natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— Planned aid — Examination by the Commission — Assessment of the validity of a Commission decision taken at the end of the preliminary investigation stage by reference to the information available at the time the decision was adopted: judgment of 15 April 2008 (Nuova Agricast, C-390/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 2577
– Pravica Komisije do vložitve tožbe – Izvajanje te pravice, ki ni odvisno od obstoja posebnega pravnega interesa: sodba z dne 10. aprila 2008 (Komisija proti Italiji, C-442/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive: judgment of 3 April 2008 (J.C.M. Beheer, C-124/07) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Predhodni postopek – Opomin: sodbi z dne 8. aprila 2008 (Komisija proti Italiji, C-337/05) in z dne 10. aprila 2008 (Komisija proti Italiji, C-442/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Member States’ option to apply a reduced rate to certain supplies of goods and services: judgment of 3 April 2008 (Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien, C-442/05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Rok za državo članico, določen v obrazloženem mnenju – Naknadno odpravljena neizpolnitev obveznosti – Pravni interes za vložitev tožbe: sodba z dne 10. aprila 2008 (Komisija proti Italiji, C-442/06) . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Option for Member States to maintain exemptions with refund of the tax paid at the preceding stage: judgment of 10 April 2008 (Marks & Spencer, C-309/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 2283 — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Taxable persons: judgment of 3 April 2008 (Zweckverband zur Trinkwasserversorgung und Abwasserbeseitigung Torgau-Westelbien, C-442/05) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Presoja veljavnosti – Vpra�anje veljavnosti odločbe Komisije, za katero predložitveno sodi�če meni, da povzroča �kodo – Dopustnost: sodba z dne 15. aprila 2008 (Nuova Agricast, C-390/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Internal taxation — Taxation apt to protect other products indirectly: judgment of 8 April 2008 (Commission v Sweden, C-167/05) . . . . . . . .
– Pristojnost Sodi�ča: sodba z dne 3. aprila 2008 (Militzer & Münch, C-230/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1895
Joined Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06
Združeni zadevi C-14/06 in C-295/06
European Parliament and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities
Evropski parlament in Kraljevina Danska proti Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti
(Directive 2002/95/EC — Electrical and electronic equipment — Restriction of use of certain hazardous substances — Decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) — Commission Decision 2005/717/EC — Exemption of DecaBDE from the prohibition on use — Actions for annulment — Commission’s implementing powers — Infringement of the enabling provision)
„Direktiva 2002/95/ES – Električna in elektronska oprema – Omejevanje uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi – Dekabromodifenil eter (v nadaljevanju: DecaBDE) – Odločba Komisije 2005/717/ES – Izvzetje DecaBDE iz prepovedi uporabe – Ničnostna tožba – Izvedbene pristojnosti Komisije – Kr�itev določbe o pristojnosti“
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 1 April 2008
Sodba Sodi�ča (veliki senat) z dne 1. aprila 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Approximation of laws — Restriction of the use of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment — Directive 2002/95 — Implementing powers conferred by the Council on the Commission — Limits
Približevanje zakonodaj – Omejevanje uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi – Direktiva 2002/95 – Izvedbene pristojnosti, ki jih Svet podeli Komisiji – Meje
(Art. 202, third indent, EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95, Arts 4(1) and 5(1); Commission Decision 2005/717)
(člen 202, tretja alinea, ES, člena 4(1) in 5(1) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/95, Odločba Komisije 2005/717)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-14/06 AND C-295/06
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06
Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court
Ničnostna tožba – Ničnostna sodba – Učinki – Omejitev, ki jo določi Sodišče
(Art. 231, second para., EC; European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95, Arts 4 and 5, and Annex, point 10; Commission Decision 2005/717)
(člen 231, drugi odstavek, ES; Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/95, člena 4 in 5 ter priloga, točka 10, Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2002/95; Odločba Komisije 2005/717/ES)
that directive on certain substances and components, including DecaBDE, in that equipment, and must therefore be interpreted strictly.
in komponent, med njimi DecaBDE, v navedeni opremi od načela prepovedi iz člena 4(1) te iste direktive in se ga mora zato razlagati ozko.
Within the framework of the implementing powers, conferred by the Council on the Commission as provided for in the third indent of Article 202 EC, the limits of which must be determined by reference amongst other things to the essential general aims of the legislation in question, the Commission is authorised to adopt all the measures which are necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the basic legislation, provided that they are not contrary to it.
Komisija lahko v okviru izvedbenih pristojnosti, ki jih Svet podeli Komisiji na podlagi člena 202, tretja alinea, ES, katerih meje so določene zlasti glede na temeljne splo�ne cilje zadevne zakonodaje, sprejme vse potrebne oziroma primerne ukrepe za izvajanje temeljne ureditve, ki niso v nasprotju z njo.
That 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 that Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/95 had not been met and runs counter to the objective pursued by that legislature of establishing the principle of the prohibition of the components referred to in that directive.
Navedena odločba, katere pomen je izenačen s popolnim izvzetjem uporabe DecaBDE v električni in elektronski opremi, je bila sprejeta, ne da bi bili izpolnjeni pogoji, ki jih je zakonodajalec Skupnosti določil v navedenem členu 5(1) Direktive 2002/95, in da nasprotuje zakonodajalčevemu cilju vzpostavitve načela prepovedi komponent, določenih v tej direktivi.
In adopting that decision as regards the exemption of DecaBDE, the Commission thus infringed Article 5(1).
Komisija je s sprejetjem navedene odločbe kr�ila navedeni člen 5(1) v delu, v katerem se ta določba nana�a na izvzetje DecaBDE.
(see paras 52, 53, 56, 71, 76, 78)
(Glej točke 52, 53, 56, 71, 76 in 78.)
Under the second paragraph of Article 231 EC the Court, if it considers it necessary, is to state which of the effects of a regulation which it has declared
Če Sodi�če razglasi uredbo za nično, lahko na podlagi člena 231, drugi odstavek, ES, določi – kadar meni, da je to potrebno – tiste njene učinke, ki jih
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION to technical progress the Annex to that directive nine months before the prohibition on DecaBDE took effect, the Court may, even of its own motion, in order to take account of the interests of the undertakings concerned, maintain the effects of the annulled provision, on grounds of legal certainty, for a strictly necessary adaptation period.
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI začetkom učinkovanja prepovedi dekabromodifenil etra, lahko Sodi�če zaradi upo�tevanja interesov zadevnih podjetji tudi po uradni dolžnosti – iz razlogov pravne varnosti – ohrani v veljavi učinke določbe, razgla�ene za nično, za obdobje, nujno potrebno za prilagoditev.
Such a provision can also be applied to a decision adopted to amend an annex contained in a directive.
Taka določba lahko velja tudi za odločbo, ki je bila sprejeta zaradi spremembe priloge, vsebovane v direktivi.
Account taken of the fact that the dispute has essentially arisen over the manner in which Directive 2002/95 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment was drafted, particularly over the very complex relationship between Articles 4 and 5 of that directive and point 10 in the Annex thereto, and the fact that the Commission adopted Decision 2005/717 amending for the purposes of adapting
Ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da gre v bistvu za spor o tem, kako je bila Direktiva 2002/95 o omejevanju uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi napisana, predvsem glede posebej zapletenega razmerja med njenima členoma 4 in 5 in točko 10 njene priloge, ter dejstva, da je Komisija sprejela odločbo o spremembi priloge k navedeni direktivi zaradi prilagoditve tehničnemu napredkudevet mesecev pred
(see paras 84-86)
(Glej točke od 84 do 86.)
JUDGMENT OF 1. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 1. 4.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-14/06 AND C-295/06
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06
1 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 1. aprila 2008 *
ACTIONS for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 11 January 2006 (C-14/06) and on 9 January 2006 (C-295/06, originally registered at the Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities as Case T-5/06),
V združenih zadevah C-14/06 in C-295/06, katerih predmet sta ničnostni tožbi na podlagi člena 230 ES, vloženi 11. januarja 2006 (C-14/06) in 9. januarja 2006 (C-295/06, prvotno vpisana v vpisnik Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti pod �tevilko T-5/06), v postopku
* Languages of the cases: English and Danish.
* Jezika postopka: angle�čina in dan�čina.
Republic of Finland, represented by A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Republike Finske, ki jo zastopa A. Guimaraes-Purokoski, zastopnica, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu,
JUDGMENT OF 1. 4.
SODBA Z DNE 1. 4. 2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06 proti
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by V. Jackson, acting as Agent, and by J. Maurici, barrister, intervener,
Jackson, zastopnica, skupaj z J. Mauricijem, barrister, intervenientka,
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
Bot, sodni tajnik: H. von Holstein, namestnik sodnega tajnika,
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 December 2007, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 4. decembra 2007, na podlagi sklepa, sprejetega po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca, da bo v zadevi razsojeno brez sklepnih predlogov, izreka naslednjo
By application registered as Case C-14/06 the European Parliament seeks the annulment of Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purposes of adapting to technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2005 L 271, p.
Evropski parlament s tožbo, vpisano pod �tevilko C-14/06, predlaga razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe Komisije 2005/717/ES z dne 13. oktobra 2005 o spremembi Priloge k Direktivi 2002/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o omejevanju uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi zaradi prilagoditve tehničnemu napredku (UL L 271, str.
48) (‘the contested decision’).
48, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana odločba).
By Order of the President of the Court of 10 July 2006, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Parliament, while the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission of the European Communities.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 10. julija 2006 Kraljevini Danski, Portugalski republiki, Republiki Finski, Kraljevini Švedski in Kraljevini Norve�ki dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom Parlamenta, medtem ko je Združenemu kraljestvu Velika Britanija in Severna Irska dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom Komisije Evropskih skupnosti.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 January 2006, registered as Case T-5/06, the Kingdom of Denmark
Kraljevina Danska je s tožbo, vloženo 9. januarja 2006 pri sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, vpisano pod �tevilko T-5/06, prav tako predlagala razglasitev ničnosti
2008 — JOINED CASES C-14/06 AND C-295/06 also sought annulment of the contested decision.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-14/06 IN C-295/06 izpodbijane odločbe.
By Order of 27 June 2006, the Court of First Instance declined jurisdiction under the fourth paragraph of Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and Article 80 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, so that the Court of Justice could rule on the application for annulment.
S sklepom z dne 27. junija 2006 je Sodi�če prve stopnje na podlagi člena 54, četrti odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča in člena 80 Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje zadevo odstopilo Sodi�ču, da odloči o predlogu za razglasitev ničnosti.
The case was registered at the Court of Justice as Case C-295/06.
Zadeva je bila vpisana v vpisnik Sodi�ča pod �tevilko C-295/06.
By Order of the President of the Court of 13 September 2006, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Kingdom of Norway were granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Kingdom of Denmark, while the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 13. septembra 2006 Portugalski republiki, Republiki Finski, Kraljevini Švedski in Kraljevini Norve�ki dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom Kraljevine Danske, medtem ko je Združenemu kraljestvu Velika Britanija in Severna Irska dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom Komisije.
By Order of the President of the Court of 16 November 2006, Cases C-14/06 and C-295/06 were joined for the purposes of the written procedure, to the extent to which it had not yet been completed, and for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 16. novembra 2006 združil zadevi C-14/06 in C-295/06 za pisni postopek, kolikor ta �e ni bil končan, za ustni postopek in sodbo.
The fifth, sixth and eleventh recitals in the preamble to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (OJ 2003 L 37, p.
Peta, �esta in enajsta uvodna izjava Direktive 2002/95/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 27. januarja 2003 o omejevanju uporabe nekaterih nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi (UL L 37, str.
19) state as follows:
19) določajo:
‘(5) The available evidence indicates that measures on the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) as set out in Directive 2002/96/EC of 27 January 2003 of the European Parliament
„(5) Razpoložljivi podatki kažejo, da so pri ravnanju z odpadki glede zmanj�anja težav, povezanih z zadevnimi težkimi kovinami in zadevnimi zaviralci gorenja, potrebni ukrepi o zbiranju, ravnanju, recikliranju in odstranjevanju odpadne
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment [OJ 2003 L 37, p.
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI električne in elektronske opreme (OEEO), ki so določeni v Direktivi 2002/96/ES z dne 27. januarja 2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o odpadni električni in elektronski opremi [UL L 37, str. 24].
In spite of those measures, however, significant parts of WEEE will continue to be found in the current disposal routes.
Kljub tem ukrepom bo �e vedno mogoče najti občutno količino OEEO pri sedanjih načinih odstranjevanja.
Even if WEEE were collected separately and submitted to recycling processes, its content of mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium VI, [polybrominated biphenyls (PBB)] and [polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE)] would be likely to pose risks to health or to the environment.
Tudi če bi OEEO zbirali ločeno in oddali v reciklažo, bi njihova vsebina živega srebra, kadmija, svinca, �estvalentnega kroma, polibromiranih bifenilov (PBB) in polibromiranih difeniletrov (PBDE) verjetno predstavljala tveganja za zdravje ali okolje.
(6) Taking into account technical and economic feasibility, the most effective way of ensuring the significant reduction of risks to health and the environment relating to those substances which can achieve the chosen level of protection in the Community is the substitution of those substances in electrical and electronic equipment by safe or safer materials.
(6) Ob upo�tevanju tehnične in gospodarske izvedljivosti je najučinkovitej�i način za občutno zmanj�anje tveganja za zdravje in okolje zaradi teh snovi, da bi lahko dosegli izbrano raven varstva v Skupnosti, nadomestitev teh snovi v električni in elektronski opremi z varnimi ali varnej�imi materiali.
Restricting the use of these hazardous substances is likely to enhance the possibilities and economic profitability of recycling of WEEE and decrease the negative health impact on workers in re- cycling plants.
Omejevanje uporabe teh nevarnih snovi bo verjetno povečalo možnosti in gospodarsko donosnost recikliranja OEEO in zmanj�alo negativni vpliv na zdravje delavcev v reciklažnih obratih.
(11) Exemptions from the substitution requirement should be permitted if substitution is not possible from the scientific and technical point of view or if the negative environmental or health impacts caused by substitution are likely to outweigh the human and environmental benefits of the substitution.
(11) Izjeme od zahteve za nadomestitev so dovoljene, če nadomestitev ni mogoča iz znanstvenega in tehničnega stali�ča ali če bi verjetno negativni vplivi na okolje ali zdravje, ki bi jih povzročila nadomestitev, prevladali nad prednostmi, ki bi jih imela nadomestitev za človeka in okolje.
Substitution of the hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment should also be carried out in a way so as to be compatible with the health and safety of users of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE).’
Nadomestitev nevarnih snovi v električni in elektronski opremi se izvede tako, da bo združljiva z zdravjem in varnostjo uporabnikov električne in elektronske opreme (EEO).“
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 4 of Directive 2002/95, entitled ‘Prevention’, state:
Člen 4 Direktive 2002/95 z naslovom „Preprečitev“ v odstavkih 1 in 2 določa:
Member States shall ensure that, from 1 July 2006, new electrical and electronic equipment put on the market does not contain lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, [PBB] or [PBDE].
Države članice zagotovijo, da od 1. julija 2006 nova električna in elektronska oprema, ki bo dana v promet, ne bo vsebovala svinca, živega srebra, kadmija, �estvalentnega kroma, [PBB] ali [PBDE].
Paragraph 1 shall not apply to the applications listed in the Annex.’
Odstavek 1 ne velja za uporabe, navedene v Prilogi.“
Paragraph 1 of Article 5, which is entitled ‘Adaptation to scientific and technical progress’, provides:
Člen 5 te direktive z naslovom „Prilagoditev znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku“ v odstavku 1 določa:
Any amendments which are necessary in order to adapt the Annex to scientific and technical progress for the following purposes shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 7(2):
Katere koli spremembe, potrebne za prilagoditev Priloge znanstvenemu in tehničnemu napredku za naslednje namene, se sprejmejo v skladu s postopkom, navedenim v členu 7(2):
(b) exempting materials and components of electrical and electronic equipment from Article 4(1) if their elimination or substitution via design changes
[…] b) izvzeti materiale in komponente električne in elektronske opreme iz člena 4(1), če je tehnično ali znanstveno neizvedljivo, da se jih odstrani ali nadomesti s
PARLIAMENT AND DENMARK v COMMISSION or materials and components which do not require any of the materials or substances referred to therein is technically or scientifically impracticable, or where 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;
PARLAMENT IN DANSKA PROTI KOMISIJI 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;
Article 7 of Directive 2002/95 provides that the Commission is to be assisted by the Committee set up by Article 18 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39).
Člen 7 Direktive 2002/95 določa, da Komisiji pomaga odbor, ustanovljen s členom 18 Direktive Sveta 75/442/EGS z dne 15. julija 1975 o odpadkih (UL L 194, str. 39).
The Annex to Directive 2002/95 is entitled ‘Applications of lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium, which are exempted from the requirements of Article 4(1)’.
Priloga k Direktivi 2002/95 ima naslov „Uporabe svinca, živega srebra, kadmija in �estvalentnega kroma, ki so izvzete iz zahtev člena 4(1).“
Point 10 of that Annex states:
Točka 10 te priloge določa:
‘Within the procedure referred to in Article 7(2), the Commission shall evaluate the applications for:
„V postopku, navedenem v členu 7(2), Komisija oceni uporabo za:
— mercury in straight fluorescent lamps for special purposes,
– živo srebro v paličastih fluorescentnih svetilkah za posebne namene,
— lead in solders for servers, storage and storage array systems, network infrastructure equipment for switching, signalling, transmission as well as network management for telecommunications (with a view to setting a specific timelimit for this exemption), and
– svinec v spajkah za strežnike, pomnilni�kih sistemih in v sistemih pomnilni�kih matrik, opremo omrežne infrastrukture za vklapljanje, signaliziranje, prenos kot tudi za vodenje omrežja pri telekomunikacijah (z namenom, da se postavi posebna časovna omejitev za to izvzetje) in
— light bulbs, as a matter of priority in order to establish as soon as possible whether these items are to be amended accordingly.’
– žarnice, kot prednostno zadevo, da bi čimprej ugotovila, ali je te postavke treba ustrezno spremeniti.“
On 13 October 2005 the Commission adopted the contested decision.
Komisija je 13. oktobra 2005 sprejela izpodbijano odločbo.
It is based on Directive 2002/95 and, in particular, on Article 5(1)(b) thereof.
Ta temelji na Direktivi 2002/95 in predvsem na njenem členu 5(1)(b).
The second, third, fourth, and seventh recitals in the preamble to that decision state as follows:
Druga, četrta in sedma uvodna izjava te odločbe določajo:
‘(2) Certain materials and components containing lead, mercury, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) or polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) should be exempt from the prohibition, since the elimination or substitution of these hazardous substances in those specific materials and components is still impracticable.
„(2) Nekateri materiali in komponente, ki vsebujejo svinec, živo srebro, kadmij, �estvalentni krom, polibromirane bifenile (PBB) ali polibromirane difenil etre (PBDE), so izvzeti iz prepovedi, ker je izločitev ali nadomestitev teh nevarnih snovi v navedenih posebnih materialih in komponentah �e vedno neizvedljiva.