natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2. States shall adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels flying their flag or of their registry. 
2. Države donose zakone i druge propise za sprečavanje, smanjivanje i nadziranje onečišćenja morskog okoliša s brodova koji vijore njihovu zastavu ili su upisani u upisnik na njihovom području.
Such laws and regulations shall at least have the same effect as that of generally accepted international rules and standards established through the competent international organisation or general diplomatic conference. 
Ti zakoni i propisi ne smiju biti manje djelotvorni od općeprihvaćenih međunarodnih pravila i standarda usvojenih preko nadležne međunarodne organizacije ili na općoj diplomatskoj konferenciji. [...]
... 4. Coastal States may, in the exercise of their sovereignty within their territorial sea, adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from foreign vessels, including vessels exercising the right of innocent passage. 
4. Obalne države mogu, ostvarujući suverenost nad svojim teritorijalnim morem, donijeti zakone i druge propise radi sprečavanja, smanjivanja i nadziranja onečišćenja mora sa stranih brodova, uključujući brodove koji ostvaruju pravo neškodljivog prolaska.
Such laws and regulations shall, in accordance with Part II, section 3, not hamper innocent passage of foreign vessels. 
Ti zakoni i propisi, u skladu s dijelom II., odsjekom 3. ne smiju ometati neškodljivi prolazak stranih brodova.
5. Coastal States, for the purpose of enforcement as provided for in section 6, may in respect of their exclusive economic zones adopt laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of pollution from vessels conforming to and giving effect to generally accepted international rules and standards established through the competent international organisation or general diplomatic conference. 
5. Radi provedbe, kako je to predviđeno u odsjeku 6., obalne države mogu za svoj isključivi gospodarski pojas donositi zakone i druge propise radi sprečavanja, smanjivanja i nadziranja onečišćenja s brodova, koji su usklađeni s općeprihvaćenim međunarodnim pravilima i standardima usvojenima preko nadležne međunarodne organizacije ili na općoj diplomatskoj konferenciji i s kojima se provode takva pravila i standardi.
17 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, signed in London on 2 November 1973, as supplemented by the Protocol of 17 February 1978 (`Marpol 73/78'), establishes rules to combat pollution of the marine environment. 
17 Međunarodna konvencija o sprečavanju onečišćenja mora s brodova, usvojena u Londonu 2. studenoga 1973., kako je dopunjena protokolom od 17. veljače 1978. (dalje u tekstu: Konvencija MARPOL 73/78) utvrđuje pravila za suzbijanje onečišćenja morskog okoliša.
18 The regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil are set out in Annex I to Marpol 73/78. 
18 Pravila o sprečavanju onečišćenja uljem utvrđena su u Prilogu I. Konvenciji Marpol 73/78.
19 Regulation 9 of Annex I states that, subject to the provisions of Regulations 9(2), 10 and 11, any discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixtures from ships to which that annex applies is to be prohibited except when certain exhaustively listed conditions are satisfied. 
19 Pravilo 9. iz Priloga I. predviđa da, u skladu s odredbama pravila 9. stavka 2., pravila 10. i 11., treba zabraniti bilo kakvo ispuštanje ulja ili smjesa ulja iz brodova u more, na koje se odnosi taj Prilog, osim u slučajevima kada su ispunjeni određeni taksativno navedeni uvjeti.
20 Regulation 10 of Annex I lays down methods for the prevention of oil pollution from ships while operating in special areas. 
20 Pravilo 10. iz Priloga I. predviđa metode za sprečavanje onečišćenja uljem s brodova koji plove u posebnim područjima.
21 Regulation 11 of that annex, headed `Exceptions', states: 
21 Pravilo 11. tog priloga, pod naslovom „Iznimke" glasi:
`Regulations 9 and 10 of this Annex shall not apply to: 
„Pravila 9. i 10. ovog Priloga ne primjenjuju se na:
(a) the discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture necessary for the purpose of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea; or 
(a) ispuštanje u more ulja ili smjese ulja potrebno radi osiguranja sigurnosti broda ili spašavanja života na moru; ili
(b) the discharge into the sea of oil or oily mixture resulting from damage to a ship or its equipment: 
(b) ispuštanje u more ulja ili smjese ulja nastalo oštećenjem broda ili njegove opreme:
(i) provided that all reasonable precautions have been taken after the occurrence of the damage or discovery of the discharge for the purpose of preventing or minimising the discharge; and 
(i) pod uvjetom da su poduzete sve razumne mjere opreza nakon nastajanja štete ili otkrića ispuštanja radi sprečavanja ispuštanja ili njegova svođenja na najmanju moguću razinu; i
(ii) except if the owner or the master acted either with intent to cause damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result; or 
(ii) osim ako su vlasnik ili zapovjednik postupili s namjerom uzrokovanja štete ili nepažnjom ili znajući da će najvjerojatnije doći do štete; ili
(c) the discharge into the sea of substances containing oil, approved by the Administration [of the flag State], when being used for the purpose of combating specific pollution incidents in order to minimise the damage from pollution. 
(c) ispuštanje u more tvari koje sadrže ulje, koje je odobrila uprava [države zastave], kad se koriste za sprečavanje određenih incidenata s posljedicom onečišćenja radi svođenja štete od onečišćenja na najmanju moguću mjeru.
Any such discharge shall be subject to the approval of any Government in whose jurisdiction it is contemplated the discharge will occur.' 
Svako takvo ispuštanje podliježe odobrenju bilo koje vlade u čijoj se nadležnosti smatra da će doći do ispuštanja."
22 The regulations for the control of pollution by noxious liquid substances are set out in Annex II to Marpol 73/78. 
22 Pravila o kontroli onečišćenja štetnim tekućim tvarima navedena su u Prilogu II. Konvenciji Marpol 73/78.
23 Regulation 5 of Annex II prohibits discharge into the sea of the substances covered by that annex, except when certain exhaustively listed conditions are satisfied. 
23 Pravilo 5. Priloga II. zabranjuje ispuštanje u more tvari obuhvaćenih tim prilogom, osim u slučajevima kada su ispunjeni određeni detaljno navedeni uvjeti.
Regulation 6(a) to (c) of that annex sets out, in analogous terms, the exceptions provided for in Regulation 11(a) to (c) of Annex I. 
U pravilu 6. stavcima od (a) do (c) navode se, na analogan način, iznimke navedene u pravilu 11. stavcima od (a) do (c) Priloga I.
`This Directive shall apply, in accordance with international law, to discharges of polluting substances in: 
„Ova Direktiva se primjenjuje, u skladu s međunarodnim pravom, na ispuštanja onečišćujućih tvari u:
(c) straits used for international navigation subject to the regime of transit passage, as laid down in Part III, section 2, of [UNCLOS], to the extent that a Member State exercises jurisdiction over such straits; 
(c) tjesnacima koji se koriste za međunarodnu plovidbu po režimu tranzitnog prolaza, u skladu s dijelom III. odjeljkom 2. Konvencije UN-a o pravu mora [iz 1982.], ako država članica provodi nadležnost nad tim prolazima;
(e) the high seas.' 
(e) na otvorenom moru."
These infringements are regarded as criminal offences by, and in the circumstances provided for in, Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA supplementing this Directive.' 
Ta se kršenja smatraju kaznenim djelima prema Okvirnoj odluci 2005/667/PUP koja dopunjuje ovu Direktivu i to u okolnostima navedenima u toj Okvirnoj odluci."
26 Article 5 of Directive 2005/35 states: 
26 Članak 5. Direktive 2003/35 glasi:
`1. A discharge of polluting substances into any of the areas referred to in Article 3(1) shall not be regarded as an infringement if it satisfies the conditions set out in Annex I, Regulations 9, 10, 11(a) or 11(c) or in Annex II, Regulations 5, 6(a) or 6(c) of Marpol 73/78. 
„1. Ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari u bilo koja od područja navedenih u članku 3. stavku 1. ne smatra se kršenjem ako zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene u Prilogu I. Pravilima 9., 10., Pravilu 11. točkama (a) ili (c) ili u Prilogu II. Pravilu 5., Pravilu 6. točkama (a) ili (c) Konvencije Marpol 73/78.
2. A discharge of polluting substances into the areas referred to in Article 3(1)(c), (d) and (e) shall not be regarded as an infringement for the owner, the master or the crew when acting under the master's responsibility if it satisfies the conditions set out in Annex I, Regulation 11(b) or in Annex II, Regulation 6(b) of Marpol 73/78.' 
2. Ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari u područja navedena u članku 3. stavku 1. točkama (c), (d) i (e) ne smatraju se kršenjem za vlasnika, zapovjednika ili posadu koja postupa pod odgovornošću zapovjednika ako ispunjava uvjete utvrđene u Prilogu I. Pravilu 11. točki (b) ili Prilogu II. Pravilu 6. točki (b) Konvencije Marpol 73/78."
28 The claimants in the main proceedings comprise a group of organisations within the maritime shipping industry representing substantial proportions of that industry. 
28 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku obuhvaćaju skupinu organizacija iz sektora pomorskog prijevoza, koja predstavlja značajan dio tog sektora.
They applied to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), for judicial review in relation to the implementation of Directive 2005/35. 
Oni su High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Upravnom sudu) uputili zahtjev za sudski nadzor u vezi s provedbom Direktive 2005/35.
29 By decision of 4 July 2006, that court decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 
29 Odlukom od 4. srpnja 2006. sud koji je uputio zahtjev odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`(1) In relation to straits used for international navigation, the exclusive economic zone or equivalent zone of a Member State and the high seas, is Article 5(2) of Directive 2005/35/EC invalid in so far as it limits the exceptions in Annex I Regulation 11(b) of [Marpol] 73/78 and in Annex II Regulation (6)(b) of [Marpol] 73/78 to the owners, masters and crew? 
„(1) Je li u pogledu tjesnaca koji služe međunarodnoj plovidbi, isključivog gospodarskog ili ekvivalentnog pojasa neke države članice i u pogledu otvorenog mora, članak 5. stavak 2. Direktive 2005/35/EZ nevaljan budući da izuzeća iz pravila 11. stavka (b) Priloga I. [Konvenciji] Marpol 73/78 i iz pravila 6. stavka (b) Priloga II. [Konvenciji] Marpol 73/78 ograničava na vlasnike, zapovjednike i posadu?
(2) In relation to the territorial sea of a Member State: 
(2) U pogledu teritorijalnog mora države članice:
(a) Is Article 4 of the Directive invalid in so far as it requires Member States to treat serious negligence as a test of liability for discharge of polluting substances; and/or 
(a) Je li članak 4. navedene Direktive nevaljan budući da od država članica zahtijeva da teški nemar tretiraju kao kriterij za odgovornost za ispuštanje onečišćujućih tvari; i/ili
(b) Is Article 5(1) of the Directive invalid in so far as it excludes the application of the exceptions in Annex I Regulation 11(b) of [Marpol] 73/78 and in Annex II Regulation (6)(b) of [Marpol] 73/78? 
(b) Je li članak 5. stavak 1. Direktive [2005/35] nevaljan budući da isključuje primjenu izuzeća iz pravila 11. stavka (b) Priloga I. [Konvenciji] Marpol 73/78 i iz pravila 6. stavka (b) Priloga II. [Konvenciji] Marpol 73/78?
(3) Does Article 4 of the Directive, requiring Member States to adopt national legislation which includes serious negligence as a standard of liability and which penalises discharges in territorial sea, breach the right of innocent passage recognised in [UNCLOS], and if so, is Article 4 invalid to that extent? 
(3) Krši li članak 4. Direktive [2005/35], koji državama članicama nalaže donošenje propisa koji uključuju teški nemar kao kriterij za odgovornost i sankcioniraju ispuštanja u teritorijalno more, pravo neškodljivog prolaska iz Konvencije [iz Montego Baya] i, ako krši, je li članak 4. u tom smislu nevaljan?
(4) Does the use of the phrase "serious negligence" in Article 4 of the Directive infringe the principle of legal certainty, and if so, is Article 4 invalid to that extent?' 
(4) Krši li uporaba izraza ‚teški nemar' u članku 4. Direktive [2005/35] načelo pravne sigurnosti i, ako krši, je li članak 4. u tom smislu nevaljan?"
30 The French Government questions whether the reference for a preliminary ruling is admissible, the national court having, in its view, failed to set out the circumstances in which the case has been brought before it. 
30 Francuska vlada pita je li zahtjev za prethodnu odluku dopušten, budući da po njezinom mišljenju sud koji je uputio zahtjev nije naveo okolnosti u kojima mu je predmet bio upućen.
The French Government submits that, in contrast to cases such as that giving rise to the judgment in Case C-491/01 BritishAmerican Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco [2002] ECR I-11453, the order for reference does not state that the claimants in the main proceedings have sought to bring an action contesting the transposition of Directive 2005/35 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 
Francuska vlada napominje da, za razliku od predmeta kakav je bio onaj povodom kojega je donesena presuda od 10. prosinca 2002., British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco (C 491/01, Zb., str. I-11453.), iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku ne proizlazi da su tužitelji u glavnom postupku svojom tužbom imali namjeru osporiti prenošenje Direktive 2005/35 koje su izvršile Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velika Britanija i Sjeverna Irska.
31 In that regard, it is to be remembered that, when a question on the validity of a measure adopted by the institutions of the European Community is raised before a national court, it is for that court to decide whether a decision on the matter is necessary to enable it to give judgment and, consequently, whether it should request the Court to rule on that question. 
31 U tom smislu valja podsjetiti na to da ako se pitanje valjanosti mjere koju donose institucije Europske zajednice postavlja pred nacionalnim sudom, na tom je sudu da odluči je li mu odluka o toj stvari potrebna da bi mogao donijeti presudu i treba li slijedom toga tražiti od Suda da odluči o tom pitanju.
Accordingly, where the national court's questions relate to the validity of a provision of Community law, the Court is obliged in principle to give a ruling (BritishAmerican Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 
S tim u skladu, kada se pitanja nacionalnog suda odnose na valjanost odredbe prava Zajednice, Sud je u načelu dužan donijeti odluku (gore navedena presuda British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 34. i navedena sudska praksa).
32 It is possible for the Court to refuse to give a preliminary ruling on a question submitted by a national court only where, inter alia, it is quite obvious that the ruling sought by that court on the interpretation or validity of Community law bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or where the problem is hypothetical (BritishAmerican Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). 
32 Sud može odbiti donošenje odluke povodom prethodnog pitanja koje je uputio nacionalni sud samo kada, između ostaloga, očito proizlazi da tumačenje ili valjanost propisa Zajednice koje traži taj sud nije ni u kakvom odnosu s činjenicama ili svrhom glavnog postupka ili kada je problem hipotetske naravi (gore navedena presuda British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 35. i navedena sudska praksa).
33 In the present case, it is clear from the order for reference that the claimants in the main proceedings have made an application to the High Court for judicial review of implementation of Directive 2005/35 in the United Kingdom and that they may make such an application even though, when the application was made, the period prescribed for implementation of the directive had not yet expired and no national implementing measures had been adopted. 
33 U ovom slučaju iz zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku proizlazi da su tužitelji u glavnom postupku High Court of Justice [Upravnom sudu] uputili zahtjev za sudski nadzor zakonitosti („judicial review") Direktive 2005/35 u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini i da oni mogu uputiti takav zahtjev iako, kada je taj zahtjev upućen, rok propisan za prenošenje te direktive još nije bio istekao i nije bila donesena nijedna nacionalna mjera kojom se ta direktiva prenosi.
34 Nor is it disputed before the Court of Justice that the questions submitted are relevant to the outcome of the main proceedings, as the adoption of national measures designed to transpose a directive into domestic law in the United Kingdom may be subject to the condition that the directive be valid (see BritishAmerican Tobacco (Investments) and Imperial Tobacco, paragraph 37). 
34 Na Sudu se ne osporava ni to da su upućena pitanja relevantna za ishod glavnog postupka budući da donošenje nacionalnih mjera s namjerom prenošenja direktive u pravni poredak Ujedinjene Kraljevine može biti podložno uvjetu da ta direktiva treba biti valjana (vidjeti gore navedenu presudu British American Tobacco (Investments) i Imperial Tobacco, t. 37.).
35 It is therefore not obvious that the ruling sought by the national court on the validity of Directive 2005/35 bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose or concerns a hypothetical problem. 
35 Prema tome, nije očito da prethodna odluka koju sud koji je uputio zahtjev traži o valjanosti Direktive 2005/35 nije povezana s činjeničnim stanjem glavnog postupka ili s njegovim predmetom ili da se odnosi na problem hipotetske naravi.
Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
O prethodnim pitanjima
Questions 1 to 3 
Prvo do treće pitanje
36 By its first three questions, the national court essentially requests the Court of Justice to assess the validity of Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2005/35 in the light of Regulations 9 and 11(b) of Annex I, and Regulations 5 and 6(b) of Annex II, to Marpol 73/78 and in the light of the provisions of UNCLOS which define the conditions under which coastal States may exercise certain of their rights in the various marine zones. 
36 Postavljanjem prva tri pitanja sud koji je uputio zahtjev u biti traži da Sud procijeni valjanost članaka 4. i 5. Direktive 2005/35 s obzirom na pravilo 9. i pravilo 11. stavak (b) Priloga I. Konvenciji Marpol 73/78 i s obzirom na pravilo 5. i pravilo 6. stavak (b) Priloga II. toj konvenciji, te s obzirom na odredbe konvencije iz Montego Baya koje definiraju uvjete pod kojima obalne države mogu koristiti neka od svojih prava u različitim morskim područjima.
37 The claimants in the main proceedings and the Greek, Cypriot and Maltese Governments submit that Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2005/35 do not comply with Marpol 73/78 or UNCLOS in several respects. 
37 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku i grčka, ciparska i malteška vlada tvrde da članci 4. i 5. Direktive 2005/35 s više aspekata nisu u skladu s Konvencijom Marpol 73/78 ni s Konvencijom iz Montego Baya.
In particular, by laying down that liability is to be incurred for serious negligence, those articles establish a stricter liability regime for accidental discharges than that laid down in Article 4 of Marpol 73/78, read in conjunction with Regulations 9 and 11(b) of Annex I, and Regulations 5 and 6(b) of Annex II, to that Convention. 
Utvrđujući posebno da za teški nemar treba snositi odgovornost, ti članci uspostavljaju stroži režim odgovornosti za slučajna ispuštanja od onoga utvrđenog u članku 4. Konvencije Marpol 73/78, u vezi s pravilom 9. i pravilom 11. stavkom (b) Priloga I. Konvenciji Marpol 73/78 i u vezi s pravilom 5. i pravilom 6. stavkom (b) njezinog Priloga II.
38 The claimants in the main proceedings and the abovementioned governments proceed on the basis that the legality of Directive 2005/35 may be assessed in the light of UNCLOS, since the Community is a party thereto and it thus forms an integral part of the Community legal order. 
38 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku i gore navedene vlade polaze od pretpostavke da se zakonitost Direktive 2005/35 može ocijeniti s obzirom na Konvenciju iz Montego Baya budući da je Zajednica stranka te konvencije pa ona čini sastavni dio pravnog poretka Zajednice.
39 In their submission, the directive's legality may also be assessed in the light of Marpol 73/78. 
39 Prema njihovom mišljenju, zakonitost te direktive može se isto tako ocijeniti i s obzirom na Konvenciju Marpol 73/78.
They state that UNCLOS defines and governs the extent of the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties in their actions on the high seas, in their exclusive economic zones and in international straits. 
Oni tvrde da Konvencija iz Montega Baya definira i uređuje opseg nadležnosti ugovornih stranaka u okviru njihovih djelatnosti na otvorenom moru, u isključivom gospodarskom području i u međunarodnim tjesnacima.
Thus, the Community lacks the power to adopt legislation applying to discharges from ships not flying the flag of one of the Member States, save to the extent that UNCLOS accords the Community the right to adopt such legislation. 
Tako Zajednica nema ovlasti za donošenje zakonodavstva koje se primjenjuje na ispuštanja s brodova koji ne vijore zastavu jedne od država članica, osim u onoj mjeri u kojoj joj pravo za donošenje takvog zakonodavstva priznaje Konvencija iz Montego Baya.
Under UNCLOS, the Contracting Parties have the power only to adopt legislation implementing the international rules and standards in such marine areas, that is to say, in the present case, the provisions of Marpol 73/78. 
U skladu s tom konvencijom, ugovorne stranke ovlaštene su samo za donošenje zakonodavstva za provedbu međunarodnih pravila i standarda u tim morskim područjima, to jest, u ovom slučaju, za provedbu odredaba Konvencije Marpol 73/78.
This power is specified with regard to the high seas in Article 211(1) and (2) of UNCLOS, with regard to international straits in Articles 42(1)(b) and 45 of that Convention and with regard to the exclusive economic zone in Article 211(5). 
Te ovlasti u pogledu otvorenog mora navedene su u članku 211. stavcima 1. i 2. Konvencije iz Montego Baya, u pogledu međunarodnih tjesnaca u članku 42. stavku 1. točki (b) i članku 45. te konvencije i u pogledu isključivog gospodarskog pojasa u članku 211. stavku 5. te konvencije.
The same holds for territorial waters, by virtue of Article 2(3) of UNCLOS. 
Isto vrijedi i za teritorijalne vode, u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 3.
40 The claimants in the main proceedings add that the legality of Directive 2005/35 must be assessed in the light of Marpol 73/78 for the further reason that the Community legislature seeks to implement the latter in Community law by means of that directive. 
Konvencije iz Montego Baya. 40 Tužitelji u glavnom postupku dodaju da zakonitost Direktive 2005/35 s obzirom na Konvenciju Marpol 73/78 treba ocijeniti i zbog toga što zakonodavac Zajednice tom Direktivom želi prenijeti tu konvenciju u pravo Zajednice.
41 Furthermore, the field of maritime transport is a field where the Community has assumed the function of regulating the implementation of the international obligations of the Member States. 
41 Nadalje, područje pomorskog prometa je područje u kojem je Zajednica preuzela funkciju reguliranja provedbe međunarodnih obveza država članica.