natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council
o omejeni ohranitvi sklica v Uradnem listu Evropske unije na harmonizirani standard EN 14342:2013 „Lesene talne obloge in parket: Lastnosti, vrednotenje skladnosti in označevanje“ v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 305/2011 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta
Having regard to Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC [1], and in particular Article 18(2) thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. marca 2011 o določitvi usklajenih pogojev za trženje gradbenih proizvodov in razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 89/106/EGS [1] ter zlasti člena 18(2) Uredbe,
In July 2013, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) adopted the harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’.
Evropski odbor za standardizacijo (CEN) je julija 2013 sprejel harmonizirani standard EN 14342:2013 „Lesene talne obloge in parket: Lastnosti, vrednotenje skladnosti in označevanje“.
The reference of the standard was subsequently published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Sklic na standard je bil nato objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
On 21 August 2015 Germany launched a formal objection in respect of the harmonised standard EN 14342:2013.
Nemčija je 21. avgusta 2015 vložila uradni ugovor v zvezi s harmoniziranim standardom EN 14342:2013.
The formal objection referred to Clause 4.4 of that standard, concerning the assessment methods and criteria for certain dangerous substances, and demanded the withdrawal of the reference of the standard from the Official Journal of the European Union or, alternatively, a restriction excluding Clause 4.4 of that standard from the scope of that reference.
Uradni ugovor se je nanašal na klavzulo 4.4. navedenega standarda v zvezi z ocenjevalnimi metodami in merili za nekatere nevarne snovi, z njim pa se je zahteval umik sklica na standard iz Uradnega lista Evropske unije ali kot druga možnost omejitev z izvzetjem klavzule 4.4. navedenega standarda s področja uporabe navedenega sklica.
According to Germany, that standard does not contain any harmonised methods for assessing the performance of the construction products in question in relation to the essential characteristic release of other dangerous substances.
Po navedbah Nemčije navedeni standard ne vsebuje harmoniziranih metod za ocenjevanje lastnosti zadevnih gradbenih proizvodov v zvezi z bistvenim značilnim izpustom drugih nevarnih snovi.
In fact, Clause 4.4 of the standard states that verification and declaration on release or content of additional other dangerous substances than those dealt with in other clauses of the standard should be done taking into account national provisions in the place of use.
V klavzuli 4.4. standarda je dejansko navedeno, da bi bilo treba pri izvajanju preverjanja in pripravi izjave o izpustu ali vsebovanju dodatnih nevarnih snovi, ki niso obravnavane v drugih klavzulah standarda, upoštevati nacionalne določbe na kraju uporabe.
Germany considered this shortcoming to constitute a violation of Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, as the standard at hand did not entirely satisfy the requirements set out in the relevant mandate as foreseen in Article 18.
Nemčija je menila, da ta pomanjkljivost pomeni kršitev člena 17(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011, saj zadevni standard ne izpolnjuje v celoti zahtev iz ustreznega mandata, kot je predvideno v členu 18.
Moreover, Germany emphasised the importance of an appropriate treatment of releases of such other dangerous substances, in particular volatile organic compounds (VOCs), within the harmonised standards notably for the wood-based products in question.
Nemčija je poudarila tudi pomembnost obravnave ustreznega ravnanja z izpusti drugih takšnih nevarnih snovi, predvsem hlapnih organskih spojin (HOS), v harmoniziranih standardih, zlasti za zadevne proizvode na osnovi lesa.
For these reasons, Germany demanded to withdraw the reference of that standard, or alternatively to restrict it by excluding Clause 4.4 from its scope, so as to permit Member States to adopt national provisions for the assessment of the performance in relation to the essential characteristic at hand, as regards the release of other dangerous substances.
Iz teh razlogov je Nemčija zahtevala umik sklica na navedeni standard ali kot drugo možnost omejitev z izvzetjem klavzule 4.4. s področja uporabe sklica, da bi se državam članicam omogočilo sprejemanje nacionalnih določb za ocenjevanje lastnosti v zvezi z zadevnimi bistvenimi značilnostmi, kar zadeva izpust drugih nevarnih snovi.
When assessing the admissibility of the claims brought forward, it should be stated that if the alternative demand of Germany were to be understood as constituting a separate demand aiming to allow Member States to put in place national provisions setting additional requirements, such a claim would not focus on the contents of EN 14342:2013, and should therefore be considered inadmissible.
Pri oceni dopustnosti vloženih zahtevkov je treba navesti, da se v primeru, da bi se druga možnost, ki jo zahteva Nemčija, razumela kot ločeni zahtevek za omogočitev sprejemanja nacionalnih določb držav članic o določitvi dodatnih zahtev, takšen zahtevek ne bi osredotočal na vsebino standarda EN 14342:2013, zato bi ga bilo treba šteti za nedopustnega.
However, as the wording of the demand clearly is directed to the restriction of the scope of reference to that standard, the linked statements of Germany about the consequences of such a restriction should be regarded only as parts of the argumentation offered within the formal objection and thus not considered separately.
Ker pa je besedilo zahtevka jasno usmerjeno v omejitev področja uporabe sklica na navedeni standard, bi bilo povezane izjave Nemčije glede posledic takšne omejitve treba obravnavati le kot del argumentov iz uradnega ugovora in torej ne ločeno.
According to Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, harmonised standards are to provide the methods and the criteria for assessing the performance of the products covered by them in relation to their essential characteristics.
V skladu s členom 17(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011 morajo harmonizirani standardi določati metode in merila za ocenjevanje lastnosti proizvodov iz teh standardov v zvezi z njihovimi bistvenimi značilnostmi.
Quite as Germany has asserted, Clause 4.4 of EN 14342:2013 only presents a reference to national provisions in place.
Kot je zatrdila Nemčija, klavzula 4.4. standarda EN 14342:2013 predstavlja le sklic na veljavne nacionalne določbe.
In this respect, EN 14342:2013 does not comply with the requirements set out in Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.
V tem pogledu standard EN 14342:2013 ne izpolnjuje zahtev iz člena 17(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011.
Furthermore, the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice [3] indicates that Member States are not entitled to put in place national provisions for the assessment of the performance in relation to any essential characteristics above and beyond what has been contained in the harmonised standards, when it comes to the marketing or the use of the construction products covered by them.
Poleg tega sodna praksa Sodišča [3] navaja, da države članice glede trženja ali uporabe gradbenih proizvodov, zajetih v harmoniziranih standardih, nimajo pravice do sprejemanja nacionalnih določb za ocenjevanje lastnosti v zvezi s kakršnimi koli bistvenimi značilnostmi, ki ne spadajo na področje uporabe teh standardov.
The contents of EN 14342:2013 are thus in conflict also with these principles.
Vsebina standarda EN 14342:2013 je torej v nasprotju tudi s temi načeli.
Therefore and due to the fact that Regulations are directly applicable, Clause 4.4 of EN 14342:2013 should not be applied, independently of the outcome of this formal objection procedure.
Zato in zaradi tega, ker se uredbe uporabljajo neposredno, se klavzula 4.4. standarda EN 14342:2013 ne bi smela uporabljati, ne glede na izid tega postopka uradnega ugovora.
Nevertheless, since the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice [4] confirms the exhaustive nature of the harmonised system established in or by means of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, the invalidity pf Clause 4.4 of EN 14342:2013 does not imply that Member States could adopt national provisions for the assessment of the performance in relation to the essential characteristic release of other dangerous substances.
Vendar ker sodna praksa Sodišča [4] potrjuje izčrpnost harmoniziranega sistema, določenega v Uredbi (EU) št. 305/2011 ali z Uredbo, neveljavnost klavzule 4.4. standarda EN 14342:2013 ne pomeni, da bi države članice lahko sprejemale nacionalne določbe za ocenjevanje lastnosti v zvezi z bistvenim značilnim izpustom drugih nevarnih snovi.
On the basis of the contents of EN 14342:2013 as well as the information submitted by Germany, by the other Member States, by CEN and by industry, and after consulting the committees established by Article 64 of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 and by Article 22 of Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council [5], it should be noted that no substantial objections were expressed against the continued publication of the reference of that standard in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Na podlagi vsebine standarda EN 14342:2013 in informacij, ki so jih predložili Nemčija, druge države članice, CEN in industrija, ter po posvetovanju z odboroma, ustanovljenima s členom 64 Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011 oziroma členom 22 Uredbe (EU) št. 1025/2012 [5], je treba opozoriti, da ni bilo vsebinskega nasprotovanja nadaljnji objavi sklica na navedeni standard v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
The exclusion of Clause 4.4 from the scope of the reference published in the Official Journal of the European Union has been met with concerns based on an interpretation of the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice as allowing the Member States, if they take the view that the safety of a product is insufficiently ensured, to lay down requirements restricting the free circulation of those products.
Izvzetje klavzule 4.4. s področja uporabe sklica, objavljenega v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, vzbuja zaskrbljenost na podlagi razlage sodne prakse Sodišča, da lahko države članice, če menijo, da varnost proizvoda ni zagotovljena v zadostni meri, določijo zahteve, ki omejujejo prosti promet za navedene proizvode.
However, the Court of Justice itself has already stated that such an interpretation would put into question the effectiveness [(‘effet utile’)] of the harmonisation in this field [6].
Vendar je samo Sodišče že navedlo, da bi se s tako razlago postavila pod vprašaj učinkovitost [(effet utile)] harmonizacije na tem področju [6].
The alleged incompleteness of that standard should thus not be considered a sufficient reason for accepting the first demand of Germany, the complete withdrawal of the reference to the standard EN 14342:2013 from the Official Journal of the European Union.
Domnevna nepopolnost navedenega standarda se torej ne bi smela šteti za zadosten razlog za ugoditev prvemu zahtevku Nemčije, tj. popoln umik sklica na standard EN 14342:2013 iz Uradnega lista Evropske unije.
That demand should therefore be rejected.
Navedeni zahtevek bi bilo zato treba zavrniti.
For the alternative demand of restricting the reference by excluding Clause 4.4 from its scope, it should firstly be reminded that, as already demonstrated, that clause is not to be applied, independently of the outcome of this formal objection procedure.
Kar zadeva drugo možnost, tj. omejitev sklica z izvzetjem klavzule 4.4. s področja uporabe sklica, je treba najprej spomniti, da se navedena klavzula, kot je bilo že utemeljeno, ne sme uporabljati, ne glede na izid tega postopka uradnega ugovora.
However, for reasons of clarity, it is necessary to explicitly exclude that invalid clause from the reference.
Vendar je treba zaradi jasnosti navedeno neveljavno klavzulo izrecno izvzeti iz sklica.
The reference of EN 14342:2013 should therefore be maintained, but it is necessary to introduce a restriction excluding Clause 4.4 of that standard from its scope,
Sklic na standard EN 14342:2013 bi bilo zato treba ohraniti, vendar je treba uvesti omejitev z izvzetjem klavzule 4.4. navedenega standarda s področja uporabe sklica –
The reference of harmonised standard EN 14342:2013 ‘Wood flooring and parquet: Characteristics, evaluation of conformity and marking’ shall be maintained with a restriction.
Sklic na harmonizirani standard EN 14342:2013 „Lesene talne obloge in parket: Lastnosti, vrednotenje skladnosti in označevanje“ se ohrani z omejitvijo.
The Commission shall add the following restriction in the list of references of harmonised standards published in the Official Journal of the European Union: ‘Clause 4.4 of standard EN 14342:2013 is excluded from the scope of the reference published’.
Komisija na seznam sklicev na harmonizirane standarde, objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije, doda naslednjo omejitev: „Klavzula 4.4. standarda EN 14342:2013 se izvzame s področja uporabe objavljenega sklica“.
Done at Brussels, 25 January 2017.
V Bruslju, 25. januarja 2017
Commission Communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2011 laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ C 259, 8.8.2014, p. 1).
Sporočilo Komisije v okviru izvajanja Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 9. marca 2011 o določitvi usklajenih pogojev za trženje gradbenih proizvodov in razveljavitvi Direktive 89/106/EGS (UL C 259, 8.8.2014, str. 1).
Most recent publication: Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised conditions for the marketing of construction products and repealing Council Directive 89/106/EEC (OJ C 398, 28.10.2016, p. 7).
Najnovejša objava: Sporočilo Komisije v okviru izvajanja Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o določitvi usklajenih pogojev za trženje gradbenih proizvodov in razveljavitvi Direktive Sveta 89/106/EGS (UL C 398, 28.10.2016, str. 7).
Cf. in particular the ECJ judgement on case C-100/13 (Commission v. Germany), para 55 ff.
Glej zlasti sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-100/13 (Komisija proti Nemčiji), točka 55 in naslednje.
Cf. the ECJ judgement on case C-100/13 (Commission v. Germany), para 62.
Glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-100/13 (Komisija proti Nemčiji), točka 62.
Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on European standardisation, amending Council Directives 89/686/EEC and 93/15/EEC and Directives 94/9/EC, 94/25/EC, 95/16/EC, 97/23/EC, 98/34/EC, 2004/22/EC, 2007/23/EC, 2009/23/EC and 2009/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Decision 87/95/EEC and Decision No 1673/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 316, 14.11.2012, p. 12).
Uredba (EU) št. 1025/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. oktobra 2012 o evropski standardizaciji, spremembi direktiv Sveta 89/686/EGS in 93/15/EGS ter direktiv 94/9/ES, 94/25/ES, 95/16/ES, 97/23/ES, 98/34/ES, 2004/22/ES, 2007/23/ES, 2009/23/ES in 2009/105/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta ter razveljavitvi Sklepa Sveta 87/95/EGS in Sklepa št. 1673/2006/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (UL L 316, 14.11.2012, str. 12).
Cf. the ECJ judgement on case C-100/13 (Commission v. Germany), para 60.
Glej sodbo Sodišča v zadevi C-100/13 (Komisija proti Nemčiji), točka 60.
Commission Decision (EU) 2017/145
Sklep Komisije (EU) 2017/145
on the maintenance with a restriction in the Official Journal of the European Union of the reference of harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’ in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 305/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council
o omejeni ohranitvi sklica na harmonizirani standard EN 14904:2006 „Podloge za športne dejavnosti – Notranje podloge za večnamensko uporabo: Specifikacija“ v skladu z Uredbo (EU) št. 305/2011 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta v Uradnem listu Evropske unije
In March 2006, the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) adopted the harmonised standard EN 14904:2006 ‘Surfaces for sport areas — Indoor surfaces for multi-sports use: Specification’.
Evropski odbor za standardizacijo (CEN) je marca 2006 sprejel harmonizirani standard EN 14904:2006 „Podloge za športne dejavnosti – Notranje podloge za večnamensko uporabo: Specifikacija“.
The reference of the standard was subsequently published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2].
Sklic na ta standard je bil nato objavljen v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2].
On 21 August 2015 Germany launched a formal objection in respect of the harmonised standard EN 14904:2006.
Nemčija je 21. avgusta 2015 vložila uradni ugovor v zvezi s harmoniziranim standardom EN 14904:2006.
The formal objection referred to Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to that standard, concerning the assessment methods and criteria for other dangerous substances than formaldehyde or pentachlorophenol (PCP), and demanded the withdrawal of the reference of the standard from the Official Journal of the European Union or, alternatively, a restriction excluding Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to that standard from the scope of that reference.
Uradni ugovor se je nanašal na opombo 1 Priloge ZA.1 k navedenemu standardu v zvezi z ocenjevalnimi metodami in merili za nevarne snovi, ki niso formaldehid ali pentaklorofenol (PCP), z njim pa se je zahteval umik sklica na standard iz Uradnega lista Evropske unije ali kot druga možnost omejitev z izvzetjem opombe 1 Priloge ZA.1 k navedenemu standardu s področja uporabe navedenega sklica.
According to Germany, that standard does not contain any harmonised methods for assessing the performance of the construction products in question in relation to the essential characteristic of dangerous substances, when it comes to other dangerous substances than formaldehyde or pentachlorophenol (PCP).
Po navedbah Nemčije navedeni standard ne vsebuje harmoniziranih metod za ocenjevanje lastnosti zadevnih gradbenih proizvodov v zvezi z bistvenimi značilnostmi nevarnih snovi, ki niso formaldehid ali pentaklorofenol (PCP).
In fact, Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to the standard states that additional requirements relating to dangerous substances, including national laws, may apply to the products falling within the scope of the standard, and that all those must be complied with where applicable.
V opombi 1 Priloge ZA.1 k standardu je dejansko navedeno, da se lahko dodatne zahteve v zvezi z nevarnimi snovmi, vključno z nacionalno zakonodajo, uporabljajo za proizvode, ki spadajo na področje uporabe standarda, pri čemer se morajo vse upoštevati, kadar je to ustrezno.
Germany highlighted that the only specific clauses relating to dangerous substances in that standard (Clauses 5.5 and 5.6) concern formaldehyde and pentachlorophenol (PCP).
Nemčija je poudarila, da edini posebni klavzuli navedenega standarda, ki se nanašata na nevarne snovi (klavzuli 5.5 in 5.6), zadevata formaldehid in pentaklorofenol (PCP).
Moreover, Germany emphasised the importance of an appropriate treatment of releases of such other dangerous substances, in particular volatile organic compounds (VOCs), within the harmonised standards notably for the products in question.
Nemčija je poudarila tudi pomembnost obravnave ustreznega ravnanja z izpusti takšnih drugih nevarnih snovi, predvsem hlapnih organskih spojin (HOS), v harmoniziranih standardih, zlasti za zadevne proizvode.
For these reasons, Germany demanded to withdraw the reference of this standard, or alternatively to restrict it by excluding Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 from its scope, so as to permit Member States to put in place national provisions for the assessment of the performance in relation to the essential characteristic at hand, as regards the release of other dangerous substances than formaldehyde or pentachlorophenol (PCP).
Iz teh razlogov je Nemčija zahtevala umik sklica na navedeni standard ali kot drugo možnost omejitev z izvzetjem opombe 1 Priloge ZA.1 s področja uporabe sklica, da bi se državam članicam omogočilo sprejemanje nacionalnih določb za ocenjevanje lastnosti v zvezi z zadevnimi bistvenimi značilnostmi, kar zadeva izpust nevarnih snovi, ki niso formaldehid ali pentaklorofenol (PCP).
When assessing the admissibility of the claims brought forward, it should be stated that if the alternative demand of Germany were to be understood as constituting a separate demand aiming to allow Member States to put in place national provisions setting additional requirements, such a claim would not focus on the contents of EN 14904:2006, and should therefore be considered inadmissible.
Pri oceni dopustnosti vloženih zahtevkov je treba navesti, da se v primeru, da bi se druga možnost, ki jo zahteva Nemčija, razumela kot ločeni zahtevek za omogočitev sprejemanja nacionalnih določb držav članic o določitvi dodatnih zahtev, takšen zahtevek ne bi osredotočal na vsebino standarda EN 14904:2006, zato bi ga bilo treba šteti za nedopustnega.
Quite as Germany has asserted, Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to EN 14904:2006 only presents a reference to national requirements in place.
Kot je zatrdila Nemčija, opomba 1 Priloge ZA.1 k standardu EN 14904:2006 predstavlja le sklic na veljavne nacionalne zahteve.
In this respect, EN 14904:2006 does not comply with the requirements set out in Article 17(3) of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011.
V tem pogledu standard EN 14904:2006 ne izpolnjuje zahtev iz člena 17(3) Uredbe (EU) št. 305/2011.
The contents of EN 14904:2006 are thus also in conflict with those principles.
Vsebina standarda EN 14904:2006 je torej v nasprotju tudi z navedenimi načeli.
Therefore and in view of the fact that Regulations are directly applicable, Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to EN 14904:2006 should not be applied, independently of the outcome of this formal objection procedure.
Zato in glede na to, da se uredbe uporabljajo neposredno, se opomba 1 Priloge ZA.1 k standardu EN 14904:2006 ne bi smela uporabljati, ne glede na izid tega postopka uradnega ugovora.
Nevertheless, since the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice [4] confirms the exhaustive nature of the harmonised system established in or by means of Regulation (EU) No 305/2011, the invalidity of Note 1 of Annex ZA.1 to EN 14904:2006 does not imply that Member States could adopt national provisions for the assessment of the performance in relation to the essential characteristic of dangerous substances, as regards the release of other dangerous substances than formaldehyde or pentachlorophenol (PCP).
Vendar ker sodna praksa Sodišča [4] potrjuje izčrpnost harmoniziranega sistema, določenega v Uredbi (EU) št. 305/2011 ali z Uredbo, neveljavnost opombe 1 Priloge ZA.1 k standardu EN 14904:2006 ne pomeni, da bi države članice lahko sprejemale nacionalne določbe za ocenjevanje lastnosti v zvezi z bistvenimi značilnostmi nevarnih snovi, kar zadeva izpust nevarnih snovi, ki niso formaldehid ali pentaklorofenol (PCP).