natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 1 April 2004, the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the Portuguese Republic in which it stated that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of passenger or goods vehicles, with the exception of lawful stickers and dark non-reflective film to the goods compartment of goods vehicles, and by failing to communicate to the Commission
40/2003 prepovedala pritrjevanje barvnih folij na stekla osebnih ali tovornih motornih vozil, razen lepljenja v skladu s predpisi in lepljenja temnih, neodsevnih folij na nosilno ploskev tovornih motornih vozil, in s tem da Komisiji ni posredovala besedila osnutka te uredbe-zakona, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 28 ES in 30 ES, iz členov 11 in 13 Sporazuma EGP ter iz člena 8 Direktive 98/34/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z
2008 — CASE C-265/06 the text of the draft decree-law, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement, together with Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (OJ 1998 L 204, p. 37).
2008 – ZADEVA C-265/06 dne 22. junija 1998 o določitvi postopka za zbiranje informacij na področju tehničnih standardov in tehničnih predpisov (UL L 204, str. 37).
By letter of 28 June 2004 the Portuguese Republic replied to the letter of formal notice.
Portugalska republika je na pisni opomin odgovorila z dopisom z dne 28. junija 2004.
Since it was not satisfied with that reply, on 22 December 2004 the Commission sent a reasoned opinion to the Portuguese Republic calling on it to comply with the opinion within two months of its notification.
Ker Komisije ta odgovor ni prepričal, je 22. decembra 2004 Portugalski republiki poslala obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem jo je pozvala, naj obveznosti izpolni v roku dveh mesecev od prejema tega mnenja.
In response to the reasoned opinion the Portuguese Republic stated, by letter of 22 July 2005, that it intended to repeal the provision which prohibits tinted film being affixed to the windows of motor vehicles, that is to say, Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003.
Portugalska republika je na obrazloženo mnenje odgovorila z dopisom z dne 22. julija 2005 in v njem navedla, da namerava določbo, ki prepoveduje pritrjevanje barvnih folij na stekla osebnih ali tovornih motornih vozil, torej člen 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003, razveljaviti.
It also informed the Commission that, as far as concerns the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, draft technical rules to be included in a legislative instrument were being prepared.
Poleg tega je Komisijo obvestila, da je, kar zadeva pritrjevanje barvnih folij na tak�na stekla, v pripravi osnutek tehničnih predpisov, ki bodo vključeni v zakonodajni akt.
In December 2005, a draft decree laying down those rules was notified to the Commission pursuant to Directive 98/34.
Decembra 2005 je bila Komisija v skladu z Direktivo 98/34 uradno obve�čena o osnutku uredbe o določitvi teh predpisov.
Taking account of that notification, the Commission decided to withdraw the complaint concerning the failure to notify Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 in its draft form.
Komisija se je na podlagi tega obvestila odločila, da umakne očitek v zvezi z opustitvijo obvestitve o osnutku člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003.
However, the Commission did maintain the complaint relating to the incompatibility of that provision with Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement and brought the present action on 16 June 2006.
Vendar pa je Komisija vztrajala pri očitku v zvezi z nezdružljivostjo te določbe s členoma 28 ES in 30 ES ter s členoma 11 in 13 Sporazuma EGP in je 16. junija 2006 vložila to tožbo.
The Commission takes the view that in practice Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003, which prohibits the affixing of any type of tinted film designed to filter light to the windscreen and the windows alongside the passenger seats in motor vehicles, prevents tinted film lawfully manufactured and/or marketed in another Member State or in a State party to the EEA Agreement from being marketed in Portugal, contrary to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement.
Komisija meni, da člen 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003, ki prepoveduje pritrjevanje vseh vrst barvnih folij, namenjenih za filtracijo svetlobe, na vetrobransko steklo in na stekla ob sedežih potnikov v motornih vozilih, dejansko preprečuje, da bi se na Portugalskem prodajale barvne folije, ki so se v drugi državi članici ali državi pogodbenici Sporazuma EGP proizvedle in/ali prodajale v skladu s predpisi, s čimer sta kr�ena člena 28 ES in 30 ES ter člena 11 in 13 Sporazuma EGP.
The Commission claims that any potential customers, traders or individuals will not buy such film, since they know that they cannot affix it to the windows of motor vehicles.
Po mnenju Komisije potencialne zainteresirane osebe, trgovci ali posamezniki, tak�nih folij, vedoč, da jih ne bodo mogle pritrditi na stekla motornih vozil, namreč ne bodo kupile.
The Commission points out that, according to Regulation No 43, which applies by virtue of Directive 92/22, the windscreen and the windows located in the driver’s forward field of view in front of a point designated as the ‘B-pillar’ must have regular light transmittance of at least 75% and 70% respectively.
Komisija opozarja, da morajo vetrobransko steklo in druga stekla, ki se nahajajo v prednjem vidnem polju voznika, pred točko, ki jo imenuje „stebriček B“, v skladu s pravilnikom �t. 43, ki se uporablja na podlagi Direktive 92/22, prepu�čati najmanj 75 % oziroma 70 % svetlobe.
Such windows may therefore be tinted if they comply with those requirements.
Ta stekla naj bi torej lahko bila zatemnjena, če ustrezajo tem zahtevam.
Furthermore, the Commission submits that, as regards windows behind the B-pillar, no minimum value of light transmittance is prescribed when they are not essential to the driver’s vision.
Kar zadeva stekla, ki se nahajajo za stebričkom B, Komisija poleg tega navaja, da ni predpisana nobena najmanj�a vrednost prepustnosti svetlobe, če ta stekla niso bistvena za vidno polje voznika.
In practice that means that the rear of a motor vehicle may be fitted with tinted windows with a regular light transmittance which is very weak, so long as the vehicle has two exterior rear-view mirrors.
V praksi naj bi to pomenilo, da ima motorno vozilo, če ima dve zunanji vzvratni ogledali, za tem stebričkom lahko zatemnjena stekla z zelo majhno prepustnostjo svetlobe.
The Commission therefore criticises the Portuguese Republic for prohibiting the affixing of any tinted film to the windscreen and to the windows alongside the passenger seats in passenger and goods vehicles, even where those films allow the regular light transmittance to correspond with the minimum values laid down by Regulation No 43.
Komisija tako Portugalski republiki očita, da je prepovedala pritrjevanje vsakr�nih barvnih folij na vetrobransko steklo in na stekla ob sedežih potnikov v osebnih ali tovornih motornih vozilih tudi v primerih, ko te folije omogočajo prepustnost svetlobe, ki ustreza najmanj�im vrednostim, določenim v pravilniku �t. 43.
The Commission submits that, in the absence of harmonising provisions at Community level, the Member States may indeed define the level of road safety that they deem appropriate on their territory and adopt measures aiming to protect public safety.
Komisija navaja, da lahko države članice, če ni uskladitvenih predpisov na ravni Skupnosti, določijo obseg varstva cestnega prometa na svojem ozemlju in sprejmejo ukrepe za za�čito javne varnosti.
However, in the Commission’s view the Portuguese Republic has not produced
Vendar pa Komisija meni, da Portugalska republika ni predložila nobenega dokaza, na podlagi katerega bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti, da uporaba kakr�ne koli barvne folije, ne glede na njeno barvo in lastnosti, zlasti
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL any evidence to show that the use of tinted film, of whatever colour and characteristics, in particular with respect to light transmittance, presents a risk for public safety and/or road safety.
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI kar zadeva prepustnost svetlobe, pomeni nevarnost za javno varnost in/ali varnost cestnega prometa.
The contested provision is neither necessary nor proportionate to the objectives pursued.
Sporna določba naj ne bi bila potrebna niti sorazmerna z zastavljenimi cilji.
The Portuguese Republic does not dispute the facts set out in the application.
Portugalska republika ne izpodbija dejstev, navedenih v tožbi.
However, it disagrees as to the interpretation, the value and the significance of certain facts.
Vendar pa se ne strinja z razlago, s težo in pomenom nekaterih dejstev.
First of all, the Portuguese Republic submits that there was no need for the Commission to bring an action against it since it had indicated during the prelitigation procedure that it was amending its legislation in the manner recommended by the Commission.
Portugalska republika najprej meni, da ni bilo potrebno, da je Komisija proti njej vložila tožbo, saj jo je med predhodnim postopkom obvestila, da namerava spremeniti zakonodajo tako, kot je predlagala Komisija.
The draft amendment which was notified to the Commission means that it had lifted the ban in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003.
Iz osnutka spremembe, o katerem je bila Komisija uradno obve�čena, po mnenju Portugalske republike izhaja, da je bila prepoved iz člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 odpravljena.
Next, while acknowledging that that provision constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods, the Portuguese Republic argues that in any event it is justified by the objectives of road safety and public safety.
Portugalska republika dalje priznava, da gre pri tej določbi za omejitev prostega pretoka blaga, vendar navaja, da je ta določba v vsakem primeru utemeljena s ciljema varnosti cestnega prometa in javne varnosti.
Thus, the Portuguese Republic points out that the ban is intended to enable the competent authorities to make a rapid external inspection of the interior of motor vehicles without the need to immobilise them, first, in order to ensure that the vehicle’s occupants are wearing seat belts and, second, to identify potential criminals for the purpose of combating crime.
Portugalska republika tako poudarja, da je namen prepovedi pristojnim organom omogočiti hiter pregled notranjosti motornih vozil od zunaj, ne da bi jih bilo treba ustaviti, da se preveri, prvič, spo�tovanje obvezne uporabe varnostnega pasu in, drugič, da se prepozna morebitne prestopnike v okviru boja proti kriminalu.
Finally, the Portuguese Republic does not believe that there are measures that are less restrictive which ensure that the road safety and public safety objectives it has set are achieved.
Portugalska republika na koncu meni, da manj omejujoč ukrep, ki bi zagotavljal uresničitev ciljev javne varnosti in varnosti cestnega prometa, ki si ju je določila, ne obstaja.
It observes, in that regard, that the ban on affixing tinted film to the windows of vehicles is not total but partial, as it does not apply either to the goods compartments of goods vehicles or to non-wheeled vehicles such as ships.
V zvezi s tem opozarja, da prepoved pritrjevanja barvnih folij na stekla vozil ni popolna, ampak je delna, ker ne velja za nosilne ploskve tovornih motornih vozil in za brezkolesna vozila, kot so ladje.
In this case, it is common ground that on the expiry of the two-month period prescribed in the reasoned opinion the Portuguese Republic had not repealed Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 prohibiting the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles.
V tem primeru pa je nesporno, da Portugalska republika do poteka v obrazloženem mnenju določenega roka dveh mesecev ni razveljavila člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003, ki je prepovedoval pritrjevanje barvnih folij na stekla motornih vozil.
The fact that that Member State subsequently notified draft regulations which do not contain the contested provision has no bearing on the existence of that provision at the relevant time.
Okoli�čina, da je ta država članica Komisijo pozneje uradno obvestila o osnutku predpisa, ki ni vseboval sporne določbe, ne spremeni dejstva, da je ta določba v upo�tevnem trenutku obstajala.
Therefore, it is appropriate, as stated in paragraph 6 of this judgment, to examine whether Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 is compatible with Community law and the law of the European Economic Area referred to by the Commission.
Zato je treba preučiti skladnost te določbe, katere besedilo je bilo navedeno v točki 6 te sodbe, z določbami prava Skupnosti in prava Evropskega gospodarskega prostora, na katere se sklicuje Komisija.
It must be observed that Directive 92/22 does not regulate tinted film designed to be affixed to the windows of motor vehicles, but only windows originally fitted to those vehicles, namely tinted windows.
Treba je poudariti, da z Direktivo 92/22 niso urejene barvne folije za pritrditev na stekla motornih vozil, ampak zgolj stekla, ki so na teh vozilih name�čena že od samega začetka, namreč zatemnjena stekla.
In the absence of Community harmonisation, Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 must therefore be examined by reference to the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the free movement of goods and the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement.
Ker ni uskladitvenih predpisov na ravni Skupnosti, je treba člen 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 posledično preučiti glede na določbe Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�ajo na prosti pretok blaga, in glede na ustrezne določbe Sporazuma EGP.
Since the provisions of the EEA Agreement were drafted in terms almost identical to those of the Treaty, the following considerations relating to Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be understood as applying to the corresponding provisions of the EEA Agreement, namely Articles 11 and 13 thereof.
Ker je besedilo slednjih skoraj povsem enako besedilu določb Pogodbe, je treba �teti, da spodnje navedbe veljajo tudi za ustrezne določbe Sporazuma EGP, namreč za člena 11 in 13 tega sporazuma.
— The existence of a restriction on the free movement of goods
– Obstoj omejitve prostega pretoka blaga
According to settled caselaw, all rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je treba vse predpise držav članic, ki bi lahko neposredno ali posredno, dejansko ali potencialno ovirali trgovino znotraj Skupnosti, �teti
In this case, the Portuguese Republic acknowledges that the ban provided for in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003, which concerns the affixing of tinted film to the windscreen and windows alongside passenger seats in motor vehicles, restricts the marketing of those products in Portugal.
V obravnavanem primeru Portugalska republika priznava, da prepoved iz člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003, ki se nana�a na pritrjevanje barvnih folij na vetrobransko steklo in na stekla ob sedežih potnikov v motornih vozilih, omejuje prodajo teh proizvodov na Portugalskem.
It must be held that potential customers, traders or individuals have practically no interest in buying them in the knowledge that affixing such film to the windscreen and windows alongside passenger seats in motor vehicles is prohibited.
Treba je namreč ugotoviti, da potencialne zainteresirane osebe, trgovci ali posamezniki, za nakup tak�nih folij, vedoč, da je njihovo pritrjevanje na vetrobransko steklo in na stekla ob sedežih potnikov motornih vozil prepovedano, dejansko ne bodo zainteresirane.
The only exception to the ban in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 concerns affixing tinted film to the goods compartments of goods vehicles and to non-wheeled vehicles.
Edina izjema od prepovedi iz člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 se nana�a na pritrjevanje barvnih folij na nosilno ploskev tovornih motornih vozil in na brezkolesna vozila.
The contested provision therefore affects the marketing in Portugal of almost all tinted film legally manufactured and sold in other Member States or in States party to the EEA Agreement intended to be affixed to the windows of motor vehicles.
Sporna določba posledično vpliva na prodajo na Portugalskem skoraj vseh barvnih folij, ki so se v drugih državah članicah ali državah pogodbenicah Sporazuma EGP proizvedle in prodajale v skladu s predpisi z namenom njihove pritrditve na stekla motornih vozil.
It follows that the ban in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions within the meaning of Article 28 EC and Article 11 of the EEA Agreement.
Iz tega izhaja, da je prepoved iz člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot ga imajo količinske omejitve v smislu členov 28 ES in 11 Sporazuma EGP.
That provision is incompatible with the obligations arising from those provisions, unless it may be objectively justified.
Ta ukrep je nezdružljiv z obveznostmi, ki izhajajo iz teh določb, razen če ga je mogoče objektivno utemeljiti.
— The existence of a justification
– Obstoj utemeljitve
In this case, the justifications put forward by the Portuguese Republic relate, first, to the fight against crime in the context of public safety and, second, to ensuring that the obligation to wear seat belts is complied with, which comes within the sphere of road safety.
V obravnavanem primeru se utemeljitve s strani Portugalske republike nana�ajo, prvič, na boj proti kriminalu v okviru zagotavljanja javne varnosti in, drugič, na preverjanje spo�tovanja obvezne uporabe varnostnega pasu, ki spada na področje varnosti cestnega prometa.
The fight against crime and ensuring road safety may constitute overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying a hindrance to the free movement of goods (see, with regard to road safety, Case C-54/05 Commission v Finland [2007] ECR I-2473, paragraph 40 and the caselaw cited).
Boj proti kriminalu in varnost cestnega prometa sta lahko nujni razlog v splo�nem interesu, ki bi lahko upravičil oviro prostega pretoka blaga (glej, kar zadeva varnost cestnega prometa, sodbo z dne 15. marca 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Finski, C-54/05, ZOdl., str. I-2473, točka 40, in navedena sodna praksa).
However, it is for the Member States to show that their legislation is appropriate to ensure the attainment of such objectives and that it is in conformity with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-297/05 Commission v Netherlands [2007] ECR I-7467, paragraph 76 and the caselaw cited).
Vendar pa je naloga držav članic, da dokažejo, da je njihova ureditev primerna za uresničitev tak�nih ciljev in da je v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti (glej v tem smislu zlasti sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nizozemski, C-297/05, ZOdl., str. I-7467, točka 76, in navedena sodna praksa).
In that regard, the Portuguese Republic has produced only one argument in support of the contested measure, namely, that it enables the passenger compartment of motor vehicles to be immediately inspected by means of simple observation from outside the vehicle.
Portugalska republika je glede tega v utemeljitev spornega ukrepa navedla le to, da ta ukrep omogoča neposredni pregled notranjosti motornih vozil že na podlagi opazovanja od zunaj.
Although the ban in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 does indeed appear to be likely to facilitate such inspection and, therefore, appropriate to attain the objectives of fighting crime and ensuring road safety, it does not follow that it is necessary to attain those objectives or that there are no other less restrictive means of doing so.
Čeprav prepoved iz člena 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 tak�no opazovanje olaj�a in je z njo posledično mogoče doseči cilja boja proti kriminalu in varnosti cestnega prometa, pa iz tega ne izhaja, da je ta prepoved potrebna za uresničitev teh ciljev in da ne obstajajo drugi, manj omejujoči, ukrepi.
The visual inspection in question is only one means among others available to the competent authorities in order to fight crime and prevent offences relating to the obligation to wear seat belts.
Zadevni vizualni pregled je namreč le eden izmed ukrepov, ki jih imajo na voljo pristojni organi v okviru boja proti kriminalu in proti kr�itvam obvezne uporabe varnostnega pasu.
The claim that the contested measure is necessary was further undermined when the Portuguese Republic admitted at the hearing that it allows the marketing on its territory of motor vehicles fitted from the outset with tinted windows within the limits laid down by Directive 92/22.
Zatrjevana potrebnost spornega ukrepa je �e toliko manj verjetna, ker je Portugalska republika med obravnavo priznala, da je na njenem ozemlju dovoljena prodaja motornih vozil, ki so z zatemnjenimi stekli opremljena že od samega začetka, v mejah, določenih z Direktivo 92/22.
Tinted windows, like the tinted film at issue, may prevent any external visual inspection of the interior of vehicles.
Ta zatemnjena stekla lahko, tako kot zadevne barvne folije, preprečijo vsakr�ni vizualni pregled notranjosti vozil od zunaj.
Therefore, unless it is accepted that, as regards motor vehicles fitted at the outset with tinted windows, the competent authorities have abandoned their campaign to fight crime and their efforts to enforce road safety, it is clear that they must use other methods to identify criminals and persons who may be breaking the rules concerning the wearing of seat belts.
Razen če so se pri motornih vozilih, ki so z zatemnjenimi stekli opremljena že od samega začetka, pristojni organi odrekli zagotavljanju boja proti kriminalu in varnosti cestnega prometa, je posledično treba ugotoviti, da morajo uporabiti druge metode za prepoznavanje prestopnikov in morebitnih kr�iteljev obvezne uporabe varnostnega pasu.
Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic has not shown that the ban, in so far as it concerns all tinted film, is necessary to promote road safety and combat crime.
Poleg tega Portugalska republika ni dokazala, da je prepoved v delu, v katerem se nana�a na vse barvne folije, potrebna za zagotovitev varnosti cestnega prometa in za boj proti kriminalu.
As stated by the Commission at the hearing, there is a wide range of tinted film, from transparent film to film which is almost opaque.
Kot je med obravnavo poudarila Komisija, obstaja �iroka paleta barvnih folij, od prosojnih do skoraj temnih.
That information, which was not challenged by the Portuguese Republic, means that at least some films, namely those with a sufficient degree of transparency, permit the desired visual inspection of the interior of motor vehicles.
Na podlagi tega podatka, ki ga Portugalska republika ni izpodbijala, je mogoče ugotoviti, da vsaj nekatere folije, namreč tiste, ki so dovolj prosojne, omogočajo želen vizualni pregled notranjosti motornih vozil.
It follows that that ban must be regarded as being excessive and, therefore, disproportionate with respect to the objectives pursued.
Iz tega izhaja, da je to prepoved treba �teti za prekomerno in torej za nesorazmerno z zastavljenimi cilji.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, it must be held that, by prohibiting in Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 the affixing of tinted film to the windows of motor vehicles, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and Articles 11 and 13 of the EEA Agreement.
Glede na vse, kar je bilo navedeno zgoraj, je treba ugotoviti, da Portugalska republika s tem, da je v členu 2(1) uredbe-zakona �t. 40/2003 prepovedala pritrjevanje barvnih folij na stekla motornih vozil, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 28 ES in 30 ES ter iz členov 11 in 13 Sporazuma EGP.
Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Portuguese Republic has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Portugalski republiki naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s svojimi predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.