natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission notes that, in the present case, the second condition laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 was met.
Komisija trdi, da je bil v obravnavani zadevi izpolnjen pogoj iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95.
The 2002 report shows that ‘there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied already’.
Iz poročila iz leta 2002 naj bi izhajalo, da trenutno niso potrebni preizkusi in/ali nadaljnje informacije ali ukrepi za zmanj�anje tveganja, ki presegajo tiste, ki se že uporabljajo.
That finding was confirmed by the CSTEE and by the policy recommendation drawn up in the framework of the 2004 Report, in which it was agreed that a voluntary emissions reduction programme should be put into operation in parallel with the collection of further data.
To ugotovitev naj bi potrdila tudi ZOTEO in politično priporočilo, oblikovano v okviru poročila iz leta 2004, v katerem naj bi bila dogovorjena izvedba prostovoljnega programa zmanj�anja emisij skupaj z zbiranjem dodatnih podatkov.
The 2005 draft addendum concluded that the findings of the 2004 Report did not need to be amended in the light of the new data but that it was advisable to extend the existing monitoring programmes.
Osnutek dodatka iz leta 2005 naj bi vseboval oceno, da se ugotovitve iz poročila iz leta 2004 ne sme spremeniti glede na nove podatke, temveč da je priporočeno raz�iriti obstoječe programe za spremljanje.
The Commission maintains that, having regard to the fact that the prohibition of DecaBDE was never proposed in the scientific opinions, it was under no obligation to examine the environmental, health and safety impact of substitute products.
Glede na to, da znanstvena mnenja niso nikoli predvidevala prepovedi DecaBDE, naj Komisiji ne bi bilo treba preveriti posledic nadomestnih proizvodov na okolje, zdravje in varnost.
Such an examination would only have been necessary if there had been such a prohibition in the first place.
Pravzaprav bi bilo treba to preveriti le, če bi bila taka prepoved zahtevana.
By the same token, there was no reason to restrict the exemption to specific applications of DecaBDE.
Prav tako naj ne bi bilo nobenega razloga za omejitev izjeme na posebne uporabe DecaBDE.
The Commission notes additionally that it is not obliged to consult the SCHER or to take account of its opinion, since Article 7 of Directive 2002/95 provides that the Commission is to be assisted by the Committee created under Article 18 of Directive 75/442, that is to say, by the Technical Adaptation Committee.
Komisija poleg tega poudarja, da se ji ni treba posvetovati z ZOZOT ali upo�tevati njegovega mnenja, ker člen 7 Direktive 2002/95 določa, da ji pomaga odbor, ustanovljen na podlagi člena 18 Direktive 75/442, torej Odbor za prilagajanje tehničnemu napredku.
According to the Parliament, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway, the effect of point 10 of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 is only to create a priority in time, not to empower or to create an evaluation procedure separate from that provided for in Directive 2002/95.
Parlament, Kraljevina Danska, Kraljevina Švedska in Kraljevina Norve�ka navajajo, da je bil učinek točke 10 iz Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95 le določitev časovne prioritete, ne pa podelitev pooblastila ali določitev posebnega postopka za oceno, ločenega od tistega, ki ga določa Direktiva 2002/95.
That interpretation of point 10 is supported by the context in which that directive was adopted.
Tej razlagi njene točke 10 naj bi nasprotoval kontekst, v katerem je bila ta direktiva sprejeta.
Responding to the United Kingdom’s argument that the Commission has a broad discretion in assessing such technical problems, the Parliament stresses that the grounds of annulment on which it relies — breach of the precautionary principle, breach of the principle of proportionality and breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons — are autonomous pleas in law and subsidiary to its first plea in law, which concerns the Commission’s obligation to comply with the conditions and limits of its implementing powers.
Parlament v odgovor na trditve Združenega kraljestva, v skladu s katerimi naj bi imela Komisija �iroko diskrecijsko pravico pri ocenjevanju takih tehničnih težav, poudarja, da so njegovi tožbeni razlogi kr�itve previdnostnega načela, načela sorazmernosti in obveznosti obrazložitve samostojni in podredni glede na njegov prvi tožbeni razlog, ki se nana�a na obveznost Komisije, da spo�tuje pogoje in omejitve svojih izvedbenih pristojnosti.
At the outset, it should borne in mind that, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) EC, the Community institutions may act only within the limits of the powers conferred upon them by the EC Treaty (Case C-403/05 Parliament v Commission [2007] ECR I-9045, paragraph 49).
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 7(1), drugi pododstavek, ES institucije Skupnosti delujejo le v mejah pristojnosti po Pogodbi ES (sodba z dne 23. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Parlament proti Komisiji, C-403/05, ZOdl., str. I-9045 točka 49).
Under the third indent of Article 202 EC, in order to ensure that the objectives set out in the Treaty are attained and in accordance with its provisions, the Council is to confer on the Commission, in the acts which the Council adopts, powers for the implementation of the rules which the Council lays down.
Svet v skladu s členom 202, tretja alinea, ES, da bi zagotovil doseganje ciljev te Pogodbe, in pod pogoji, določenimi v njem, v pravnih aktih, ki jih sprejema, prenese pristojnost za izvajanje svojih predpisov na Komisijo.
The Council may impose certain requirements in respect of the exercise of those powers and may also reserve the right, in specific cases, to exercise directly implementing powers itself (Parliament v Commission, paragraph 50).
Glede izvajanja te pristojnosti lahko Svet postavi nekatere zahteve, poleg tega pa si lahko v posebnih primerih pridrži pravico, da sam neposredno izvaja to pristojnost (zgoraj navedena sodba Parlament proti Komisiji, točka 50).
As the legal basis for the contested decision is Directive 2002/95 and, in particular, Article 5(1)(b) thereof, it is necessary to examine that provision.
Ker izpodbijana odločba temelji na Direktivi 2002/95 in predvsem njenemu členu 5(1)(b), je treba preučiti to določbo.
Article 5 of Directive 2002/95 deals with the question of amendments to the Annex to that directive.
Člen 5 Direktive 2002/95 se nana�a na spremembe Priloge k tej direktivi.
Under Article 4(2) of that directive, the Annex lists the applications to which the prohibition of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, PBB or PBDE in electrical and electronic equipment put on the market, as laid down in Article 4(1), does not apply.
V skladu s členom 4(2) te direktive vsebuje navedena Priloga seznam uporab, za katere ne velja prepoved dajanja v promet električne in elektronske opreme, ki vsebuje svinec, živo srebro, kadmij, �estvalentni krom, PBB ali PBDE, kot je določeno v členu 4(1) navedene direktive.
Article 5 of Directive 2002/95 is entitled ‘Adaptation to scientific and technical progress’.
Naslov člena 5 je „Prilagoditev znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku“.
It is clear from the introductory words of Article 5(1) that, in order to adapt the Annex to that directive to scientific and technical progress and to amend it, consequently, for the purposes provided for in points (a) to (c) of Article 5(1), the procedure referred to in Article 7(2) of that directive must be complied with.
Iz uvodnega dela njegovega odstavka 1 sledi, da je treba zaradi prilagoditve Priloge te direktive znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku in zato, da se jo posledično spremeni za namene, določene v točkah od (a) do (c) navedenega odstavka 1, spo�tovati člen 7(2) iste direktive.
Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 deals specifically with the exemption of materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from the prohibition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive. Such an exemption can arise only if one or other of the two conditions set out is met, that is to say, only if their elimination or substitution via design changes or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances referred to therein is technically or scientifically impracticable, or if the negative environmental, health and/or consumer safety impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the environmental, health and/or consumer safety benefits thereof.
Člen 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 velja posebej za izvzetje materialov in komponent električne in elektronske opreme iz člena 4(1), če je tehnično ali znanstveno neizvedljivo, da se jih odstrani ali nadomesti s spremembo konstrukcije ali z materiali in komponentami, ki ne zahtevajo katerega od materialov ali snovi iz tega člena, ali kadar bi negativni vplivi na okolje, zdravje in/ali varnost potro�nika, ki bi jih povzročila nadomestitev, utegnili prevladati nad prednostmi za okolje, zdravje in/ali varnostjo potro�nika.
There is nothing in the wording of that legislation to suggest that the alternative condition for exemption set out in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 can be interpreted independently of the title of Article 5 or of the introductory words of Article 5(1).
Noben del besedila ne omogoča ugotovitve, da se ta alternativni pogoj izvzetja iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 lahko razlaga neodvisno od naslova člena 5 in besedila uvodnega dela odstavka 1 tega člena.
On the contrary, since Directive 2002/95 contains only one Annex, and
Nasprotno, ker Direktiva 2002/95 vsebuje le eno prilogo in ker so v njej na�teti le izvzete surovine in sestavni deli, raz�iritev tega seznama nalaga obveznost, da je za prilagoditev te priloge znanstvenemu in
2008 — JOINED CASES C-14/06 AND C-295/06 that Annex lists only the exempted materials and components, the precondition for any extension of that list — in addition to meeting one of the two conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of that directive — is that the amendment be necessary in order to adapt that annex to scientific and technical progress.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06 tehničnemu napredku, poleg enega izmed dveh pogojev, določenih v členu 5(1)(b) te direktive, izpolnjen tudi pogoj nujnosti spremembe.
Accordingly, failing fulfilment of the conditions laid down in the introductory words of Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95, or one of the conditions set out in Article 5(1)(b) thereof, the placing on the market of the electrical and electronic equipment at issue cannot escape the prohibition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive.
Torej, če pogoj iz uvodnega dela člena 5(1) Direktive 2002/95 ali eden izmed pogojev iz člena 5(1)(b) ni izpolnjen, se dajanje zadevne električne in elektronske opreme v promet ne more izmakniti prepovedi iz člena 4(1) te direktive.
In that regard, it must be stated that, with the exception of the condition relating to the assistance of the Committee referred to in Article 7 of Directive 2002/95, the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive were not complied with by the Commission when it adopted the contested decision.
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, da Komisija pri sprejetju izpodbijane odločbe razen pogoja o sodelovanju odbora iz člena 7 Direktive 2002/95 ni izpolnila drugih pogojev iz člena 5(1) te direktive.
For the adoption of that decision, account was taken of the findings of the 2002 Report, findings which were not amended by the reports of 2004 and 2005.
Direktiva 2002/95 je bila namreč sprejeta ob upo�tevanju ugotovitev iz poročila iz leta 2002, ki niso bile spremenjene s poročiloma iz leta 2004 in leta 2005.
It follows that, with regard to the date on which Directive 2002/95 was adopted — 27 January 2003 — the condition referred to in the introductory words of Article 5(1) of that directive, concerning the need to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress, was not met.
Iz tega sledi, da glede na datum sprejetja te direktive, 27. januar 2003, ni bil izpolnjen pogoj nujnosti prilagoditve njene Priloge znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku iz uvodnega dela člena 5(1) navedene direktive.
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION it has taken with regard to DecaBDE and which falls within the scope of Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95 constitutes an adaptation to scientific and technical progress.
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI in za katero se uporablja člen 5(1) Direktive 2002/95, pomeni prilagoditev znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku.
However, even if that were so, it would not relieve the Commission of the obligation to establish that one of the conditions set out in Article 5(1)(b) of that directive was met.
Tudi če bi bilo tako, je treba ugotoviti, da je to ne re�i obveznosti, da dokaže, da je bil izpolnjen eden izmed pogojev iz člena 5(1)(b) te direktive.
In its written observations, the Commission maintains in that regard that, in the present case, it is the second condition laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 which is met, since the various assessment reports stated that there was no need for further risk reduction measures beyond those which were being applied already.
V zvezi s tem Komisija v pisnih stali�čih navaja, da je v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjen drugi pogoj iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95, ker je bilo v različnih poročilih o oceni navedeno, da poleg obstoječih ni bilo treba uporabiti drugih ukrepov za zmanj�anje tveganj.
The Commission argues that it follows from the third recital of the contested decision — which, according to the Commission, was drafted by the Council — that that condition was met.
Iz tretje uvodne izjave izpodbijane odločbe, ki naj bi jo po navedbah Komisije sestavil Svet, naj bi izhajalo, da je bil ta pogoj izpolnjen.
It is necessary, however, to point out that neither the third recital of the contested decision, nor the findings of the reports to which the Commission refers, shows that the second condition laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 is met.
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da tretja uvodna izjava izpodbijane odločbe in ugotovitev iz poročil, na katero se je sklicevala Komisija, ne dokazujeta, da je bil drugi pogoj iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 izpolnjen.
Those reports do not examine at all the possibility of substituting DecaBDE; nor, in consequence, do they consider the negative effects that substitution could have.
Ta poročila namreč nikakor ne preučujejo možnosti nadomestitve DecaBDE in posledično negativnih posledic, ki bi jih lahko imele te možnosti nadomestitve.
According to the Parliament’s submissions during the hearing, which were not disputed by the Commission, it was not until June 2006 that the Commission requested a study on the possibility of replacing DecaBDE.
Glede na stali�ča Parlamenta, ki so bila podana na obravnavi in ki jih Komisija ni izpodbijala, naj bi Komisija �ele junija 2006 zahtevala �tudijo o možnostih nadomestitve DecaBDE.
The Commission and the United Kingdom maintain, however, that Article 5 of Directive 2002/95 must be viewed in the context of its adoption; that it should be read in the light of Article 4(2) of that directive, a provision that need not be interpreted strictly; that point 10 of the Annex to that directive required the Commission to act as it has; and that the Commission had a broad discretion.
Vendar pa Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo menita, da je treba člen 5 Direktive 2002/95 postaviti v kontekst, v katerem je bila ta direktiva sprejeta, da ga je treba uporabiti ob upo�tevanju člena 4(2) te direktive, pri čemer pa se slednje določbe ne bi smelo razlagati ozko, da je točka 10 Priloge k navedeni direktivi nalagala Komisiji, da ravna, tako kot je ravnala, in da je imela Komisija �iroko diskrecijsko pravico.
Admittedly, as the Commission and the United Kingdom state, point 10 of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 states that the Commission is to evaluate the applications for, inter alia, DecaBDE as a matter of priority ‘in order to establish as soon as possible whether these items are to be amended accordingly’.
Kot poudarjata Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo, točka 10 Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95 res določa, da Komisija prednostno oceni uporabe predvsem v zvezi z DecaBDE, „da bi čimprej ugotovila, ali je te postavke treba ustrezno spremeniti“.
However, nothing in Directive 2002/95 lends support to the proposition that that provision relieves the Commission of any obligation to comply with the conditions laid down in Article 5(1) of that directive, a finding that was moreover accepted by the Commission at the hearing.
Vendar nič v Direktivi 2002/95 ne podpira stali�ča, v skladu s katerim bi ta določba omogočila Komisiji, da ne izpolni pogojev iz člena 5(1) te direktive, kar je med drugim potrdila Komisija na obravnavi.
It should be stated, first, that it is clear from the wording of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95 that the use of PBDE, the category of substances to which DecaBDE belongs, is prohibited in electrical and electronic equipment with effect from 1 July 2006.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da iz besedila člena 4(1) Direktive 2002/95 izhaja, da je uporaba PBDE, ki je ena izmed snovi, med katere spada DecaBDE, v električni in elektronski opremi prepovedana od 1. julija 2006.
It is true that, under Article 4(2), the prohibition does not apply to the applications listed in the Annex to Directive 2002/95.
V skladu z odstavkom 2 tega člena ta prepoved res ne velja za uporabe, na�tete v Prilogi k navedeni direktivi.
Nevertheless, as is clear from the wording of point 10 of that Annex, DecaBDE is named, not as an exempted substance, but as a substance which must undergo an assessment by the Commission in the context of the procedure referred to in Article 7(2) of that directive.
Vendar, kot izhaja iz besedila točke 10 te priloge, DecaBDE v njej ni omenjen kot izvzeta snov, temveč kot snov, ki jo mora Komisija oceniti v postopku iz člena 7(2) navedene direktive.
The amendment of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 in accordance with that procedure, for the purposes of exempting materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment, requires — according to the clear and precise wording of Article 5(1) of that Directive — the conditions laid down in that provision to be met and those conditions make no mention of point 10 of the Annex to that directive.
Sprememba Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95 v skladu s tem postopkom zaradi izvzetja materialov in komponent električne in elektronske opreme v skladu z jasnim in natančnim besedilom člena 5(1) navedene direktive zahteva, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz te določbe, ki se v ničemer ne nana�ajo na točko 10 priloge k tej direktivi.
As the Parliament, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway have correctly pointed out, point 10 of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 therefore had the sole effect of creating a priority in time, not of empowering the Commission nor of creating an evaluation procedure separate from that already provided for in that directive.
Kot pravilno trdijo Parlament, Kraljevina Danska, Kraljevina Švedska in Kraljevina Norve�ka, je torej posledica točke 10 Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95 le določitev časovne prioritete, ne pa podelitev pooblastila ali določitev posebnega postopka za oceno, ločenega od tistega, ki ga določa ta direktiva.
If Article 5 of that directive is then examined in context, it should be borne in mind that Article 5 specifies the conditions for exemption from the principle of prohibition laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive and must therefore be interpreted strictly.
Dalje, ob preučitvi člena 5 navedene direktive v njegovem kontekstu je treba spomniti na to, da ta člen določa pogoje za izvzetje od načela prepovedi iz člena 4(1) te direktive in se ga mora zato razlagati ozko.
As the applicants have pointed out, Article 4(2) of Directive 2002/95 allows for the possibility of exemption only as regards the applications of substances, not for any substance per se.
Kot poudarjata tožeči stranki člen 4(2) Direktive 2002/95 določa možnost izvzetja le za uporabe snovi in ne za snov samo.
In that regard, the Commission did not dispute the applicants’ argument that as DecaBDE is principally used in polymers, the exemption ‘in polymeric applications’, as referred to in the contested decision, is equivalent to a general exemption for the use of DecaBDE in electrical and electronic equipment.
Komisija v zvezi s tem ni izpodbijala trditve tožečih strank, v skladu s katero je glede na to, da se DecaBDE uporablja predvsem v polimerih, njegovo izvzetje „v polimernih uporabah“, kot je določeno v izpodbijani odločbi, izenačeno s popolnim izvzetjem uporabe DecaBDE v električni in elektronski opremi.
The Commission stated at the hearing that DecaBDE could be used in textiles, but it must be noted that textiles are not covered by Directive 2002/95 which, as its title indicates, concerns only electrical and electronic equipment.
Na obravnavi je navedla, da se je DecaBDE lahko uporabljal v tekstilu, vendar je treba ugotoviti, da zanj ne velja Direktiva 2002/95, ki se nana�a le na električno in elektronsko opremo, kot to določa njen naslov.
Finally, as regards the objectives of Directive 2002/95, it is clear from the fifth, sixth and eleventh recitals thereto that the intention of the legislature is to prohibit products referred to in the directive and to grant exemptions only in accordance with carefully defined conditions.
Nazadnje, glede ciljev Direktive 2002/95 izhaja iz pete, �este in enajste uvodne izjave, da je volja zakonodajalca Skupnosti prepovedati proizvode iz navedene direktive in dovoliti izjeme le pod natančno določenimi pogoji.
In the present case, without it being necessary to rule on the extent of the Commission’s discretion, it is sufficient to state that the contested decision, which is equivalent to a general exemption for the use of DecaBDE in electrical and electronic equipment, was adopted when the conditions laid down by the Community legislature in Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95 had not been met and runs counter to the object-
Ne da bi bilo treba odločiti o obsegu diskrecijske pravice Komisije, zadostuje, da se v obravnavani zadevi ugotovi, da je bila izpodbijana odločba, katere pomen je izenačen s popolnim izvzetjem uporabe DecaBDE v električni in elektronski opremi, sprejeta, ne da bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih je zakonodajalec Skupnosti določil v členu 5(1)
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION ive pursued by that legislature of establishing the principle of the prohibition of the components referred to in that directive.
Direktive 2002/95, in da nasprotuje zakonodajalčevemu cilju vzpostavitve načela prepovedi komponent, določenih v tej direktivi.
The Commission and the United Kingdom also rely on the existence of a voluntary emissions reduction programme, mentioned in the third recital of the contested decision.
Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo se sklicujeta �e na obstoj programa prostovoljnega zmanj�anja emisij, ki je omenjen v tretji uvodni izjavi izpodbijane odločbe.
Such a programme is not relevant, however, in relation to the conditions laid down in Directive 2002/95 for the delegation of powers.
Vendar glede na pogoje prenosa pristojnosti, določene v Direktivi 2002/95, tak program ni upo�teven.
It follows from all of the foregoing that, in adopting the contested decision as regards the exemption of DecaBDE, the Commission infringed Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95.
Iz vsega navedenega, sledi, da je Komisija s sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe o izvzetju DecaBDE kr�ila člen 5(1) Direktive 2002/95.
In view of that finding, it is not necessary to rule on the issues of action ultra vires and/or misuse of powers, raised in the context of the first plea in law.
Glede na to ugotovitev ni treba odločiti o prekoračitvi in/ali zlorabi pristojnosti, navedenih v okviru prvega tožbenega razloga.
The second, third and fourth pleas in law
Drugi, tretji in četrti tožbeni razlog
As the first plea in law is well-founded, it does not appear necessary to examine the second, third and fourth pleas.
Ker je prvi tožbeni razlog utemeljen, ni treba preučiti drugega, tretjega in četrtega tožbenega razloga.