natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
8 That court has noted, first, that Article 15 of the basic regulation, laying down the system for additional duty in the sugar sector, is identical to Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 2777/75 of the Council of 29 October 1975 on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat (OJ 1975 L 282, p. 77), as amended by Regulation No 3290/94, those two provisions, in their current versions, having been adopted on the same date. 
8 Taj sud je prvo utvrdio da je članak 15. osnovne uredbe, kojom se utvrđuje sustav dodatnih carina u sektoru šećera, identičan članku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2777/75 od 29. listopada 1975. o zajedničkoj organizaciji tržišta mesa peradi (SL 1975 L 282, str. 77.), kako je izmijenjena Uredbom br. 3290/94, a ta su dva propisa, u svojim važećim verzijama, donesena istoga dana.
9 In the poultrymeat and egg sector, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-317/99 Kloosterboer Rotterdam [2001] ECR I-9863, declared invalid paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1484/95 of 28 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional import duties in the poultrymeat and egg sectors and for egg albumin, and repealing Regulation No 163/67/EEC (OJ 1995 L 145, p. 47), inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price laid down in Article 2(1) of that regulation and that the duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the consignment concerned only if the importer so requests. According to that judgment, the Commission exceeded its executory powers. 
9 U sektoru mesa peradi i jaja Sud je u svojoj presudi od 13. prosinca 2001., Kloosterboer Rotterdam C-317/99, Zb., str. I-9863. proglasio nevaljanim članak 3. stavke 1. i 3. Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 1484/95 od 28. lipnja 1995. o utvrđivanju detaljnih pravila za provedbu sustava dodatnih uvoznih carina i određivanju dodatnih uvoznih carina u sektorima mesa peradi i jaja i za albumin iz jaja te stavljanju izvan snage Uredbe br. 163/67/EEZ (SL 1995 L 145, str. 47.) (Posebno izdanje na hrvatskom jeziku: poglavlje 3., svezak 8., str. 145.), jer se njime određuje da je dodatna carina iz tih stavaka načelno utvrđena na osnovi reprezentativne cijene utvrđene člankom 2. stavkom 1. te Uredbe te da se carina na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a određene pošiljke utvrđuje samo ako to zatraži uvoznik. Prema toj presudi Komisija je prekoračila granice svojih izvršnih ovlasti.
10 The national court takes the view that paragraphs (1) and (3) of Article 3 of Regulation No 1484/95, which have been declared invalid by the Court of Justice as a result of these considerations, are identical in the respects considered by the Court of Justice to the provisions of Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1423/95. 
10 Sud koji je uputio zahtjev smatra da je članak 3. stavak 1. i 3. Uredbe br. 1484/95, koji je Sud kao rezultat tih očitovanja proglasio nevaljanim, u aspektima koje je razmotrio Sud identičan odredbama članka 4. stavaka 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95.
In both instances there is a basic regulation specifying, in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture in Annex 1A to the Agreement establishing the WTO, that the additional import duty is calculated on the basis of the cif price, whereas in a Commission implementing regulation calculation of the additional duty on the basis of the representative price is made the general rule. 
U oba slučaja radi se o osnovnoj uredbi kojom se u skladu s člankom 5. Sporazuma o poljoprivredi sadržanog u Prilogu 1.A Sporazumu o osnivanju WTO-a utvrđuje da se dodatna uvozna carina izračunava na osnovi cijene CIF-a, dok se u provedbenoj uredbi Komisije dodatna carina načelno izračunava na osnovi reprezentativne cijene.
11 Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Regulation No 1423/95 are thus incompatible with Article 15 of the basic regulation. 
11 Članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95 stoga nije u skladu s člankom 15. osnovne uredbe.
12 On the basis of the Court's judgment in Case 314/85 Foto-Frost [1987] ECR 4199, the national court observes that it is for the Court of Justice alone to rule on the invalidity of acts of the Community institutions. 
12 Na temelju presude Suda od 22. listopada 1987., Foto-Frost (314/85, Zb., str. 4199.), sud koji je uputio zahtjev utvrđuje da samo Sud može odlučivati o nevaljanosti akata institucija Zajednice.
13 It considers, nevertheless, that the question whether the situation could be different in a national dispute such as that in the main proceedings, where the question posed concerns the validity of provisions corresponding to other provisions of Community law which the Court has already declared to be invalid in a preliminary ruling, such as the Kloosterboer Rotterdam judgment, requires an interpretation of the third paragraph of Article 234 EC. 
13 Međutim, smatra da pitanje bi li situacija mogla biti različita u nacionalnom sporu, kao što je onaj u glavnom postupku u kojem se postavlja pitanje valjanosti odredaba koje su podudarne s drugim odredbama prava Zajednice koje je Sud već proglasio nevaljanima odlukom u prethodnom postupku, kao što je gore navedena presuda Kloosterboer Rotterdam, zahtijeva tumačenje članka 234. trećeg stavka UEZ-a.
14 Under those circumstances, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 
14 U tim okolnostima College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven odlučio je prekinuti postupak i uputiti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Is a court or tribunal as referred to in the third paragraph of Article 234 EC also required under that provision to submit to the Court of Justice a question such as that set out below concerning the validity of provisions of a regulation where the Court of Justice has ruled that analogous provisions of another, comparable regulation are invalid, or may it refrain from applying the first-mentioned provisions in view of the clear analogies between them and the provisions declared invalid? 
„1. Treba li nacionalni sud iz članka 234. trećeg stavka UEZ-a Sudu uputiti pitanje, kao što je ono navedeno dalje u tekstu, o valjanosti odredaba određene uredbe ako je Sud već proglasio nevaljanima odgovarajuće odredbe druge usporedive uredbe, ili se taj sud može suzdržati od primjene prvih odredaba s obzirom na posebne sličnosti s odredbama koje su proglašene nevaljanima?
2. Are paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Regulation ... No 1423/95 ... invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation ... No 1423/95 and that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests?' 
2. Je li članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe [...] br. 1423/95 ... nevaljan budući da se njime određuje da se dodatna carina na koju se odnosi načelno utvrđuje na osnovi reprezentativne cijene iz članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe [...] br. 1423/95 te da se ta carina utvrđuje na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a pošiljke samo ako to zatraži uvoznik?"
15 By the first question, the national court essentially asks whether the third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analogous provisions of another comparable regulation. 
15 Prvim pitanjem nacionalni sud u biti pita zahtijeva li članak 234. treći stavak UEZ-a od nacionalnog suda, protiv čijih odluka nema pravnog lijeka temeljem nacionalnog prava, da od Suda zatraži donošenje prethodne odluke povodom prethodnog pitanja o valjanosti odredaba određene uredbe čak i kada je Sud već proglasio nevaljanima odgovarajuće odredbe druge usporedive uredbe.
16 With regard to questions of interpretation, it is clear from the judgment in Case 283/81 Cilfit and Others [1982] ECR 3415, paragraph 21, that a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required, where a question of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation to bring the matter before the Court of Justice, unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (see also Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I-0000, paragraph 33). 
16 S obzirom na pitanja tumačenja, iz presude od 6. listopada 1982., Cilfit i dr. (283/81, Zb., str. 3415., t. 21.) proizlazi da nacionalni sud protiv čijih odluka nema pravnog lijeka na temelju nacionalnog prava treba, kada mu je upućeno pitanje iz prava Zajednice, poštovati svoju obvezu da se obrati Sudu, osim ako nije utvrdio da je postavljeno pitanje irelevantno ili je Sud već donio tumačenje dotične odredbe Zajednice ili je pravilna primjena prava Zajednice tako očigledna da ne ostavlja nikakav prostor razumnoj sumnji (vidjeti, također, presudu od 15. rujna 2005., Intermodal Transports, C-495/03, Zb., str. 8151, t. 33.).
17 However, it is clear from paragraph 20 of the Foto-Frost judgment that national courts have no jurisdiction themselves to determine that acts of Community institutions are invalid. 
17 Međutim, iz točke 20. presude Foto-Frost proizlazi da nacionalni sudovi nisu nadležni sami utvrđivati da su akti institucija Zajednice nevaljani.
18 The rule that national courts may not themselves determine that Community acts are invalid may have to be qualified in certain circumstances in the case of proceedings relating to an application for interim measures (Foto-Frost, paragraph 19; see also, to that effect, Case 107/76 Hoffmann-La Roche [1977] ECR 957, paragraph 6; Joined Cases 35/82 and 36/82 Morson and Jhanjan [1982] ECR 3723, paragraph 8; Joined Cases C-143/88 and C-92/89 Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest [1991] ECR I-415, paragraphs 21 and 33; and Case C-465/93 Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft and Others (I) [1995] ECR I-3761, paragraphs 30, 33 and 51). 
18 Pravilo da nacionalni sudovi ne mogu sami proglasiti akte Zajednice nevaljanima može se uvjetovati u određenim okolnostima u postupcima u kojima se traži donošenje privremenih mjera (ranije navedena presuda Foto-Frost, t. 19.; vidjeti također, u tom smislu, presude od 24. svibnja 1977., Hoffmann-La Roche 107/76, Zb., str. 957., t. 6.; od 27. listopada 1982., Morson i Jhanjan 35/82 i 36/82, Zb., str. 3723, t. 8.; od 21. veljače 1991., Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen i Zuckerfabrik Soest, C-143/88 i C-92/89, Zb., str. I-415., t. 21. i 33. i od 9. studenoga 1995., Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft i dr. (I) C-465/93, Zb., str. I-3761., t. 30., 33. i 51.).
19 Nevertheless, the interpretation adopted in the Cilfit judgment, referring to questions of interpretation, cannot be extended to questions relating to the validity of Community acts. 
19 Međutim, tumačenje doneseno u prethodno navedenoj presudi Cilfit i dr., koje se odnosi na pitanja tumačenja, ne može se proširiti na pitanja koja se odnose na valjanost akata Zajednice.
20 Firstly, even in cases which at first sight are similar, careful examination may show that a provision whose validity is in question is not comparable to a provision which has already been declared invalid because, for instance, it has a different legal or factual context, as the case may be. 
20 Prvo valja istaknuti da čak i u slučajevima koji su na prvi pogled slični, pažljivim proučavanjem može se pokazati da odredba čija je valjanost u pitanju nije usporediva s odredbom koja je već proglašena nevaljanom jer ima drukčiji pravni ili činjenični kontekst, ovisno o slučaju.
21 The main purpose of the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by Article 234 EC is to ensure that Community law is applied uniformly by national courts. 
21 Osnovni smisao nadležnosti dodijeljenih Sudu na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a je osigurati da nacionalni sudovi ujednačeno primjenjuju pravo Zajednice.
That requirement of uniformity is particularly vital where the validity of a Community act is in question. 
Ovaj zahtjev ujednačenosti posebno je važan kada se ocjenjuje valjanost akta Zajednice.
Differences between courts of the Member States as to the validity of Community acts would be liable to jeopardise the essential unity of the Community legal order and undermine the fundamental requirement of legal certainty (Foto-Frost, paragraph 15). 
Razlike između sudova u državama članicama u pogledu valjanosti akata Zajednice mogu ugroziti samo jedinstvo pravnog poretka Zajednice te dovesti do odstupanja od temeljnih zahtjeva pravne sigurnosti (ranije navedena presuda Foto-Frost, t. 15.).
22 The possibility of a national court ruling on the invalidity of a Community act is likewise incompatible with the necessary coherence of the system of judicial protection instituted by the EC Treaty. 
22 Mogućnost da nacionalni sud odlučuje o nevaljanosti akta Zajednice isto je tako nespojiva s potrebnom koherentnošću sustava sudske zaštite uspostavljene Ugovorom o EZ-u.
It is important to note in that regard that references for a preliminary ruling on validity constitute, on the same basis as actions for annulment, a means of reviewing the legality of Community acts. 
Važno je s obzirom na to podsjetiti da zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o valjanosti predstavlja, na istoj osnovi kao i tužbe za poništenje, sredstvo za kontrolu zakonitosti akata Zajednice.
By Articles 230 EC and 241 EC, on the one hand, and Article 234 EC, on the other, the Treaty established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to ensure review of the legality of acts of the institutions and has entrusted such review to the Community Courts (see Case 294/83 Parti écologiste `Les Verts' v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, paragraph 23; Foto-Frost, paragraph 16; and Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores [2002] ECR I-6677, paragraph 40). 
Člancima 230. UEZ-a i 241. UEZ-a, s jedne strane, te člankom 234. UEZ-a, s druge strane, Ugovorom je uspostavljen potpuni sustav pravnih lijekova i postupaka kojima je svrha da omoguće nadzor zakonitosti akata institucija, povjeravajući ga sudu Zajednice (vidjeti presude od 23. travnja 1986., Parti écologiste „Les Verts"/Parlament 294/83, Zb., str. 1339., t. 23.; ranije navedenu presudu Foto-Frost, t. 16. i od 25. srpnja 2002.; Unión de Pequeños Agricultores C-50/00 P, Zb., str. I-6677., t. 40.).
23 Reducing the length of the proceedings cannot serve as justification for undermining the sole jurisdiction of the Community Courts to rule on the validity of Community law. 
23 Skraćivanje trajanja postupaka ne može poslužiti kao opravdanje za narušavanje isključive nadležnosti sudova Zajednice za odlučivanje o valjanosti zakonodavstva Zajednice.
24 It must also be emphasised that the Community Courts are in the best position to rule on the validity of Community acts. 
24 Također valja naglasiti da je sud Zajednice u najboljem položaju da donosi odluke o valjanosti akata Zajednice.
Under Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, Community institutions whose acts are challenged are entitled to participate in the proceedings in order to defend the validity of the acts in question. 
Na temelju članka 23. Statuta Suda, institucije Zajednice čiji se akti osporavaju ovlaštene su sudjelovati u postupku kako bi branile valjanost dotičnih akata.
Furthermore, under the second paragraph of Article 24 of that Statute, the Court may require Community institutions which are not participating in the proceedings to supply any information which it considers necessary for the purposes of the case before it (see Foto-Frost, paragraph 18). 
Nadalje, na temelju članka 24. drugog stavka tog Statuta, Sud može od institucija Zajednice koje ne sudjeluju u postupku tražiti da dostave sve podatke koje smatra neophodnima za potrebe postupka (vidjeti ranije navedenu presudu Foto-Frost, t. 18.).
25 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the answer to the first question must be that the third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analogous provisions of another comparable regulation. 
25 Iz svih navedenih razmatranja proizlazi da na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da se člankom 234. trećim stavkom UEZ-a od nacionalnog suda protiv čijih odluka nema pravnog lijeka na temelju nacionalnog prava zahtijeva da od Suda zatraži donošenje prethodne odluke o valjanosti odredaba određene uredbe čak i kada je Sud već proglasio nevaljanima odgovarajuće odredbe druge usporedive uredbe.
26 By the second question, the national court asks whether paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Regulation No 1423/95 are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1423/95 and, moreover, that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests. 
26 Drugim pitanjem nacionalni sud pita je li članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95 nevaljan budući da se njime određuje da se dodatna carina na koju se odnosi načelno utvrđuje na osnovi reprezentativne cijene iz članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95 te, štoviše, da se ta carina utvrđuje na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a dotične pošiljke samo ako to zatraži uvoznik.
27 It is clear from the wording of the first subparagraph of Article 15(3) of the basic regulation that only the cif import price of the consignment may serve as a basis for determining any additional duty. 
27 Iz teksta članka 15. stavka 3. prvog podstavka osnovne odredbe da samo uvozna cijena CIF-a pošiljke može poslužiti kao osnova za utvrđivanje dodatne carine.
28 No conditions or exceptions are attached to application of that rule. 
28 Primjena tog pravila nije ničim uvjetovana i nema nikakva izuzeća.
29 The second subparagraph of Article 15(3) of the basic regulation provides unambiguously that the representative price for the product concerned is taken into account only for the purposes of checking the accuracy of the cif import price. 
29 Člankom 15. stavkom 3. drugim podstavkom osnovne uredbe nedvosmisleno se određuje da se reprezentativna cijena dotičnog proizvoda uzima u obzir samo radi provjere točnosti uvozne cijene CIF-a.
30 However, under Article 4(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1423/95, the cif import price may be taken into consideration in establishing the additional duty on condition that the importer submits a formal request to that effect accompanied by certain supporting documents, and in all other cases the price taken into consideration must be the representative price, which is thus to be the general rule. 
30 Međutim, na temelju članka 4. stavka 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95, uvozna cijena CIF-a može se uzeti u obzir kod određivanja dodatne carine pod uvjetom da uvoznik podnese službeni zahtjev popraćen određenim popratnim dokumentima, a u svim drugim slučajevima cijena koja se uzima u obzir mora biti reprezentativna cijena, što je stoga načelno pravilo.
31 Inasmuch as Article 15(3) of the basic regulation makes no provision for an exception to the rule that additional duty is established on the basis of the cif import price, paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 are contrary to that provision. 
31 Budući da člankom 15. stavkom 3. osnovne uredbe nije predviđeno izuzeće od pravila da se dodatna carina utvrđuje na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a, članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe 1423/95 suprotan je toj odredbi.
32 The answer to the second question must therefore be that paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Regulation No 1423/95 are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regulation No 1423/95 and that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests. 
32 Na drugo pitanje stoga valja odgovoriti da je članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95 nevaljan budući da određuje da se dodatna carina na koju se odnosi načelno utvrđuje na osnovi reprezentativne cijene iz članka 1. stavka 2. Uredbe br. 1423/95 te da se ta carina utvrđuje na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a dotične pošiljke samo ako to zatraži uvoznik.
1. The third paragraph of Article 234 EC requires a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on a question relating to the validity of the provisions of a regulation even where the Court has already declared invalid analogous provisions of another comparable regulation; 
1. Člankom 234. trećim stavkom UEZ-a zahtijeva se od nacionalnog suda protiv čijih odluka nema pravnog lijeka na temelju nacionalnog prava da od Suda zatraži donošenje prethodne odluke o valjanosti odredaba određene uredbe čak i kada je Sud već proglasio nevaljanima odgovarajuće odredbe druge usporedive uredbe;
2. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in the sugar sector other than molasses are invalid inasmuch as they provide that the additional duty referred to therein is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of that regulation and that that duty is established on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment concerned only if the importer so requests. 
2. Članak 4. stavak 1. i 2. Uredbe Komisije (EZ) br. 1423/95 od 23. lipnja 1995. o utvrđivanju detaljnih provedbenih pravila za uvoz proizvoda u sektoru šećera, osim melase, nevaljan je budući da određuje da se dodatna carina na koju se odnosi načelno utvrđuje na osnovi reprezentativne cijene iz članka 1. stavka 2. te Uredbe te da se ta carina utvrđuje na osnovi uvozne cijene CIF-a dotične pošiljke samo ako to zatraži uvoznik.
5 June 2007 (Free movement of goods - Articles 28 EC, 30 EC and 31 EC - National provisions prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages by private individuals - Rule relating to the existence and operation of the Swedish monopoly on sales of alcoholic beverages - Assessment - Measure contrary to Article 28 EC - Justification on grounds of protection of the health and life of humans - Review of proportionality) 
5. lipnja 2007. () „Slobodno kretanje robe - Članci 28. UEZ-a, 30. UEZ-a i 31. UEZ-a - Nacionalne odredbe koje zabranjuju uvoz alkoholnih pića privatnim osobama - Pravilo koje se odnosi na postojanje i djelovanje švedskog monopola na prodaju alkoholnih pića - Ocjena - Mjera protivna članku 28. UEZ-a - Opravdanje na temelju zaštite zdravlja i života ljudi - Nadzor proporcionalnostiˮ
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC, by the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by decision of 26 March 2004, received at the Court on 6 April 2004, in the proceedings 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a, koji je uputio Högsta domstolen (Vrhovni sud, Švedska), odlukom od 26. ožujka 2004., koju je Sud zaprimio 6. travnja 2004., u postupku
Klas Rosengren, 
Klas Rosengren,
Bengt Morelli, 
Bengt Morelli,
Hans Särman, 
Hans Särman,
Mats Åkerström, 
Mats Åkerström,
Åke Kempe, 
Åke Kempe,
Anders Kempe, 
Anders Kempe,
Mats Kempe, 
Mats Kempe,
Björn Rosengren, 
Björn Rosengren,
Martin Lindberg, 
Martin Lindberg,
Jon Pierre, 
Jon Pierre,
Tony Staf, 
Tony Staf,
v Riksåklagaren, 
protiv Riksåklagaren,