natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Paragraph 1 of the EigZulG provides that persons liable to unlimited taxation of income for the purpose of the EStG are entitled to that property subsidy.
Člen 1 EigZulG določa, da imajo osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo nem�ke dohodnine v smislu EStG, pravico do subvencije za stanovanja.
By virtue of the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG, that subsidy is granted for the construction or purchase of a dwelling in an owneroccupied house in Germany or of an owneroccupied dwelling in Germany.
Na podlagi člena 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG se ta subvencija dodeli za gradnjo ali nakup stanovanja v lastni�ki hi�i na nem�kem ozemlju ali lastni�kega stanovanja na nem�kem ozemlju.
According to Paragraph 4 of that law, the right to the subsidy may be acquired only in calendar years in which the beneficiary uses the dwelling for his own occupation.
V skladu s členom 4 tega zakona obstaja pravica do subvencije za stanovanja le v koledarskih letih, v katerih oseba uporablja to stanovanje za svoje prebivanje.
Occupation of the dwelling free of charge by a member of the beneficiary’s family also enables the grant of the subsidy.
Neodplačno prebivanje družinskega člana v subvencioniranem stanovanju prav tako omogoča dodelitev te subvencije.
By letter of formal notice of 4 April 2000, the Commission informed the Federal Republic of Germany of its doubts as to the compatibility of the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG with Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti je v pisnem opominu z dne 4. aprila 2000 Zvezno republiko Nemčijo obvestila o dvomih glede skladnosti člena 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG s členi 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
The Federal Republic of Germany answered that letter of formal notice by letter of 30 May 2000.
Zvezna republika Nemčija je na ta pisni opomin odgovorila v dopisu z dne 30. maja 2000.
On 16 December 2003 the Commission sent to the Federal Republic of Germany a reasoned opinion inviting it to take the measures necessary to comply therewith within a period of two months of its receipt.
Komisija je 16. decembra 2003 na Zvezno republiko Nemčijo naslovila obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem jo je pozvala, naj v dveh mesecih od njegovega prejetja sprejme ukrepe, ki so potrebni za uskladitev z njim.
Not being satisfied with the German authorities’ reply to that opinion, contained in a letter of 17 February 2004, the Commission decided to bring the present action.
Ker Komisije odgovor nem�kih organov na to mnenje v dopisu z dne 17. februarja 2004 ni zadovoljil, je vložila to tožbo.
The action
Tožba
The Federal Republic of Germany argues that the action is in part inadmissible on the ground that the Commission in its letter before action, by the use of the words ‘German taxpayer’, referred only to persons of German nationality liable to income tax.
Zvezna republika Nemčija zatrjuje, da tožba delno ni dopustna, ker je Komisija v svojem pisnem opominu z uporabo izraza „nem�ki davčni zavezanec“ mislila le osebe z nem�kim državljanstvom, ki so zavezane za plačilo dohodnine.
It was not, therefore, open to the Commission to widen the scope of the action to include the situation of workers of different nationality.
Zato Komisija ne bi bila smela raz�iriti predmeta tožbe na primere delavcev, ki imajo drugo državljanstvo.
In this regard, it is to be borne in mind that although it is true that the subject-matter of proceedings brought under Article 226 EC is circumscribed by the pre-litigation procedure provided for in that provision and that, consequently, the formal notice, the reasoned opinion and the application must be based on the same objections, that requirement cannot go so far as to mean that in every case exactly the same wording must be used in each, where the subject-matter of the proceedings has not been extended or altered (see, to that effect, Case C-490/04 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6095, paragraphs 36 and 37).
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da čeprav je predmet tožbe, vložene na podlagi člena 226 ES, omejen s predhodnim postopkom, določenim v tej določbi, in morajo zato pisni opomin, obrazloženo mnenje in tožba temeljiti na istih očitkih, ta zahteva nikakor ne more naložiti popolne skladnosti besedil teh aktov, če se predmet spora ni raz�iril ali spremenil (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-490/04, ZOdl., str. I-6095, točki 36 in 37).
In addition, the reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which led the Commission to conclude that the State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Poleg tega mora obrazloženo mnenje vsebovati skladen in podroben prikaz razlogov, ki so Komisijo prepričali, da zadevna država ni izpolnila obveznosti na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
There is therefore nothing to prevent the Commission from setting out in detail in the reasoned opinion the complaints which it has already made more generally in the letter of formal notice (Case C-365/97 Commission v Italy [1999] ECR I-7773, paragraph 26).
Torej Komisiji nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi v pisnem opominu podrobno prikazala očitkov, ki jih je splo�neje navedla že v pisnem opominu (glej sodbo z dne 9. novembra 1999 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji, C-365/97, Recueil, str. I-7773, točka 26).
In this instance, contrary to the claims of the Federal Republic of Germany, it is not apparent from the letter of formal notice that the Commission intended to limit the subject-matter of the dispute to the situation of German nationals.
V obravnavanem primeru v nasprotju s tem, kar zatrjuje Zvezna republika Nemčija, iz pisnega opomina ne izhaja, da je Komisija nameravala omejiti predmet spora na primere nem�kih državljanov.
COMMISSION v GERMANY ality.
Po drugi strani Komisija v točki 5 tega dopisa poudarja, da po
Second, in the fifth paragraph of that letter the Commission states that, in its view, exclusion of persons making use of crossborder mobility from eligibility for the property subsidy is, under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC, incompatible with the principle of freedom of movement of persons.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI njenem mnenju izključitev oseb, ki so čezmejno mobilne, od dodelitve subvencije za stanovanja, ob uporabi členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES ni skladna z načelom prostega gibanja oseb.
The subject-matter of the dispute not having been altered or extended and the letter of formal notice having enabled the Federal Republic of Germany to be informed of the factors needed for the preparation of its defence, the objection to admissibility raised by that Member State must be rejected and the action introduced by the Commission declared admissible.
Ker predmet spora ni bil spremenjen ali raz�irjen in je pisni opomin omogočil, da se Zvezni republiki Nemčiji navede podatke, ki jih ta potrebuje za pripravo obrambe, je treba njen ugovor nedopustnosti zavrniti in tožbo Komisije razglasiti za dopustno.
A preliminary point to be noted here is that by letter of 4 January 2006 the Federal Republic of Germany informed the Court of the adoption on 22 December 2005 of the Law abolishing the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings (Gesetz zur Abschaffung der Eigenheimzulage, BGBl. 2005 I, p. 76).
Najprej je treba povedati, da je Zvezna republika Nemčija v dopisu z dne 4. januarja 2006 Sodi�če obvestila, da je 22. decembra 2005 sprejela zakon, ki je ukinil subvencijo za stanovanja (Gesetz zur Abschaffung der Eigenheimzulage, BGBl. 2005 I, str. 76).
In this regard it is sufficient to observe that, according to settled caselaw, the question whether a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be determined by reference to the situation prevailing in the Member State at the end of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion and that the Court cannot take account of any subsequent changes (see, in particular, Case C-161/02 Commission v France [2003] ECR I-6567, paragraph 6, and judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-26/07 Commission v Greece, not published in the ECR, paragraph 6).
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je treba v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso obstoj neizpolnitve obveznosti presojati glede na položaj države članice, v katerem je bila ob poteku roka, določenega v obrazloženem mnenju, in da Sodi�če pozneje nastalih sprememb ne more upo�tevati (glej zlasti sodbi z dne 19. junija 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji, C-161/02, Recueil, str. I-6567, točka 6, in z dne 18. julija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji, C-26/07, povzetek v ZOdl., str I-106*, točka 6).
Since it is established that the law abolishing the subsidy was adopted after the expiry of that period, it is not to be taken into consideration in these proceedings.
Če ni sporno, da je ta zakon, s katerim je bila ukinjena subvencija za stanovanja, začel veljati �ele po poteku tega roka, ga v okviru te tožbe ni treba upo�tevati.
It is settled caselaw that, although direct taxation falls within their competence, the Member States must none the less exercise that competence consistently with Community law (Case C-446/03 Marks & Spencer [2005] ECR I-10837, paragraph 29; Case C-345/05 Commission v Portugal [2006] ECR I-10633, paragraph 10; and Case C-104/06 Commission v Sweden [2007] ECR I-671, paragraph 12). 17
Čeprav v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso neposredni davki spadajo v pristojnost držav članic, morajo te svojo pristojnost izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti (glej sodbe z dne 13. decembra 2005 v zadevi Marks & Spencer, C-446/03, ZOdl., str. I-10837, točka 29; z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski, C-345/05, ZOdl., str. I-10633, točka 10, in z dne 18. januarja 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Švedski, C-104/06, ZOdl., str. I-671, točka 12). 17
It is therefore necessary to consider whether, as the Commission maintains, the EigZulG, in particular the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) thereof, constitutes a restriction of the freedom of movement and freedom of establishment enshrined in Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali – kot zatrjuje Komisija – EigZulG in zlasti člen 2(1), prvi stavek, tega zakona pomenita omejitev svobode gibanja in svobode ustanavljanja oseb, določeni v členih 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
Article 18 EC, which sets out in general terms the right of every citizen of the European Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, finds specific expression in Article 39 EC with regard to freedom of movement for workers and in Article 43 EC with regard to freedom of establishment (Commission v Portugal, paragraph 13; Commission v Sweden, paragraph 15; and Case C-318/05 Commission v Germany [2007] ECR I-6957, paragraph 35).
Člen 18 ES, ki na splo�no določa pravico vsakega državljana Evropske unije, da se prosto giba in prebiva na ozemlju držav članic, pride posebej do izraza v členih 39 ES, ki se nana�a na prosto gibanje delavcev, in 43 ES, ki se nana�a na pravico do ustanavljanja (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Portugalski, točka 13, in Komisija proti Švedski, točka 15, ter sodbo z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-318/05, ZOdl., str. I-6957, točka 35).
The first question for consideration is therefore whether a provision of national law, such as the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG, that makes the grant of the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings, to which persons liable to unlimited taxation of income in Germany are entitled by virtue of Paragraph 1 of that law, subject to the condition that the dwellings built or purchased by those persons for their own occupation should be situated in Germany, is contrary to Articles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Zato je treba najprej preučiti, ali člena 39 ES in 43 ES nasprotujeta nacionalni zakonodaji, kot je člen 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG, ki dodelitev subvencije za stanovanja, do katere imajo na podlagi člena 1 tega zakona pravico osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji, pogojuje s tem, da so stanovanja, ki so jih zgradile ali kupile te osebe za svoje prebivanje, v Nemčiji.
What is more, the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the European Community, and they preclude measures which might place those nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State (Case C-464/02 Commission v Denmark [2005] ECR I-7929, paragraph 34; Commission v Portugal, paragraph 15; Commission v Sweden, paragraph 17; and Case C-318/05 Commission v Germany, paragraph 114).
Poleg tega vse določbe Pogodbe o prostem pretoku oseb želijo državljanom Skupnosti olaj�ati opravljanje poklicnih dejavnosti vseh vrst na celotnem ozemlju Evropske skupnosti in nasprotujejo ukrepom, ki bi lahko te državljane postavili v slab�i položaj, kadar želijo izvajati gospodarsko dejavnost na ozemlju druge države članice (glej sodbo z dne 15. septembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Danski, C-464/02, ZOdl., str. I-7929, točka 34, ter zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Portugalski, točka 15; Komisija proti Švedski, točka 17, in Komisija proti Nemčiji z dne 11. septembra 2007, točka 114).
Provisions preventing or deterring a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement constitute an obstacle to that freedom, even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned (Commission v Denmark, paragraph 35; Commission v Portugal, paragraph 16; Commission v Sweden, paragraph 18; and Case C-318/05 Commission v Germany, paragraph 115).
Določbe, ki ovirajo ali odvračajo državljana države članice, da zapusti matično državo, da bi lahko uresničil svojo pravico do prostega gibanja, pomenijo oviro za to svobo�čino, čeprav se uporabljajo ne glede na državljanstvo zadevnih delavcev (glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Komisija proti Danski, točka 35; Komisija proti Portugalski, točka 16; Komisija proti Švedski, točka 18, in Komisija proti Nemčiji z dne 11. septembra 2007, točka 115).
In this case, the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG places at a disadvantage persons liable in Germany to unlimited taxation of income who build or purchase a dwelling for their own occupation in the territory of another Member
V obravnavanem primeru člen 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG postavlja v slab�i položaj osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji, ki zgradijo ali kupijo stanovanje za svoje prebivanje na ozemlju druge države članice. Ta določba tem
2008 — CASE C-152/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-152/05 osebam ne omogoča dobiti subvencije za stanovanja, medtem ko imajo do nje pravico osebe, ki so glede dohodnine v istem položaju in se ob gradnji ali nakupu stanovanja odločijo, da bodo ostale na nem�kem ozemlju ali se tam ustalile.
In those circumstances, as Advocate General Bot observes in point 64 of his Opinion, that provision has a deterrent effect on persons liable to unlimited taxation on income in Germany who have the right to freedom of movement under Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and who wish to build or purchase a dwelling for their own occupation in another Member State.
V teh okoli�činah ima – kakor navaja generalni pravobranilec v točki 64 sklepnih predlogov – ta določba odvračilni učinek za osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji in imajo pravico do prostega gibanja, ki izhaja iz členov 39 ES in 43 ES, ter želijo zgraditi ali kupiti stanovanje za svoje prebivanje v drugi državi članici.
It follows that, by reserving entitlement to the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings to persons liable in Germany to unlimited taxation of income on condition that the dwelling built or purchased for their own occupation is situated in German territory, the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG is capable of impeding freedom of movement for workers and freedom of establishment, as guaranteed by Art icles 39 EC and 43 EC.
Iz tega sledi, da člen 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG s tem, da pogojuje dodelitev subvencije za stanovanja za osebe, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji s tem,, da je zgrajeno ali kupljeno stanovanje za lastno prebivanje na nem�kem ozemlju, lahko ovira prosto gibanje delavcev in svobodo ustanavljanja, kot ju zagotavljata člena 39 ES in 43 ES.
According to well-established caselaw, however, national measures which are liable to hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty may nevertheless be allowed provided that they pursue an objective in the public interest, are appropriate to ensuring the attainment of that objective and do not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued (Commission v Portugal, paragraph 24, and Commission v Sweden, paragraph 25).
Vendar pa iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da se lahko dopustijo nacionalni ukrepi, ki lahko ovirajo ali naredijo manj privlačno izvajanje temeljnih svobo�čin, ki jih zagotavlja Pogodba, če sledijo cilijem v javnem interesu, če so primerni za zagotovitev uresničitve teh ciljev in če ne presegajo tega, kar je nujno potrebno za uresničitev cilja, ki mu sledijo (glej med drugim zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Portugalski, točka 24, in Komisija proti Švedski, točka 25).
In this case, the Federal Republic of Germany contends that the condition laid down in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG is justified by the aim of encouraging the building of dwellings in its territory in order to ensure an adequate supply
V obravnavanem primeru Zvezna republika Nemčija navaja, da je pogoj, ki ga postavlja člen 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG utemeljen s ciljem pospe�evanja gradnje stanovanj
COMMISSION v GERMANY of housing.
KOMISIJA PROTI NEMČIJI na njenem ozemlju za zagotovitev zadostne ponudbe stanovanj.
However, on any view that condition goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.
Vsekakor pa ta pogoj presega to, kar je nujno potrebno za uresničitev sledenega cilja.
In point of fact, the objective of satisfying demand for housing is just as easily attained if the person liable in Germany to unlimited taxation of income chooses to establish his residence in another Member State rather than in Germany (Commission v Portugal, paragraph 35).
Cilj zadostiti povpra�evanju po stanovanjih s strani interesentov je namreč prav tako dosežen, če oseba, ki je v celoti zavezana za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji, izbere, da se bo raje ustalila na ozemlju druge države članice kot na nem�kem ozemlju (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno Komisija proti Portugalski, točka 35).
It follows from the foregoing that the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG constitutes a restriction prohibited by Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and that the Commission’s claim alleging that the Member State concerned had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty is well founded.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da člen 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG pomeni omejitev, ki je prepovedana s členoma 39 ES in 43 ES, ter da je očitek Komisije o neizpolnitvi obveznosti, ki jih ima zadevna država članica na podlagi teh členov Pogodbe, utemeljen.
Second, with regard to persons liable in Germany to unlimited taxation of income who are not economically active, the same conclusion applies, for the same reasons, to the complaint relating to Article 18 EC.
Drugič, glede oseb, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine v Nemčiji in niso gospodarsko dejavne, se iz istih razlogov uporabi enak zaključek glede očitka, ki temelji na členu 18 ES.
It must therefore be declared that, by excluding in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the EigZulG dwellings in another Member State from eligibility for the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings granted to persons liable to unlimited taxation on income, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da je v členu 2(1), prvi stavek, EigZulG, nepremičnine v drugih državah članicah izključila od dodelitve subvencije za stanovanja, dodeljene osebam, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Federal Republic of Germany has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se Zvezni republiki Nemčiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s tožbenimi razlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (drugi senat) razsodilo:
Declares that, by excluding in the first sentence of Paragraph 2(1) of the Law on subsidies for owneroccupied dwellings (Eigenheimzulagengesetz), in the version published in 1997, as amended by the ancillary budget law of 2004 (Haushaltsbegleitgesetz 2004) dwellings in another Member State from eligibility for the subsidy for owneroccupied dwellings granted to persons liable to unlimited taxation on income, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 43 EC;
Zvezna republika Nemčija s tem, da je v členu 2(1), prvi stavek, zakona o subvencijah za stanovanja (Eigenheimzulagengesetz), v različici, objavljeni leta 1997, kakor je bila spremenjena z zakonom, ki spremlja proračun iz leta 2004 (Haushaltsbegleitgesetz 2004), nepremičnine v drugih državah članicah izključila od dodelitve subvencije za stanovanja, dodeljene osebam, ki so v celoti zavezane za plačilo dohodnine, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz členov 18 ES, 39 ES in 43 ES.
Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
Zvezni republiki Nemčiji se naloži plačilo stroškov.
Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06
Združeni zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)
(Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg)
(Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality — Forfeiture of export refunds)
„Uredba (ES) �t. 615/98 – Direktiva 91/628/EGS – Izvozna nadomestila – Za�čita goveda med prevozom – Pogoj spo�tovanja določb Direktive 91/628/EGS za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za govedo – Načelo sorazmernosti – Izguba pravice do nadomestila“
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 13 September 2007 . .Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 17 January 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06
Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Export refunds — Conditions for granting
Kmetijstvo – Skupna ureditev trgov – Izvozna nadomestila – Pogoji za dodelitev
(Council Regulation No 805/68, as amended by Regulation No 2634/97, Art. 13(9); Commission Regulation No 615/98; Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)
(Uredba Sveta št. 805/68, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 2634/97, člen 13(9); Uredba Komisije št. 615/98; Direktiva Sveta 91/628, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29)
(Commission Regulation No 615/98, Art 5(3); Council Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29)
(Uredba Komisije št. 615/98, člen 5(3); Direktiva Sveta 91/628, kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29)
general principles of law and, in particular, the principle of legal certainty, are observed.
splo�na pravna načela in zlasti načelo pravne varnosti.
While it is true that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual, it cannot be precluded, in principle, that the provisions of a directive may be applicable by means of an express reference in a regulation to its provisions, provided that
Direktiva res ne more ustvariti obveznosti za posameznike, vendar se načeloma ne more izključiti možnost uporabe direktive na podlagi izrecne napotitve na njene določbe v uredbi, če se spo�tujejo