natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
85 That argument must be rejected. It is necessary to bear in mind that the institutions are obliged to balance, before disclosing information relating to a natural person, the European Union’s interest in guaranteeing the transparency of its actions and the infringement of the rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. No automatic priority can be conferred on the objective of transparency over the right to protection of personal data (see, to that effect, Commission v Bavarian Lager, paragraphs 75 to 79), even if important economic interests are at stake. 
85 Taj argument treba odbiti. Treba podsjetiti na to da su institucije obvezne uzeti u obzir, prije otkrivanja podataka o nekoj fizičkoj osobi, interes Europske unije u smislu jamčenja transparentnosti njezinih radnji i kršenja prava priznatih člancima 7. i 8. Povelje. Cilj transparentnosti ne smije dobiti automatski prioritet pred zaštitom osobnih podataka (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Komisija/Bavarian Lager, t. od 75. do 79.)., čak ni kada su u pitanju važni gospodarski interesi.
86 It follows from the foregoing that it does not appear that the institutions properly balanced, on the one hand, the objectives of Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and of Regulation No 259/2008 against, on the other, the rights which natural persons are recognised as having under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter. Regard being had to the fact that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi and Satamedia, paragraph 56) and that it is possible to envisage measures which affect less adversely that fundamental right of natural persons and which still contribute effectively to the objectives of the European Union rules in question, it must be held that, by requiring the publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid and of the exact amounts received by those persons, the Council and the Commission exceeded the limits which compliance with the principle of proportionality imposes. 
86 Iz gore navedenog slijedi kako institucije nisu postigle dobru ravnotežu između, s jedne strane, ciljeva članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbe br. 259/2008 i, s druge strane, prava koja su priznata fizičkim osobama na temelju članaka 7. i 8. Povelje. S obzirom na činjenicu da se izuzeća i ograničenja u odnosu na zaštitu osobnih podataka moraju primjenjivati samo u mjeri u kojoj je to nužno potrebno (gore navedena presuda Markkinapörssi et Satamedia, t. 56.) te da je moguće predvidjeti mjere kojima se manje nepovoljno utječe na odnosno temeljno pravo fizičkih osoba, a koje ipak učinkovito doprinose ciljevima odgovarajućih pravila Europske unije, valja presuditi da su, odredivši objavu imena svih fizičkih osoba koje su korisnici EFJP-a i EPFRR-a i točnih iznosa koje su te osobe primile, Vijeće i Komisija premašili ograničenja koja nalaže postupanje u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti.
87 Finally, with regard to the legal persons which received EAGF and EAFRD aid, and in so far as they may invoke the rights conferred by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter (see paragraph 53 of the present judgment), the view must be taken that the obligation to publish which follows from the provisions of the European Union rules the validity of which has here been brought into question does not go beyond the limits imposed by compliance with the principle of proportionality. The seriousness of the breach of the right to protection of personal data manifests itself in different ways for, on the one hand, legal persons and, on the other, natural persons. It is necessary to point out in this regard that legal persons are already subject to a more onerous obligation in respect of the publication of data relating to them. Furthermore, the obligation on the competent national authorities to examine, before the data in question are published and for each legal person which is a beneficiary of EAGF or EAFRD aid, whether the name of that person identifies natural persons would impose on those authorities an unreasonable administrative burden (see, to that effect, judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, K.U. v.Finland, 2 March 2009, application no 2872/02, § 48, not yet published). 
87 Naposljetku, u odnosu na pravne osobe koje su primile potporu iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a te u mjeri u kojoj se mogu pozvati na prava priznata člancima 7. i 8. Povelje (vidjeti točku 53. ove presude), treba smatrati da obveza objave koja proizlazi iz odredaba pravila Europske unije čija je valjanost dovedena u pitanje ne premašuje ograničenja koja proizlaze iz sukladnosti s načelom proporcionalnosti. Ozbiljnost kršenja prava na zaštitu osobnih podataka očituje se na različite načine za, s jedne strane, pravne osobe i, s druge strane, fizičke osobe. Valja naglasiti u ovom pogledu da pravne osobe već podliježu strožoj obvezi u odnosu na objavu podataka o njima. Nadalje, obveza nadležnih nacionalnih tijela da prije objave odnosnih podataka i za svaku pravnu osobu koja je korisnik potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a ispitaju mogu li se iz imena pravne osobe identificirati fizičke osobe, predstavljala bi za ta tijela nerazuman administrativni teret (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu Europskog suda za ljudska prava od 2. ožujka 2009., K.U./Finska, tužba br. 2872/02, još neobjavljenu, t. 48.).
88 In those circumstances, it must be held that the provisions of European Union law, the validity of which is questioned by the referring court, observe, in so far as they concern the publication of data relating to legal persons, a fair balance in the consideration taken of the respective interests in issue. 
88 U tim okolnostima treba smatrati da se odredbama prava Unije, čiju valjanost sud koji je uputio zahtjev dovodi u pitanje, održava, u mjeri u kojoj se odnose na objavu podataka o pravnim osobama, pravedna ravnoteža u uzimanju u obzir odgovarajućih interesa.
89 On the basis of all of the foregoing, Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and Regulation No 259/2008 must be declared invalid to the extent to which, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof. 
89 Na temelju svega prethodno navedenog, članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredba br. 259/2008 treba proglasiti nevaljanima u mjeri u kojoj, u odnosu na fizičke osobe koje su korisnici potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a, te odredbe nalažu obvezu objave osobnih podataka o svakom korisniku bez razlikovanja na temelju odgovarajućih kriterija, kao što su razdoblja tijekom kojih su osobe primale takvu potporu, učestalost takve potpore ili njezina priroda i iznos.
c) The validity of Article 42(8b) of Regulation No 1290/2005 
c) Valjanost članka 42. stavka 8.b Uredbe br. 1290/2005
90 Article 42(8b) of Regulation No 1290/2005 authorises the Commission to adopt the detailed rules for the implementation solely of Article 44a of that regulation. 
90 Valja podsjetiti na to da je člankom 42. stavkom 8.b Uredbe br. 1290/2005 Komisija ovlaštena donijeti detaljna pravila za provedbu isključivo članka 44.a te uredbe.
91 However, as Article 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 has to be declared invalid for the reasons indicated above, Article 42(8b) of that regulation must be declared invalid in like manner. 
91 Međutim, budući da članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 valja proglasiti nevaljanim iz gore navedenih razloga, članak 42. stavak 8.b navedene uredbe isto tako valja proglasiti nevaljanim.
92 The answer to the first question and to the first part of the second question is therefore that Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005, and Regulation No 259/2008, are invalid in so far as, with regard to natural persons who are beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid, those provisions impose an obligation to publish personal data relating to each beneficiary without drawing a distinction based on relevant criteria such as the periods during which those persons have received such aid, the frequency of such aid or the nature and amount thereof. 
92 Stoga na prvo pitanje i na prvi dio drugog pitanja valja odgovoriti da članak 42. stavak 8.b i članak 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredba br. 259/2008 treba proglasiti nevaljanima u mjeri u kojoj, u odnosu na fizičke osobe koje su korisnici potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a, te odredbe nalažu obvezu objave osobnih podataka o svakom korisniku bez razlikovanja na temelju odgovarajućih kriterija, kao što su razdoblja tijekom kojih su te osobe primale potporu, učestalost takve potpore ili njezina priroda i iznos.
d) The effects in time of the invalidity which has been established 
d) Vremenski učinci utvrđene nevaljanosti
93 Where it is justified by overriding considerations of legal certainty, the second paragraph of Article 264 TFEU, which is also applicable by analogy to a reference under Article 267 TFEU for a preliminary ruling on the validity of acts of the European Union, confers on the Court a discretion to decide, in each particular case, which specific effects of the act in question must be regarded as definitive (see, to that effect, Case C-333/07 Regie Networks [2008] ECR I-10807, paragraph 121 and the case-law cited). 
93 Valja podsjetiti na to da, kada je to opravdano važnim razlozima pravne sigurnosti, drugi stavak članka 264. UFEU-a, koji se također analogijom primjenjuje na prethodni postupak na temelju članka 267. UFEU-a u odnosu na valjanost akata Europske unije, Sud ima diskrecijsku ovlast da u svakom pojedinačnom slučaju odluči koje konkretne učinke odnosnog akta treba smatrati konačnima (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 22. prosinca 2008., Regie Networks, C-333/07, Zb., str. I-10807., t. 121. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
94 In view of the large number of publications which have taken place in the Member States on the basis of rules which were regarded as being valid, it must be held that the invalidity of the provisions mentioned in paragraph 92 of the present judgment does not allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities on the basis of those provisions during the period prior to the date on which the present judgment is delivered. 
94 S obzirom na velik broj objava koje su države članice izvršile na temelju pravila koja su smatrana valjanima, valja priznati da nevaljanost odredaba navedenih u točki 92. ove presude ne dopušta dovođenje u pitanja učinaka objave popisa korisnika potpore iz EFJP-a i EPFRR-a koju su izvršila nacionalna tijela na temelju tih odredaba tijekom razdoblja koje je prethodilo danu objave ove presude.
2. The third question 
2. Treće pitanje
95 By its third question, the referring court seeks, essentially, to ascertain whether the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as meaning that the publication of the information resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008 may be effected only if the personal data protection official has, prior to such publication, kept a full register within the terms of the second indent of Article 18(2). 
95 Svojim trećim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita treba li drugu alineju članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46 tumačiti tako da znači da se objava podataka na temelju članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i na temelju Uredbe br. 259/2008 smije izvršiti samo ako je službenik za zaštitu osobnih podataka prije takve objave vodio potpunu evidenciju u smislu druge alineje članka 18. stavka 2.
96 It must, in this regard, be borne in mind that Article 18(1) of Directive 95/46 establishes the principle that the supervisory authority must be notified before any wholly or partly automatic operation for the processing of personal data, or any set of such operations intended to serve a single purpose or several related purposes, is carried out. As recital 48 in the preamble to Directive 95/46 explains, ‘the procedures for notifying the supervisory authority are designed to ensure disclosure of the purposes and main features of any processing operation for the purpose of verification that the operation is in accordance with the national measures taken under this Directive’. 
96 U ovom smislu valja podsjetiti na to da je člankom 18. stavkom 1. Direktive 95/46 predviđeno načelo da nadzorno tijelo mora biti obaviješteno prije izvršavanja potpuno ili djelomično automatske obrade osobnih podataka ili skupa takvih operacija s namjerom da služi jednoj svrsi ili nekoliko povezanih svrha. Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 48. Direktive 95/46, „postupci za obavješćivanje nadzornog tijela osmišljeni [su] da osiguraju otkrivanje svrha i glavnih karakteristika bilo kojeg postupka obrade radi provjere da je taj postupak u skladu s nacionalnim mjerama poduzetima na temelju [te] Direktive”.
97 The second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46, however, provides that Member States may provide for the simplification of or exemption from that obligation in the case where, inter alia, the controller appoints a personal data protection official. It appears from the decisions for reference that such an appointment was made in the Land of Hesse so far as concerns the publication of data resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008. 
97 Drugom alinejom članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46 predviđeno je, međutim, da države članice mogu predvidjeti pojednostavljenje ili izuzeće od obveze obavješćivanja u slučaju kada, između ostalog, nadzornik imenuje službenika za zaštitu osobnih podataka. Iz odluka koje su podnesene u prethodnom postupku proizlazi da je takvo imenovanje izvršeno u Landu Hessen u odnosu na objavu podataka na temelju članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i na temelju Uredbe br. 259/2008.
98 According to the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46, a personal data protection official has a number of tasks which are designed to ensure that processing operations are unlikely to have an adverse effect on the rights and freedoms of the persons concerned. The official is thus responsible for, among other things, ‘keeping the register of processing operations carried out by the controller, containing the items of information referred to in Article 21(2) [of Directive 95/46]’. The latter provision refers to Article 19(1)(a) to (e) of Directive 95/46. 
98 U skladu s drugom alinejom članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46, službenik za zaštitu osobnih podataka ima više zadaća čija je svrha osigurati manju vjerojatnost nepovoljnog učinka postupaka obrade na prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju. Službenik je tako odgovoran, između ostalog, za vođenje „evidencije operacija obrade koje izvršava nadzornik, koja sadrži pojedine podatke iz članka 21. stavka 2. [Direktive 95/46]”. Potonja odredba odnosi se na članak 19. stavak 1. točke od (a) do (e) iste direktive.
99 However, contrary to the view expressed by the referring court, the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46 does not require any provision to be adopted which imposes an obligation on the personal data protection official to maintain a register containing the information referred to in Article 21(2) of that directive, read in conjunction with Article 19(1)(a) to (e) thereof, before the processing of the data concerned is undertaken. The register referred to in the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46 need contain only ‘processing operations carried out’. 
99 Međutim, suprotno stajalištu suda koji je uputio zahtjev, drugom alinejom članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46 ne određuje se donošenje odredbe koja obvezuje službenika za zaštitu osobnih podataka da evidenciju s podacima iz članka 21. stavka 2. te direktive, u vezi s njezinim člankom 19. stavkom 1. točkama od (a) do (e), vodi prije obrade odnosnih podataka. Evidencija iz druge alineje članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46 treba sadržavati samo „[izvršene] operacije obrade”.
100 In those circumstances, the absence, established by the referring court, of a full register prior to the data processing cannot affect the legality of a publication such as that resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008. 
100 U tim okolnostima, nepostojanje, koje je utvrdio sud koji je uputio zahtjev, potpune evidencije prije obrade podataka ne može utjecati na zakonitost objave poput one koja proizlazi iz članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i iz Uredbe br. 259/2008.
101 The answer to the third question is therefore that the second indent of Article 18(2) of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as not placing the personal data protection official under an obligation to keep the register provided for by that provision before an operation for the processing of personal data, such as that resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008, is carried out. 
101 Stoga na treće pitanje valja odgovoriti da drugu alineja članka 18. stavka 2. Direktive 95/46 treba tumačiti tako da ne obvezuje službenika za zaštitu podataka da vodi evidenciju predviđenu tom odredbom prije operacije obrade osobnih podataka, poput one koja proizlazi iz članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i iz Uredbe br. 259/2008.
3. The fourth question 
3. Četvrto pitanje
102 By its fourth question, the referring court seeks, essentially, to ascertain whether Article 20 of Directive 95/46 is to be interpreted as making the publication of the information resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008 subject to the prior checks for which that Article 20 provides. 
102 Svojim četvrtim pitanjem sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti pita može li se članak 20. Direktive 95/46 tumačiti tako da objavu informacija na temelju članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i na temelju Uredbe br. 259/2008 uvjetuje prethodnim provjerama predviđenima tim člankom 20.
103 It must first be pointed out that Article 20(1) of Directive 95/46 provides that ‘Member States shall determine the processing operations likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects and shall check that these processing operations are examined prior to the start thereof’. 
103 Prvenstveno valja naglasiti da je člankom 20. stavkom 1. Direktive 95/46 predviđeno da „države članice utvrđuju postupke obrade koji bi mogli predstavljati posebne rizike za prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju te osiguravaju da ti postupci obrade budu provjereni prije njihova započinjanja”.
104 It follows that Directive 95/46 does not make the processing of personal data subject, in general, to a prior check. As is clear from recital 52 in the preamble to Directive 95/46, the European Union legislature took the view that ‘ex post facto verification by the competent authorities must in general be considered a sufficient measure’. 
104 Iz toga proizlazi da se Direktivom 95/46 obrada osobnih podataka u pravilu ne uvjetuje prethodnom provjerom. Iz uvodne izjave 52. Direktive 95/46 jasno proizlazi da se prema stajalištu zakonodavca Europske unije „naknadna provjera nadležnih tijela općenito smatra dovoljnom mjerom”.
105 With regard to processing operations which are subject to prior checks, that is to say, processing operations which are likely to pose specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, recital 53 in the preamble to Directive 95/46 states that processing operations are likely to pose such risks ‘by virtue of their nature, their scope or their purposes’. Even though Member States have the option of specifying in greater detail in their legislation the processing operations which may pose specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects, Directive 95/46 provides, as is evident from recital 54 in its preamble, that the number of such operations ‘should be very limited’. 
105 U odnosu na postupke obrade koji podliježu prethodnim provjerama odnosno postupke obrade koji bi mogli predstavljati posebne rizike za prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju, u uvodnoj izjavi 53. Direktive 95/46 navodi se da bi postupci obrade mogli predstavljati takve rizike „zbog njihove prirode, područja primjene ili svrhe”. Iako države članice imaju mogućnost u svojem zakonodavstvu detaljnije razraditi postupke obrade koji bi mogli predstavljati posebne rizike za prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju, Direktivom 95/46 predviđeno je, kao što je vidljivo iz njezine uvodne izjave 54., da broj takvih postupaka „treba biti vrlo ograničen”.
106 It must further be pointed out that, under Article 27(1) of Regulation No 45/2001, processing operations which are likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects are also subject to prior checking when carried out by institutions and bodies of the European Union. Article 27(2) of that regulation specifies the operations which are likely to present such risks. In view of the parallel relationship between the provisions of Directive 95/46 and those of Regulation No 45/2001 which relate to prior checks, the listing in Article 27(2) of Regulation No 45/2001 of the processing operations which are likely to present specific risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects must be considered relevant for the purpose of interpreting Article 20 of Directive 95/46. 
106 Dalje valja naglasiti da na temelju članka 27. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 45/2001 postupci obrade koji bi mogli predstavljati posebne rizike za prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju također podliježu prethodnoj provjeri kada ih provode institucije i tijela Europske unije. Člankom 27. stavkom 2. navedene uredbe predviđeni su postupci koji bi mogli predstavljati takve rizike. S obzirom na paralelnost odredaba Direktive 95/46 i Uredbe br. 45/2001 koje se odnose na prethodne provjere, popis u članku 27. stavku 2. Uredbe br. 45/2001 s postupcima obrade koji bi mogli predstavljati posebne rizike za prava i slobode osoba čiji se podaci obrađuju treba smatrati relevantnim za potrebe tumačenja članka 20. Direktive 95/46.
107 However, it does not appear that the publication of the data imposed by Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and by Regulation No 259/2008 comes within any of the categories of processing operations covered by Article 27(2) of Regulation No 45/2001. 
107 Međutim, objava podataka predviđena člankom 42. stavkom 8.b i člankom 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i Uredbom br. 259/2008 nije obuhvaćena nijednom kategorijom postupaka obrade iz članka 27. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 45/2001.
108 In those circumstances, the answer to the fourth question is that Article 20 of Directive 95/46 must be interpreted as not imposing an obligation on the Member States to make the publication of information resulting from Articles 42(8b) and 44a of Regulation No 1290/2005 and from Regulation No 259/2008 subject to the prior checks for which that Article 20 provides. 
108 U tim okolnostima na četvrto pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 20. Direktive 95/46 treba tumačiti tako da ne obvezuje države članice da objavu informacija na temelju članka 42. stavka 8.b i članka 44.a Uredbe br. 1290/2005 i na temelju Uredbe br. 259/2008 uvjetuju prethodnim provjerama predviđenima tim člankom 20.
109 In view of the answer to the fourth question, there is no longer any need to answer the fifth question. 
109 S obzirom na odgovor na četvrto pitanje, nije potrebno odgovarati na peto pitanje.
IV – Costs 
IV – Troškovi