjenjuju dotične mjere Zajednice nezakonite zbog njihove diskriminirajuće naravi.
If that were not so, this would have the effect of bringing the level of public health protection down to that of the existing legislation which provides the least protection. 
U protivnom bi njihov učinak bio smanjenje razine zaštite javnog zdravlja na razinu postojećeg propisa kojim je predviđena minimalna zaštita.
66 It follows that the examination of the question referred has not revealed any factor liable to affect the validity of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 in regard to the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. 
66 Iz toga proizlazi da ispitivanjem postavljenog pitanja nije otkriven nijedan element koji bi utjecao na valjanost članka 1. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2 u pogledu načela jednakog postupanja i nediskriminacije.
Infringement of the principle of proportionality 
Povreda načela proporcionalnosti
67 By heading (c) of the question referred in Case C-453/03, Question 2 in both Case C-11/04 and Case C-12/04, and Question 1(c) in Case C-194/04, the respective referring courts are essentially asking whether the provisions of Article 1(1)(b) and 1(4) of Directive 2002/2 infringe the principle of proportionality. 
67 Točkom (c) pitanja u predmetu C-453/03, drugim pitanjem u predmetima C-11/04 i C-12/04 te prvim pitanjem točkom (c) u predmetu C-194/04 sudovi koji su uputili zahtjev u biti pitaju krši li se odredbama članka 1. stavka 1. točke (b) i članka 1. stavka 4. Direktive 2002/2 načelo proporcionalnosti.
In this context, the Consiglio di Stato also asks the Court whether there may be an infringement of the precautionary principle in that those provisions were adopted without a risk analysis based on scientific studies having been carried out. 
U tom kontekstu Consiglio di Stato pita Sud i o mogućoj povredi načela opreznosti jer su te odredbe bile donesene bez provođenja analize rizika na temelju znanstvenih studija.
68 According to settled case-law, the principle of proportionality, which is one of the general principles of Community law, requires that measures implemented through Community provisions be appropriate for attaining the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it (Arnold André, paragraph 45, and Swedish Match, paragraph 47). 
68 Iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da se načelom proporcionalnosti, koje je jedno od općih načela prava Zajednice, zahtijeva da mjere koje se provode odredbama prava Zajednice budu prikladne za ostvarivanje cilja koji se želi ostvariti i da ne prelaze ono što je potrebno za njegovo ostvarivanje (gore navedene presude Arnold André, t. 45., i Swedish Match, t. 47.).
69 With regard to judicial review of the conditions referred to in the previous paragraph, it should be noted that the Community legislature must be allowed a broad discretion in an area such as that in issue in the present case, which involves political, economic and social choices on its part, and in which it is called on to undertake complex assessments. 
69 U pogledu sudskog nadzora uvjeta iz prethodne točke, valja podsjetiti da se zakonodavcu Zajednice mora dati široka diskrecijska ovlast u području kao što je ono o kojem je riječ u ovom predmetu, na temelju koje se od njega zahtijevaju političke, gospodarske i socijalne odluke te provedba složenih procjena.
Consequently, the legality of a measure adopted in that area can be affected only if the measure is manifestly inappropriate having regard to the objective which the competent institutions are seeking to pursue (see, in this regard, Arnold André, paragraph 46, Swedish Match, paragraph 48, and Alliance for Hatural Health and Others, cited above, paragraph 52). 
Slijedom navedenog, samo očitom neprikladnošću neke mjere donesene u tom području s obzirom na cilj koji nadležne institucije nastoje ostvariti može se ugroziti zakonitost takve mjere (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedene presude Arnold André, t. 46., Swedish Match, t. 48., i Alliance for Natural Health i dr., t. 52.).
70 The claimants in the main proceedings, supported by the Spanish and United Kingdom Governments, submit essentially that the notification of the precise composition of the feedingstuffs in question seriously affects their economic rights and interests and is not necessary for the protection of health in view of the legislation which already exists within the animal feedingstuff sector. 
70 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku uz potporu španjolske vlade i vlade Ujedinjene Kraljevine u biti ističu da je obavješćivanje o točnom sastavu dotične hrane za životinje ozbiljna povreda njihovih gospodarskih prava i interesa i da ono nije nužno za zaštitu zdravlja s obzirom na već postojeći propis u sektoru hrane za životinje.
71 They rely in this regard on the other provisions of Directive 79/373, as amended by Directive 2002/2, in particular Article 5(5)(d), which requires the batch reference number to be indicated, and Article 12, which requires manufacturers to make available to the competent national authorities any document concerning the composition of feedingstuffs. 
71 U tom se pogledu pozivaju na druge odredbe Direktive 79/373, kako je izmijenjena Direktivom 2002/2, a posebno na članak 5. stavak 5. točku (d), kojim se zahtijeva navođenje referentnog broja šarže, i na članak 12., kojim se od proizvođača zahtijeva da nadležnim nacionalnim tijelima na raspolaganje stave sve dokumente o sastavu hrane za životinje.
According to the claimants in the main proceedings, those two obligations, the need for which they do not dispute, make it possible to ensure traceability of those feedingstuffs while at the same time respecting the economic interests of manufacturers, since those authorities are bound by an obligation of confidentiality and may use the information received only for the purpose of safeguarding public health. 
Prema mišljenju tužiteljâ u glavnom postupku, tim dvjema obvezama, čiju potrebu ne osporavaju, omogućuje se osiguravanje sljedivosti te hrane za životinje uz istodobno poštovanje gospodarskih interesa proizvođača jer ta tijela imaju obvezu povjerljivosti i mogu se služiti dobivenim informacijama samo u svrhu zaštite javnog zdravlja.