natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
‘1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that infringements within the meaning of Article 4 are subject to effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties, which may include criminal or administrative penalties. 
„1. Države članice poduzimaju potrebne mjere kako bi osigurale da kršenja u smislu članka 4. podliježu učinkovitim, proporcionalnim i odvraćajućim sankcijama, a koje mogu obuhvaćati kaznene i administrativne sankcije.
2. Each Member State shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the penalties referred to in paragraph 1 apply to any person who is found responsible for an infringement within the meaning of Article 4.’ 
2. Svaka država članica poduzima mjere potrebne kako bi se osiguralo da sankcije navedene u stavku 1. vrijede za svaku osobu za koju se utvrdi odgovornost za kršenje u smislu članka 4.”
24 At the time of adoption both of Directive 2005/35 and the Framework Decision, the Commission made statements in order to dissociate itself from the ‘double-text’ approach taken by the Council. The statement relating to the Framework Decision reads as follows: 
24 U trenutku donošenja kako Direktive 2005/35 tako i Okvirne odluke, Komisija je davala izjave kojima se suzdržala od pristupa „dvostrukog teksta” koji je zauzelo Vijeće. Izjava vezana uz Okvirnu odluku 2005/667 glasi:
‘Given the importance of combating ship-source pollution, the Commission is in favour of the discharge of polluting substances by ships being made a criminal offence and of penalties being adopted at national level in the event of the infringement of Community regulations concerning ship-source pollution. 
„S obzirom na važnost borbe protiv onečišćenja s brodova, Komisija se zalaže za to da ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari s brodova bude kazneno djelo, te da se na nacionalnoj razini donesu sankcije za slučaj povrede zakonodavstva Zajednice povezanog s onečišćenjem s brodova.
The Commission – as it is arguing in the Court of Justice in its appeal C-176/03 [Case C-176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-7879] against the Framework Decision on the protection of the environment through criminal law – considers that, within the competences which it possesses for the purpose of achieving the objectives set out in Article 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Community is empowered to require Member States to provide for penalties – including, if appropriate, criminal penalties – at national level, where this proves necessary in order to achieve a Community objective. 
Kako je i argumentirala pred Sudom u svojoj tužbi C-176/03 [presuda od 13. rujna 2005., Komisija/Vijeće, C-176/03, Zb., str. I-7879.] protiv Okvirne odluke ,o zaštiti okoliša kroz kazneno pravoʼ, Komisija u stvari smatra da je Zajednica, u okviru nadležnosti koje posjeduje u svrhu postizanja ciljeva navedenih u članku 2. Ugovora o osnivanju Europske zajednice, ovlaštena zahtijevati od država članica da na nacionalnoj razini predvide sankcije, uključujući i kaznene sankcije ako je to primjereno, ukoliko se to pokaže nužnim za postizanje cilja Zajednice.
Pending the ruling on C-176/03, if the Council adopts the Framework Decision in spite of this Community competence, the Commission reserves all the rights conferred upon it by the Treaty.’ 
Do donošenja presude u predmetu C-176/03, ako Vijeće donese okvirnu odluku unatoč ovoj nadležnosti Zajednice, Komisija pridržava sva prava koja su joj dana Ugovorom.”
25 Considering that the Framework Decision had not been adopted on the correct legal basis and that Article 47 EU had thereby been infringed, the Commission brought the present action. 
25 S obzirom da Okvirna odluka nije bila donesena na ispravnoj pravnoj osnovi te da je time došlo do povrede članka 47. UEU-a, Komisija je podnijela ovu tužbu.
29 According to the Commission, it is clear from the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, the implications of which extend beyond Community policy on environmental protection, that regard must be had to the aim and content of a measure in order to determine the appropriate legal basis for its adoption. Although the Court noted in that judgment that criminal law does not, as a rule, fall within the Community’s sphere of competence, it recognised that the Community does have an implied competence linked to a specific legal basis and may therefore adopt appropriate criminal-law measures, provided that there is a need to combat failure to implement Community objectives and that the aim of those measures is to ensure that the Community policy in question is fully effective. The Court did not define the scope of the Community legislature’s competence in criminal-law matters, since it did not draw any distinctions based on the nature of the criminal-law measures in question. 
29 Prema Komisiji, iz navedene presude Komisija/Vijeće, čije implikacije premašuju politiku Zajednice u području zaštite okoliša, proizlazi da u obzir valja uzeti cilj i sadržaj akta kako bi se utvrdila prikladna pravna osnova za njezino donošenje. Sud je u toj presudi podsjetio da kazneno pravo u pravilu nije obuhvaćeno područjem nadležnosti Zajednice. Ipak, priznao je da Zajednica ima implicitnu nadležnost vezanu uz određenu pravnu osnovu te stoga može donositi odgovarajuće kaznenopravne mjere, uz uvjet da postoji potreba borbe protiv neprovedbe ciljeva Zajednice, te da je cilj tih mjera osiguranje pune djelotvornosti predmetne politike Zajednice. Sud nije definirao područje nadležnosti zakonodavca Zajednice u kaznenopravnim stvarima, budući da nije činio podjele na osnovi prirode predmetnih kaznenopravnih mjera.
32 According to the Commission, the criterion requiring that there be a need, laid down by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, is also fulfilled in the present case. Firstly, the Council implicitly acknowledged as much in adopting the Framework Decision, since the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 29 EU provides that the Member States may approximate their legislation on criminal matters only ‘where necessary’. Secondly, given the specific features of the conduct covered by Directive 2005/35, all the provisions of that framework decision are necessary in order to ensure that the system established by the directive is effective. 
32 Kriterij s obzirom na nužnost potrebe, koji je Sud utvrdio u gore navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće, također je ispunjen u ovom predmetu. S jedne strane, Vijeće je to implicitno priznalo donošenjem Okvirne odluke 2005/667, budući da članak 29. stavak 2. treća alineja UEU-a predviđa da države članice mogu usklađivati svoja kaznena zakonodavstva samo „u mjeri u kojoj je to potrebno”. S druge strane, s obzirom na posebna obilježja postupanja obuhvaćenog Direktivom 2005/35, sve odredbe te okvirne odluke su nužne kako bi se osiguralo da sustav uspostavljen tom direktivom bude djelotvoran.
33 The Commission adds that, contrary to what the Council contends, the Court does not require an additional criterion, relating to the ‘transversal’ nature of the Community policy in question, to be satisfied in order for a degree of competence in criminal-law matters to be recognised as accruing to the Community. Moreover, such a criterion would, for most areas of Community law, preclude the possibility of any form of criminal-law protection under Community law, even where there was clearly a need for criminal-law measures to be taken. 
33 Komisija dodaje da, protivno onome što tvrdi Vijeće, Sud ne zahtijeva ispunjenje dodatnog kriterija vezanog uz „transverzalnu” prirodu predmetne politike Zajednice da bi nadležnost u kaznenopravnim stvarima bila prepoznata kao pripadajuća Zajednici. Štoviše, takav bi kriterij u većini područja prava Zajednice spriječio mogućnost kaznenopravne zaštite prema pravu Zajednice, pa i tamo gdje postoji jasna potreba za poduzimanjem mjera povezanih s kaznenim pravom.
34 As to the argument that the Council was free to act on the basis of Title VI of the EU Treaty to adopt measures relating to the criminal law of the Member States, since it had decided, as it was entitled to do under Article 80(2) EC, not to specify the penalties further in Directive 2005/35, the Commission states that Article 80(2) EC does not contain conditions for the existence of Community competence as such, but only for the exercise of that competence. The Council could, of course, have decided that the Member States remained competent. If it had, however, the Member States would have had to take action separately, since Article 47 EU precludes reliance on Title VI of the EU Treaty. 
34 Kao argument da je Vijeće bilo slobodno djelovati na osnovi glave VI. Ugovora o EU-u kako bi donijelo mjere povezane s kaznenim pravom država članica, budući da je svojim ovlastima prema članku 80. stavku 2. UEZ-a bilo odlučilo ne navoditi opširnije sankcije u Direktivi 2005/35, Komisija tvrdi da ta odredba ne uvjetuje nadležnost Zajednice kao takve, nego samo njezino izvršenje. Vijeće je, naravno, moglo odlučiti da države članice ostaju nadležne. Međutim, države članice bi u takvom slučaju morale zasebno poduzeti radnje budući da članak 47. UEU-a onemogućuje pozivanje na glavu VI. Ugovora o EU-u.
35 The Commission adds that the Framework Decision does not harmonise the type and level of applicable criminal penalty, as the Member States retain a certain latitude in that regard and the national courts have discretion to adjust the penalties to suit the individual case. Thus, the provisions of Framework Decision 2005/667 do not differ fundamentally from those of Article 5(1) of Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA of 27 January 2003 on the protection of the environment through criminal law (OJ 2003 L 29, p. 55), which was annulled by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council. 
35 Komisija nadalje tvrdi da se Okvirnom odlukom 2005/667 ne usklađuju razina i vrsta primjenjivih kaznenih sankcija, jer u tom području države članice zadržavaju određenu slobodu, a nacionalni sudovi imaju mogućnost individualizacije kazni. Dakle, odredbe te okvirne odluke u osnovi se ne razlikuju od onih iz članka 5. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke Vijeća 2003/80/PUP od 27. siječnja 2003. o zaštiti okoliša kroz kazneno pravo (SL L 29, str. 55.), koju je Sud poništio u navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće.
36 Criminal law does not, of course, constitute an independent Community policy area. The fact remains, however, that the Community has an ancillary criminal-law competence, which it may exercise if necessary. The criterion of need, applied by the Court in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, applies only in relation to the exercise of that competence, not to the question whether such a competence exists. 
36 Kazneno pravo svakako ne predstavlja neovisnu politiku Zajednice. Ipak, činjenica je da Zajednica ima dodatnu kaznenopravnu nadležnost koju može izvršavati ako je to nužno. Kriterij postojanja potrebe, koji je Sud koristio u navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće, primjenjuje se samo u odnosu na izvršenje te nadležnosti, a ne na pitanje postoji li ta nadležnost.
38 The Commission also observes that the terms ‘essential’ and ‘needed’, on the one hand, and the notion of ‘necessary’ within the meaning of Article 29 EU, on the other, in fact reflect the same concept and that, at that level, there is no difference between the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty. 
38 Komisija također primjećuje da, s jedne strane, izrazi „ključno” i „potrebno” i, s druge strane, pojam „nužno” u smislu članka 29. UEU-a, zapravo odražavaju isti koncept te da na toj razini nema razlike između Ugovora o EZ-u i Ugovora o EU-u.
40 The European Parliament observes that the Framework Decision is a perfect match of the framework decision which was the subject-matter of the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council. Firstly, its aim and content are wholly analogous to that of Framework Decision 2003/80, which was annulled by the Court in that judgment. As is clear from the preamble thereto, the fight against pollution and protection of the environment are not ancillary or secondary objectives of Framework Decision 2005/667. Likewise, its content is similar to that of Framework Decision 2003/80, since in both cases the criminal offences envisaged relate to the discharge of polluting substances. Although the two framework decisions diverge as regards the specific definition of the type and level of criminal penalty to be applied, that divergence is not such as to justify, in the present case, an outcome which is any different from that in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council. In fact, in that judgment the Court has already held that the Community legislature’s competence in criminal-law matters extends to provisions such as Article 5(1) of Framework Decision 2003/80 concerning the type and level of criminal penalties. 
40 Europski parlament primjećuje da Okvirna odluka 2005/667 u potpunosti odgovara okvirnoj odluci koja je bila predmet presude u predmetu Komisija/Vijeće. Prvo, njezin cilj i sadržaj u cijelosti se poklapaju s onima Okvirne odluke 2003/80 koju je Sud poništio u toj presudi. Kao što proizlazi iz uvodne izjave Okvirne odluke 2005/667, borba protiv onečišćenja i zaštita okoliša nisu popratni ili sporedni ciljevi te okvirne odluke. Jednako tako, njezin je sadržaj sličan onomu Okvirne odluke 2003/80, budući da se u oba slučaja kaznena djela odnose na ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari. Iako se dvije okvirne odluke razlikuju u pogledu preciznih definicija razine i vrsta kaznenih sankcija koje treba primjenjivati, ta razlika nije takva da bi u ovom predmetu opravdala ishod koji isključuje onaj iz presude Komisija/Vijeće. Zapravo, u toj je presudi Sud već utvrdio da se nadležnost zakonodavca Zajednice u kaznenopravnim stvarima širi na odredbe kao što su one iz članka 5. stavka 1. Okvirne odluke 2003/80 u pogledu vrste i razine kaznenih sankcija.
41 Next, the criterion requiring that there be a need is also fulfilled in the present case. Lastly, since Articles 1 to 6 of the Framework Decision come within Community competence, that decision, being indivisible, should be regarded in its entirety as infringing Article 47 EU. 
41 Nadalje, kriterij povezan s postojanjem potrebe također je ispunjen u ovom predmetu. Naposljetku, kako su članci 1. do 6. Okvirne odluke 2005/667 u nadležnosti Zajednice, za tu odluku, s obzirom na nedjeljivost njezinih odredaba, treba smatrati da u cijelosti krši članak 47. UEU-a.
42 The Council, by contrast, puts forward as its principal argument that, in adopting Directive 2005/35 together with the European Parliament under the co-decision procedure, it decided – in accordance with Article 80(2) EC – the question ‘whether’ and, if so, ‘to what extent’ the Community legislature must exercise its competence to adopt provisions on ship-source pollution, in particular provisions introducing penalties for infringement of the relevant rules. Through the adoption of that directive, the Community legislature wished to demarcate the limits of its own power to take action in matters involving maritime transport policy. This approach is entirely in keeping with Article 80(2) EC and the case-law of the Court. 
42 Za razliku od toga, Vijeće kao svoj glavni argument ističe da je donošenjem Direktive 2005/35 u postupku suodlučivanja zajedno s Europskim parlamentom, u skladu s člankom 80. stavkom 2. UEZ-a razriješilo pitanje „mora li” i, ako da, „u kojoj mjeri” zakonodavac Zajednice izvršavati svoju nadležnost za donošenje mjera vezanih uz onečišćenje s brodova, a posebno odredaba kojima se uvode sankcije za povredu normi kojima se uređuje to područje. Donošenjem te direktive zakonodavac Zajednice je htio utvrditi granice svojih vlastitih ovlasti za djelovanje u području politike pomorskog prometa. Ovaj se pristup u potpunosti pridržava članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a i prakse Suda.
43 The Community legislature could have decided to go further on the basis of Article 80(2) EC. However, in keeping with the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, it chose not to do so. It is also noteworthy that the European Parliament and the Council followed the Commission’s proposal concerning the legal basis to be used for Directive 2005/35. Although that directive also pursues objectives relating to protection of the environment, the Community legislature took the view that it essentially falls under the common transport policy and that the addition of a legal basis concerning environmental protection, in particular Article 175(1) EC, was not necessary. As it is, the legal basis chosen was not questioned by either the Parliament or the Commission. 
43 Zakonodavac Zajednice je mogao odlučiti ići dalje na temelju članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a. Međutim, pridržavajući se ovlasti koje su mu dane Ugovorom o EZ-u odlučio je to ne učiniti. Također valja primijetiti da su Europski parlament i Vijeće pratili prijedlog Komisije u pogledu pravne osnove za donošenje Direktive 2005/35. Iako ta direktiva također slijedi ciljeve vezane uz zaštitu okoliša, zakonodavac Zajednice je procijenio da je ona u biti obuhvaćena zajedničkom prometnom politikom, te dodavanje pravne osnove koja se tiče zaštite okoliša, posebno članka 175. stavka 1. UEZ-a, nije nužno. Osim toga, odabranu pravnu osnovu nije propitivao ni Parlament ni Komisija.
47 The Council states that, in terms of its aim and content – the key elements for determining the appropriate legal basis for adopting a measure – the Framework Decision is designed to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to the fight against ship-source pollution by harmonising the type and level of the applicable criminal penalties. However, it is clear from Case C-176/03 Commission v Council that such harmonisation, which goes far beyond that provided for in Framework Decision 2003/80, does not currently fall within the Community’s sphere of competence. 
47 Vijeće tvrdi da je, uzimajući u obzir njezin cilj i sadržaj kao ključne elemente za određivanje prikladne pravne osnove za donošenje akta, Okvirna odluka sastavljena radi usklađivanja zakonodavstava država članica u području borbe protiv onečišćenja s brodova kroz harmonizaciju razine i vrsta primjenjivih kaznenih sankcija. Međutim, iz gore navedene presude Komisija/Vijeće proizlazi da takva harmonizacija, koja uvelike premašuje ono što predviđa Okvirna odluka 2003/80, trenutačno nije obuhvaćena područjem nadležnosti Zajednice.
48 Since the approach adopted by the Court in that judgment must be regarded as marking an exception to the principle that criminal law falls outside the Community’s sphere of competence – as do, by the same token, the rules of criminal procedure – the Council considers that the criteria applied by the Court in support of that approach must be interpreted narrowly. That approach should therefore apply only where there is a ‘need’, a concept which is not identical to that of ‘necessary’ as referred to in the second paragraph of Article 29 EU. 
48 Budući da se pristup koji je Sud zauzeo u toj presudi mora smatrati iznimkom od načela da je kazneno pravo izvan područja nadležnosti Zajednice, baš kao i pravila kaznenog postupka, Vijeće smatra da kriterije koje je Sud primijenio u prilog tom rješenju treba usko tumačiti. Stoga se to rješenje treba primjenjivati samo u slučaju „nužnosti”, a taj pojam nije jednak pojmu „potreba” iz članka 29. stavka 2. UEU-a.
50 Lastly, the Council observes that, in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, the Court held that, in the light of their aim and content, the Community was competent to adopt Articles 1 to 7 of Framework Decision 2003/80 and that it would therefore have excluded Article 8 on jurisdiction and Article 9 on extraditions and prosecutions from that sphere of competence. Likewise, in the present case, Articles 7, 8 and 9 of Framework Decision 2005/667 cover areas in respect of which the EC Treaty has not conferred any competence on the Community. 
50 Naposljetku, Vijeće primjećuje da je u navedenoj presudi Komisija/Vijeće Sud presudio da je Zajednica zbog cilja i sadržaja članaka 1. do 7. Okvirne odluke 2003/80 bila nadležna za njihovo donošenje te da je iz tog područja nadležnosti isključio članak 8. o sudskoj nadležnosti i članak 9. o izručenjima i sudskim progonima. Jednako tako valja utvrditi da u ovom primjeru članci 7., 8. i 9. Okvirne odluke 2005/667 obuhvaćaju područja u odnosu na koja Ugovor o EZ-u nije povjerio nikakve nadležnosti Zajednici.
52 Under Article 47 EU, none of the provisions of the EC Treaty is to be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. The same rule is laid down in the first paragraph of Article 29 EU, which introduces Title VI of the EU Treaty, entitled ‘Provisions on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters’. 
52 Prema članku 47. UEU-a, odredba Ugovora o EU-u ne smije utjecati ni na jednu odredbu Ugovora o EZ-u. Isti je zahtjev naveden u članku 29. stavku 1. UEU-a, kojim se uvodi glava VI. tog Ugovora, pod naslovom „Odredbe o suradnji u područjima pravosuđa i unutarnjih poslova”.
54 It is therefore necessary to determine whether or not the provisions of Framework Decision 2005/667 affect the Community’s competence under Article 80(2) EC, in that they could have been adopted on the basis of that provision, as submitted by the Commission. 
54 Stoga je važno provjeriti utječu li odredbe Okvirne odluke 2005/667 na nadležnost koju Zajednica ima na temelju članka 80. stavka 2. UEZ-a, na način da su mogle biti donesene na temelju te odredbe, kako tvrdi Komisija.
57 As evidenced by the Court’s case-law, far from excluding the application of the EC Treaty to sea transport, Article 80(2) EC merely provides that the specific rules of the Treaty relating to the common transport policy, which are set out in Title V thereof, will not automatically apply to that sphere of activity (see, inter alia, Case C-178/05 Commission v Greece [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 52). 
57 Kako proizlazi iz sudske prakse Suda, članak 80. stavak 2. UEZ-a nikako ne isključuje primjenu Ugovora o EZ-u na pomorski promet, već predviđa da se posebna pravila Ugovora koja se odnose na zajedničku prometnu politiku, a navedena su u njegovoj glavi V., neće automatski primjenjivati na to područje djelatnosti (vidjeti, između ostaloga, presudu od 7. lipnja 2007., Komisija/Grčka, C-178/05, Zb., str. I-4185., t. 52.).
58 Since Article 80(2) EC does not lay down any explicit limitations as to the nature of the specific common rules which the Council may adopt on that basis in accordance with the procedural provisions laid down in Article 71 EC, the Community legislature has broad legislative powers under Article 80(2) EC and is competent – by virtue of that provision and in keeping with the other provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the common transport policy, in particular Article 71(1) EC – to lay down, inter alia, ‘measures to improve transport safety’ and ‘any other appropriate provisions’ in the field of maritime transport (see, to that effect, in respect of road transport, Joined Cases C-184/02 and C-223/02 Spain and Finland v Parliament and Council [2004] ECR I-7789, paragraph 28). 
58 Budući da članak 80. stavak 2. UEZ-a ne predviđa nikakvo izričito ograničenje u pogledu naravi posebnih zajedničkih pravila koja Vijeće može donijeti na toj osnovi u skladu s postupovnim odredbama određenima u članku 71. UEZ-a, zakonodavac Zajednice na temelju te odredbe ima široke zakonodavne ovlasti i analogno ostalim odredbama Ugovora o EZ-u vezanim uz zajedničku prometnu politiku, a posebno člankom 71. stavkom 1. UEZ-a, nadležan je utvrditi, između ostaloga, „mjere za poboljšanje sigurnosti prometa” i „sve druge prikladne odredbe” u području pomorskog prometa (vidjeti, u tom smislu, u odnosu na cestovni promet, presudu od 9. rujna 2004., Španjolska i Finska/Parlament i Vijeće, C-184/02 i C-223/02, Zb., str. I-7789., t. 28.).