natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(3) Since the risk assessment of DecaBDE, under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances [(OJ 1993 L 84, p.
(3) Ker je v oceni tveganja za DecaBDE v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 793/93 z dne 23. marca 1993 o oceni in nadzoru tveganja, ki ga predstavljajo obstoječe snovi [(UL L 84, str.
1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2003 L 284, p.
1), kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) �t. 1882/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 29. septembra 2003, UL L 284, str.
1)], has concluded that there is at present no need for measures to reduce the risks for consumers beyond those which are being applied already, but additional studies are required under the risk assessment, DecaBDE can be exempted until further notice from the requirements of Article 4(1) of Directive 2002/95/EC.
1)], navedeno, da trenutno ni potrebe po �ir�ih ukrepih za znižanje tveganja za potro�nike, kot so trenutno že v uporabi, so pa glede ocene tveganja potrebne dodatne �tudije, se DecaBDE do nadaljnjega lahko izvzame iz zahtev člena 4(1) Direktive 2002/95/ES.
(4) Exemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope, in order to achieve a gradual phase-out of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, given that the use of those substances in such applications will become avoidable.
(4) Izjeme od prepovedi za nekatere posebne materiale ali komponente morajo biti omejene po obsegu, da se doseže postopna opustitev nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi, s tem, da te snovi v navedenih uporabah ne bodo več nujne.
(7) The Commission submitted the measures provided for in this Decision for vote in the Committee established under Article 18 of Directive 75/442/EEC […]. There was no qualified majority in favour of these measures.
(7) Komisija je 19. aprila 2005 posredovala ukrepe iz te odločbe v glasovanje odboru, ustanovljenemu na podlagi člena 18 Direktive 75/442/EGS […] Ti ukrepi niso dosegli podpore kvalificirane večine.
Since on the expiry date of the period laid down in Article 7(2) of Directive 2002/95/EC the Council had neither adopted the proposed measures nor indicated its opposition to them in accordance with Article 5(6) of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission [(OJ 1999 L 184, p.
Ker ob datumu izteka obdobja iz člena 7(2) Direktive 2002/95/ES Svet ni niti sprejel predlaganih ukrepov niti ni izrazil svojega nasprotovanja v skladu s členom 5(6) Sklepa Sveta 1999/468/ES z dne 28. junija 1999 o določitvi postopkov za uresničevanje Komisiji podeljenih izvedbenih pooblastil [(UL L 184, str.
23)] the measures should be adopted by the Commission.’
23)] mora ukrepe sprejeti Komisija.“
The sole article of the contested decision states that the Annex to Directive 2002/95 is amended as set out in the Annex to that Decision.
Edini člen izpodbijane odločbe določa, da se Priloga k Direktivi 2002/95 spremeni, kakor je navedeno v Prilogi k tej odločbi.
The Annex to the contested decision states:
Priloga k tej odločbi določa:
‘The Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC is amended as follows:
„Priloga k Direktivi 2002/95/ES se spremeni:
“Applications of lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) which are exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1)”;
‚Uporabe svinca, živega srebra, kadmija, �estvalentnega kroma, polibromiranih bifenilov (PBB) ali polibromiranih difenil etrov (PBDE), ki so izvzete iz zahtev člena 4(1)‘;
DecaBDE in polymeric applications;”
DecaBDE v polimernih uporabah‘
Lead in lead-bronze bearing shells and bushes”.’
Svinec v svinčeno-bronastih ležajnih skodelah in pu�ah‘.“
The product at issue
Zadevni proizvod
DecaBDE is a type of bromine-based flame retardant and a member of the PBDE family.
DecaBDE je vrsta gasilnega sredstva na osnovi broma, ki je del PBDE.
It is principally used as a flame retardant in polymers, particularly those used in casings for electrical and electronic equipment, and also in textile coating.
Uporablja se ga predvsem kot gasilno sredstvo v polimerih, zlasti v tistih, ki se uporabljajo za ohi�je električne in elektronske opreme ter v oblogah iz tekstila.
DecaBDE underwent assessments in accordance with Regulation No 793/93.
Ta snov je bila ocenjena na podlagi Uredbe �t. 793/93.
The United Kingdom was responsible for evaluating its impact on the environment, while France was responsible for the examination of its impact on human health.
Združeno kraljestvo je bilo odgovorno za oceno njenega vpliva na okolje, medtem ko je bila Francoska republika dolžna preveriti njen vpliv na zdravje ljudi.
A first report — the ‘European Union Risk Assessment Report’ of 2002 (‘the 2002 Report’) — was submitted to the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (‘CSTEE’), which gave an opinion.
Prvo poročilo z naslovom „European Union Risk Assessment Report“ (poročilo Evropske unije o oceni tveganja) iz leta 2002 (v nadaljevanju: poročilo iz leta 2002) je bilo predloženo Znanstvenemu odboru za toksičnost, ekotoksičnost in okolje (v nadaljevanju: ZOTEO), ki je izdal mnenje.
In May 2004 the United Kingdom adopted an update of the environmental section of the first DecaBDE risk assessment, entitled ‘Final Environmental Assessment Report for DecaBDE’ (‘the 2004 Report’).
Maja 2004 je Združeno kraljestvo sprejelo posodobljeno poglavje o okolju iz prvega poročila o tveganjih DecaBDE z naslovom „Final environmental assessment report for DecaBDE“ (končno poročilo o oceni tveganja za okolje DacaBDE, v nadaljevanju: poročilo iz leta 2004).
That report was referred to the Commission’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (‘SCHER’).
To poročilo je bilo naslovljeno na Znanstveni odbor za zdravstvena in okoljska tveganja (v nadaljevanju: ZOZOT).
That committee had replaced the CSTEE pursuant to Commission Decision 2004/210/EC of 3 March 2004 setting up Scientific Committees in the field of consumer safety, public health and the environment (OJ 2004 L 66, p. 45).
Ta odbor je v skladu s Sklepom Komisije z dne 3. marca 2004 o ustanovitvi znanstvenih odborov na področju varstva potro�nikov, javnega zdravja in okolja (UL L 66, str. 45) nadomestil ZOTEO.
The SCHER delivered an opinion on 18 March 2005.
ZOZOT je izdal mnenje 18. marca 2005.
In August 2005 the United Kingdom rapporteur circulated a document entitled ‘Addendum to the May 2004 Environmental Risk Assessment Report for DecaBDE’.
Avgusta 2005 je poročevalec Združenega kraljestva objavil dokument z naslovom „Addendum to the May 2004 Environmental Risk Assessment Report for DecaBDE“ (dodatek k poročilu o oceni tveganja DecaBDE za okolje iz maja 2004).
That document concluded that it did not seem necessary to amend the 2004 Report in the light of the new data that had meanwhile become available.
V tem dokumentu je bilo ugotovljeno, da slednjega poročila zaradi razpolaganja z novimi dejavniki ni treba spremeniti.
The Parliament is seeking the annulment of the contested decision.
Parlament predlaga razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe.
The Kingdom of Denmark is seeking the annulment of point 2 of the Annex to the contested decision and, as a consequence, the annulment of point 1.
Kraljevina Danska predlaga razglasitev ničnosti točke 2 njene Priloge in posledično točke 1.
The Commission considers that the Parliament sets out no reasons as to why points 1 and 3 of the Annex to the contested decision should be annulled and requests that the action be restricted to point 2 of the Annex.
Komisija meni, da Parlament ni obrazložil, zakaj bi bilo treba točki 1 in 3 Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi razglasiti za nični, in predlaga, naj se tožba omeji na točko 2 te priloge.
In the alternative, the Parliament claims that the Court should declare its application admissible in so far as it concerns points 1 and 2 of the Annex to the contested decision.
Parlament podredno predlaga Sodi�ču, naj tožbo razglasi za dopustno v delu, v katerem se nana�a na točki 1 in 2 Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi.
In its rejoinder in Case C-14/06, the Commission draws attention to the fact that the adoption of Decision 2005/618/EC of 18 August 2005 amending Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council for the purpose of establishing the maximum concentration values for certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2005 L 214, p.
Komisija v dupliki v zadevi C-14/06 opozarja, da bi sprejetje Odločbe Komisije 2005/618/ES z dne 18. avgusta 2005 o spremembi Direktive 2002/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta za namene določitve največjih vrednosti koncentracij za nekatere nevarne snovi v električni in elektronski opremi (UL L 214, str.
65) may, inasmuch as it applies to the impur- ities in PBDE and makes the marketing of DecaBDE difficult, reduce the scope of the present dispute.
65) v delu, v katerem bi se ta uporabljala za nečistoče PBDE in bi otežila trgovanje z DecaBDE, lahko omejilo obseg spora.
The examination of the Parliament’s action reveals no plea specifically referring to point 3 of the Annex to the contested decision.
Pri preizkusu tožbe Parlamenta je bilo ugotovljeno, da ne vsebuje nobenega tožbenega razloga, ki bi se nana�al posebej na točko 3 Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi.
On the other hand, the annulment of point 2 could lead, as a consequence, to the annulment of point 1.
Nasprotno pa bi razglasitev ničnosti točke 2 te priloge lahko povzročila razglasitev ničnosti točke 1.
The amendment of the title of the Annex to Directive 2002/95, which point 1 of the Annex to the contested decision brings about by inserting, inter alia, a reference to PBDE, seems to reflect the need to ensure a link between the title of the Annex to Directive 2002/95 and the content of that Annex, as amended by point 2 of the Annex to the contested decision.
Zdi se, da je sprememba naslova Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95, ki jo določa točka 1, in sicer da se v naslovu med drugim omeni PBDE, posledica potrebe po uskladitvi omenjenega naslova z vsebino te priloge, kot je bila spremenjena z navedeno točko 2.
Point 2 of the Annex to the contested decision inserts in the Annex to Directive 2002/95 a new point 9a, devoted to DecaBDE, a substance belonging to the PBDE family.
Slednja namreč v omenjeno Prilogo vna�a novo točko 9a o DecaBDE, o snovi, ki spada v skupino PBDE.
It follows that points 1 and 2 of the Annex to the contested decision may not be mutually independent in the context of the possible annulment of point 2.
Iz tega sledi, da točk 1 in 2 Priloge k izpodbijani odločbi ne bi bilo mogoče ločiti, če bi se omenjeno točko 2 razglasilo za nično.
It is therefore necessary to restrict the subjectmatter of the Parliament’s action to those two points.
Zato je treba predmet tožbe Parlamenta omejiti na ti točki.
As regards the adoption of Decision 2005/618 which, according to the Commission, could make it difficult to market DecaBDE, that does not appear to have divested the actions of their purpose, since a marketing problem does not have the same effect as a total prohibition on use, which would be the consequence of an annulment of the decision exempting that product.
Kaže, da zaradi sprejetja Odločbe 2005/618, ki bi po mnenju Komisije lahko otežila trgovanje z DecaBDE, tožbi nista izgubili predmeta, ker otežitev trgovanja nima enakega učinka kot popolna prepoved uporabe, kar bi bila posledica razglasitve ničnosti odločbe o izvzetju tega proizvoda.
The actions
Tožbi
The Parliament and the Kingdom of Denmark rely on the following pleas in law, which can be grouped together and summarised as follows: (i) they claim that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, did not comply with the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 and that it thus exceeded the powers conferred upon it by the legislature; (ii) they claim that the contested decision is vitiated by failure to state reasons, in that it in no way indicates how the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 were met; (iii) they submit that the Commission, in adopting the contested decision, has breached the precautionary principle.
Parlament in Kraljevina Danska navajata tožbene razloge, ki se jih lahko preuredi in strne tako: prvič, trdita, da Komisija s sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe ni ravnala v skladu s pogoji iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 in da je s tem prekoračila pristojnosti, ki ji jih je nanjo prenesel zakonodajalec; drugič, trdita, da je izpodbijana odločba pomanjkljivo obrazložena, ker v njej nikjer ni navedeno, s čim naj bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v tej določbi; tretjič, navajata, da Komisija s sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe ni spo�tovala previdnostnega načela.
Furthermore, the Parliament puts forward a plea alleging breach of the principle of proportionality in that the contested decision exempts all the polymeric applications of DecaBDE.
Parlament poleg tega navaja tožbeni razlog kr�itve načela sorazmernosti v delu, v katerem so bile z izpodbijano odločbo izvzete vse polimerne uporabe DecaBDE.
The first plea in law: infringement of Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95, and action ultra vires and/or misuse of powers
Prvi tožbeni razlog: kršitev člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 in prekoračitev in/ali zloraba pristojnosti
The Parliament and the Kingdom of Denmark claim that the Commission did not comply with the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 and that it thus exceeded the powers conferred on it by the Community legislature.
Parlament in Kraljevina Danska navajata, da Komisija ni spo�tovala pogojev iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 in da je s tem prekoračila pristojnosti, ki jih je nanjo prenesel zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
The Kingdom of Denmark points out that, when the Parliament and the Council confer implementing powers on the Commission in accordance with Article 202 EC, the Commission must, pursuant to the principle of conferred powers, take pains to act in conformity with the aims laid down by the Community legislature and to apply the criteria that it has set.
Kraljevina Danska opozarja, da mora Komisija, kadar ji Parlament in Svet podelita izvedbene pristojnosti v skladu s členom 202 ES, na podlagi načela delitve pristojnosti spo�tovati cilje in uporabiti merila, ki jih je določil zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
The Kingdom of Denmark claims that, in the present case, the Commission has not only infringed the conditions laid down in Directive 2002/95 but has also used the powers conferred on it to impose its own risk assessment in place of that of the legislature, thus misusing the powers conferred on it.
V obravnavani zadevi naj Komisija ne bi kr�ila le pogojev iz Direktive 2002/95, temveč naj bi tudi uporabila pristojnosti, ki so bile nanjo prenesene, zato da bi uveljavila svojo oceno tveganj namesto ocene zakonodajalca, s čimer naj bi zlorabila pristojnosti.
The applicants consider that, in so far as Directive 2002/95 lays down in Article 4(1) the principle that the substances listed in that provision are prohibited, the possibility of exemption, provided for in Article 5(1)(b), must be strictly interpreted.
Tožeči stranki menita, da je treba zato, ker Direktiva 2002/95 v členu 4(1) določa načelo prepovedi v tem členu na�tetih snovi, izvzetje, ki je določeno v njenem členu 5(1)(b), razlagati ozko.
The possibility of exemption can arise only in respect of the application of substances and not to a substance as such, since that would infringe Article 4 of that directive.
Nana�a se lahko le na uporabe snovi, ne pa na snov samo, sicer bi bila podana kr�itev člena 4 te direktive.
In support of that argument, the applicants refer to the other decisions adopted on the basis of Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95, which cover only specific applications, and to the fourth recital of the contested decision, according to which ‘[e]xemptions from the prohibition for certain specific materials or components should be limited in their scope.’
Tožeči stranki v podporo tem trditvam navajata druge odločbe, sprejete na podlagi člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95, ki se nana�ajo le na posebne uporabe, ter četrto uvodno izjavo izpodbijane odločbe, v skladu s katero „[morajo biti izjeme] od prepovedi za nekatere posebne materiale ali komponente […] omejene po obsegu“.
The applicants claim, first, that the condition indicated in Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95, which covers amendments ‘necessary in order to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress’ is not met.
Tožeči stranki najprej poudarjata, da pogoj iz člena 5(1) Direktive 2002/95, ki se nana�a na spremembe, „potrebne za prilagoditev Priloge znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku“, ni izpolnjen.
On the contrary, the scientific data available after the adoption of the directive reinforce the existing doubts regarding the dangers of DecaBDE.
Nasprotno, znanstveni podatki, razpoložljivi po sprejetju te direktive, naj bi okrepili obstoječe dvome glede nevarnosti DecaBDE.
According to the applicants, the Commission did not show that one of the two conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 was met, but used a criterion which is not provided for in that directive — and which is therefore unlawful — stating, in the third recital of the contested decision, that ‘the risk assessment of DecaBDE, under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 […] has concluded that there is at present no need for measures to reduce the risks for consumers beyond those which are being applied already’.
Po mnenju tožečih strank Komisija ni dokazala niti tega, da je bil izpolnjen eden izmed dveh pogojev iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95, temveč je uporabila merilo, ki ni bilo določeno z Direktivo in je bilo zato nezakonito, s tem da je v tretji uvodni izjavi izpodbijane odločbe ugotovila, da „je v oceni tveganja za DecaBDE v skladu z [Uredbo �t. 793/93] navedeno, da trenutno ni potrebe po �ir�ih ukrepih za znižanje tveganja za potro�nike, kot so trenutno že v uporabi“.
The applicants maintain that, in so doing, the Commission relied on a study adopted in the context of a regulation which is based on a different philosophy, a study which was not prepared with a view to compliance with the precautionary principle and which did not seek to determine whether one of the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 had been met.
S tem naj bi se Komisija oprla na �tudijo, sprejeto v okviru direktive z drugačno filozofijo, �tudijo, ki ne bi mogla biti izdelana ob spo�tovanju previdnostnega načela in katere namen ne bi mogla biti ugotovitev, ali je izpolnjen eden izmed pogojev iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95.
The Commission carried out a new general assessment of the risk and, by exempting, on the basis of that assessment, the substance at issue itself, it circumvented the decision of the Community legislature and thwarted the practical effect of Directive 2002/95.
Komisija naj bi opravila novo splo�no presojo tveganja in naj bi z izvzetjem zadevne snovi na tej podlagi ob�la odločitev zakonodajalca Skupnosti in tej direktivi odvzela polni učinek.
The Kingdom of Denmark claims that the Commission in no way examined the possibilities of replacing DecaBDE even though many producers have stopped using it and point that out in the context of their environmental policy.
Kraljevina Danska navaja, da Komisija sploh ni preučila možnosti nadomestitve DecaBDE, čeprav so ga �tevilni proizvajalci prenehali uporabljati, in to uveljavljajo v okviru svoje okoljske politike.
The second recital of the contested decision, according to which ‘the elimination or substitution of these hazardous substances […] is still impracticable’ is incorrect in that regard.
V tem pogledu naj bi bila zmotna druga uvodna izjava izpodbijane odločbe, v skladu s katero „je izločitev ali nadomestitev teh nevarnih snovi […] �e vedno neizvedljiva“.
The first condition laid down in Article 5(1)(b) of the Directive is therefore not, on any view, met.
Prvi pogoj iz člena 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 naj torej v vsakem primeru ne bi bil izpolnjen.
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION the opinions of the scientific committees and the growing realisation of the dangers linked to DecaBDE. In the third recital of the contested decision, in particular, the Commission refers only to the risk to consumers, while the reports dealt with workers, consumers and people indirectly exposed through the environment.
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI se je predvsem v tretji uvodni izjavi izpodbijane odločbe sklicevala le na tveganje za potro�nike, čeprav naj bi se navedena poročila nana�ala na delavce, potro�nike oziroma človeka, posredno izpostavljenega v okolju.
The Commission emphasises the difficulties surrounding the adoption of the contested decision and contends that Article 5 of Directive 2002/95 need not be interpreted strictly.
Komisija opozarja na težave pri sprejetju izpodbijane odločbe in navaja, da se člena 5 Direktive 2002/95 ne sme razlagati ozko.
The Commission points out, first, that Article 4(1) of that directive, which prohibits the use of certain dangerous substances, is immediately followed by Article 4(2) thereof which provides for exemptions from that prohibition, and argues that those provisions therefore have the effect of establishing a prohibition which is narrower in scope than it appears to be.
Prvič, poudarja, da členu 4(1) te direktive, ki prepoveduje uporabo določenih nevarnih snovi, neposredno sledi člen 4(2) iste direktive, ki določa izjeme od te prepovedi, in da je zato posledica teh določb določitev prepovedi, katere obseg je manj�i, kot se zdi.
The Commission notes, secondly, that the effect of Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95 is not to confer on the Commission a narrowly defined discretionary power but rather to place it under an obligation to act where one of the conditions laid down in Article 5(1)(b) is met, which does not allow the Commission any room for manoeuvre.
Drugič, navaja, da ji člen 5(1) Direktive 2002/95 ne daje natančno določene pristojnosti, temveč ji nalaga obveznost, da ukrepa, če je bil izpolnjen eden izmed pogojev, določenih v členu 5(1)(b) te direktive, kar ji ne daje nobene diskrecijske pravice.
Lastly, the Commission contends that, although Article 5(1)(b) of Directive 2002/95 constitutes the legal basis for the contested decision, it is nevertheless necessary to take into account point 10 of the Annex to that directive.
Nazadnje Komisija navaja, da čeprav je člen 5(1)(b) Direktive 2002/95 pravna podlaga izpodbijane odločbe, je treba kljub temu upo�tevati točko 10 Priloge k tej direktivi.
That point has legal effects, in that it brings any action on the part of the Commission regarding DecaBDE within
Ta naj bi imela pravne posledice, ker naj bi se zaradi nje za vsako delovanje Komisije v zvezi z DecaBDE uporabljal člen 5(1) Direktive 2002/95. Zato naj ji ne bi bilo
2008 — JOINED CASES C-14/06 AND C-295/06 the scope of Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95. Consequently, the Commission is not required to show that particular action that 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.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06 treba dokazati, da katerokoli izmed njenih ravnanj, ki se nana�a na DecaBDE in za katero se uporablja člen 5(1) Direktive 2002/95, pomeni prilagoditev znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku.
In that regard, the United Kingdom adds that point 10 reflects the hesitation of the Community legislature, which recognised that further evaluation was justified.
Združeno kraljestvo v zvezi s tem dodaja, da ta točka 10 izraža pomisleke zakonodajalca Skupnosti, ki je priznal, da je potrebno dodatno ocenjevanje.
The United Kingdom considers, in addition, that the Commission has a broad discretion as regards the evaluation of such technical problems, and it is necessary to show that it has committed a manifest error.
Ta država članica med drugim meni, da ima Komisija za oceno takih tehničnih težav veliko diskrecijsko pravico in da bi bilo treba dokazati, da je storila očitno napako.