natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the second principal submission, the Kingdom of Spain claims that the Council misused its powers in adopting Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, since the real objective of delimiting the biologically sensitive area was not to protect juvenile hake but to maintain the restrictions already applying to the Spanish fleet in the Irish Box.
Kraljevina Španija v zvezi z drugim očitkom trdi, da je Svet, s tem da je sprejel člen 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, zlorabil pooblastila, ker naj resnični cilj določitve biolo�ko občutljivega območja ne bi bil ohranitev nedoraslih osličev, temveč podalj�anje omejitev, ki so veljale za njeno floto na območju „Irish Box“.
With regard to the first submission, it is objectively justified in my view, in the light of the aim of conserving fisheries resources, to make provision in Regulation No 1954/2003, in respect of all Member States, for a regime restricting the fishing effort on the basis of the effort exerted by each Member State, in the fisheries concerned, during a recent, earlier period between 1998 to 2002. The
V zvezi s prvim očitkom menim, da je glede na cilj zagotavljanja dolgoročnega obstoja ribi�kih staležev objektivno upravičeno, da Uredba �t. 1954/2003 za vse države članice določa režim, ki omejuje ribolovni napor na podlagi ribolovnega napora, opravljenega s strani držav članic v zadevnih vrstah ribolova v nedavnem predhodnem
The Kingdom of Spain argues that, if the objective sought had really been to protect juvenile hake, the same measures as those provided for in Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 should have been applied to other areas of the western waters.
Kraljevina Španija namreč meni, da če bi zasledovani cilj res bila ohranitev nedoraslih osličev, potem bi se tudi za druga območja zahodnih voda morali uporabiti enaki ukrepi, kot so ukrepi iz člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003.
It also maintains that the adoption of this
Poleg tega zatrjuje, da sprejetje te vrste
With regard to the second principal submission, and having regard to the Court’s caselaw, 43I do not think that the adoption of Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 constitutes a misuse of powers on the part of the Council.
V zvezi z drugim očitkom in glede na ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča 43menim, da sprejetje člena 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 ne pomeni zlorabe pooblastil s strani Sveta.
On one hand, the Kingdom of Spain does not show that the specific regime for managing fishing effort which is applied to the biologically sensitive area was adopted mainly for a purpose other than that of promoting the protection of juvenile hake.
Po eni strani Kraljevina Španija ni dokazala, da naj bi bil posebni režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, ki se uporablja za biolo�ko občutljivo območje, primarno sprejet z namenom, da se doseže cilj, ki ni ohranitev nedoraslih osličev.
On the other hand, I consider that neither the fact that technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms may also fall within another regulation nor the fact that there may be other biologically sensitive areas shows that there has been a misuse of powers on the part of the Council.
Po drugi strani menim, da niti okoli�čina, da tehnični ukrepi za za�čito nedoraslih morskih organizmov prav tako lahko spadajo pod drugo uredbo, niti dejstvo, da lahko obstajajo tudi druga biolo�ko občutljiva območja, v tem postopku ne dokazujeta, da je Svet zlorabil pooblastila.
Regarding the biologically sensitive area defined in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1954/2003, it is clear from the documents in the case that that area overlaps with the Irish Box only to a limited extent, since the biologically sensitive area covers less than half of the Irish Box.
V zvezi z biolo�ko občutljivim območjem, ki je opredeljeno v členu 6(1) Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, iz spisa izhaja, da je prekrivanje tega območja z območjem „Irish Box“ omejeno, ker občutljivo biolo�ko območje pokriva manj kot polovico območja „Irish Box“ 42.
Moreover, the method for assessing fishing effort in the biologically sensitive area referred to in that article is based also on an objective criterion — the fishing effort actually exerted by vessels equal to or more than 10 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002 — which seems to me justified in the light of the objective of restricting fishing effort in an area of high concentration of juvenile hake.
Poleg tega metoda ocene ribolovnega napora na biolo�ko občutljivem področju iz tega člena prav tako temelji na objektivnem merilu – in sicer na ribolovnem naporu, ki ga plovila s celotno dolžino 10 metrov ali več v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 dejansko opravijo –, za katerega menim, da je upravičeno glede na cilj omejevanja ribolovnega napora na območju visoke koncentracije nedoraslih osličev.
It follows that the second principal submission put forward by the Kingdom of Spain in support of its plea of illegality should also, in my view, be rejected.
Iz tega sledi, da je po mojem mnenju treba zavrniti tudi drugi očitek, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija v utemeljitev ugovora nezakonitosti.
Consequently, the first principal submission must be dismissed.
I-8763, točka 137).
42 — See charts annexed to the Council rejoinder and the Commission’s statement in intervention in Spain v Council.
V skladu s to sodno prakso „zloraba pooblastil vpliva na akt le, če je na podlagi objektivnih, relevantnih in skladnih dokazov očitno, da je bil akt sprejet z izključnim oziroma vsaj določljivim namenom, da se dosežejo drugi cilji, kot so tisti, na katere se sklicuje, ali da bi se izognilo postopku, ki ga Pogodba posebej določa za obravnavo okoli�čin primera“.
43 — See, in particular, Case C-331/88 Fedesa and Others [1990] ECR I-4023, paragraph 24, and Case C-110/97 Netherlands v Council [2001] ECR I-8763, paragraph 137.
42 – Glej karte, priložene k dupliki Sveta in intervencijski vlogi Komisije v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
It follows from all the foregoing that the present action should be dismissed as unfounded.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je to tožbo treba zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
Since none of the submissions put forward in support of the plea of illegality have been accepted, that plea — the only plea in law on which the application for annulment of Articles 1 to 6 of Regulation No 1415/2004 is based — should be rejected.
Ker nobeden od očitkov v utemeljitev ugovora nezakonitosti ni bil sprejet, je ta ugovor, ki je edini tožbeni razlog v zvezi s predlogom za razglasitev ničnosti členov od 1 do 6 Uredbe �t. 1415/2004, treba zavrniti.
In the light of the above considerations, I suggest that the Court should:
Glede na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, with the Commission of the European Communities bearing its own costs pursuant to Article 69(4) of those rules.’
– Kraljevini Španiji naloži plačilo stro�kov v skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča, Komisija Evropskih skupnosti pa naj nosi svoje stro�ke na podlagi odstavka 4 tega člena.
JUDGMENT OF 15. 5.
SODBA Z DNE 15. 5.
2008 — CASE C-442/04
2008 – ZADEVA C-442/04
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)15 May 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 15. maja 2008 *
In Case C-442/04,
V zadevi C-442/04, zaradi ničnostne tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES, vložene 21. oktobra 2004,
ACTION for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 21 October 2004,
Kraljevina Španija, ki jo zastopata E. Braquehais Conesa in A.
Kingdom of Spain, represented by E. Braquehais Conesa and A. Sampol Pucurull, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, applicant, v
Sampol Pucurull, zastopnika, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, tožeča stranka, proti
SPAIN v COUNCIL supported by
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU ob intervenciji
Commission of the European Communities, represented by T. van Rijn and F. Jimeno Fernández, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, intervener,
Komisije Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopata T. van Rijn in F. Jimeno Fernández, zastopnika, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, intervenientka,
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 31 January 2008, gives the following
Bot, sodni tajnik: R. Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 31. januarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
In its application, the Kingdom of Spain is seeking annulment of Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries (OJ 2004 L 258, p. 1).
Kraljevina Španija s tožbo predlaga razglasitev ničnosti členov od 1 do 6 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1415/2004 z dne 19. julija 2004 o določitvi največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za nekatera ribolovna območja in vrste ribi�tva (UL L 258, str. 1).
Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003
Uredba (ES) št. 1954/2003
Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p.
Člen 4(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 2371/2002 z dne 20. decembra 2002 o ohranjevanju in trajnostnem izkori�čanju ribolovnih virov v okviru skupne ribi�ke politike (UL L 358, str.
59) provides that ‘the Council shall establish Community measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities’.
59) določa, da „Svet sprejme ukrepe Skupnosti za urejanje dostopa do voda in virov in trajnostno zasledovanje ribolovnih aktivnosti“.
Among such measures, Article 4(2)(f) of that regulation mentions measures limiting ‘fishing effort’, that term meaning, for a fishing vessel, the product of its capacity and its activity and, for a group of vessels, the sum of the fishing effort of all vessels in the group.
V skladu s členom 4(2)(f) iste uredbe so med te ukrepe uvr�čeni ukrepi za omejevanje ribolovnega napora, ki je rezultat zmogljivosti in aktivnosti ribi�kega plovila; za skupino plovil pa je to vsota ribolovnega napora vseh plovil v skupini.
SPAIN v COUNCIL certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ 1995 L 71, p.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi območji in viri Skupnosti (UL L 199, str.
5) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2027/95 of 15 June 1995 establishing a system for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources (OJ 1995 L 199, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 149/1999 z dne 19. januarja 1999 (UL L 18, str.
3), and to ensure that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort in the areas involved.
3), prilagodi novemu pravnemu položaju ter zagotovi, da ne pride do povečanja v skupnem obsegu ribolovnega napora v zadevnih območjih.
Article 3 of Regulation No 1954/2003, entitled ‘Measures concerning the catching of demersal species and certain molluscs and crustaceans’, provides as follows:
Člen 3 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 z naslovom „Ukrepi v zvezi z lovljenjem pridnenih vrst ter nekaterih mehkužcev in rakov“ določa:
(a) assess the levels of fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or more than 15 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002, in each of the ICES areas and CECAF divisions referred to in Article 1 for demersal fisheries, excluding demersal fisheries, those covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks and fisheries for scallops, edible crab and spider crab, as laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.
(a) ocenijo obseg ribolovnega napora plovil, ki imajo celotno dolžino 15 metrov ali več, v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 v vsakem od območij ICES in razdelkov CECAF iz člena 1 v zvezi z ribi�tvom pridnenih vrst, razen ribi�tva pridnenih vrst, zajetega v Uredbi Sveta (ES) �t. 2347/2002 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o posebnih zahtevah za dostop in pogojih, povezanih s tem, ki veljajo za ribolov globokomorskih staležev, in v zvezi z ribi�tvom […] pokrovač, velikih rakovic in morskih pajkov, kakor je določeno v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
(b) allocate the level of fishing effort assessed conforming to [point] (a) in each ICES area or CECAF division, with regard to each of the fisheries mentioned in [point] (a).
(b) razporedijo obseg ribolovnega napora, ocenjen v skladu s pododstavkom (a), v vsakem območju ICES ali razdelku CECAF glede na vsako od vrst ribi�tva, navedenih v pododstavku (a).
According to Article 4 of Regulation No 1954/2003:
Člen 4 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 določa:
The fishing effort of fishing vessels equal to or less than 15 metres in length overall shall be assessed globally for each fishery and area or division referred to in Article 3(1) during the period 1998 to 2002.
Ribolovni napor ribi�kih plovil celotne dolžine 15 metrov ali manj se oceni globalno za vsako vrsto ribi�tva ter območje ali razdelek iz člena 3(1) v obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002.
The fishing effort of fishing vessels equal to or less than 10 metres in length overall shall be assessed globally for each fishery and area or division referred to in Article 6(1) during the period 1998 to 2002.
Ribolovni napor ribi�kih plovil celotne dolžine 10 metrov ali manj se oceni globalno za vsako vrsto ribi�tva ter območje ali razdelek iz člena 6(1) v obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002.
Member States shall ensure that the fishing effort of these vessels is limited to the level of fishing effort assessed conforming to paragraphs 1 and 2.’
Države članice zagotovijo, da je ribolovni napor teh plovil omejen na obseg ribolovnega napora, ocenjen v skladu z odstavkoma 1 in 2.“
Moreover, Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 establishes a specific effort regime applicable to a biologically sensitive area off the Irish coast in which ‘Member States shall assess the levels of fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or more than 10 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002, for demersal fisheries, excluding those covered by Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002, and fisheries for scallops, edible crab and spider crab, and allocate the level of fishing effort thus assessed for each of those fisheries.’
Člen 6 Uredbe 1954/2003 poleg tega določa poseben režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora za biolo�ko občutljivo območje, ki ga omejuje obala Irske, za katero „države članice ocenijo obseg ribolovnega napora plovil celotne dolžine 10 metrov ali več […] v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 v zvezi z ribolovom pridnenih vrst, razen tistega, zajetega v Uredbi (ES) �t. 2347/2002, in v zvezi z lovljenjem pokrovač, velikih rakovic in morskih pajkov ter razporedijo obseg ribolovnega napora, ocenjenega na ta način, glede na vsako od teh vrst ribi�tva.“
Finally, Article 11(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1954/2003 provides that, on the basis of the information to be communicated to the Commission by the Member States, the Commission is to submit to the Council a proposal for a Regulation fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for each area and fishery
Nazadnje, člen 11(1) in (2) Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 določa, da Komisija Evropskih skupnosti na podlagi podatkov, ki jih je prejela od držav članic, predloži Svetu Evropske unije predlog za uredbo o določitvi največje dovoljene letne količine
SPAIN v COUNCIL defined in Articles 3 and 6 and that the Council, acting by qualified majority on the proposal from the Commission, is to decide on that effort.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU ribolovnega napora za vsako državo članico ter za vsako območje in vrsto ribi�tva, navedene v členih 3 in 6, Svet pa s kvalificirano večino odloči o predlogu Komisije glede te količine.
In implementation of that provision, the Council adopted Regulation No 1415/2004.
Svet je na podlagi te določbe sprejel Uredbo �t. 1415/2004.
Regulation No 1415/2004
Uredba št. 1415/2004
Regulation No 1415/2004 is drafted in the following terms:
Uredba �t. 1415/2004 določa:
This Regulation sets the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for each area and fishery defined in Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003.
Ta uredba določa največjo dovoljeno letno količino ribolovnega napora za vsako državo članico ter za vsako območje in vrsto ribi�tva, navedeno v členih 3 in 6 Uredbe (ES) �t. 1954/2003.
The maximum levels of annual fishing effort by group of species, area and fishery, and by Member State, for the areas referred to in Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.
Največji dovoljeni obseg ribolovnega napora glede na skupino vrste, območje in vrsto ribi�tva ter glede na državo članico za območja iz člena 3(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe (ES) �t. 1954/2003, je podan v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
The maximum levels of annual fishing effort by group of species, area and fishery, and by Member State, for the area referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
Največji dovoljeni obseg ribolovnega napora glede na skupino vrste, območje in vrsto ribi�tva ter glede na državo članico za območje iz člena 6(1) Uredbe (ES) �t. 1954/2003, je podan v Prilogi II k tej uredbi.
Each Member State shall ensure that the utilisation of fishing effort allocations by area, as defined in Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003, will not result in more time spent fishing by comparison to fishing effort levels exerted during the reference period.
Vsaka država članica zagotovi, da uporaba dodeljenih količin ribolovnega napora glede na območje, opredeljeno v členih 3 in 6 Uredbe (ES) �t. 1954/2003, ne bo povzročila dalj�ega časa ribolova v primerjavi z obsegom ribolovnega napora v referenčnem obdobju.
Each Member State shall ensure that the method used to record fishing effort is the same as the one used in assessing the levels of fishing effort according to Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation (EC) No 1954/2003.
Vsaka država članica zagotovi, da je metoda evidentiranja ribolovnega napora enaka metodi za ocenjevanje obsega ribolovnega napora v skladu s členi 3 in 6 Uredbe (ES) �t. 1954/2003.
This Regulation shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske [u]nije.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’
Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
Procedure and form of order sought
Postopek in predlogi strank
Since the Kingdom of Spain brought an action on 29 January 2004, registered as Case C-36/04, for annulment of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, it was
Potem ko je Kraljevina Španija 29. januarja 2004 vložila tožbo, ki je bila vpisana pod opravilno �tevilko C-36/04 in s katero je bila predlagana razglasitev ničnosti členov 3,
2008 — CASE C-442/04 decided on 2 March 2005 to stay proceedings in the present case until judgment had been delivered in that action.
4 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, je bila 2. marca 2005 sprejeta odločitev, da se postopek v tej zadevi prekine do razglasitve sodbe v zvezi z navedeno tožbo.
The Council and the Commission contend that the Court should dismiss the action and order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
Svet in Komisija sta predlagala, naj se tožba zavrne in naj se Kraljevini Španiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The Council contends that the Kingdom of Spain’s plea of illegality concerning Regulation No 1954/2003 is inadmissible since, on the one hand, it was raised out of time — that is, in the reply rather than in the application — and, on the other, the
Svet meni, da je ugovor nezakonitosti Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, nedopusten, ker naj bi se nanj po eni strani sklicevala prepozno,
Member State cannot in any event challenge the validity of that regulation after the expiry of the timelimit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU in sicer �ele v fazi replike, ne pa v tožbi, po drugi strani pa ker naj država članica ne bi mogla v nobenem primeru izpodbijati veljavnosti navedene uredbe po izteku roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES.
It argues, first, that Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure prohibits the introduction of new pleas in law in the course of proceedings and that the dismissal of the Kingdom of Spain’s action in Spain v Council, cited above, cannot be regarded as a new fact for the purposes of that provision.
Svet po eni strani zatrjuje, da člen 42(2) Poslovnika prepoveduje navajanje novih tožbenih razlogov med postopkom in da zavrženja tožbe, ki jo je vložila Kraljevina Španija v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu, ni mogoče �teti za novo dejstvo v smislu te določbe.
The Council points out, secondly, that if a Member State were permitted to challenge the validity of a Community regulation after the expiry of the timelimit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC by raising a plea of illegality each time an institution adopts a measure implementing that regulation, it would be possible to challenge indefinitely Community measures producing legal effects, which would be contrary to the purpose of the timelimits for bringing actions, which is to ensure legal certainty.
Svet po eni strani trdi, da če bi država članica lahko izpodbijala uredbo Skupnosti po izteku roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES, tako da bi se sklicevala na ugovor nezakonitosti vsakič, ko bi institucija sprejela izvedbeni akt te uredbe, bi to omogočilo neskončno izpodbijanje aktov Skupnosti, ki imajo pravne učinke, kar bi bilo v nasprotju z namenom rokov za vložitve tožb, to je z zagotavljanjem pravne varnosti. Čeprav je Kraljevina Španija tožbo zoper Uredbo �t.
2008 — CASE C-442/04
2008 – ZADEVA C-442/04 členi 3, 4 in 6 Uredbe �t.
No 1415/2004 but against Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, since none of the pleas put forward mention Regulation No 1415/2004 specifically or directly.
1954/2003, saj naj noben tožbeni razlog ne bi posebej ali neposredno navajal Uredbe �t. 1415/2004.
In short, by continuing the present procedure after the delivery of judgment in Spain v Council, the Kingdom of Spain is seeking to avoid the consequences of that judgment.
Kraljevina Španija naj bi se hotela s tem, da predlaga nadaljevanje tega postopka po razglasitvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Španija proti Svetu, izogniti učinkom navedene sodbe.
Since its application was dismissed in the latter case, the present case is ‘without purpose’.
Ker je bila z navedeno sodbo njena tožba zavržena, naj bi bila ta tožba „brezpredmetna“.
In addition, in the Commission’s view, the applicant cannot raise a plea of illegality in regard to a measure in respect of which it could have brought an action for annulment.
Komisija poleg tega meni, da se tožeča stranka ne more sklicevati na ugovor nezakonitosti akta, zoper katerega bi lahko vložila ničnostno tožbo.
Moreover, that plea, which does not raise a question of public policy, should have been expressly put forward at the stage of the application.
Na ta ugovor, ki prav tako ne pomeni vpra�anja javnega reda, naj bi se bilo treba eksplicitno sklicevati v tožbi.
It was raised out of time and constitutes the introduction of a new plea in law and an amendment of the initial application, contrary to Article 42 of the Rules of Procedure.
Ta ugovor naj bi bil podan po izteku roka in naj bi pomenil nov tožbeni razlog ter spremembo prvotnega predloga, kar naj bi bilo v nasprotju s členom 42 Poslovnika.
For all of those reasons, the Commission considers that the present action should be dismissed without there being any need to examine the substance of the case.
Komisija zaradi vsega navedenega meni, da bi bilo treba to tožbo zavreči, ne da bi bilo treba presojati utemeljenost zadeve.