natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
44 That implementing measure merely ensures the effectiveness of Netherlands legislation concerning games of chance. Without such a measure, the prohibition laid down by the Wok would be ineffective, since economic operators who are not licensed by the national authorities would be able to provide games of chance on the Netherlands market. 
44 Tom se provedbenom mjerom samo osigurava korisni učinak nizozemskog propisa koji se odnosi na igre na sreću. Bez te mjere zabrana utvrđena Wokom ne bi imala nikakav učinak jer bi gospodarski subjekti kojima nacionalna tijela nisu izdala odobrenje mogli nuditi igre na sreću na nizozemskom tržištu.
45 Since the implementing measure laid down by the national legislation does not, in itself, impose additional restrictions on the market, consideration of its conformity with European Union law is closely linked to the national court’s examination of the compatibility of the Wok with Article 49 EC. 
45 Budući da se samom provedbenom mjerom koju je donio nacionalni sud ne nameću dodatna ograničenja na tržištu, ispitivanje njezine usklađenosti s pravom Unije usko je povezano s ispitivanjem usklađenosti Woka s člankom 49. UEZ-a koje je proveo nacionalni sud.
48 The subject-matter of that dispute concerns the application of Article 49 EC, which confers on individuals rights which are enforceable by them and which the national courts must protect (see Case 33/74 van Binsbergen [1974] ECR 1299, paragraph 27, and Case C-208/05 ITC [2007] ECR I-181, paragraph 67). 
48 Predmet tog spora je primjena članka 49. UEZ-a kojim se pojedincima dodjeljuju prava koja ti pojedinci mogu ostvariti i koja nacionalni sudovi moraju štititi (vidjeti presude od 3. prosinca 1974., van Binsbergen, 33/74, Zb., str. 1299., t. 27., i od 11. siječnja 2007., ITC, C-208/05, Zb., str. I-181., t. 67.).
50 It follows from the foregoing observations that the answer to the second question is that, for the purpose of applying legislation of a Member State on games of chance which is compatible with Article 49 EC, the national courts are not required to determine, in each case, whether the implementing measure intended to ensure compliance with that legislation is suitable for achieving the objective of that legislation and is compatible with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that measure is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of that legislation and does not include any additional restriction over and above that which arises from the legislation itself. Whether that implementing measure was adopted as a result of action by the public authorities to ensure compliance with national legislation or of an application by an individual in the context of a civil action to protect his rights under that legislation has no bearing on the outcome of the dispute before the national court. 
50 Iz gore navedenog proizlazi da na drugo pitanje valja odgovoriti da, za potrebe primjene propisa države članice o igrama na sreću koji je u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a, nacionalni sudovi ne moraju u svakom pojedinom slučaju ispitati je li provedbena mjera za osiguravanje usklađenosti s tim propisom prikladna za ostvarivanje njegova cilja i je li usklađena s načelom proporcionalnosti ako je ta mjera neophodna za osiguravanje korisnog učinka tog propisa i ako ne uključuje dodatno ograničenje osim onoga koje proizlazi iz samog propisa. Okolnost da je ta provedbena mjera donesena kao posljedica djelovanja tijela javne vlasti s ciljem osiguravanja usklađenosti s nacionalnim propisom ili na temelju zahtjeva pojedinca u okviru građanskog postupka s ciljem zaštite njegovih prava u skladu s tim propisom nema utjecaja na ishod spora koji se vodi pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev.
53 The Ladbrokes companies submit that they are holders of a licence issued by the authorities of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which allows them to offer sports-related prize competitions and other games of chance via the internet and by telephone, and are subject in the United Kingdom to very strict legislation for the prevention of fraud and of addiction to games of chance. They also allege that, where a Member State imposes restrictions relating to the organisation of such games, it must take into account the fact that the public interest justifying the restriction in question is already protected by the rules laid down by the Member State in which the provider of services is licensed to operate such games. There should be no duplication of controls and safeguards. 
53 Društva Ladbrokes ističu da su nositelji odobrenja koje su izdala tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske i da im se tim odobrenjem dopušta da na internetu i telefonski nude nagradne igre povezane sa sportom i druge igre na sreću te da u toj državi članici podliježu vrlo strogom zakonodavstvu za sprečavanje prijevare i ovisnosti o igrama na sreću. Jednako tako tvrde da ako nameće ograničenja koja se odnose na priređivanje tih igara, država članica mora uzeti u obzir činjenicu da je opći interes kojim se opravdava predmetno ograničenje već zaštićen pravilima koja je odredila država članica u kojoj je pružatelju usluga izdano odobrenje za priređivanje tih igara. Nije potrebno udvostručavanje kontrola i zaštitnih mjera.
54 In that regard, it should be noted that the internet gaming industry has not been the subject of harmonisation within the European Union. A Member State is therefore entitled to take the view that the mere fact that an operator such as the Ladbrokes companies lawfully offers services in that sector via the internet in another Member State, in which it is established and where it is in principle already subject to statutory conditions and controls on the part of the competent authorities in that State, is not a sufficient assurance that national consumers will be protected against the risks of fraud and crime, in the light of the difficulties liable to be encountered in such a context by the authorities of the Member State of establishment in assessing the professional qualities and integrity of operators (see, to that effect, Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional and Bwin International, paragraph 69). 
54 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti da područje internetskih igara na sreću nije bilo predmet usklađivanja na razini Europske unije. Stoga država članica ima pravo smatrati da se sama činjenica da subjekt kao što su društva Ladbrokes zakonito nudi usluge iz tog područja na internetu u drugoj državi članici, u kojoj ima poslovni nastan i u kojoj u načelu već podliježe zakonskim uvjetima i kontrolama nadležnih tijela te države, ne može smatrati dovoljnim osiguranjem da će nacionalni potrošači biti zaštićeni od rizika prijevare i kriminaliteta s obzirom na poteškoće s kojima se u takvim okolnostima mogu susresti tijela države članice poslovnog nastana pri ocjenjivanju stručnih sposobnosti i integriteta subjekata (vidjeti u tom smislu gore navedenu presudu Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional i Bwin International, t. 69.).
56 The fact that an operator who offers games of chance via the internet does not pursue an active sales policy in the Member State concerned, particularly because he is not making use of advertising in that State, cannot be regarded as running counter to the considerations set out in the two preceding paragraphs. Those considerations are based solely on the effects of the mere accessibility of games of chance via the internet and not on the potentially different consequences of the active or passive provision of services by that operator. 
56 Činjenica da subjekt koji nudi igre na sreću na internetu ne provodi aktivnu prodajnu politiku u predmetnoj državi članici, osobito zbog toga što se u toj državi ne služi oglašavanjem, ne može se smatrati protivnom razmatranjima iz prethodnih dviju točaka. Ta se razmatranja temelje isključivo na učincima koje ima već sam pristup igrama na sreću na internetu, a ne na potencijalno različitim posljedicama aktivnog ili pasivnog pružanja usluga tog subjekta.
59 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. 
59 Budući da ovaj postupak ima značaj prethodnog pitanja za stranke glavnog postupka pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, na tom je sudu da odluči o troškovima postupka. Troškovi podnošenja očitovanja Sudu, koji nisu troškovi spomenutih stranaka, ne nadoknađuju se.
1. National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which seeks to curb addiction to games of chance and to combat fraud, and which in fact contributes to the achievement of those objectives, can be regarded as limiting betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner even where the holder(s) of an exclusive licence are entitled to make what they are offering on the market attractive by introducing new games and by means of advertising. It is for the national court to determine whether unlawful gaming activities constitute a problem in the Member State concerned which might be solved by the expansion of authorised and regulated activities, and whether that expansion is on such a scale as to make it impossible to reconcile with the objective of curbing such addiction. 
1. Nacionalni propis, kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku, koji je namijenjen sprečavanju ovisnosti o igrama na sreću i borbi protiv prijevare i koji stvarno doprinosi ostvarivanju tih ciljeva, može se smatrati propisom kojim se dosljedno i sustavno ograničavaju djelatnosti klađenja, čak i ako je nositelju ili nositeljima ekskluzivnog odobrenja dopušteno da svoju ponudu na tržištu učine privlačnom uvođenjem novih igara i oglašavanjem. Na sudu koji je uputio zahtjev je da provjeri jesu li u predmetnoj državi članici nezakonite djelatnosti igara na sreću problem koji bi se mogao riješiti širenjem odobrenih i reguliranih djelatnosti i je li to širenje takvih razmjera da je nespojivo s ciljem sprečavanja ovisnosti.
2. For the purpose of applying legislation of a Member State on games of chance which is compatible with Article 49 EC, the national courts are not required to determine, in each case, whether the implementing measure intended to ensure compliance with that legislation is suitable for achieving the objective of that legislation and is compatible with the principle of proportionality, in so far as that measure is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of that legislation and does not include any additional restriction over and above that which arises from the legislation itself. Whether that implementing measure was adopted as a result of action by the public authorities to ensure compliance with national legislation or of an application by an individual in the context of a civil action to protect his rights under that legislation has no bearing on the outcome of the dispute before the national court. 
2. Za potrebe primjene propisa države članice o igrama na sreću koji je u skladu s člankom 49. UEZ-a, nacionalni sudovi ne moraju u svakom pojedinom slučaju ispitati je li provedbena mjera za osiguravanje usklađenosti s tim propisom prikladna za ostvarivanje njegova cilja i je li usklađena s načelom proporcionalnosti ako je ta mjera neophodna za osiguravanje učinkovitosti tog propisa i ako ne uključuje dodatno ograničenje osim onoga koje proizlazi iz samog propisa. Okolnost da je ta provedbena mjera donesena kao posljedica djelovanja tijela javne vlasti s ciljem osiguravanja usklađenosti s nacionalnim propisom ili na temelju zahtjeva pojedinca u okviru građanskog postupka s ciljem zaštite njegovih prava u skladu s tim propisom nema utjecaja na ishod spora koji se vodi pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev.
23 February 2010 (*) 
23. veljače 2010. (*)
(Freedom of movement for persons – Right of residence of a national of a non-member country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State, and of their children who are themselves nationals of a Member State – National of a Member State ceasing to work and leaving the host Member State – Enrolment of the children at a school – No means of subsistence – Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 – Article 12 – Directive 2004/38) 
„Sloboda kretanja osoba – Pravo boravka državljanina treće zemlje, koji je bračni drug državljanina države članice, i njihove djece, koji su također državljani države članice – Prestanak obavljanja lukrativne djelatnosti državljanina države članice nakon njegovog odlaska iz države članice primateljice – Upis djece u školu – Nedostatak sredstava za uzdržavanje – Uredba (EEZ) br. 1612/68 – Članak 12. – Direktiva 2004/38”
In Case C-310/08, 
U predmetu C-310/08,
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, Civil Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 21 April 2008, received at the Court on 11 July 2008, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), odlukom od 21. travnja 2008., koju je Sud zaprimio 11. srpnja 2008., u postupku
London Borough of Harrow 
London Borough of Harrow
Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, 
Nimco Hassan Ibrahim,
Secretary of State for the Home Department, 
Secretary of State for the Home Department,
composed of V. Skouris, President, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, J.-C. Bonichot and P. Lindh, Presidents of Chambers, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, L. Bay Larsen, T. von Danwitz and A. Arabadjiev, Judges, 
u sastavu: V. Skouris, predsjednik, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues (izvjestitelj), K. Lenaerts, J. -C. Bonichot i P. Lindh, predsjednici vijeća, C. W. A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Schiemann, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, L. Bay Larsen, T. von Danwitz i A. Arabadjiev, suci,
having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 September 2009, 
uzimajući u obzir pisani postupak i nakon rasprave održane 2. rujna 2009.,
– London Borough of Harrow, by K. Rutledge, Barrister, 
– za London Borough of Harrow, K. Rutledge, barrister,
– Ms Ibrahim, by N. Rogers, Barrister, instructed by S. Morshead, Solicitor, 
– za Nimco Hassan Ibrahim, N. Rogers, barrister, koju je ovlastio S. Morshead, solicitor,
– the United Kingdom Government, by V. Jackson, acting as Agent, and C. Lewis QC, 
– za vladu Velike Britanije, V. Jackson, u svojstvu agenta, i C. Lewis QC,
– the Danish Government, by R. Holdgaard, acting as Agent, 
– za dansku vladu, R. Holdgaard, u svojstvu agenta,
– Ireland, by D. O’Hagan and B. O’Moore, acting as Agents, and D. Conlan Smyth, Barrister, 
– za irsku vladu, D. O’Hagan i B. O’Moore, u svojstvu agenata, i D. Conlan Smyth, barrister,
– the Italian Government, by I. Bruni, acting as Agent, and W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, 
– za talijansku vladu, I. Bruni, u svojstvu agenta, i W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato,
– the EFTA Surveillance Authority, by N. Fenger, F. Simonetti and I. Hauger, acting as Agents, 
– za nadzorno tijelo EFTA-e, N. Fenger, F. Simonetti i I. Hauger, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 October 2009, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 20. listopada 2009.,
1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992 (OJ 1992 L 245, p. 1) (‘Regulation No 1612/68’), and of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigenda OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34, and OJ 2007 L 204, p. 28). 
1 Zahtjev za prethodnu odluku odnosi se na tumačenje članka 12. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 1612/68 od 15. listopada 1968. o slobodi kretanja radnika unutar Zajednice (SL L 257, str. 2.), kako je izmijenjena Uredbom Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2434/92 od 27. srpnja 1992. (SL L 245, str. 1., u daljnjem tekstu: Uredba br. 1612/68), i Direktivom 2004/38/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 29. travnja 2004. o pravu građana Unije i članova njihovih obitelji na slobodno kretanje i boravište [boravak] na području država članica, kojom se izmjenjuje Uredba br. 1612/68 i stavljaju izvan snage direktive 64/221/EEZ, 68/360/EEZ, 72/194/EEZ, 73/148/EEZ, 75/34/EEZ, 75/35/EEZ, 90/364/EEZ, 90/365/EEZ i 93/96/EEZ (SL L 158, str. 77., i ispravci SL 2004, L 229, str. 35., SL 2005, L 197, str. 34., i SL 2007, L 204, str. 28.) (SL, posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku, poglavlje 5., svezak 2., str. 42.).
2 The reference was made in the course of proceedings between the London Borough of Harrow, on the one hand, and Ms Ibrahim and the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the other, concerning the rejection of Ms Ibrahim’s application for housing assistance. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između London Borough of Harrow (londonska općina Harrow), s jedne strane, i N. H. Ibrahim i Secretary of State for the Home Department, s druge strane, o odbijanju zahtjeva N. H. Ibrahim za financijsku pomoć povezanu sa stanovanjem.
3 The fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1612/68 reads as follows: 
3 Peta uvodna izjava u Uredbi br. 1612/68 glasi kako slijedi:
‘Whereas the right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires that equality of treatment shall be ensured in fact and in law in respect of all matters relating to the actual pursuit of activities as employed persons and to eligibility for housing, and also that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker’s right to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family into the host country’. 
„Prema objektivnim mjerilima slobodno i dostojanstveno izvršavanje prava na slobodu kretanja zahtijeva da se jednako postupanje osigura, de facto i de jure, u odnosu na sva pitanja vezana za stvarno obavljanje posla zaposlene osobe i dostupnost stanovanja, te da se uklone prepreke pokretljivosti radnika, posebno s obzirom na uvjete za integraciju radnikove obitelji u zemlju domaćina”. [neslužbeni prijevod]
4 Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 provided: 
4 Članak 10. Uredbe br. 1612/68 propisuje:
‘1. The following shall, irrespective of their nationality, have the right to install themselves with a worker who is a national of one Member State and who is employed in the territory of another Member State: 
„1. Sljedeće osobe, neovisno o svojem državljanstvu, imaju pravo pridružiti se radniku koji je državljanin jedne države članice, a zaposlen je na državnom području druge države članice:
"(a) his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants;" 
"(a) bračni drug i njihovi potomci koji nisu navršili 21 godinu ili su uzdržavanici;"
(b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse. 
(b) srodnici radnika i njegovog bračnog druga u uzlaznoj liniji koji su uzdržavanici.
2. Member States shall facilitate the admission of any member of the family not coming within the provisions of paragraph 1 if dependent on the worker referred to above or living under his roof in the country whence he comes. 
2. Države članice potiču ulazak svakog člana obitelji koji nije obuhvaćen odredbama stavka 1. ako je u državi iz koje dolazi uzdržavana osoba ili član zajedničkog kućanstva navedenog radnika.
"3. For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, the worker must have available for his family housing considered as normal for national workers in the region where he is employed; this provision, however, must not give rise to discrimination between national workers and workers from the other Member States.’" 
3. Za potrebe stavaka 1. i 2. radniku mora za njegovu obitelj biti dostupno stanovanje koje se smatra primjerenim za nacionalne radnike u regiji u kojoj je zaposlen, pri čemu ova odredba ne smije dovesti do diskriminacije između nacionalnih radnika i radnika iz drugih država članica.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
5 Article 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 provided: 
5 Članak 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68 propisuje:
‘Where a national of a Member State is pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in the territory of another Member State, his spouse and those of the children who are under the age of 21 years or dependent on him shall have the right to take up any activity as an employed person throughout the territory of that same State, even if they are not nationals of any Member State.’ 
„Kada državljanin države članice radi kao nesamostalno zaposlena ili samozaposlena osoba na području druge države članice, njegov bračni drug i djeca koja nisu navršila 21 godinu ili ih radnik uzdržava imaju pravo raditi kao nesamostalno zaposlene osobe na cijelom području te države članice, čak i ako nisu državljani države članice.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
6 Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 1612/68 were repealed with effect from 30 April 2006 by Article 38(1) of Directive 2004/38. 
6 Članak 10. i 11. Uredbe br. 1612/68 stavljeni izvan snage s učinkom od 30. travnja 2006. na temelju članka 38. stavka 1. Direktive 2004/38.
7 The first paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 provides: 
7 Članak 12. stavak 1. Uredbe br. 1612/68 propisuje:
‘The children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State shall be admitted to that State’s general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if such children are residing in its territory.’ 
„Djeca državljanina države članice koji jest ili je bio zaposlen na području druge države članice imaju pravo na pristup sustavu općeg obrazovanja, vježbeništva i strukovnog osposobljavanja pod istim uvjetima kao i državljani te države, ako ta djeca borave na njezinom području.” [neslužbeni prijevod]
8 Recitals 3 and 16 in the preamble to Directive 2004/38 read as follows: 
8 Uvodne izjave 3. i 16. Direktive 2004/38 glase kako slijedi:
‘(3) Union citizenship should be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States when they exercise their right of free movement and residence. It is therefore necessary to codify and review the existing Community instruments dealing separately with workers, self-employed persons, as well as students and other inactive persons in order to simplify and strengthen the right of free movement and residence of all Union citizens. 
„(3) Građanstvo Unije predstavlja temeljni status državljana država članica, kada ostvaruju pravo slobode kretanja i boravišta [boravka]. Stoga treba kodificirati i preispitati postojeće instrumente Zajednice kojima su zasebno uređeni radnici, samozaposlene osobe, kao i studenti te druge osobe koje nisu aktivno zaposlene, kako bi se pojednostavnilo i ojačalo pravo slobode kretanja i boravišta [boravka] građana Unije.