natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The transport of lorries by ferry, while it has certain peculiarities, is still classifiable as transport by sea and this is confirmed both by the fact that point 7(b) speaks of ‘transport by sea’ in the case of transport by ferry and, above all, by the fact that in Chapter I 26 of the annex to the directive in question the legislature, in laying down rules on means of transport, included this type of ferry among means of transport by water 9and specifically provided in point (b) that in the case of this type of transport: ‘(i) the animals’ compartment shall be properly fixed to the vehicle; the vehicle and the animals’ compartment shall be secured fast to the ship.
Kajti prevoz tovornjakov na trajektih, čeprav ima določene posebnosti, se �e vedno uvr�ča med prevoze po morju in to potrjuje okoli�čina, da točka (b) pri prevozu s trajekti govori o „prevozu po morju“, poleg tega ter zlasti dejstvo, da je zakonodajalec v točki 26 Poglavja I Priloge k Direktivi, ki je predmet presoje, pri urejanju prevoznih sredstev vključil te trajekte v skupino pomorskih prevoznih sredstev 9in da je v točki (b) za ta prevoz natančno predvidel: „(i) prostori za živali so ustrezno pritrjeni na vozilo; vozilo in prostor za živali sta opremljena z ustreznimi pripravami za privezovanje, s katerimi jih je mogoče pritrditi na ladjo.
On a covered deck of a roll-on/roll-off vessel, sufficient ventilation for the number of vehicles transported must be maintained.
Na pokritem krovu ‚ro-ro‘ plovil je treba vzdrževati zadostno prezračevanje glede na �tevilo vozil, ki se prevažajo.
Where possible, a vehicle for the transport of animals should be placed near a fresh air inlet; (ii) the animals’ compartment shall have a sufficient number of vents or other means of ensuring that it is adequately ventilated, bearing in mind that the air flow is restricted in the confined space of a ship’s vehicle hold.
Po možnosti je treba vozilo, ki prevaža živali, postaviti v bližino dotoka svežega zraka; (ii) prostor za živali ima dovolj odprtin ali drugih možnosti, ki zagotavljajo ustrezno prezračevanje, ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da je dotok zraka v zaprtem prostoru ladijskega skladi�ča vozil omejen.
There must be sufficient room inside the animals’ compartment and at each of its levels to ensure that there is adequate ventilation above the animals where they are in a naturally standing pos -ition; (iii) direct access must be provided to each part of the animals’ compartment so that the animals can, if necessary, be cared for, fed and watered during the voyage’ (conditions which the order for reference suggests may have been complied with in the present case, inasmuch as it states on page 15 of the original text that the vehicles in which the animals were loaded
V prostoru za živali mora biti dovolj prostora in prav tako na vsakem njenem nivoju, da se nad živalmi zagotovi ustrezno prezračevanje, tudi kadar so v običajnem stoječem položaju; (iii) do vsakega dela prostora za živali mora biti zagotovljen neposreden dostop, da se živali med potjo po potrebi lahko oskrbijo, nakrmijo in napojijo“ (predložitvena odločba kaže na to, da so bili ti pogoji v obravnavanem primeru spo�tovani, ker na str. 15 svojega izvirnika potrjuje, da je vozilo, na katerem so bile živali natovorjene,
8 — On the principle of territoriality, see Joined Cases 89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 and 125/85 to 129/85, Ahlström Osakeyhtiö v Commission [1988] ECR 5193, paragraph 18.
8 – Glede načela teritorialnosti glej sodbo z dne 27. septembra 1988 v združenih zadevah Ahlström Osakeyhtiö proti Komisiji (89/85, 104/85, 114/85, 116/85, 117/85 in od 125 do 129/85, Recueil, str. 5193, točka 18).
See also Case C-286/90 Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp. [1992] ECR I-6019.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 24. novembra 1992 v zadevi Poulsen in Diva Navigation Corp. (C-286/90, Recueil, str. I-6019).
B — The second question met the ‘additional conditions’ laid down in Chapter VII 48 point 3 of the annex to Directive 91/628).
B – Drugo vprašanje izpolnjevalo „dodatne pogoje“, navedene v točki 48(3) Priloge k Direktivi 91/628).
On the basis of the answer to the first question given above, there is no need to answer the second question referred to the Court by which the national court seeks to ascertain the detailed rules for the application of Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to the directive to transport by sea by roll-on/roll-off ferry to an extraCommunity destination.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega odgovora na prvo vpra�anje ne bi bilo treba odgovoriti na drugo od vpra�anj, ki so bila predložena Sodi�ču, s katerim nacionalno sodi�če prosi, naj pojasni uporabo točke 48(7)(b) Priloge k Direktivi pri prevozu po morju na trajektih v kraj zunaj Skupnosti.
The absence of a gap in the rules also corroborates the solution I propose inasmuch as the very existence of rules applicable to cases such as the present one ensures that the objective of protecting the animals transported is achieved and therefore, contrary to what the Belgian Government maintains, prevents the reference to compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/628 made by Article 1 of Regulation No 625/98 from being rendered ineffective. 10
Poleg tega neobstoj pravne praznine v ureditvi potrjuje re�itev, ki sem jo nakazal, ker sam obstoj ureditve, ki se uporablja v primeru, kakr�en je zadnjenavedeni, zagotavlja doseg cilja za�čite živali, ki se prevažajo, in zato preprečuje, da se ogrozi, v nasprotju s trditvami belgijske vlade, polni učinek napotila iz člena 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 glede spo�tovanja določb Direktive 91/628. 10
I shall nevertheless examine that question in case the Court considers that the abovementioned Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) is applicable to extraCommunity transport by sea by ferry.
Kljub temu bom opravil presojo navedenega vpra�anja, če bo Sodi�če �telo, da se zgoraj navedena točka 48(7)(b) uporablja za prevoze po morju zunaj Skupnosti, ki se opravijo s trajekti.
In particular, the national court wants to know whether, under Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) and point 4(d), to which that provision refers, in a journey of 29 hours by roll-on/roll-off ferry there must be a rest period of 1 hour after the first 14 hours of travel.
Nacionalno sodi�če zlasti spra�uje za pojasnilo, ali je treba v skladu s točko 48(7)(b) in točko 4(d), na katero ta napotuje, pri več kot 29-urni plovbi s trajektom upo�tevati enourni odmor po prvih �tirinajstih urah prevoza.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court reply to the first question raised by the referring court to the effect that the specific provisions of Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628 which refer exclusively to transport by ferry on a regular link between two points of the Community cannot apply analogously to the transport of animals by roll-on/roll-off ferry to a third country.
Na podlagi zgornjih ugotovitev predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na prvo od vpra�anj, ki jih je zastavilo predložitveno sodi�če, odgovori tako, da se za prevoze živali na ro-ro trajektih v tretje države ne morejo uporabljati po analogiji posebne določbe točke 48(7)(b) Priloge k Direktivi 91/628, ki se nana�ajo samo na prevoze na trajektih na redni liniji med dvema točkama v Skupnosti.
Apart from the practical difficulties a ferry would encounter in complying with the obligation to dock at or near a port in order to give the animals a rest period, in interpreting the rules in question the purpose of those rules must also be taken into account and, in particular, the principal function of the rest period of at least one hour prescribed in Chapter VII 48 point 4 of the annex to the directive, referred to in point 7 of that chapter, and the consequent absence of any real need for such a rest period in the context of transport by sea by ferry.
Tako je treba pri razlagi obravnavane ureditve, poleg dejanskih težav, s katerimi bi se soočal trajekt, če bi se moral ustaviti v pristani�ču ali v njegovi bližini, da se živalim zagotovi počitek, upo�tevati tudi cilje, ki si jih ta zastavlja in zlasti bistveno vlogo najmanj enournega trajanja počitka, ki ga predvideva točka 48(4) Priloge k Direktivi in na katerega napotuje točka (7) tega poglavja, in posledično odsotnost dejanske potrebe po tem času počitka v okviru prevoza po morju na trajektih.
C — The third question
C – Tretje vprašanje
The description of the transport in question, given in paragraph 26 above, as transport by sea means that, as no specific provision is made for that type of transport, the general provisions on transport by sea laid down in the annex to Directive 91/628 apply.
Opredelitev zadevnega prevoza kot pomorskega prevoza, navedena v točki 26 zgoraj, pomeni, da se zato, ker ni posebnih določb za tako vrsto prevoza, uporabljajo splo�ne določbe Priloge k Direktivi 91/628 v zvezi s prevozom po morju.
It should be noted that the purpose of the rest period in question of at least one hour is in fact to enable the transporter to give the animals the necessary care in terms of hygiene, food and water.
Opozoriti je namreč treba, da je cilj zadevnega najmanj enournega odmora omogočiti prevozniku, da nudi potrebno oskrbo živalim zaradi higiene, krme in napajanja.
However, while it is clear that the vehicle has to stop for these operations in the case of transport by road, this does not apply in the case of transport by ferry where, as indicated in paragraph 26 above, the animals can and must be fed and watered during transport.
Torej, če je očitno, da je treba za izvedbo takih ukrepov pri prevozu po cesti ustaviti vozilo, to ne velja za prevoz na trajektu, pri katerem, kot je bilo prej navedeno v točki 26, so lahko in morajo biti živali krmljene in napojene tudi med prevozom.
Moreover, in the case of transport by ferry, although the animals are in a lorry it is to be supposed that they are not subjected to the shaking and jolting associated with transport by road and that, in this respect, they are therefore travelling under better conditions, conditions such as to render the rest period of one hour superfluous.
Poleg tega živali pri trajektnem prevozu, čeprav so na tovornjakih, domnevno ne doživljajo sunkov in premetavanja, značilnih za prevoz po cesti, in posledično tudi s tega vidika potujejo v bolj�ih pogojih, kar odpravlja potrebo po obravnavanem enournem času počitka.
In the event of the Court not agreeing with the answer to the first question suggested above, I propose that it reply to
Če se Sodi�če ne bo strinjalo z zgornjim odgovorom na prvo vpra�anje, predlagam, naj odgovori na drugo vpra�anje tako, da se
It follows, first, that it is necessary to establish whether Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628, under which ‘in the case of transport by sea on a regular and direct link between two geographical points of the Community by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals, the latter must be rested for 12 hours after unloading at the port of destination or in its immediate vicinity unless the journey time at sea is such that the voyage can be included in the general scheme of points 2 to 4’ should have applied in the present case.
Iz tega najprej sledi, da je treba pojasniti, ali je bilo treba v obravnavanem primeru uporabiti točko 48(7)(b) Priloge k Direktivi 91/628, v skladu s katero „pri prevozu po morju na redni liniji med dvema različnima geografskima točkama v Skupnosti z vozili, natovorjenimi na plovila, brez iztovarjanja živali, morajo te imeti 12 ur počitka po iztovarjanju v namembnem pristani�ču ali v njegovi neposredni bližini, razen če se čas na poti po morju lahko vključi v splo�no shemo točk (2), (3) in (4)“.
It certainly does not appear from the documents in the case that the journey time by sea was not entered in the route plan which, in accordance with the second indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Dir -ective 91/628, the staff in charge of the transport are required to have ‘certified, after checking, by the competent authority of the authorised crossing point or of the point of exit designated by a Member State … after the animals have been checked and judged by the official veterinarian to be fit to continue their journey’.
Iz spisa nikjer ne izhaja, da čas prevoza po morju ni bil vključen v načrt poti, ki ga mora osebje, odgovorno za prevoz, v skladu z drugo alineo člena 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 „potrditi […] pristojnemu organu na poobla�čenem mejnem prehodu ali na izstopni točki, ki ga določi država članica, potem ko uradni veterinar pregleda živali in presodi, da so v primernem zdravstvenem stanju za nadaljevanje poti“.
immediately 11in three circumstances: first, where the transport by sea by ferry is part of the general plan for the journey contained in the abovementioned route plan; then where, as in the present case according to the statement contained on page 15 of the original text of the order for reference, the ferry meets the conditions laid down in point 3; and lastly where the measures expressly provided for in Chapter I 26(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the annex to Directive 91/628 and set out in paragraph 26 above have been taken (which, as indicated, cannot be excluded, since the ferry meets the conditions laid down in the abovementioned point 3).
cesti 11, če so izpolnjeni trije pogoji: prvič, da je prevoz po morju, ki se opravi s trajektom, del splo�nega načrta poti, vsebovanega v navedenem načrtu poti; drugič – kot v obravnavanem primeru izhaja iz izvirnika predložitvene odločbe na str. 15 –, da trajekt izpolnjuje pogoje iz člena 3, in, tretjič, da so bili sprejeti ukrepi, ki jih izrecno predvideva Poglavje I, točka 26(b)(i), (ii) in (iii), Priloge k Direktivi 91/628, ki so bili navedeni v točki 26 zgoraj (česar ni mogoče izključiti, ker, kot je bilo navedeno, trajekt izpolnjuje pogoje, predvidene v navedenem členu 3).
On the basis of this approach, the necessity of the said rest period can be specifically precluded if, in addition to the information already given in the order for reference, information on the other two points mentioned in the preceding paragraph can also be obtained.
Na podlagi tega razlagalnega pristopa bo mogoča dejanska izključitev potrebe po navedenem času počitka, če bo mogoče pridobiti, poleg podatka, ki ga že potrjuje predložitvena odločba, druga dva podatka, navedena v prej�nji točki.
It is therefore reasonable to suppose that Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628 does not apply in the present case but only point 7(a) of that provision, under which ‘animals must not be transported by sea if the maximum journey time exceeds’ eight hours, ‘unless the conditions laid down in points 3 and 4, apart from journey times and rest periods, are met’.
Zato je mogoče upravičeno �teti, da se v obravnavanem primeru ne uporablja točka 48(7)(b) Priloge k Direktivi 91/628, ampak samo njena točka (a), v skladu s katero se „živali […] ne smejo prevažati po morju, če čas na poti presega“ osem ur, „razen če so izpolnjeni pogoji, določeni v točkah (3) in (4), z izjemo časa na poti in časa počitkov“.
However, the order for reference expresses some doubt as to whether such an approach can be adopted in the present case, despite the fact that it concerns the transport of animals to a third country and
Vendar so v predložitveni odločbi izraženi dvomi glede možnosti sledenja temu pristopu v obravnavanem primeru, čeprav se ta nana�a na prevoz živali v tretjo državo in prevoz s trajektom, ki je trajal 41
11 — On the contrary, in the case of transport by ferry between the ports of two Member States, the rest period of 12 hours cannot be precluded a priori since, even if that rest period requires cooperation with the authorities of the port of arrival, that cooperation, which is not obligatory for the authorities of third countries, is obligatory for the authorities of Member States.
11 – Nasprotno, če prevoz, ki se opravi s trajektom, poveže pristani�či dveh držav članic, ni mogoče a priori izključiti 12-urnega časa počitka, ker čeprav ta čas počitka zahteva sodelovanje organov namembnega pristani�ča, to sodelovanje, ki ne obvezuje organov tretje države, zavezuje organe držav članic.
That is why, when transport by sea by those means exceeds the journey time laid down in Chapter VII 48 point 7(b), bovine animals must be rested for that period on arrival at the port of a Member State.
Zato, kadar prevoz po morju na tem sredstvu preseže trajanje, predvideno v točki 48(7)(b), bo treba ob prihodu v pristani�če države članice govedu zagotoviti ta čas počitka.
Conversely, where the period of transport does not exceed that time, in principle bovine animals need not be rested and transport may begin again immediately.
Sicer, kadar čas prevoza ne preseže navede -nega trajanja, ga govedu načeloma ne bo treba zagotoviti in prevoz se bo lahko nadaljeval takoj.
In the case of transport by ferry between the port of a Member State and the port of a third country, the application of Chapter VII 48 point 7(b), at least on an interpretation based on the definition established in paragraph 26 above, must inevitably mean that a rest period of 12 hours after the animals transported by ferry arrive at the port of destination is precluded and a further period of 28 hours of transport by road may begin
Posledica uporabe Poglavja VII, točka 48(7)(b), pri prevozu, opravljenem s tra -jektom med pristani�čem države članice in pristani�čem tretje države, v vsakem primeru na podlagi njegove razlage, ki temelji na njegovem besedilu in na podlagi tega, kar je bilo pojasnjeno v točki 26, ne biti izključitev 12-urnega časa počitka po prihodu živali, ki se prevažajo na trajektu v namembno pristani�če in možnosti takoj�njega začetka nadaljnjega 28-urnega trajanja prevoza po
12According to the referring court, that argument is untenable in that ‘rest period’ is defined in Article 2(2)(h) of Dir -ective 91/628 as ‘a continuous period in the course of a journey during which animals are not being moved by a means of transport’.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča take trditve ne bi bilo mogoče podpreti, ker je „čas počitka“ v členu 2(2)(h) Direktive 91/628 opredeljen kot „neprekinjen čas med potjo, ko se živali ne prevažajo s prevoznim sredstvom“.
In order to do so, attention should be paid to (a) the referring court’s objection to the line of argument upheld by the Finanzgericht Hamburg in a decision delivered on 2 February 2006 which adopted that approach, and (b) to the idea, mentioned earlier, that in the case of transport between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point situated in a third country, transport such as the transport in question might not, in theory, be subject to any time-limit.
V ta namen je treba upo�tevati: (a) oporekanje predložitvenega sodi�ča trditvam, ki jih je navajal Finanzgericht Hamburg v sodbi z dne 2. februarja 2006, ki bi sledila navedenemu pristopu, in (b) navedeno stali�če, v skladu s katerim bi se tak prevoz kot v obravnavanem primeru lahko pri prevozu med geografsko točko v Skupnosti in geografsko točko v tretji državi teoretično izognil kateri koli časovni omejitvi.
This complaint may not be decisive because, while the Finanzgericht Hamburg classified the period of transport of animals in vehicles loaded onto a ferry as a ‘rest period’, it may well have thought it was classifying as such the period relating to the transport of animals loaded directly onto vessels properly designed for their transport (a period that is certainly not to be counted in the journey time of transport first by sea and then by land).
Ta očitek ne more biti odločilen, ker če je Finanzgericht Hamburg „čas počitka“ opredelilo kot čas prevoza živali na vozilih, natovorjenih na trajekt, je mogoče �teti, da bi kot takega opredelil tudi čas prevoza živali, natovorjenih neposredno na plovila, ki so ustrezno opremljena za njihov prevoz (trajanja tega časa ni mogoče izračunati pri prevozu, ki se najprej opravi po morju in potem po kopnem).
It must therefore be held that, while it used the expression in question, what it had meant to say was that the period of the former type of transport, as it had said when it classified it in the same way as the period relating to the latter type of transport, should be considered, in respect of its relevance, as equivalent to a rest period.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da če je uporabilo zadevni izraz, je z njim nameravalo poudariti, da je treba čas prve vrste prevoza, kot bi enako ugotovilo glede časa druge vrste prevoza, �teti, z vidika njegovega pomena, za primerljivega s časom počitka.
That is what the Commission did in its observations before the Court when it said that transport of vehicles loaded onto ferries cannot be regarded either as transport or as a rest period within the meaning of the definitions in Directive 91/628.
To je storila Komisija v pripombah pred Sodi�čem, ko je poudarila, da prevoza vozil, natovorjenih na trajekte, v skladu z opredelitvijo iz Direktive 91/628 ni mogoče �teti niti za prevoz niti za čas počitka.
12 — In taking that position — according to the order for reference — the Finanzgericht Hamburg opposed the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, which held in a decision of 30 June 2005 that an exception to the 12-hour rest period rule could be made only if the transport by ferry did not exceed 14 hours.
12 – S tem da je Finanzgericht Hamburg sprejelo to stali�če – pojasnjuje predložitvena odločba –, se je zoperstavilo dunajskemu Verwaltungsgerichtshof, ki je s sodbo z dne 30. junija 2005 poudarilo, da bi bila izjema od pravila 12-urnega počitka mogoča le, če prevoz na trajektu ne bi presegel 14 ur.
As to the line of argument contested by the referring court, it consists of the view that ‘the phase of transport of animals by ferry is undoubtedly to be assigned to the
Trditev, ki ji oporeka predložitveno sodi�če, naj bi temeljila na tem, da je „čas prevoza živali na trajektu […] nedvomno
SCHWANINGER after which there must be a rest period of at least 1 hour.
SCHWANINGER le 14 ur, po preteku tega časa pa bo treba zagotoviti najmanj enourni počitek.
As to the idea that, in the case of transport between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point situated in a third country, transport such as the transport in question might not, in theory, be subject to any time-limit, its first source of weakness is immediately apparent from the fact that the referring court contradicts itself by asking the Court to determine whether, in cases where the period of transport on vehicles loaded onto ferries is immaterial, a further period of 28 hours of transport by road begins immediately after unloading the lorry at a port in a third country (which clearly indicates an admission that there is a timelimit on transport, even transport by road in a third country).
Pri trditvi, v skladu s katero bi se lahko tak prevoz kot v obravnavanem primeru med geografsko točko v Skupnosti in geografsko točko v tretji državi teoretično izognil kateri koli časovni omejitvi, je mogoče takoj pomanjkljivost v tem, da to predložitveno sodi�če prihaja v nasprotje s samim seboj, ko Sodi�ču zastavlja problem, naj pojasni, ali v primeru, da ni upo�teven čas prevoza na vozilih, natovorjenih na trajektne ladje, se po iztovarjanju tovornjaka v pristani�ču tretje države začne takoj nadaljnji 28-urni čas prevoza po cesti (kar očitno pomeni priznavanje obstoja omejitve trajanja prevoza, tudi kadar se opravi po kopnem v tretji državi).