natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
... (e) specific requirements concerning the quantities of the substances listed in Annexes I and II discharged, their concentration in effluents and methods of discharging them.’ 
(e) posebne uvjete koji se odnose na količinu ispuštenih tvari navedenih u prilozima I. i II., njihovu koncentraciju u otpadnim vodama i metode njihovog ispuštanja.”
12 It is clear from paragraphs 11 and 13 of Section A of Annex II to the Protocol that the system laid down in Article 6 of the Protocol covers ‘substances which have, directly or indirectly, an adverse effect on the oxygen content of the marine environment, especially those which may cause eutrophication’ and ‘substances which, though of a non-toxic nature, may become harmful to the marine environment or may interfere with any legitimate use of the sea owing to the quantities in which they are discharged’. 
12 Iz točaka 11. i 13. odjeljka A Priloga II. Protokolu proizlazi da se sustav utvrđen u članku 6. Protokola odnosi na „tvari koje izravno ili neizravno negativno utječu na sadržaj kisika u morskom okolišu, posebno one koje mogu uzrokovati eutrofikaciju” i „tvari koje, iako su netoksične, mogu postati opasne za morski okoliš ili koje mogu zbog ispuštene količine ometati zakonito korištenje mora”.
‘The control and strict limitation of the discharge of substances referred to in section A above must be implemented in accordance with Annex III.’ 
„Kontrola i strogo ograničenje ispuštanja tvari navedenih u gornjem odjeljku A provode se u skladu s Prilogom III.”
14 Annex III to the Protocol sets out the factors to be taken into account ‘with a view to the issue of an authorisation for the discharge of wastes containing substances referred to in Annex II … ’. Contracting Party States must therefore take into account the ‘characteristics and composition of the waste’, the ‘characteristics of waste constituents with respect to their harmfulness’, the ‘characteristics of discharge site and receiving marine environment’, the ‘availability of waste technologies’ and, finally, the ‘potential impairment of marine ecosystems and sea-water uses’. 
14 U Prilogu III. Protokolu navedeni su čimbenici koje treba uzeti u obzir „s ciljem izdavanja ovlaštenja [odobrenja] za ispuštanje otpada koji sadrži tvari navedene u Prilogu II. [...]”. Države ugovornice stoga moraju uzeti u obzir „svojstva i sastav otpada”, „svojstva sastojaka otpada s obzirom na njihovu škodljivost”, „svojstva mjesta ispuštanja i prihvatnog morskog okoliša”, „raspoloživost tehnologije za obradu otpada” i konačno, „potencijalni štetan utjecaj na morski ekosustav i uporabu morske vode”.
‘... 
„[...]
(d) Brackish waters, coastal salt waters including marshes and coastal lagoons, and ground waters communicating with the Mediterranean Sea’. 
(d) bočate vode, obalne slane vode uključujući slane močvare i obalne lagune te podzemne vode povezane sa Sredozemnim morem.”.
‘Point source discharges into the Protocol area, and releases into water or air that reach and may affect the Mediterranean area, as defined in Article 3(a), (c) and (d) of this Protocol, shall be strictly subject to authorisation or regulation by the competent authorities of the Parties, taking due account of the provisions of this Protocol and Annex II thereto, as well as the relevant decisions or recommendations of the meetings of the Contracting Parties.’ 
„Ispuštanje iz točkastih izvora u područje Protokola i oslobađanje u vodu ili zrak koje dospijeva i može utjecati na područje Sredozemnog mora, kako je utvrđeno u [članku] 3. [točkama] (a), (c) i (d) ovog Protokola, strogo podliježe [odobrenju] ili propisu od strane nadležnih tijela stranaka, uzimajući u obzir odredbe ovog Protokola i [Priloga] II. istomu, kao i važne odluke ili preporuke sastanaka ugovornih stranaka.”
17 Annex I C to the amended Protocol sets out ‘categories of substances and sources of pollution’ which ‘will serve as guidance in the preparation of action plans, programmes and measures’. In particular, paragraph 17 refers to ‘non-toxic substances that have an adverse effect on the oxygen content of the marine environment’. 
17 U Prilogu I. C izmijenjenom Protokolu navedene su „kategorije tvari i izvora onečišćavanja” koje „će služiti kao smjernica u izradi planova djelovanja, programa i mjera”. Posebno se točka 17. odnosi na „netoksične tvari koje mogu imati štetni utjecaj na sadržaj kisika u morskom okolišu”.
18 The amended Protocol deletes the former Annex II and renumbers, with amendments, the former Annex III as ‘Annex II’. 
18 Izmijenjenim Protokolom ukida se stari Prilog II., a uz izmjene renumerira se stari Prilog III. koji sada postaje „Prilog II.”
19 The Étang de Berre, located in France, is a saltwater marsh of 15 000 hectares which communicates directly with the Mediterranean Sea. 
19 Jezero Étang de Berre nalazi se u Francuskoj i slana je močvara površine 15,000 hektara koja je izravno povezana sa Sredozemnim morem.
21 On 1 September 1999, the Syndicat brought interlocutory proceedings against EDF before the Tribunal de grande instance de Marseille (Marseilles Regional Court) (France) alleging unlawful conduct and seeking an order that the hydroelectric power station at Saint-Chamas be shut down, subject to a periodic penalty payment for non-compliance. In particular, the Syndicat claimed that EDF was discharging water from that power station without having obtained the prior authorisation provided for in Article 6(3) of the Protocol. 
21 1. rujna 1999. koordinacija ribara pokrenula je protiv EDF-a postupak za privremenu pravnu zaštitu na Tribunal de grande instance de Marseille (Regionalni sud u Marseilleju) (Francuska) prijavljujući nezakonito ponašanje i tražeći sudski nalog za zatvaranje hidroelektrane u Saint-Chamasu, uz plaćanje periodične kazne za nepoštovanje toga naloga. Koordinacija ribara posebno je istakla da EDF ispušta vodu iz elektrane, a da nije ishodio prethodno odobrenje predviđeno u članku 6. stavku 3. Protokola.
22 The court hearing the application for interim measures at first instance dismissed it by order of 25 October 1999. While it acknowledged the disturbance caused by the operation of the hydroelectric power station’s turbines, it took the view that: 
22 Sudac postupka privremene pravne zaštite u prvom stupnju odbacio je zahtjev za privremenu pravnu zaštitu rješenjem od 25. listopada 1999. Iako je priznao da rad turbina hidroelektrane uzrokuje određenu smetnju, zauzeo je stajalište da:
‘As regards the implementation of Community law, in particular the Barcelona Convention and the Athens Protocol …, the question of their direct effect on individuals also raises issues which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the court adjudicating on the substance. 
„U pogledu provedbe prava Zajednice, a posebno Barcelonske konvencije i Atenskog protokola [...], pitanje njihovog izravnog učinka na pojedince također otvara sporne točke koje ne pripadaju u nadležnost suda koji odlučuje o meritumu.
Since the question whether EDF’s operation of the hydroelectric power station at Saint-Chamas constitutes a manifestly unlawful disturbance, that is to say, unlawful conduct within the meaning generally understood in the case-law, gives rise to issues which are too serious to allow the court hearing the application for interim measures to intervene and put an end to three decades of operations, such a decision being of great import in that it would have extremely serious consequences for, inter alia, production and the security of the region’s electricity system …’ 
Budući da pitanje predstavlja li rad hidroelektrane u Saint-Chamasu kojom upravlja EDF smetnju koja je očito nezakonita, tj. ponašanje nezakonito u smislu koji se obično podrazumijeva u sudskoj praksi, otvara pitanja koja su preozbiljna da bi sud kojem je upućen zahtjev za privremenu pravnu zaštitu intervenirao i zatvorio elektranu koja je u radu već tri desetljeća, s tim da bi takva odluka bila od velike važnosti po tome što bi imala izuzetno ozbiljne posljedice za, između ostalog, proizvodnju i sigurnost elektroenergetskog sustava regije [...]”.
23 The Syndicat lodged an appeal against that judgment before the Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal) d’Aix-en-Provence (France), which dismissed the appeal by a judgment of 21 September 2000. The Cour d’appel took the view inter alia that ‘the various Articles [of the Protocol] are interdependent’ and that Article 6(3) ‘cannot be read in isolation, so that no authorisation to discharge can legitimately and usefully be applied for by EDF on the basis of the Protocol as long as the French State has not defined the applicable technical criteria, since no response could be given’. 
23 Koordinacija ribara na tu je odluku uložila prigovor na Court d'appel (Prizivni sud) u Aix-en-Provenceu (Francuska), koji je prigovor odbio presudom od 21. rujna 2000. Court d'appel zauzeo je stajalište, između ostalog, „da između raznih članaka [Protokola] postoji međuovisnost” i da se članak 6. stavak 3. „ne može tumačiti odvojeno, tako da EDF ne može na temelju Protokola valjano i korisno zatražiti odobrenje za ispuštanje sve dok francuska država ne utvrdi primjenjive tehničke kriterije, budući da nije moguće dati nikakav odgovor.”
24 The Syndicat appealed on a point of law against that judgment, relying in particular on the infringement by EDF of Article 6(3) of the Protocol, application of which was wrongly ruled out by the Cour d’appel. 
24 Koordinacija ribara uložila je žalbu u kasacijskom postupku, ističući osobito da EDF krši članak 6. stavak 3. Protokola, koju je Cour d'appel pogrešno odbacio.
Must Article 6(3) of the Athens Protocol …, which has become Article 6(1) in the revised version, be held to have direct effect, so that any interested party may rely on it before the national courts in an action to halt discharges of water which are not authorised in accordance with the procedure and criteria which it prescribes? 
Treba li smatrati da članak 6. stavak 3. Protokola [...], koji je postao članak 6. stavak 1. revidirane verzije, ima izravni učinak tako da se bilo koja zainteresirana strana može na njega pozivati pred nacionalnim sudovima u prilog tužbi čiji je cilj zaustavljanje ispuštanja vode koja nisu odobrena u skladu s postupkom i kriterijima koje on predviđa?
2. Must the same provision be interpreted to mean that it prohibits the discharge into a saltwater marsh communicating with the Mediterranean Sea of substances which, although not toxic, adversely affect the oxygen content of the marine environment, without an authorisation issued by the competent authorities of the Member States, taking into account the provisions of the abovementioned Protocol and of Annex III C thereto (now Annex II)?’ 
2. Treba li istu odredbu tumačiti u tom smislu da se njome općenito zabranjuje da se u slanu močvaru koja je povezana sa Sredozemnim morem ispuštaju tvari koje, iako su netoksične, nepovoljno utječu na sadržaj kisika u morskom okolišu, bez odobrenja koje nadležna nacionalna tijela država članica izdaju uzimajući u obzir odredbe gore spomenutog Protokola i njegovog Priloga III. C (koji je sada Prilog II.)?”
27 It is settled case-law that the procedure provided for by Article 234 EC is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts (see, inter alia, Case C-343/90 Lourenço Dias [1992] ECR I-4673, paragraph 14, and Case C-314/01 Siemens and ARGE Telekom [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 33, and the case-law cited therein). 
27 Iz ustaljene sudske prakse proizlazi da je postupak predviđen člankom 234. UEZ-a instrument suradnje između Suda i nacionalnih sudova (vidjeti osobito presude od 16. srpnja 1992., Lourenço Dias, C-343/90, Zb., str. I-4673., t. 14., i od 18. ožujka 2004., Siemens i ARGE Telekom, C-314/01, Zb., I-2549., t. 33., i navedenu sudsku praksu).
"28 In the context of that cooperation, the national court seised of the dispute, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the main action and must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, is in the best position to assess, having regard to the particular features of the case, whether a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which it refers to the Court (see, inter alia, Lourenço Dias, cited above, paragraph 15; Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 18; and Siemens and ARGE Telekom, cited above, paragraph 34)." 
"28 U okviru te suradnje, nacionalni sudac koji odlučuje u sporu, koji jedini ima izravna saznanja o činjenicama u glavnom postupku i mora preuzeti odgovornost za sudsku odluku koja će biti donesena, najbolje može procijeniti, uvažavajući posebnosti predmeta, je li prethodna odluka nužna za donošenje presude, kao i koliko su pitanja koja postavlja Sudu relevantna (vidjeti osobito gore navedenu presudu Lourenço Dias, , t. 15.; presudu od 22. siječnja 2002., Canal Satélite Digital, C-390/99, Zb., str. I-607., t. 18.; i gore navedenu presudu Siemens i ARGE Telekom, t. 34.)."
29 In the present case, it is far from clear that the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol would not be relevant to the outcome of the main proceedings. As the Commission rightly points out, it is possible that if the judgment of the Cour d’appel of Aix-en-provence is quashed by the Cour de cassation, the amended Protocol will have entered into force when the national court has to give a further judgment on the substance in the main proceedings. 
29 U ovom predmetu nikako nije očito da tumačenje članka 6. stavka 1. izmijenjenog Protokola nije relevantno za ishod glavnog postupka. Kao što to ispravno ističe Komisija, moguće je da ako Cour de cassation ukine presudu Cour d’appela u Aix-en-Provenceu, izmijenjeni Protokol bude na snazi u trenutku kada nacionalni sud treba ponovo presuditi o meritumu u glavnom postupku.
32 Article 6(1) of the Protocol sets the objective to ‘strictly limit’ pollution by substances or sources listed in Annex II (including substances which have an adverse effect on oxygen content). To that end, Article 6(2) requires that the parties implement ‘jointly or individually’, as appropriate, ‘suitable programmes and measures’. Finally, Article 6(3) requires that discharges be subject to an ‘authorisation taking due account of the provisions of Annex III’. The obligation to ‘take due account’ is very vague and could, in the absence of details, lead to all discharges being subject to an authorisation merely because they involve one of the substances listed in Annex II to the Protocol. That requirement, however, would be entirely disproportionate as regards the objective of the Protocol. 
32 Članak 6. stavak 1. Protokola postavlja cilj „strogog ograničavanja” onečišćavanja tvarima ili iz izvora koji su navedeni u Prilogu II. (uključujući tvari koje negativno utječu na sadržaj kisika). U tu svrhu, u članku 6. stavku 2. zahtijeva se da stranke, prema potrebi, „zajednički ili pojedinačno” provode „odgovarajuće programe i mjere”. Konačno, člankom 6. stavkom 3. zahtijeva se da ispuštanja podliježu „izdavanju ovlaštenja [odobrenja] prema odredbama [uzimajući u obzir odredbe] Priloga III.” Obveza „uzimanja u obzir” je dosta nejasna i mogu u nedostatku detalja dovesti do toga da sva ispuštanja podliježu odobrenju samo zato što obuhvaćaju jednu od tvari navedenih u Prilogu II. Protokolu. Takav je zahtjev, međutim, u cijelosti nerazmjeran cilju Protokola.
33 EDF also relies on Article 7(1) of the Protocol, concerning ‘common … standards or criteria’ to be formulated before an authorisation system is put in place. However, those standards and criteria have not yet been defined for the discharges in question. 
33 EDF se poziva i na članak 7. stavak 1. Protokola u pogledu „zajedničkih [...] norma [standarda] i kriterija” koje treba utvrditi prije uvođenja sustava odobrenja. Međutim, za predmetna ispuštanja ti standardi i smjernice još nisu utvrđeni.
34 In addition, inasmuch as the Community is party to the Convention and to the Protocol, the standards to be laid down for their implementation may principally be at Community level. However, there is as yet no directive relating to discharges of fresh water and silt into a saltwater marsh. 
34 Osim toga, budući da je Zajednica stranka Konvencije i Protokola, standardi koje treba utvrditi za njihovu provedbu u načelu su standardi na razini Zajednice. Međutim, do danas ne postoji direktiva koja bi se odnosila na ispuštanja slatke vode i silta u slanu močvaru.
36 Regard being had to its wording and to its purpose and nature, Article 6(3) of the Protocol contains a clear, precise and unconditional obligation to subject discharges of the substances covered by Annex II to the Protocol to the prior issue of an authorisation by the competent national authorities. The strict prohibition on discharges without such an authorisation is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to any reservation or to the adoption of any subsequent measure. In addition, Annex III to the Protocol, to which Article 6(3) refers, lists all the factors of which account must be taken with a view to the issue of an authorisation. 
36 U pogledu svojeg teksta kao i svrhe i prirode, članak 6. stavak 3. Protokola sadržava jasnu, preciznu i bezuvjetnu obvezu da ispuštanje tvari obuhvaćenih Prilogom II. Protokolu podliježe prethodnom izdavanju ovlaštenja [odobrenja] od strane nadležnog nacionalnog tijela. Stroga zabrana da se s ispuštanjem započne bez takvog odobrenja u svojoj provedbi ili svojim učincima nije podređena nikakvoj zadršci ni intervenciji drugog, naknadnog akta. Osim toga, u Prilogu III. Protokolu, na koji se članak 6. stavak 3. odnosi, postoji popis svih čimbenika koje treba uzeti u obzir kod izdavanja odobrenja.
39 According to the settled case-law of the Court, a provision in an agreement concluded by the Community with a non-member country must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (see inter alia Demirel, cited above, paragraph 14, and Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam [2003] ECR I-4301, paragraph 54). 
39 Prema ustaljenoj sudskoj praksi Suda, odredbu iz sporazuma koji Zajednica sklopi s trećom zemljom valja smatrati izravno primjenjivom ako, s obzirom na njezin tekst te svrhu i prirodu sporazuma, odredba sadržava jasnu i preciznu obvezu koja u svojoj provedbi ili svojim učincima nije podređena intervenciji drugog, naknadnog akta (vidjeti osobito presude Demirel, gore navedenu, t. 14., i od 8. svibnja 2003., Wählergruppe Gemeinsam, C-171/01, Zb., str. I-4301., t. 54.).
44 It is clear from Articles 1 and 4 of the Protocol that its purpose is to prevent, abate, combat and eliminate pollution of the Mediterranean Sea area caused by discharges from rivers, coastal establishments or outfalls, or emanating from any other land-based sources within their territories. To that end, reiterating the undertakings given pursuant to Articles 4 and 8 of the Convention, Article 1 of the Protocol requires the Contracting Parties to take ‘all appropriate measures’. 
44 Iz članaka 1. i 4. Protokola proizlazi da je njegova svrha spriječiti, umanjiti, suzbiti i ukloniti onečišćenje u području Sredozemnog mora koje uzrokuju ispuštene otpadne vode [ispuštanja] iz rijeka, obalnih objekata ili morskih ispusta, ili koje potječe iz [bilo kojih] drugih izvora na kopnu unutar njihovih teritorija. U tom cilju, ponovno naglašavajući obveze na temelju članaka 4. i 8. Konvencije, člankom 1. Protokola od ugovornih stranaka zahtijeva se da poduzmu „[sve] odgovarajuće mjere”.
45 By establishing a system of prior authorisation by the competent national authorities for the discharge of the substances listed in Annex II to the Protocol, Article 6(3) contributes to the elimination by Member States of pollution from land-based sources in the area covered by the Protocol. Recognition of the direct effect of the provision in question can only serve the purpose of the Protocol, as recalled above, and reflect the nature of the instrument, which is intended, inter alia, to prevent pollution resulting from the failure of public authorities to act. 
45 Uspostavom sustava prethodnog odobrenja koje nadležna nacionalna tijela izdaju za ispuštanje tvari navedenih u Prilogu II. Protokolu, članak 6. stavak 3. doprinosi tome da države članice uklanjaju onečišćenje s kopna na području obuhvaćenom Protokolom. Priznanje izravnog učinka predmetne odredbe može samo biti pozitivno u odnosu na svrhu Protokola kako je gore navedena, i odražavati vrstu instrumenta kojim se želi, između ostalog, spriječiti onečišćenje do kojeg dođe zbog toga što su javna tijela propustila djelovati.
46 The foregoing considerations also apply to the interpretation of Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol. The reference therein to ‘the relevant decisions or recommendations of the meetings of the Contracting Parties’, which the competent national authorities must take into account, does not call in question the clear, precise and unconditional nature of the prohibition on discharges without authorisation. In addition, the amendments approved by Decision 1999/801 in no way alter the purpose or nature of the Protocol. 
46 Prethodna očitovanja primjenjuju se i na tumačenje članka 6. stavka 1. izmijenjenog Protokola. Upućivanje na „važne odluke ili preporuke sastanaka ugovornih stranaka” iz toga stavka, koje nadležna nacionalna tijela moraju uzeti u obzir, ne dovodi u pitanje jasnoću, preciznost i bezuvjetnost zabrane ispuštanja bez odobrenja. Osim toga, izmjene odobrene Odlukom 1999/801 ni na koji način ne mijenjaju svrhu ni narav Protokola.
47 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that both Article 6(3) of the Protocol and Article 6(1) of the amended Protocol, following its entry into force, have direct effect, so that any interested party is entitled to rely on those provisions before the national courts. 
47 S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, na prvo pitanje valja odgovoriti da članak 6. stavak 3. Protokola te, nakon što stupi na snagu, i članak 6. stavak 1. izmijenjenog Protokola imaju izravni učinak tako da svaka zainteresirana strana ima pravo pozvati se na te odredbe pred nacionalnim sudovima.
Scope of Articles 6(3) of the Protocol and 6(1) of the amended Protocol 
Područje primjene članka 6. stavka 3. Protokola i članka 6. stavka 1. izmijenjenog Protokola
48 As the Syndicat, the French Government and the Commission have rightly observed, Annex III to the Protocol, referred to in Article 6(3) thereof, which lists the factors to be taken into account with a view to the issue of authorisations for the discharge of waste, itself refers to Annex II, which sets out the substances contained in the waste in question. These include, in paragraph 11, ‘substances which have, directly or indirectly an adverse effect on the oxygen content of the marine environment, especially those which may cause eutrophication’ and, in paragraph 13, ‘substances which, though of a non-toxic nature, may become harmful to the marine environment or may interfere with any legitimate use of the sea owing to the quantities in which they are discharged’. 
48 Kako su se koordinacija ribara, francuska vlada i Komisija s pravom očitovali, i sam Prilog III. Protokolu, koji se spominje u članku 6. stavku 3. tog Protokola i navodi čimbenike koje treba uzeti u obzir s ciljem izdavanja ovlaštenja [odobrenja] za ispuštanje otpada, odnosi se na Prilog II. koji navodi tvari sadržane u otpadu o kojem je riječ. Među njima su, u točki 11., „tvari koje izravno ili neizravno negativno utječu na sadržaj kisika u morskom okolišu, posebno one koje mogu uzrokovati eutrofikaciju” i, u točki 13. „tvari koje iako su netoksične, mogu postati opasne za morski okoliš ili koje mogu zbog ispuštene količine ometati zakonito korištenje mora”.