natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
ruled out that a fundamental change to the relevant national provisions between the expiry of the period laid down for compliance with the reasoned opinion and the lodging of the application may render the judgment to be given by the Court otiose, with the result that it may be reasonable for the Commission not to bring an action but to issue a new reasoned opinion precisely identifying the complaints which it intends pursuing, having regard to the changed circumstances.
mogoče upo�tevati. 19 Vendar s tem ni izključeno, da je zaradi bistvene spremembe zadevnih nacionalnih pravnih predpisov med pretekom roka za uskladitev z obrazloženim mnenjem in vložitvijo tožbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti mogoče, da bo sodba, ki jo bo izdalo Sodi�če, glede na okoli�čine v veliki meri postala brezpredmetna, tako da je smiselno, da Komisija namesto vložitve tožbe izda novo obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem poda očitke, pri katerih bo vztrajala kljub spremenjenim razmeram.
20In the present case, such a fundamental subsequent change to the legal situation has clearly not occurred, however, because the Portuguese Republic did not repeal the prohibition imposed by Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003, as originally promised, through the adoption of the decree-law, but has maintained it in force. 21
20V obravnavanem primeru pa ni nedvoumno pri�lo do take bistvene naknadne spremembe pravnega položaja, ker Portugalska republika prepovedi, določene v členu 2(1) DL 40/2003 – kot navedeno zgoraj –, ni razveljavila s sprejetjem dekreta, temveč jo je ohranila v veljavi. 21
18 — The recitals to the draft decreelaw (Annex VI to the application), which Portugal’s Permanent Representation to the European Union communicated to the European Commission by letter of 21 December 2005, record that the European Commission had taken the view that the Portuguese Republic had introduced restrictions on the free movement of goods which infringed the Treaty.
19 – Sodbe z dne 7. junija 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Belgiji (navedena v opombi 15, točka 39); z dne 18. julija 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (C-119/04, ZOdl., str. I-6885, točka 27); z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu (C-211/02, Recueil, str.
21 — This is not affected by the fact that, as argued at the hearing, on 31 October 2007 the Portuguese Government approved a legislative proposal which provides for the repeal of Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003.
V členu 8(1) osnutka je določeno, da se za folije, ki ustrezajo določbam teh predpisov, izda nacionalna homologacija. V skladu s členom 8(1) se dovoljenja, izdana v drugih državah članicah, priznajo kot enakovredna.
According to the Portuguese Government, that law will not enter into force until its publication in the official journal of the Portuguese Republic.
V členu 9 je predvideno, da morajo take folije imeti vidno ustrezno homologacijsko oznako.
C — Justification
C – Utemeljitev
It is established caselaw that the need to ensure that Community law is fully applied requires Member States not only to bring their legislation into conformity with Community law but also to do so by adopting rules of law capable of creating a situation which is sufficiently precise, clear and transparent to allow individuals to know the full extent of their rights and rely on them before the national courts.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso morajo države članice za zagotovitev popolne uporabe prava Skupnosti ne le uskladiti svoje pravo s pravom Skupnosti, temveč morajo obenem ustvariti tako določno, jasno in pregledno stanje, da bo lahko posameznik v celoti razumel svoje pravice in se nanje skliceval pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
22 As I have already stated in my Opinion in Case C-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, 23 that principle must apply in particular where national law imposes obligations on individuals and threatens penalties in the event of infringement.
22Kot sem navedla že v svojih sklepnih predlogih v zadevi C-319/06, Komisija proti Luksemburgu, 23 mora to načelo veljati zlasti takrat, kadar pravo države članice posameznikom naloži obveznosti in ob kr�itvah zagrozi s sankcijami.
It is clear in the present case that under Article 5 of Decree-Law No 40/2003 the Portuguese General Directorate for Road Traffic must refuse to grant EC typeapproval in the event of infringement.
V obravnavanem primeru drži, da mora portugalski urad za cestni promet v skladu s členom 5 DL 40/2003 ob kr�itvi zavrniti izdajo ES-homo-
It must be examined, however, whether despite its restrictive effect on trade between Member States that legislation can be jus- tified by one of the grounds set out in Article 30 EC or by one of the overriding requirements relating to the public interest referred to in the Court’s caselaw, and, if necessary, whether such a restriction is appropriate
Treba je preveriti, ali je to ureditev kljub omejenim učinkom na trgovino znotraj Skupnosti mogoče utemeljiti z enim od razlogov, navedenih v členu 30 ES, ali z eno od nujnih zahtev v javnem interesu, kot jih je Sodi�če opredelilo v sodni praksi, in – če je to potrebno –, ali je s tako omejitvijo mogoče
See also Case C-162/99 Commission v Italy [2001] ECR I-541, paragraphs 22 to 25; Case C-478/01 Commission v Luxembourg [2003] ECR I-2351, paragraph 20; and judgment of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portugal, paragraph 33.
I-541, točke od 22 do 25); z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu (C-478/01, Recueil, str. I-2351, točka 20) in z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski (C-275/03, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 33).
That is possible only if such a standard acquires legally binding character as a result of being incorporated into a rule of law and that rule of law provides for penalties in the event of infringement.
Slednje je mogoče le, če tehnični predpis postane zavezujoče pravno pravilo in kot tako predvidi sankcije za primer kr�itve.
Such penalties may be administrative, civil or criminal.
Te sankcije so lahko upravnopravne, civilne ali pa celo kazenske.
23 — See point 75 of my Opinion of 13 September 2007 in Case C-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, currently pending before the Court.
23 – Glej točko 75 mojih sklepnih predlogov z dne 13. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu, v kateri postopek �e poteka (C-319/06).
COMMISSION v PORTUGAL for attaining the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it. 25
KOMISIJA PROTI PORTUGALSKI denostjo sedežev v vozilu in nad pravilno uporabo varnostnega pasu.
The Portuguese Government therefore relies on two different grounds of justification: first, the need to prevent and combat crime and, second, the requirements of road safety which, even though they have their origins in the field of public policy and public security, 26 must be examined separately for schematic reasons.
Portugalska vlada se tako sklicuje na dva različna utemeljitvena razloga, in sicer na nujnost preprečevanja in boja proti kriminalu ter na zahteve varnosti cestnega prometa, ki ju je treba – četudi izvorno spadata na področje javnega reda in javne varnosti 26– zaradi sistematičnih razlogov preskusiti ločeno.
In the present case, the Portuguese Government claims that the contested prohibition under Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 is justified on grounds of internal public security and road safety.
V obravnavanem sporu portugalska vlada uveljavlja, da je obravnavana prepoved iz člena 2(1) DL 40/2003 utemeljena z razlogi javnega reda in varnosti cestnega prometa.
It argues that the prohibition was imposed with the aim of ensuring that it was possible to inspect the interior of the motor vehicle from outside.
Prepoved naj bi bila namreč uvedena z namenom, da zagotovi pogoje, ki omogočajo pogled od zunaj v notranjost motornega vozila.
The aim of the prohibition was not, therefore, to achieve reasonably clear visibility for the driver by preserving the light transmission of the window, but to allow the competent authorities to verify directly that road traffic legislation was being complied with simply by observing motor vehicles and their occupants.
Cilj te prepovedi torej naj ne bi bil vozniku ohraniti primerno jasno vidljivost, s tem da bi se nadalje ohranila prepustnost svetlobe na steklih, temveč pristojnim organom omogočiti neposreden nadzor nad upo�tevanjem pravil cestnega prometa že pri samem opazovanju motornih vozil in potnikov v njih.
It argues that it is essential for the occupants of vehicles and goods in motor vehicles to be clearly visible in order to counter and combat crime and for road safety, since it makes it easier to verify that the vehicle seats are correctly occupied and that safety belts are being used as required by the law.
Navaja, da je jasno vidna prepoznavnost potnikov in tovora v motornem vozilu bistvena za preprečevanje in boj proti kriminalu in za varnost cestnega prometa, ker olaj�a nadzor nad pravilno zase-
The State’s interest in combating crime effectively falls within the field of public policy and public security, both concepts
Državni interes za učinkovit boj proti kriminalu spada na področje javnega reda in
I, Article 30 EC, Sections 12 and 15, the Member States have a particularly broad margin of discretion in applying the concepts of public policy and public security.
2002, I-5845, točke od 40 do 42; z dne 8. maja 2003 v zadevi ATRAL, C-14/02, Recueil, str.
An impairment of public security arising from movement of goods will generally also lead to a threat to life and health and may easily fall within that concept.
I-4431, točka 64; z dne 8. septembra 2005 v zadevi Yonemoto, C-40/04, ZOdl., str. I-7755, točka 55, in z dne 10. novembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Portugalski, C-432/03, ZOdl., str.
In both cases, the national provision must be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective pursued and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-388/00 and C-429/00 Radiosistemi [2002] ECR I-5845, paragraphs 40 to 42; Case C-14/02 ATRAL [2003] ECR I-4431, paragraph 64; Case C-40/04 Yonemoto [2005] ECR I-7755, paragraph 55; and Case C-432/03 Commission v Portugal [2005] ECR I-9665, paragraph 42.
Isto velja za ogrožanje varnosti cestnega prometa (prim. sodbo z dne 11. junija 1987 v zadevi Goffette, 406/85, Recueil, str. 2525, v kateri je prometna varnost spadala na področje uporabe člena 30 ES, �e preden se je priznala kot poseben nujni razlog v javnem interesu).
The legitimate purposes being expressly mentioned as justifications in Article 30 EC and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-265/06 javne varnosti, pri čemer sta oba pojma kot utemeljitvena razloga izrecno navedena v členu 30 ES in členu 13 Sporazuma EGP.
In principle, the Member States remain essentially free to decide according to their national needs what is required by public policy and public security.
Načeloma lahko države članice glede na nacionalne potrebe v bistvenem �e
The protection of public policy and public security has been recognised in the Court’s caselaw as a justification for national measures which restrict the fundamental freedoms primarily in connection with freedom of movement for workers, 27 freedom of establishment, freedom to provide ser- vices, the Community’s law governing associations with third countries 28 and, albeit more rarely, in connection with the free move-
Kot utemeljitveni razlog za ukrepe držav članic, ki omejujejo temeljne svobo�čine, je varstvo javnega reda in javne varnosti v sodni praksi Sodi�ča pretežno priznano v okviru prostega gibanja delavcev, 27 pravice do ustanavljanja, svobodnega opravljanja storitev, pravice Skupnosti do povezovanja s tretjimi državami 28 ter – vendar redkeje – v povezavi
29 — With regard to the concept of public policy in Community law, see my Opinion of 13 September 2007 in the pending Case C-319/06 Commission v Luxembourg, points 40 to 44.
29 – Glede pojma javni red glej moje sklepne predloge z dne 13. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Luksemburgu (C-319/06, točke od 40 do 44), v kateri postopek �e poteka.
In Case C-36/02 Omega [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 26, the Court examined the justification for a national prohibition measure adopted on grounds of protecting public policy by reason of the fact that the economic activity was an affront to human dignity only on the basis of the provisions of the Treaty concerning freedom to prov- ide services and the relevant derogation clauses (Article 55 EC in conjunction with Article 46(1) EC), even though it considered the provisions concerning the free movement of goods to be essentially relevant.
V sodbi z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Omega (C-36/02, ZOdl., str. I-9609, točka 26) je Sodi�če utemeljenost nacionalne prepovedi gospodarske dejavnosti, ki je bila sprejeta za varstvo javnega reda zaradi kr�itve člove�kega dostojanstva, ki jo je bilo prepoznati v tej dejavnosti, presodilo samo na podlagi določb Pogodbe o svobodi opravljanja storitev in ustreznih izjem (člen 55 ES v povezavi s členom 46(1) ES), čeprav je menilo, da določbe o prostem pretoku blaga nedvomno pridejo v upo�tev. Po mnenju Müller-Graff, P.-C., Kommentar zum Vertrag über die Europäische Union und zur Gründung der Europäischen Gemeinschaft (ur.
That protective interest may therefore be relied on only in cases where none of the other legal interests mentioned in Article 30 EC is relevant.
Na ta interes za varstvo se je zato mogoče sklicevati le v primerih, v katerih ni ustrezna nobena od preostalih pravnih dobrin, navedenih v členu 30 ES.
According to the author, the Member States have thus far been reticent to reply on disruptions to public policy as a justification for obstacles to trade.
Po mnenju avtorja so bile države članice v dosedanji praksi zadržane glede tega, da bi se za utemeljitev trgovinskih ovir sklicevale na motenje javnega reda. Fischer, P./Köck, H./Karollus, M., Europarecht, 4. izdaja, Dunaj 2002, str.
756, Section 1579, also point out that public policy is relatively rare as an area of application of Article 30 EC.
756, točka 1579, prav tako opozarjajo, da javni red relativno redko pride v po�tev v okviru področja uporabe člena 30 ES.
31 — Case 7/78 Thompson [1978] ECR 2247, paragraphs 32 and 34.
31 – Sodba z dne 23. novembra 1978 v zadevi Thompson (7/78, Recueil, str. 2247, točki 32 in 34).
The Court has consistently held that the principles laid down in Articles 39 EC to 41 EC must be extended, so far as possible, to Turkish nationals who enjoy the rights conferred by that decision.
1/80 Pridružitvenega sveta EGS-Turčija. V skladu z ustaljeno prakso se morajo temeljna načela, ki veljajo v okviru členov od 39 ES do 41 ES, na tur�ke delavce, ki imajo pravice, ki so jim zagotovljene s Sklepom �t. 1/80, prenesti v čim �ir�em obsegu.
Such an approach is all the more justified because Article 14(1) is formulated in almost identical terms to Article 39(3) EC.
Tovrstna razlaga je toliko bolj utemeljena, ker imajo navedeni predpisi skoraj enako besedilo kot člen 39(3) ES.
See judgment of 4 October 2007 in Case C-349/06 Polat; Case C-502/04 Torun [2006] ECR I-1563; Case C-340/97 Nazli [2000] ECR I-957, paragraph 56; and Case C-467/02 Cetinkaya [2004] ECR I-10895, paragraph 43.
Prim. sodbe z dne 4. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Polat (C-349/06); z dne 16. februarja 2006 v zadevi Torun (C-502/04, ZOdl., str.
The concepts of public policy and public security must be interpreted by the Court of Justice, 35so that their scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without being subject to control by the Community institutions.
Za razlago pojmov javni red in javna varnost je pristojno Sodi�če, 35tako da je državam članicam onemogočeno, da bi njun obseg določile enostransko ali brez naknadne presoje s strani institucij Skupnosti.
As derogations from the fundamental freedoms they must be interpreted strictly.
Kot izjemi od temeljnih svobo�čin ju je treba razlagati ozko.
This does not mean that particular circumstances cannot justify recourse to the concepts of public policy and public security, and it is therefore necessary in this matter to allow the Member States an area of discretion within the limits imposed by the Treaty.
To ne izključuje, da bi se bilo zaradi posebnih okoli�čin možno sklicevati na pojma javni red in javna varnost, tako da je treba državam članicam glede na okoli�čine priznati diskrecijsko pravico znotraj omejitev, določenih s Pogodbo.
36 of public policy and public security are independent concepts under Community law which contribute towards determining the scope of the fundamental freedoms and must therefore be defined autonomously and not, for example, on the basis of one or more national legal systems.
36 naprej prosto določijo, kaj se zahteva za javni red in javno varnost. Vendar je pri tem treba vedno upo�tevati, da sta pojma javni red in javna varnost samostojna pojma prava Skupnosti, ki sodoločata področje uporabe temeljnih svobo�čin in ju je zato treba opredeliti samostojno, ne pa opirajoč se na enega ali več pravnih redov.
33Reliance on the meaning of the concepts in the national legal orders is precluded above all in the case of concepts which permit the Member States to restrict the fundamental freedoms or other individual rights.
33Napotovanje na pomen pojmov, kot jih opredeljujejo pravni redi držav članic, je prepovedano predvsem takrat, ko gre za pojme, ki državam članicam dopu�čajo omejevanje temeljnih svobo�čin ali drugih individualnih pravic.
It would therefore be wrong, for example, to draw parallels with the concept of public security and public policy in the national law relating to the powers of the police without taking account of the peculiar features of Community law and the aims of the Treaty.
Torej bi bilo zmotno, če bi potegnili vzporednice s pojmom javne varnosti in javnega reda, kot ga opredeljuje nacionalno policijsko pravo, ne da bi upo�tevali posebnosti prava Skupnosti in cilje Pogodbe.
34 In my view, there is no objective reason to transfer to Community law the traditional national law distinction between measures taken by the police in the field of crime prevention, which represent measures for the protection of security, on the one hand, and punitive measures in the context of criminal prosecution, on the other, and therefore the police crime prevention measures referred to by the Portuguese Government must also be held to fall within the concept of public policy in Article 30 EC and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement, especially where they are expressed as vaguely and indeterminately as in the present case.
34 Menim, da ni vsebinskega razloga za to, da bi se tradicionalno razlikovanje med policijskimi ukrepi v okviru preprečevanja kriminala kot delom policijskega odvračanja nevarnosti in prisilnimi ukrepi kot delom kazenskega pregona, kot ga pozna nacionalno pravo, preneslo na pravo Skupnosti, tako da bi bilo treba tudi policijske ukrepe za preprečevanje kriminala, ki jih je navedla portugalska vlada, vključiti v pojem javnega reda iz člena 30 ES in člena 13 Sporazuma EGP, zlasti če so – kot v obravnavanem primeru
According to settled caselaw, reliance by a national authority on the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and suffi-
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso sklicevanje nacionalnega organa na pojem javnega reda v vsakem primeru predpostavlja, da gre poleg družbene motnje, ki jo pomeni vsaka kr�itev zakona, tudi za dejansko in zadosti resno ogrožanje, ki posega v temeljni interes
33 — Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac [1998] ECR I-1605, paragraph 30; Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035, paragraphs 10 to 12; and Case 64/81 Corman [1982] ECR 13, paragraph 8.
33 – Sodbe z dne 2. aprila 1998 v zadevi EMU Tabac (C-296/95, Recueil, str. I-1605, točka 30); z dne 23. marca 1982 v zadevi Levin (53/81, Recueil, str.
Community law concepts may not be defined on the basis of the legal provisions of the Member States.
1035, točke od 10 do 12) in z dne 14. januarja 1982 v zadevi Corman (64/81, Recueil, str. 13, točka 8).
Reliance on the meaning of the concepts in the national legal orders is precluded above all in the case of concepts which permit the Member States to restrict the fundamental freedoms or other individual rights (see Schütz, H.-J., Bruha, T. and König, D., Casebook Europarecht, Munich, 2004, pp. 451 and 452).
Napotovanje na pomen pojmov, kot jih opredeljujejo pravni redi držav članic, je izključeno predvsem takrat, ko gre za pojme, ki državam članicam dopu�čajo omejevanje temeljnih svobo�čin ali drugih individualnih pravic (glej Schütz, H.-J,/Bruha, T./König, D., Casebook Europarecht, München 2004, str. 451 in 452).
34 — In the view of Bröhmer, J., in Calliess and Ruffert (eds), Kommentar zu EUV/EGV, 3rd edition, 2007, Article 46, Section 4, p.
34 – Po mnenju Bröhmer, J., v Calliess/Ruffert (ur.), Kommentar zu EUV/EGV, 3. izdaja, 2007, člen 46, točka 4, str.
801, for example, parallels with the concept of public security and public policy under the national law relating to the powers of the police are only partially helpful in defining the Community law concepts of ‘public security and public policy’.
801, sta vzporednici na primer s pojmom javna varnost in red, kot ga opredeljuje nacionalno pravo, ki ureja policijo, le pogojno v pomoč za opredelitev pojma „javna varnost in red“ na ravni prava Skupnosti.
According to Piska, C., Kommentar zu EU- und EG-Vertrag, Vienna, 2003, 3rd part, Article 30 EC, Section 26, the Community law concept of public policy is not a concept which bears any relationship to that of the powers of the police within the meaning of national law.
Po mnenju Piska, C., Kommentar zu EU- und EG-Vertrag, Dunaj 2003, 3. izdaja, člen 30 ES, točka 26, pojem javni red na ravni prava Skupnosti nima narave policijskega prava v smislu nacionalnega prava.
36 — See Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, paragraphs 18 and 19.
36 – Glej sodbo z dne 14. decembra 1974 v zadevi Van Duyn (41/74, Recueil, str. 1337, točki 18 in 19).
Community law. 38 According to settled caselaw, it is also recognised as an overriding reason relating to the public interest which may justify an impairment of the free movement of goods.
V skladu z usta- ljeno sodno prakso se priznava tudi kot nujni razlog v javnem interesu, ki lahko utemelji omejevanje prostega pretoka blaga. 39 družbe.
39 case, however, the Portuguese Government has not submitted any evidence to indicate a serious threat to public policy in Portugal.
37Vendar v obravnavanem sporu portugalska vlada ni predložila ničesar, kar bi lahko kazalo na morebitno resno ogrožanje javnega reda na Portugalskem.
As a result, reliance on Article 30 EC and Article 13 of the EEA Agreement for the purposes of maintaining the prohibition under Article 2(1) of Decree-Law No 40/2003 on grounds of preventing and combating crime is precluded.
Zato sklicevanje na člen 30 ES in člen 13 Sporazuma EGP za ohranitev prepovedi iz člena 2(1) DL 40/2003 zaradi preprečevanja in boja proti kriminalu ni mogoče.
Moreover, it should be noted that the grounds of justification mentioned in
Poleg tega k utemeljitvenim razlogom, navedenim v členu 30 ES in členu 13 Spora-
Road safety requirements
Zahteve varnosti cestnega prometa
In so far as the Portuguese Government claims that the contested prohibition was adopted with the aim of ensuring the safety of the drivers of motor vehicles, it must be stated that that ground is not expressly mentioned in Article 30 EC or Article 13 of the EEA Agreement.
Glede trditev portugalske vlade, da je bila obravnavana prepoved sprejeta za zagotavljanje varnosti voznikov motornih vozil, je treba ugotoviti, da ta razlog ni izrecno naveden v členu 30 ES in členu 13 Sporazuma EGP.
Nevertheless, road safety is undeniably an aim pursued by
Kljub temu varnost cestnega prometa nesporno pomeni cilj, ki ga zasle-
38 — Improvements to road safety are particularly important in the European Union against the background of 1.3 million accidents annually, with more than 40 000 fatalities a year and 1.7 million injured.
38 – Izbolj�ave na področju prometne varnosti imajo v Evropski uniji zaradi 1,3 milijona nesreč letno z več kot 40.000 mrtvimi ponesrečenci in 1,7 milijona po�kodovanimi velik pomen.