natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Instead, Commission departments informed the acceding countries about the post-accession applicability criteria in the form of guidance letters.
Namesto tega so službe Komisije obvestile države pristopnice o merilu veljavnosti po pristopu v obliki dopisov z neformalnimi navodili.
By letter dated 4 August 2003 to the Mission of the Republic of Hungary to the EU, the Commission reiterated its understanding of the concept of ‘applicable after accession’ in respect of individual aid measures.
Z dopisom z dne 4. avgusta 2003, naslovljenim na misijo Republike Madžarske v EU, je Komisija poudarila svoje razumevanje pojma veljavnosti po pristopu v zvezi s posameznimi ukrepi pomoči.
However, that letter did not explicitly address the assessment of indemnity undertakings, nor did it explicitly require itemisation, namely that the risks should be precisely defined and included in an exhaustive list closed by the date of accession, as a criterion for the indemnity undertaking not to be considered applicable after accession.
Vendar navedeni dopis ni izrecno obravnaval ocene zagotovil o jamstvu in ni izrecno zahteval oblikovanja seznama, tj. da je treba tveganja natančno opredeliti in vključiti v izčrpen seznam, ki se zaključi do datuma pristopa, kot merilo, da se zagotovilo o jamstvu ne obravnava kot veljavno po pristopu.
The Commission letter appeared to be fully exhaustive as regards the concept of applicability after accession and did not refer in any way to the itemisation requirement.
Dopis Komisije se je zdel popolnoma izčrpen, kar zadeva pojem veljavnosti po pristopu, in ni na noben način navajal zahteve o oblikovanju seznama.
Itemisation is the criterion which the measure fails to satisfy in its current form.
Oblikovanje seznama je merilo, ki ga ukrep v svoji sedanji obliki ne izpolnjuje.
Erste Bank purchased Postabank on 20 October 2003 and the sale purchase agreement included the indemnity undertaking.
Banka Erste Bank je kupila banko Postabank 20. oktobra 2003, pri čemer je kupoprodajna pogodba vključevala zagotovilo o jamstvu.
The next guidance on the applicability test was available through the Commission’s formal decisions of 28 January 2004 on Česká Spořitelna (CZ 14/03) and of 16 December 2003 on Komerční Banka (CZ 15/03).
Naslednja navodila o preskusu veljavnosti je Komisija zagotovila z uradnima odločbama z dne 28. januarja 2004 v zvezi z zadevo Česká Spořitelna (CZ 14/03) in z dne 16. decembra 2003 v zvezi z zadevo Komerční Banka (CZ 15/03).
These decisions stated that the Commission considers individual aid measures to be applicable after accession if the precise economic exposure of the State is not known on the date the aid is granted.
V teh odločbah je navedeno, da Komisija obravnava posamezne ukrepe pomoči kot veljavne po pristopu, če na dan dodelitve pomoči ni znana natančna gospodarska izpostavljenost države.
In neither of these cases was any mention made of any itemisation requirement, i.e. the requirement that the risks be precisely defined and included in an exhaustive list closed by the date of accession in order for a given indemnity undertaking not to qualify as applicable after accession.
V nobeni od teh odločb ni bila omenjena zahteva po oblikovanju seznama, tj. da je treba tveganja natančno opredeliti in vključiti v izčrpen seznam, ki se zaključi do datuma pristopa, da se zagotovilo o jamstvu ne bi obravnavalo kot veljavno po pristopu.
Therefore, at the time when the Postabank sale and purchase agreement was drawn up in October 2003, not all the relevant criteria for determining the post-accession applicability of contingent guarantees and indemnity undertakings (as opposed to other measures, such as those giving rise to a certain payment obligation in the period after accession), were known to the parties concerned.
V času oblikovanja kupoprodajne pogodbe za banko Postabank, tj. oktobra 2003, vpletene stranke torej niso poznale vseh zadevnih meril za določanje veljavnosti pogojenih garancij in zagotovil o jamstvu po pristopu (v nasprotju z drugimi ukrepi, na primer ukrepi, ki v obdobju po pristopu povzročijo določeno plačilno obveznost).
With this in mind, it would seem unreasonable to require recovery in respect of aid that was granted at a time when the Commission’s guidelines on the post-accession applicability criteria for indemnity undertakings had not been fully clarified and yet may even have given the misleading impression of being complete.
Ob upoštevanju tega bi bilo nesmiselno zahtevati izterjavo v zvezi s pomočjo, ki je bila dodeljena, ko smernice Komisije o merilu veljavnosti zagotovila o jamstvu po pristopu še niso bile popolnoma pojasnjene in so morda celo dajale napačen vtis, da so dokončane.
In addition, the positive effect of the indemnity undertaking was to a large extent offset by the fact that markets were aware of the ongoing Commission investigation.
Poleg tega je pozitiven vpliv zagotovila o jamstvu v veliki meri omililo dejstvo, da so se trgi zavedali tekoče preiskave Komisije.
The indemnity undertaking could not have a major positive effect on the financial situation of the Bank.
Zagotovilo o jamstvu ne bi moglo imeti velikega pozitivnega vpliva na finančni položaj banke.
It relates to specific litigation risks in connection with Postabank’s past and does not constitute a general guarantee that would provide a direct fundraising advantage.
Nanaša se na posebne nevarnosti pravdnega spora v zvezi s preteklostjo banke Postabank in ne pomeni splošne garancije, ki bi zagotovila prednost neposrednega zbiranja sredstev.
On the basis of the foregoing and the overall circumstances of the case, the Commission is not seeking payment of a charge for the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims.
Na podlagi navedenega in splošnih okoliščin zadeve Komisija ne zahteva plačila stroškov za zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve.
On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the part of the indemnities contained in the measure that had been clearly defined by the time of accession is not applicable after accession (i.e. the potential claims of the two audit companies, Arthur Andersen Audit and Prudentia, against Postabank, as set out under ‘Risk definition O’ in the Erste Bank unilateral declaration of 29 April 2004).
Na podlagi navedenega Komisija sklene, da del jamstev iz ukrepa, ki je bil jasno opredeljen do pristopa, ni veljaven po pristopu (tj. možne terjatve dveh revizijskih podjetij, Arthur Andersen Audit in Prudentia, do banke Postabank, kot so določene v okviru „opredelitve tveganja O“ v enostranski izjavi banke Erste Bank z dne 29. aprila 2004).
The Commission finds that the rest of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims given by Hungary to Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. does qualify as applicable after accession and constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market,
Komisija ugotavlja, da se preostali del jamstva za neznane terjatve, ki ga je Madžarska zagotovila banki Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., obravnava kot veljaven po pristopu in pomeni državno pomoč, nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom –
The potential claims by Arthur Andersen Audit Könyvszakértő Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság and Prudentia Könyvvizsgáló és Gazdasági Tanácsadó Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (or their assignees or legal successors), as included in ‘Risk definition O’ in the Erste Bank unilateral declaration of 29 April 2004, do not qualify as applicable after accession.
Možne terjatve revizijskih podjetij Arthur Andersen Audit Könyvszakértő Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság in Prudentia Könyvvizsgáló és Gazdasági Tanácsadó Korlátolt Felelősségű Társaság (ali njunih pooblaščencev ali pravnih naslednikov), kot so vključene v „opredelitev tveganja O“ enostranske izjave banke Erste Bank z dne 29. aprila 2004, se ne obravnavajo kot veljavne po pristopu.
The rest of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims implemented by the Republic of Hungary for Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., does qualify as applicable after accession and constitutes State aid incompatible with the common market.
Preostali del jamstva za neznane terjatve, ki ga je Republika Madžarska zagotovila banki Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., se obravnava kot veljaven po pristopu in pomeni državno pomoč, nezdružljivo s skupnim trgom.
The Republic of Hungary shall terminate the part of the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims that qualifies as applicable after accession with retroactive effect from 30 April 2004.
Republika Madžarska bo del zagotovila o jamstvu za neznane terjatve, ki se obravnava kot veljaven po pristopu, razveljavila z učinkom za nazaj od 30. aprila 2004.
The Republic of Hungary shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
Republika Madžarska v dveh mesecih po uradnem obvestilu o tej odločbi obvesti Komisijo o ukrepih, ki jih je sprejela za uskladitev s to odločbo.
OJ C 68, 19.3.2005.
UL C 68, 19.3.2005.
Exchange rate on 25 August 2008: EUR 1 = HUF 235,2.
Menjalni tečaj dne 25. avgusta 2008: 1 EUR = 235,2 HUF.
That is, up until 16 December 2008.
To je do 16. decembra 2008.
On this basis, in relation to threatened litigation claims, the State as seller would make payment in respect of:50 % of the first HUF 4 billion of the relevant bank liabilities in total;100 % of the excess over HUF 4 billion, not exceeding a total amount of HUF 350 billion.The obligations of the seller in respect of indemnities for threatened litigation claims lapse five years after completion of the share purchase agreement in relation to third party claims in respect of which no court or arbitration proceedings have been initiated.
Na podlagi tega bi država kot prodajalec glede terjatev v primeru sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, plačala:50 % prvih 4 milijard HUF ustreznih skupnih bančnih obveznosti,100 % presežka 4 milijard HUF, ki ne presega skupnega zneska 350 milijard HUF.Obveznosti prodajalca glede jamstva za terjatve v primeru sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, se iztečejo pet let po sklenitvi pogodbe o nakupu delnic, in sicer glede terjatev tretje stranke v zvezi s katerimi niso bili sproženi sodni ali arbitražni postopki.
The indemnity undertaking for threatened litigation claims is confined to three clearly defined items.
Zagotovitev jamstva za terjatve v primeru sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, je omejena na tri jasno opredeljene postavke.
The Commission declared the measure not applicable after accession (see the decision initiating the procedure, OJ C 68, 19.3.2005).
Komisija je razglasila, da ukrep ni veljaven po pristopu (glej odločitev o sprožitvi postopka, UL C 68, 19.3.2005).
The following measures in favour of Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt. were considered not applicable after accession: ‘Subordinated bonds, April 1995’, ‘Capital increase, September 1995’, ‘Subordinated bonds, March 1996’, ‘Subordinated bonds, July 1996’, ‘Exemption from mandatory reserve requirement, March 1997’, ‘Direct surety by the State, April 1997’, ‘Asset swap, September 1997’, ‘Capital increase, June 1997’, ‘Subordinated bonds, December 1997’, ‘Capital increase, May 1998’, ‘Capital restructuring, December 1998’, ‘Portfolio cleaning, December 1998’, ‘Exemption from legal lending limits and investment limits, April 1999’, ‘Waiver of Postabank's Consolidation Agreement liabilities, November 2001’, ‘Exemption from open currency position limit, October 2001’, ‘Exclusivity to open accounts for students for the disbursement of Student loans, September 2001’ and ‘Indemnity for threatened litigation claims, October 2003’.
Ukrepi v korist banke Postabank és Takarékpénztár Rt./Erste Bank Hungary Nyrt., ki so se šteli kot neveljavni po pristopu, so: „Podrejene obveznice, april 1995“, „Povečanje kapitala, september 1995“, „Podrejene obveznice, marec 1996“, „Podrejene obveznice, julij 1996“, „Oprostitev obvezne rezerve, marec 1997“, „Država kot neposredni garant, april 1997“, „Zamenjava premoženja, september 1997“, „Povečanje kapitala, junij 1997“, „Podrejene obveznice, december 1997“, „Povečanje kapitala, maj 1998“, „Prestrukturiranje kapitala, december 1998“, „Čiščenje portfelja, december 1998“, „Oprostitev pravno zavezujočih posojilnih in naložbenih limitov, april 1999“, „Oprostitev obveznosti Postabank iz Sporazuma o konsolidaciji, november 2001“, „Oprostitev omejitve valutnih tveganj, oktober 2001“, „Ekskluzivna pravica do odprtja študentskih računov za izplačila študijskih posojil, september 2001“ in „Jamstvo za terjatve v primeru sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, oktober 2003“.
In the first round of the tender procedure bidders were asked for their price proposals and had to itemise separately any undertaking they were expecting from the State in connection with the Bank's obligations in respect of pending and threatened litigation.
V prvem krogu razpisnega postopka so morali ponudniki predložiti predloge cen in ločeno navesti vse zagotovitve, ki so jih pričakovali od države v zvezi z obveznostmi banke glede nerešenih sodnih sporov in sodnih sporov, ki grozijo.
As described by the Hungarian authorities, ‘Each bidder had also separately to indicate the level of comfort it would want in respect of liabilities arising from pre-privatisation events and activities over which it could have had no control.
Kot so opisali madžarski organi, je moral „vsak ponudnik ločeno navesti tudi pričakovano raven udobja glede obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz dogodkov in dejavnosti pred privatizacijo, ki jih ne bi mogel nadzorovati.
Then the share purchase agreement was issued to the bidders in the second round, on the basis of the suggestions made by the bidders in their indicative bids concerning the handling of the pending and threatened litigation and any other indemnity claim.’
V drugem krogu je bila za ponudnike izdana pogodba o nakupu delnic, in sicer na podlagi predlogov, ki so jih ponudniki predložili v svojih okvirnih ponudbah, ki so zadevale obravnavanje neznanih sodnih sporov in sodnih sporov, ki grozijo, ter vseh drugih jamstev za terjatve.“
See Europe Agreement, Chapter II, Article 62(1)(iii).
Glej Evropski sporazum, poglavje II, člen 62(1)(iii).
Állami Privatizációs és Vagyonkezelő Rt (Hungarian State Privatisation and Holding Company), whose current legal successor is Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Rt. (Hungarian National Holding Company).
Állami Privatizációs és Vagyonkezelő Rt (Madžarsko državno podjetje za privatizacijo in holding), katerega sedanji pravni naslednik je Magyar Nemzeti Vagyonkezelő Rt. (Madžarski nacionalni holding).
See decision initiating the procedure in OJ C 68, 19.3.2005.
Glej odločitev o sprožitvi postopka v UL C 68, 19.3.2005.
Case T-11/95 BP Chemicals v Commission [1998] ECR II-3235; paragraphs 178 and 179.
Zadeva T-11/95 BP, Chemicals proti Komisiji, Recueil 1998, str. II-3235; odstavka 178 in 179.
Hytasa (92/317/EEC) — Commission Decision of 25 March 1992 (OJ L 171, 26.6.1992, p. 54), Centrale del Latte di Roma (2000/628/EC) — Commission Decision of 11 April 2000 (OJ L 265, 19.10.2000, p. 15), Crédit Foncier de France (2001/89/EC) — Commission Decision of 23 June 1999 (OJ L 34, 3.2.2001, p. 36), KataLeuna GmbH Catalysts (2001/685/EC) — Commission Decision of 13 February 2001 (OJ L 245, 14.9.2001, p. 26), Entstaubungstechnik Magdeburg GmbH (ETM)(2000/395/EC) — Commission Decision of 22 December 1999 (OJ L 150, 23.6.2000, p. 64), Italstrade (1999/269/EC) — Commission Decision of 16 September 1998 (OJ L 109, 27.4.1999, p. 1), TASQ (2000/647/EC) — Commission Decision of 3 May 2000 (OJ L 272, 25.10.2000, p. 29), Gothaer Fahrzeugtechnik GmbH (2002/896/EC) — Commission Decision of 30 January 2002 (OJ L 314, 18.11.2002, p. 62), Buna/Leuna (96/545/EC) — Commission Decision of 29 May 1996 (OJ L 239, 19.9.1996, p. 1), InfraLeuna (C/1999/646) — Commission Decision of 25 November 1998 (OJ L 260, 6.10.1999, p. 1), Head Tyrolia Mares (97/81/EC) — Commission Decision of 30 July 1996 (OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 26), Koninklijke Schelde Groep (2003/45/EC) — Commission Decision of 5 June 2002 (OJ L 14, 21.1.2003, p. 56).
Hytasa (92/317/EGS) – Odločba Komisije z dne 25. marca 1992 (UL L 171, 26.6.1992, str. 54), Centrale del Latte di Roma (2000/628/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 11. aprila 2000 (UL L 265, 19.10.2000, str. 15), Crédit Foncier de France (2001/89/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 23. junija 1999 (UL L 34, 3.2.2001, str. 36), KataLeuna GmbH Catalysts (2001/685/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 13. februarja 2001 (UL L 245, 14.9.2001, str. 26), Entstaubungstechnik Magdeburg GmbH (ETM) (2000/395/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 22. decembra 1999 (UL L 150, 23.6.2000, str. 64), Italstrade (1999/269/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 16. septembra 1998 (UL L 109, 27.4.1999, str. 1), TASQ (2000/647/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 3. maja 2000 (UL L 272, 25.10.2000, str. 29), Gothaer Fahrzeugtechnik GmbH (2002/896/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 30. januarja 2002 (UL L 314, 18.11.2002, str. 62), Buna/Leuna (96/545/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 29. maja 1996 (UL L 239, 19.9.1996, str. 1), InfraLeuna (C/1999/646) – Odločba Komisije z dne 25. novembra 1998 (UL L 260, 6.10.1999, str. 1), Head Tyrolia Mares (97/81/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 30. julija 1996 (UL L 25, 28.1.1997, str. 26), Koninklijke Schelde Groep (2003/45/ES) – Odločba Komisije z dne 5. junija 2002 (UL L 14, 21.1.2003, str 56).
Case C-390/98 H.J.
Zadeva C-390/98, H.J.
Banks & Co. Ltd v The Coal Authority and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Banks & Co, Ltd. proti The Coal Authority in državnemu sekretarju za trgovino in industrijo.
Case C-277/00 Federal Republic of Germany v Commission.
Zadeva C-277/00, Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Komisiji.
See Case C-334/99 Germany v Commission, pp. 133-142.
Glej zadevo C-334/99, Nemčija proti Komisiji, str. 133–142.
See the conclusions of 14 January 2003 of Advocate General Léger in the Altmark case (Case C-280/00, p. 20 et seq.).
Glej sklepe generalnega pravobranilca Légerja z dne 14. januarja 2003 v zadevi Altmark (zadeva C-280/00, str. 20 in naslednje strani).
See Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92 Spain v Commission, p. 22 and Case C-334/99, cited above, pp. 133-134.
Glej združene zadeve C-278/92 do C-280/92, Španija proti Komisiji, str. 22., in navedeno zadevo C-334/99, str. 133–134.
See Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission.
Glej zadevo 730/79, Philip Morris proti Komisiji.
See p. 104 of the 2004 guidelines.
Glej str. 104 smernic iz leta 2004.
Hungary’s comments were received by letter dated 23 May 2005.
Pripombe Madžarske je prejela z dopisom z dne 23. maja 2005.
In June, July and October 2005 and February, March, June, July and September 2008 the Commission also received various letters from the Hungarian authorities and Erste Bank in which they provided further explanations in support of the arguments set out in their submissions.
Junija, julija in oktobra 2005 ter februarja, marca, junija, julija in septembra 2008 je Komisija prav tako prejela različne dopise madžarskih organov in banke Erste Bank, v katerih so bila predložena dodatna pojasnila v podporo trditvam iz njihovih predloženih stališč.
The sale purchase agreement, which includes the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims, was signed on 20 October 2003.
Kupoprodajna pogodba, ki vključuje zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve, je bila sklenjena 20. oktobra 2003.
The Commission thus considers that the 1999 guidelines should apply in the present context.
Komisija zato meni, da je treba v obravnavanem primeru uporabiti smernice iz leta 1999.
The indemnity undertaking for unknown claims was given as part of the privatisation in 2003.
Jamstvo za neznane terjatve je bilo zagotovljeno v okviru privatizacije leta 2003.
By that time, the capital structure and the position of the Bank had stabilised.
Do takrat sta se struktura kapitala in položaj banke stabilizirala.
The restructuring plan submitted by the Hungarian authorities was produced after the event for the purpose of the notification in 2004.
Načrt za prestrukturiranje, ki so ga predložili madžarski organi, je bil oblikovan po dogodku za namen obveščanja leta 2004.
It did not exist at the time of the earlier restructuring measures, which makes it clear that no restructuring plan existed, as required by the rescue and restructuring guidelines, incorporating the indemnity undertaking for unknown claims as part of the restructuring operation.
V času izvajanja prejšnjih ukrepov prestrukturiranja še ni obstajal, torej je jasno, da ni bilo nobenega načrta za prestrukturiranje, kot zahtevajo smernice za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, ki vključujejo zagotovilo o jamstvu za neznane terjatve kot del dejavnosti prestrukturiranja.
The Treaty of Accession was signed on 16 April 2003.
Pristopna pogodba je bila podpisana 16. aprila 2003.
Annex IV.3 does not specify the criteria that the Commission would apply for the assessment of applicability after accession in the case of contingent measures such as guarantees and indemnity undertakings.
Poglavje 3 Priloge IV ne določa meril, ki bi jih Komisija uporabila za oceno veljavnosti po pristopu v primeru pogojenih ukrepov, kot so garancije in zagotovila o jamstvu.
This itemisation requirement was not brought to Hungary’s attention by the Commission until the letter dated 19 March 2004.
Komisija je Madžarsko na to zahtevo po oblikovanju seznama opozorila šele z dopisom z dne 19. marca 2004.
This letter referred explicitly to the Postabank case and gave guidance on the post-accession applicability of the indemnity undertaking, in particular as regards the three criteria referred to in paragraph 14 of this decision and in paragraph 52 of the decision initiating the procedure, as stated above.
Ta dopis se je nanašal izrecno na banko Postabank in je določal navodila o veljavnosti zagotovila o jamstvu po pristopu, zlasti v zvezi s tremi merili iz odstavka 14 te odločbe in odstavka 52 odločbe o sprožitvi postopka, kot je navedeno.
On the basis of the notification by the Hungarian authorities, the Commission assessed the measures under the EC State aid rules and concluded that the majority of them fell outside the scope of the interim mechanism. This was because these measures did not entail any further financial exposure of Hungary after the date of accession and did therefore not count as applicable after accession [5].
Komisija je na podlagi priglasitve madžarskih organov ocenila ukrepe v okviru pravil ES o državni pomoči in sprejela sklep, da jih večina ne spada v področje uporabe začasnega mehanizma, ker ti ukrepi niso pomenili dodatne finančne izpostavljenosti Madžarske po datumu pristopa in se zato niso šteli kot veljavni po pristopu [5].
implementing Council Directive 2006/88/EC as regards surveillance and eradication programmes and disease-free status of Member States, zones and compartments
o izvajanju Direktive Sveta 2006/88/ES v zvezi s programi za nadziranje in izkoreninjenje ter statusom brez bolezni držav članic, območij in kompartmentov
(notified under document number C(2008) 6264)
(notificirano pod dokumentarno številko C(2008) 6264)
Having regard to Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals [1], and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 44(1), the first subparagraph of Article 44(2), Article 44(3), Article 49(1), Article 50(2)(a), Articles 50(3), 51(2), 59(2) and 61(3) and Article 64 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Direktive Sveta 2006/88/ES z dne 24. oktobra 2006 o zahtevah za zdravstveno varstvo živali in proizvodov iz ribogojstva ter o preprečevanju in nadzoru nekaterih bolezni pri vodnih živalih [1] ter zlasti prvega pododstavka člena 44(1), prvega pododstavka člena 44(2), člena 44(3), člena 49(1), člena 50(2)(a), člena 50(3), člena 51(2), člena 59(2), člena 61(3) in člena 64 Direktive,