natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
16 There is no necessary link between the action for annulment and the action for failure to act . 
16 Između tužbe za poništenje i tužbe zbog propusta nema nužne veze.
This follows from the fact that the action for failure to act enables the European Parliament to induce the adoption of measures which cannot in all cases be the subject of an action for annulment . 
To proizlazi iz činjenice da tužba zbog propusta omogućava Europskom parlamentu da potakne donošenje akata koji ne mogu uvijek biti predmetom tužbe za poništenje.
Thus, as is shown by the judgment of 12 July 1988 in Case 377/87 European Parliament v Council (( 1988 )) ECR , as long as a draft budget has not been presented by the Council, the European Parliament can obtain a judgment establishing the Council' s failure to act, whereas the draft budget, which is a preparatory measure, could not be challenged under Article 173 . 
Kako to pokazuje presuda od 12. srpnja 1988. (Europski parlament/Vijeće, 377/87, Zb., str. 4017.), sve dok Vijeće nije podnijelo nacrt proračuna Europski parlament može ishoditi presudu koja utvrđuje propust Vijeća, dok se nacrt koji predstavlja pripremni akt ne bi mogao osporavati na temelju članka 173.
17 The argument has also been put forward that, in the absence of any power to bring an action for annulment, the European Parliament would be unable, after calling upon the Council or the Commission to act, in accordance with Article 175, to challenge an express refusal to act issued in response to that request . 
17 Također je istaknut argument da, zbog nemogućnosti podnošenja tužbe za poništenje, Europski parlament, nakon što je, u smislu članka 175., pozvao Vijeće i Komisiju da djeluju, ne može osporavati izričito odbijanje djelovanja kao odgovor na taj poziv.
However, that argument is based on a false premise . 
Međutim, taj je argument utemeljen na netočnoj pretpostavci.
A refusal to act, however explicit it may be, can be brought before the Court under Article 175 since it does not put an end to the failure to act . 
Naime, odgovor o odbijanju poziva na djelovanje, ma kako izričito ono bilo, može se predati Sudu na temelju članka 175. s obzirom na to da o propustu djelovanja nije konačno odlučeno.
18 Nor is there any necessary link between the right to intervene and the possibility of bringing an action . 
18 Ne postoji ni nužna veza između prava uključivanja u postupak i mogućnosti podnošenja tužbe.
On the one hand, according to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, the right of individuals to intervene is conditional merely upon "an interest in the result of any case" before the Court, whereas the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by individuals is subject to the condition that they must be the addressees of the measure which they seek to have annulled or at least that the measure should be of direct and individual concern to them . 
S jedne strane, u skladu s člankom 37. drugim stavkom Statuta Suda EEZ-a pravo uključivanja pojedinaca u postupak jednostavno pretpostavlja „pravni interes za ishod postupka" pred Sudom, dok dopuštenost njihove tužbe za poništenje podliježe uvjetu da oni budu adresati akta čije poništenje zahtijevaju ili da ih se taj akt barem neposredno i osobno tiče.
On the other hand, under the first paragraph of Article 37, the European Parliament is entitled to intervene in cases such as those concerning the failure by States to fulfil their obligations, whereas the right to bring such cases before the Court is reserved to the Commission and the Member States . 
S druge strane, na temelju članka 37. prvog stavka Europski parlament ima pravo uključiti se u postupke poput onih o povredama obveza država, dok je inicijativa za pokretanje postupka pred Sudom namijenjena isključivo Komisiji i državama članicama.
19 The European Parliament goes on to state that the first paragraph of Article 173 reflects a principle of equality between the institutions expressly mentioned in that provision, in the sense that each of them is entitled to bring an action against measures adopted by the other and, conversely, its own measures can be submitted by the other institution for review by the Court . 
19 Europski parlament također tvrdi da članak 173. prvi stavak Ugovora izražava načelo jednakosti među institucijama koje se tu izričito spominju u smislu da svaka od njih može podnijeti tužbu protiv akata druge institucije i obrnuto, njezine akte druga institucija može predati na ispitivanje Sudu.
Since it has held that measures of the European Parliament capable of producing legal effects can be the subject of an action for annulment, the Court should, with a view to maintaining the institutional balance, decide that the European Parliament has the capacity to challenge acts of the Council and the Commission . 
Budući da je Sud presudio da akti Europskog parlamenta koji mogu proizvoditi pravne učinke mogu biti predmet tužbe za poništenje, radi održavanja institucionalne ravnoteže Sud treba odlučiti da Europski parlament ima legitimaciju pobijati akte Vijeća i Komisije.
20 In that connection, it must be borne in mind that although the Court held in its judgment of 23 April 1986 ( Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v European Parliament, cited above ) that an action for annulment may lie against measures adopted by the European Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, it did so because an interpretation excluding such measures from the scope of that action would have produced a result contrary to the system of the Treaty, which was intended to establish a complete system of judicial protection against acts of Community institutions which are capable of having legal effects . 
20 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da, ako je Sud u svojoj prethodno navedenoj presudi od 23. travnja 1986. (Ekološka stranka „Zeleni"/Europski parlament) presudio da akti Europskog parlamenta koji proizvode pravne učinke u odnosu na treće osobe mogu biti predmet tužbe za poništenje, to je zato jer bi ih tumačenje koje bi ih isključilo iz područja te tužbe dovelo do ishoda protivnog sustavu Ugovora kojim se željelo uvesti potpuni sustav sudske zaštite od akata institucija Zajednice koji mogu proizvoditi pravne učinke.
21 However, a comparison between Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty, which was specifically referred to by the Court in the judgment in "Les Verts", and Article 33 of the same Treaty shows that, according to the scheme of the Treaties, in those cases where provision was made for acts of the European Parliament to be subject to review of their legality, the European Parliament was not thereby empowered to bring a direct action on its own initiative against acts of other institutions . 
21 Usporedba između članka 38. Ugovora o EZUČ-u na koji se Sud osobito poziva u svojoj presudi „Zeleni" i članka 33. istog Ugovora ipak pokazuje da u sustavu Ugovora, kada su se akti Europskog parlamenta podvrgavali nadzoru zakonitosti, Europski parlament ipak nije bio ovlašten samoinicijativno podnijeti izravnu tužbu protiv akata drugih institucija.
The European Parliament' s argument that there must be a parallelism between the capacity of defendant and the capacity of applicant in proceedings for judicial review must therefore be rejected . 
Argument Europskog parlamenta da u sporovima o zakonitosti postoji podudarnost između pasivne i aktivne legitimacije stoga valja odbaciti.
22 The European Parliament then claims that the Court recognized by implication in its judgment of 3 July 1986 ( Council v European Parliament - the "Budget" case - cited above ) that it had the capacity to bring an action for annulment . 
22 Europski parlament zatim tvrdi da mu je Sud u prethodno navedenoj presudi od 3. srpnja 1986. (Vijeće/Europski parlament, „Proračun") implicitno priznao aktivnu procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe.
23 It must be observed that the budgetary procedure described in Article 203 ( 4 ), ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) of the Treaty is characterized by successive deliberations of the two arms of the budgetary authority in the course of which each of them may, in accordance with the voting conditions laid down in the Treaty, react to the positions taken by the other . 
23 U tom pogledu valja primijetiti da proračunski postupak opisan u stavcima 4., 5. i 6. članka 203. Ugovora kojem su svojstvena uzastopna vijećanja dviju ogranaka proračunskog tijela, tijekom kojih svaki ogranak može, pod uvjetima glasovanja utvrđenima Ugovorom, reagirati na stajališta drugog ogranka. Ta su vijećanja dio pripremnih akata u izradi proračuna.
Those deliberations constitute measures preparatory to the drawing-up of the budget . As is apparent from the judgment of 3 July 1986 ( Council v Parliament - the "Budget" case - cited above ) the budget does not become legally binding until completion of the procedure, that is to say when the President of the European Parliament, in his capacity as an organ of that institution, declares that the budget has been finally adopted . 
Ovaj potonji, kako to proizlazi iz prethodno navedene presude od 3. srpnja 1986. (Vijeće/Europski parlament, „Proračun") postaje pravno obvezujući tek po završetku postupka, to jest kad predsjednik Europskog parlamenta, u svojstvu tijela te institucije, u skladu sa stavkom 7. članka 203. Ugovora utvrdi da je proračun konačno donesen.
24 It follows that as far as the approval of the budget is concerned, the only measure which can be declared void emanates from an organ of the European Parliament and must therefore be attributed to that institution itself . 
24 Iz toga proizlazi, što se tiče odobrenja proračuna, da jedini akt koji se može poništiti dolazi iz tijela Europskog parlamenta pa ga se stoga treba dodijeliti upravo toj instituciji.
Consequently, the European Parliament cannot rely upon the budgetary powers conferred upon it by the Luxembourg and Brussels Treaties cited above - powers which, moreover, are not at issue in the present case - in order to obtain recognition of its right to bring actions for the annulment of measures emanating from the Commission and the Council . 
Slijedom navedenog Europski se parlament na proračunske ovlasti koje su mu dodijeljene prethodno navedenim Ugovorima iz Luxembourga i Bruxellesa, ovlasti o kojima se, uostalom, ne raspravlja u ovom predmetu, ne može pozvati kako bi mu se priznalo pravo podnošenja tužbe za poništenje akata koje donose Komisija i Vijeće.
25 The European Parliament then goes on to state that if it had no power to bring actions for annulment it would not be in a position to defend its prerogatives vis-à-vis the other institutions . 
25 Europski je parlament još tvrdio da, u nemogućnosti podnošenja tužbe za poništenje, ne bi bio u stanju braniti svoje ovlasti u odnosu na druge institucije.
26 It must be observed that the European Parliament has, from the outset, been endowed with the power to participate, on a consultative basis, in the legislative process, but that it was not thereby accorded the possibility of bringing actions for annulment . 
26 U tom pogledu valja istaknuti da je Europski parlament u postupku izrade normativnih akata od početka imao savjetodavne ovlasti, ali da mu je zbog toga bilo onemogućeno podnošenje tužbe za poništenje.
The prerogatives of the European Parliament have been augmented by the Single European Act, which has vested in it a power of joint decision with respect to accession and association agreements and has established a cooperation procedure in certain specified cases, but without any changes having been made to Article 173 of the Treaty . 
Ovlasti Europskog parlamenta povećane su Jedinstvenim europskim aktom kojim je Parlamentu dodijeljena ovlast suodlučivanja u području pristupanja i ugovorâ o pridruživanju i kojim je u određenim slučajevima uveden postupak suradnje, ali članak 173. Ugovora ipak nije mijenjan.
27 Apart from the abovementioned rights granted to the European Parliament by Article 175, the Treaty provides means for submitting for review by the Court acts of the Council adopted in disregard of the Parliament' s prerogatives . 
27 Osim gore spomenutih prava priznatih Europskom parlamentu člankom 175., Ugovor nudi mogućnosti da se akti Vijeća doneseni nepoštovanjem ovlasti Parlamenta predaju na ispitivanje Sudu.
Whilst the first paragraph of Article 173 grants to all the Member States in general terms the right to bring an action for the annulment of such acts, Article 155 of the Treaty confers more specifically on the Commission the responsibility for ensuring that the Parliament' s prerogatives are respected and for bringing for that purpose such actions for annulment as might prove to be necessary . 
Ako se člankom 173. prvim stavkom općenito svim državama članicama otvara mogućnost podnošenja tužbe za poništenje protiv takvih akata, člankom 155. Ugovora posebno se Komisiji daje odgovornost da vodi računa o poštovanju ovlasti Parlamenta i da u tom cilju podnosi tužbe za poništenje koje bi se pokazale nužnima.
Moreover, any natural or legal person may, if the prerogatives of the European Parliament are disregarded, plead an infringement of essential procedural requirements or an infringement of the Treaty in order to obtain the annulment of the measure adopted or, indirectly, a declaration pursuant to Article 184 of the Treaty that that measure is inapplicable . 
Osim toga, u slučaju nepoštovanja ovlasti Europskog parlamenta, svaka fizička ili pravna osoba može se pozvati na povredu bitnih postupovnih odredaba ili na povredu Ugovora kako bi ishodila poništenje donesenog akta ili na izjavu o neprimjenjivosti tog akta na temelju članka 184. Ugovora.
Similarly, the illegality of a measure on the ground of breach of the prerogatives of the European Parliament may be raised as an issue before a national court and the measure in question may be the subject of a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling as to its validity . 
Također, pitanje nezakonitosti nekog akta zbog povrede ovlasti Europskog parlamenta može se postaviti nacionalnom sudu, a dotični akt može biti predmet zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku Suda o ocjeni valjanosti.
28 It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the applicable provisions, as they stand at present, do not enable the Court to recognize the capacity of the European Parliament to bring an action for annulment . 
28 Iz prethodno navedenog proizlazi da sadašnje stanje važećih odredaba Sudu ne omogućava da Europskom parlamentu prizna aktivnu procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje.
29 The objection of inadmissibility must therefore be upheld and the application must be dismissed as inadmissible . 
29 Stoga se prigovor nedopuštenosti mora prihvatiti i tužba odbaciti kao nedopuštena.
Decision on costs Costs 
Troškovi
30 Under Article 69 ( 2 ) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party must be ordered to pay the costs if they have been asked for in the successful party' s pleading . 
30 Sukladno odredbama članka 69. stavka 2. Poslovnika, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku snosi troškove, ako je takav zahtjev postavljen.
Since the European Parliament has failed in its action it must be ordered to bear the costs . 
Budući da Europski parlament nije uspio u postupku, valja mu naložiti snošenje troškova.
On those grounds, THE COURT hereby : 
Slijedom navedenoga, SUD proglašava i presuđuje:
( 1 ) Dismisses the application as inadmissible . 
1. Tužba se odbija kao nedopuštena.
( 2 ) Orders the European Parliament to bear the costs . 
2. Europskom parlamentu nalaže se snošenje troškova.
Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 20 June 1991. 
PRESUDA SUDA (šesto vijeće) 20. lipnja 1991.()
Interpretation of Articles 4 and 13B (d) (5) of the Sixth Directive - Taxable person - Activities of a holding company. - Case C-60/90. 
„Tumačenje članka 4. i članka 13. dijela B stavka (d) točke 5. Šeste direktive - Porezni obveznik - Koncept - Djelatnost holding društva"
Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Gerechtshof (Regional Court of Appeal), Arnhem, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between 
povodom zahtjeva za prethodnu odluku na temelju članka 177. Ugovora o EEZ-u, koji je uputio Gerechtshof (Regionalni žalbeni sud) u Arnhemu, Nizozemska, u postupku koji se vodi pred tim sudom između
Polysar Investments Netherlands BV 
Polysar Investments Netherlands BV
and Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (Inspector of Customs and Excise), Arnhem, on the interpretation of Articles 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (Official Journal L 145, p. 1), 
i Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen, Arnhem, o tumačenju članka 4., članka 13. dijela B stavka (d) točke 5. i članka 17. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica koja se odnose na poreze na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za razrezivanje (SL L 145, str. 1.),
THE COURT (Sixth Chamber), 
SUD (šesto vijeće),
composed of: G.F. Mancini, President of the Chamber, T.F. O' Higgins, C.N. Kakouris, F.A. Schockweiler and P.J.G. Kapteyn, Judges, 
u sastavu: G. F. Mancini, predsjednik vijeća, T. F. O'Higgins, C. N. Kakouris, F. A. Schockweiler i P. J. G. Kapteyn, suci,
Advocate General: W. Van Gerven, 
nezavisni odvjetnik: W. Van Gerven,
Registrar: J.A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar, 
tajnik: J. A. Pompe, zamjenik tajnika,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: 
uzimajući u obzir pisana očitovanja koja su podnijeli:
Polysar BV, by N.R. Jansen, tax adviser, 
za Polysar BV, N. R. Jansen, Belastingadviseur (porezni savjetnik),
the Netherlands Government, by B.R. Bot, Secretary General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, 
za nizozemsku vladu, B. R. Bot, glavni tajnik u Ministarstvu vanjskih poslova, u svojstvu agenta,
the French Government, by Philippe Pouzoulet, Deputy Director for Legal Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by Géraud de Bergues, Principal Deputy Secretary for Foreign Affairs, acting as Deputy Agent, 
za francusku vladu, Philippe Pouzoulet, zamjenik direktora za pravne poslove, u svojstvu agenta, uz asistenciju Gérauda de Berguesa, glavnog zamjenika tajnika za vanjske poslove, u svojstvu zamjenskog agenta,
the Commission of the European Communities, by Johannes Foens Buhl, Legal Adviser at the Commission, and Berend Jan Drijber, a member of the Commission' s Legal Service, acting as Agents, 
za Komisiju Europskih zajednica, Johannes Foens Buhl, pravni savjetnik, i Berend Jan Drijber, član pravne službe, u svojstvu agenata,
after hearing the oral observations of Polysar BV, the Netherlands Government, represented by T. Heukels, acting as Agent, and the Commission at the sitting on 5 March 1991, 
saslušavši usmena očitovanja društva Polysar BV, nizozemske vlade, koju zastupa T. Heukels, u svojstvu agenta, i Komisije, na raspravi održanoj 5. ožujka 1991.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 24 April 1991, 
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 24. travnja 1991.
gives the following Judgment 
donosi sljedeću Presudu
1 By decision of 30 January 1990, which was received at the Court on 12 March 1990, the Gerechtshof Arnhem referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a number of questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 4, 13B(d)(5) and 17 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (hereinafter "the Sixth Directive") with a view to obtaining a definition of the terms "taxable person" and "right to deduct", within the meaning of that directive, with respect to holding companies. 
1 Odlukom od 30. siječnja 1990., koju je Sud zaprimio 12. ožujka 1990., Gerechtshof (Regionalni žalbeni sud) u Arnhemu uputio je Sudu na temelju članka 177. Ugovora o EEZ-u zahtjev za prethodnu odluku o tumačenju članka 4., članka 13. dijela B stavka (d) točke 5. i članka 17. Šeste direktive Vijeća 77/388/EEZ od 17. svibnja 1977. o usklađivanju zakonodavstava država članica koja se odnose na poreze na promet - zajednički sustav poreza na dodanu vrijednost: jedinstvena osnovica za razrezivanje (u daljnjem tekstu: Šesta direktiva) s ciljem dobivanja definicije pojmova „porezni obveznik" i „pravo na odbitak" u smislu te direktive kada je riječ o holding društvima.
2 Those questions arose in a dispute between Polysar Investments Netherlands BV (hereinafter referred to as "Polysar BV"), a company incorporated under Netherlands law, and the Inspector of Customs and Excise, Arnhem, concerning an assessment to turnover tax issued to Polysar BV. 
2 Zahtjev je upućen u okviru spora između društva Polysar Investments Netherlands BV (u daljnjem tekstu: Polysar BV), osnovanog u skladu s nizozemskim pravom, i Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (inspektor za carine i trošarine) u Arnhemu, a tiče se obavijesti o ispravku poreza na promet upućenoj društvu Polysar BV.
3 According to Article 4(1), (2) and (4) of the Sixth Directive: 
3 U skladu s člankom 4. stavcima 1., 2. i 4. Šeste direktive:
"(1) 'Taxable person' shall mean any person who independently carries out in any place any economic activity specified in paragraph 2, whatever the purpose or results of that activity. 
„1. ‚Poreznim obveznikom' smatra se svaka osoba koja samostalno obavlja bilo koju gospodarsku aktivnost navedenu u stavku 2. i na bilo kojem mjestu, bez obzira na svrhu ili rezultat te aktivnosti.
(2) The economic activities referred to in paragraph 1 shall comprise all activities of producers, traders and persons supplying services ... 
2. Sve aktivnosti proizvođača, trgovaca i osoba koje pružaju usluge [...] smatraju se ‚gospodarskom aktivnošću' iz stavka 1.
The exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis shall also be considered an economic activity. 
Korištenje materijalnom ili nematerijalnom imovinom radi ostvarivanja prihoda, na kontinuiranoj osnovi, također se smatra gospodarskom aktivnošću.
(4) ... each Member State may treat as a single taxable person persons established in the territory of the country who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organizational links." 
4. [...] sve države članice mogu smatrati jedinstvenim poreznim obveznikom osobe koje imaju poslovni nastan na državnom području te države, a koje su, iako pravno samostalne, međusobno usko povezane financijskim, gospodarskim i organizacijskim vezama." [neslužbeni prijevod]
4 In accordance with Article 13B, the Member States are to exempt certain activities from value added tax, including, in particular, by virtue of subparagraph (d)(5): 
4. U skladu s člankom 13. dijelom B, države članice izuzimaju određene aktivnosti od poreza na dodanu vrijednost, uključujući posebno, na temelju stavka (d) točke 5.:
"Transactions, including negotiation, excluding management and safekeeping, in shares, interests in companies or associations, debentures and other securities, excluding: 
„transakcije, uključujući ugovaranje, ali ne i upravljanje ili pohranu, dionicama, udjelima u društvima ili udruženjima, obveznicama i ostalim vrijednosnim papirima, isključujući:
documents establishing title to goods, 
dokumente kojima se utvrđuje vlasništvo nad robom,
the rights or securities referred to in Article 5(3)." 
prava ili vrijednosne papire iz članka 5. stavka 3." [neslužbeni prijevod]
5 According to Article 17(3)(c) of the Sixth Directive, Member States are to grant to every taxable person the right to a deduction or refund of the value added tax in so far as the goods and services are used for the purposes of: 
5 U skladu s člankom 17. stavkom 3. točkom (c) Šeste direktive, države članice priznaju svakom poreznom obvezniku pravo na odbitak ili povrat poreza na dodanu vrijednost ako se roba i usluge upotrebljavaju u svrhu: