natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
composed of : Lord Mackenzie Stuart, President, G . Bosco, O . Due, J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, G . C . Rodríguez Iglesias ( Presidents of Chambers ), T . Koopmans, U . Everling, K . Bahlmann, Y . Galmot, C . N . Kakouris, R . Joliet, T . F . O' Higgins and F . A . Schockweiler, Judges,
u sastavu: Mackenzie Stuart, predsjednik, G. Bosco, O. Due, J. C. Moitinho De Almeida i G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, predsjednici Vijeća, T. Koopmans, U. Everling, K. Bahlmann, Y. Galmot, C. N. Kakouris, R. Joliet, T. F. OʼHiggins, F. A. Schockweiler, suci,
Advocate General : M . Darmon
nezavisni odvjetnik: M. Darmon,
Registrar : J . A . Pompe, Deputy Registrar
tajnik: J. A. Pompe, zamjenik tajnika,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 24 March 1988, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 26 May 1988,
uzimajući u obzir izvještaj za raspravu i nakon usmenog postupka od 24. ožujka 1988., saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 26. svibnja 1988.,
gives the following Judgment Grounds
donosi sljedeću Presudu
1 By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 2 October 1987, the European Parliament brought an action pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 ( Official Journal 1987, L 197, p . 33 ) laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission was void .
1 Zahtjevom podnesenim Tajništvu Suda 2. listopada 1987. Europski je parlament na temelju članka 173. prvog stavka Ugovora o EEZ-u podnio tužbu za poništenje Odluke Vijeća 87/373/EEZ od 13. srpnja 1987. o utvrđivanju postupaka za izvršavanje provedbenih ovlasti dodijeljenih Komisiji (SL L 197, str. 33.).
2 By that decision, which is based on Article 145 of the EEC Treaty as amended by Article 10 of the Single European Act, the Council laid down the procedures which it may require to be observed for the exercise of the powers conferred by it on the Commission for the implementation of the rules laid down by the Council and adopted the provisions governing the composition, the functioning and the role of the committees of the representatives of the Member States called upon to act .
2 Tom odlukom, koja se temelji na članku 145. Ugovora o EEZ-u kako je izmijenjen člankom 10. Jedinstvenog europskog akta, Vijeće je utvrdilo uvjete u pogledu izvršavanja ovlasti koje dodjeljuje Komisiji za provedbu pravila koja utvrđuje i donijelo je odredbe kojima se uređuju sastav, funkcioniranje i uloga odborâ predstavnika država članica pozvanih da interveniraju.
3 The Council raised an objection of inadmissibility pursuant to Article 91 ( 1 ) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and requested the Court to give a decision on that objection without considering the substance of the case .
3 Vijeće je na temelju članka 91. stavka 1. Poslovnika Suda podnijelo prigovor nedopuštenosti i zatražilo od Suda da o tom prigovoru odluči ne ulazeći u raspravu o meritumu.
4 In support of its objection, the Council makes the point that the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty does not expressly provide that the European Parliament may bring an action for annulment .
4 U prilog svom prigovoru Vijeće ističe da člankom 173. prvim stavkom Ugovora nije izričito predviđeno da Europski parlament može podnijeti tužbu za poništenje.
Nor, according to the Council, can the Parliament be recognized as having that capacity on the basis of reasoning founded on the need to ensure the coherence of legal remedies .
Ta mu se ovlast ne može priznati ni na osnovi obrazloženja utemeljenog na potrebi osiguranja koherentnosti pravnih lijekova.
Intervention and the action for failure to act which are available to the Parliament, as the Court held in its judgments of 29 October 1980 ( in Case 138/79 Roquette Frères v Council (( 1980 )) ECR 3333 and in Case 139/79 Maïzena GmbH v Council((1980 )) ECR 3393 ) and of 22 May 1985 ( in Case 13/83 European Parliament v Council - The "Transport" case - (( 1985 )) ECR 1513 ), are wholly separate from the action for annulment .
Naime, intervencija i tužba zbog propusta, koje su Europskom parlamentu dostupne, kako je to Sud utvrdio u presudama od 29. listopada 1980. (Roquette frères/Vijeće, 138/79, Zb., str. 3333. i Maïzena GmbH/Vijeće, 139/79, Zb., str. 3393.) i od 22. svibnja 1985. (Europski parlament/Vijeće, „Prijevozi", 13/83, Zb., str. 1513.) neovisne su o tužbi za poništenje.
5 The Council also maintains that neither the judgment of 23 April 1986 ( in Case 294/83 Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v European Parliament (( 1986 )) ECR 1339 ) nor the judgment of 3 July 1986 ( in Case 34/86 Council v European Parliament - The "Budget" case - (( 1986 )) ECR 2155 ) allow it to be inferred that the Court recognized by implication that the European Parliament has the capacity to bring an action for annulment .
5 Vijeće također tvrdi da ni presuda od 23. travnja 1986. (Ekološka stranka „Zeleni"/Europski parlament, 294/83, Zb., str. 1339.) ni presuda od 3. srpnja 1986. (Vijeće/Europski parlament, „Proračun", 34/86, Zb., str. 2155.) ne omogućavaju da se donese zaključak da je Sud Europskom parlamentu implicitno priznao aktivnu procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje.
The judgment in "Les Verts" was based on the need to ensure that judicial protection was available against all measures intended to produce legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, regardless of which institution adopted the measure .
Prethodno navedena presuda „Zeleni" od 23. travnja 1986. utemeljena je na potrebi osiguranja sudske zaštite od svih akata koji mogu proizvoditi pravne učinke u odnosu na treće osobe, bez obzira na to koja je institucija taj akt donijela.
It does not follow from this, according to the Council, that there must be a parallelism between the active and passive participation of the Parliament in proceedings for judicial review of legality .
Iz toga ne proizlazi da mora postojati podudarnost između pasivnog i aktivnog sudjelovanja Europskog parlamenta u sporu o zakonitosti.
Nor can such parallelism be inferred from the "Budget" judgment since all the measures adopted by the Council in connection with the budgetary procedure are in any event merely preparatory .
Ta se podudarnost ne može zaključiti ni iz prethodno navedene presude „Proračun" od 3. srpnja 1986. jer su svi akti koje u proračunskom postupku donosi Vijeće u svakom slučaju samo pripremne naravi.
6 On 20 January 1988 the Court decided to give its decision on the Council' s objection without considering the substance of the case .
6 Sud je 20. siječnja 1988. odredio da će o prigovoru Vijeća odlučivati ne ulazeći u raspravu o meritumu.
7 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts of the case, the course of the procedure and the submissions and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or referred to hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court .
7 Za širi prikaz činjenica u predmetu, tijeka postupka i tužbenih zahtjeva i argumenata stranaka upućuje se na izvještaj za raspravu. Ti su dijelovi spisa preuzeti u nastavku samo u onoj mjeri u kojoj je to nužno za odlučivanje Suda.
8 It must be observed in limine that the parties have correctly placed the issue between them in the context of the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty .
8 Najprije valja istaknuti da su stranke raspravu ispravno usredotočile na članak 173. prvi stavak Ugovora.
9 Article 173 contrasts the right of action of the institutions to which it refers in its first paragraph with the right of action of individuals, be they natural or legal persons, for which the conditions are laid down in its second paragraph .
9 Naime u članku 173. razlikuje se pravo institucija na pokretanje postupka, koje je uređeno njegovim prvim stavkom, od prava na pokretanje postupka pojedinaca, fizičkih ili pravnih osoba, za koje se u njegovom drugom stavku utvrđuju uvjeti.
The European Parliament, which is one of the institutions of the Community listed in Article 4 of the Treaty, is not a legal person .
Europski parlament, koji je jedna od institucija Zajednice navedenih u članku 4. Ugovora, nije pravna osoba.
10 Moreover, it may be observed that the scheme of the second paragraph of Article 173 would in any event be inappropriate to an action by the European Parliament for annulment .
10 Osim toga, može se primijetiti da bi sustav iz drugog stavka članka 173. u svakom slučaju bio neprikladan za tužbu za poništenje koju podnosi Europski parlament.
The applicants referred to in the second paragraph of Article 173 must be directly and individually concerned by the actual content of the act which they challenge .
Naime, sâm sadržaj akta koji tužitelji iz članka 173. drugog stavka pobijaju mora ih se neposredno i osobno ticati.
However, it is not the content of the act which could adversely affect the European Parliament but a failure to comply with the procedural rules requiring its involvement .
Dakle, Europski parlament ne bi mogao kao tužbeni razlog isticati sadržaj akta nego nepoštovanje postupovnih pravila koje zahtijeva njegovu intervenciju.
Moreover, the second paragraph of Article 173 refers only to a limited class of acts, namely those which are individual in their application, whereas the European Parliament seeks recognition of the right to bring actions against acts which have general application .
Nadalje, članak 173. drugi stavak odnosi se samo na ograničenu kategoriju akata, to jest na pojedinačne akte, dok Europski parlament želi da mu se prizna pravo na pokretanje postupka protiv akata opće primjene.
11 It should therefore be considered whether it is possible, by means of an interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 173, for the European Parliament to be recognized as having capacity to bring actions for the annulment of acts of the Council or the Commission .
11 Stoga valja ispitati može li se tumačenjem članka 173. prvog stavka Europskom parlamentu priznati aktivna procesna legitimacija za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje akata Vijeća ili Komisije.
12 As is apparent from Articles 143 and 144 of the Treaty, the European Parliament is empowered, on the one hand, to exercise political control over the Commission which, pursuant to Article 155, is required to "ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied", and on the other, to censure the Commission, where necessary, if the latter should fail properly to discharge that task .
12 Kako proizlazi iz članaka 143. i 144. Ugovora, Europski parlament ima ovlast provedbe političkog nadzora nad Komisijom koja, u skladu s člankom 155. „osigurava primjenu odredaba ovog Ugovora i mjera koje na temelju ovog Ugovora provode institucije" i prema potrebi prigovoriti joj ako tu zadaću propisno ne obavlja.
The European Parliament' s political control is also exercised by means of the debates that it may organize on specific or general questions, which enable it to pass motions on the policy followed by the Council or the Commission .
Politički nadzor Europski parlament provodi i putem rasprava koje on može organizirati o pojedinačnim ili općim pitanjima i koje mu omogućuju da donosi prijedloge o politici koju provodi Vijeće ili Komisija.
13 Moreover, irrespective of the budgetary powers conferred on it by the Luxembourg Treaty of 22 April 1970 and the Brussels Treaty of 22 July 1975, and the power of joint decision vested in it regarding accession and association agreements since the adoption of the Single European Act, the European Parliament is in a position to exercise influence over the content of the legislative measures adopted by the Council, either by means of the opinions which it issues under the consultation procedure or by means of the positions which it adopts under the cooperation procedure .
13 Usto, neovisno o proračunskim ovlastima koje su mu priznate Ugovorima iz Luxembourga od 22. travnja 1970. i iz Bruxellesa od 22. srpnja 1975. i o ovlasti suodlučivanja koju, od donošenja Jedinstvenog europskoga akta ima u području pristupanja i ugovorâ o pridruživanju, Europski parlament može, bilo mišljenjima koje daje u okviru postupka savjetovanja, bilo stajalištima koje zauzima u postupku suradnje, utjecati na sadržaj normativnih akata koje donosi Vijeće.
14 It should be emphasized that, as is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 175 of the Treaty, the European Parliament was vested with the power to obtain a declaration by the Court establishing a failure to act on the part of the Commission or the Council and thus to bring to an end any immobilization of the decision-making machinery which might prevent it from exercising its powers .
14 Valja naglasiti da je Europskome parlamentu, kako to proizlazi iz članka 175. prvog stavka Ugovora, dodijeljeno pravo da pokrene postupak radi utvrđivanja propusta Komisije ili Vijeća i da tako pokrene postupak za prekid neaktivnosti mehanizama odlučivanja koja bi ga mogla spriječiti u provedbi njegovih ovlasti.
It is also open to the European Parliament to make its views heard before the Court by intervening in proceedings before it, as is apparent from Article 37 of the Statute of the Court .
Europski parlament ima također mogućnost iznositi svoja stajališta na Sudu, gdje se uključuje u postupak pred Sudom, kako proizlazi iz članka 37. Statuta Suda.
15 Contrary to the assertion of the European Parliament, it does not follow that, because it is entitled to have a failure to act established and to intervene in proceedings before the Court, the Parliament must be recognized as having the possibility of bringing actions for annulment .
15 Iz tog prava na pokretanje postupka radi utvrđivanja propusta i na uključivanje u postupak pred Sudom ne proizlazi, protivno onomu što tvrdi Europski parlament, da mu se mora priznati mogućnost podnošenja tužbe za poništenje.
16 There is no necessary link between the action for annulment and the action for failure to act .
16 Između tužbe za poništenje i tužbe zbog propusta nema nužne veze.
This follows from the fact that the action for failure to act enables the European Parliament to induce the adoption of measures which cannot in all cases be the subject of an action for annulment .
To proizlazi iz činjenice da tužba zbog propusta omogućava Europskom parlamentu da potakne donošenje akata koji ne mogu uvijek biti predmetom tužbe za poništenje.
Thus, as is shown by the judgment of 12 July 1988 in Case 377/87 European Parliament v Council (( 1988 )) ECR , as long as a draft budget has not been presented by the Council, the European Parliament can obtain a judgment establishing the Council' s failure to act, whereas the draft budget, which is a preparatory measure, could not be challenged under Article 173 .
Kako to pokazuje presuda od 12. srpnja 1988. (Europski parlament/Vijeće, 377/87, Zb., str. 4017.), sve dok Vijeće nije podnijelo nacrt proračuna Europski parlament može ishoditi presudu koja utvrđuje propust Vijeća, dok se nacrt koji predstavlja pripremni akt ne bi mogao osporavati na temelju članka 173.
17 The argument has also been put forward that, in the absence of any power to bring an action for annulment, the European Parliament would be unable, after calling upon the Council or the Commission to act, in accordance with Article 175, to challenge an express refusal to act issued in response to that request .
17 Također je istaknut argument da, zbog nemogućnosti podnošenja tužbe za poništenje, Europski parlament, nakon što je, u smislu članka 175., pozvao Vijeće i Komisiju da djeluju, ne može osporavati izričito odbijanje djelovanja kao odgovor na taj poziv.
However, that argument is based on a false premise .
Međutim, taj je argument utemeljen na netočnoj pretpostavci.
A refusal to act, however explicit it may be, can be brought before the Court under Article 175 since it does not put an end to the failure to act .
Naime, odgovor o odbijanju poziva na djelovanje, ma kako izričito ono bilo, može se predati Sudu na temelju članka 175. s obzirom na to da o propustu djelovanja nije konačno odlučeno.
18 Nor is there any necessary link between the right to intervene and the possibility of bringing an action .
18 Ne postoji ni nužna veza između prava uključivanja u postupak i mogućnosti podnošenja tužbe.
On the one hand, according to the second paragraph of Article 37 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, the right of individuals to intervene is conditional merely upon "an interest in the result of any case" before the Court, whereas the admissibility of an action for annulment brought by individuals is subject to the condition that they must be the addressees of the measure which they seek to have annulled or at least that the measure should be of direct and individual concern to them .
S jedne strane, u skladu s člankom 37. drugim stavkom Statuta Suda EEZ-a pravo uključivanja pojedinaca u postupak jednostavno pretpostavlja „pravni interes za ishod postupka" pred Sudom, dok dopuštenost njihove tužbe za poništenje podliježe uvjetu da oni budu adresati akta čije poništenje zahtijevaju ili da ih se taj akt barem neposredno i osobno tiče.
On the other hand, under the first paragraph of Article 37, the European Parliament is entitled to intervene in cases such as those concerning the failure by States to fulfil their obligations, whereas the right to bring such cases before the Court is reserved to the Commission and the Member States .
S druge strane, na temelju članka 37. prvog stavka Europski parlament ima pravo uključiti se u postupke poput onih o povredama obveza država, dok je inicijativa za pokretanje postupka pred Sudom namijenjena isključivo Komisiji i državama članicama.
19 The European Parliament goes on to state that the first paragraph of Article 173 reflects a principle of equality between the institutions expressly mentioned in that provision, in the sense that each of them is entitled to bring an action against measures adopted by the other and, conversely, its own measures can be submitted by the other institution for review by the Court .
19 Europski parlament također tvrdi da članak 173. prvi stavak Ugovora izražava načelo jednakosti među institucijama koje se tu izričito spominju u smislu da svaka od njih može podnijeti tužbu protiv akata druge institucije i obrnuto, njezine akte druga institucija može predati na ispitivanje Sudu.
Since it has held that measures of the European Parliament capable of producing legal effects can be the subject of an action for annulment, the Court should, with a view to maintaining the institutional balance, decide that the European Parliament has the capacity to challenge acts of the Council and the Commission .
Budući da je Sud presudio da akti Europskog parlamenta koji mogu proizvoditi pravne učinke mogu biti predmet tužbe za poništenje, radi održavanja institucionalne ravnoteže Sud treba odlučiti da Europski parlament ima legitimaciju pobijati akte Vijeća i Komisije.
20 In that connection, it must be borne in mind that although the Court held in its judgment of 23 April 1986 ( Parti écologiste "Les Verts" v European Parliament, cited above ) that an action for annulment may lie against measures adopted by the European Parliament intended to have legal effects vis-à-vis third parties, it did so because an interpretation excluding such measures from the scope of that action would have produced a result contrary to the system of the Treaty, which was intended to establish a complete system of judicial protection against acts of Community institutions which are capable of having legal effects .
20 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da, ako je Sud u svojoj prethodno navedenoj presudi od 23. travnja 1986. (Ekološka stranka „Zeleni"/Europski parlament) presudio da akti Europskog parlamenta koji proizvode pravne učinke u odnosu na treće osobe mogu biti predmet tužbe za poništenje, to je zato jer bi ih tumačenje koje bi ih isključilo iz područja te tužbe dovelo do ishoda protivnog sustavu Ugovora kojim se željelo uvesti potpuni sustav sudske zaštite od akata institucija Zajednice koji mogu proizvoditi pravne učinke.
21 However, a comparison between Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty, which was specifically referred to by the Court in the judgment in "Les Verts", and Article 33 of the same Treaty shows that, according to the scheme of the Treaties, in those cases where provision was made for acts of the European Parliament to be subject to review of their legality, the European Parliament was not thereby empowered to bring a direct action on its own initiative against acts of other institutions .
21 Usporedba između članka 38. Ugovora o EZUČ-u na koji se Sud osobito poziva u svojoj presudi „Zeleni" i članka 33. istog Ugovora ipak pokazuje da u sustavu Ugovora, kada su se akti Europskog parlamenta podvrgavali nadzoru zakonitosti, Europski parlament ipak nije bio ovlašten samoinicijativno podnijeti izravnu tužbu protiv akata drugih institucija.
The European Parliament' s argument that there must be a parallelism between the capacity of defendant and the capacity of applicant in proceedings for judicial review must therefore be rejected .
Argument Europskog parlamenta da u sporovima o zakonitosti postoji podudarnost između pasivne i aktivne legitimacije stoga valja odbaciti.
22 The European Parliament then claims that the Court recognized by implication in its judgment of 3 July 1986 ( Council v European Parliament - the "Budget" case - cited above ) that it had the capacity to bring an action for annulment .
22 Europski parlament zatim tvrdi da mu je Sud u prethodno navedenoj presudi od 3. srpnja 1986. (Vijeće/Europski parlament, „Proračun") implicitno priznao aktivnu procesnu legitimaciju za podnošenje tužbe.
23 It must be observed that the budgetary procedure described in Article 203 ( 4 ), ( 5 ) and ( 6 ) of the Treaty is characterized by successive deliberations of the two arms of the budgetary authority in the course of which each of them may, in accordance with the voting conditions laid down in the Treaty, react to the positions taken by the other .
23 U tom pogledu valja primijetiti da proračunski postupak opisan u stavcima 4., 5. i 6. članka 203. Ugovora kojem su svojstvena uzastopna vijećanja dviju ogranaka proračunskog tijela, tijekom kojih svaki ogranak može, pod uvjetima glasovanja utvrđenima Ugovorom, reagirati na stajališta drugog ogranka. Ta su vijećanja dio pripremnih akata u izradi proračuna.
Those deliberations constitute measures preparatory to the drawing-up of the budget . As is apparent from the judgment of 3 July 1986 ( Council v Parliament - the "Budget" case - cited above ) the budget does not become legally binding until completion of the procedure, that is to say when the President of the European Parliament, in his capacity as an organ of that institution, declares that the budget has been finally adopted .
Ovaj potonji, kako to proizlazi iz prethodno navedene presude od 3. srpnja 1986. (Vijeće/Europski parlament, „Proračun") postaje pravno obvezujući tek po završetku postupka, to jest kad predsjednik Europskog parlamenta, u svojstvu tijela te institucije, u skladu sa stavkom 7. članka 203. Ugovora utvrdi da je proračun konačno donesen.
24 It follows that as far as the approval of the budget is concerned, the only measure which can be declared void emanates from an organ of the European Parliament and must therefore be attributed to that institution itself .
24 Iz toga proizlazi, što se tiče odobrenja proračuna, da jedini akt koji se može poništiti dolazi iz tijela Europskog parlamenta pa ga se stoga treba dodijeliti upravo toj instituciji.
Consequently, the European Parliament cannot rely upon the budgetary powers conferred upon it by the Luxembourg and Brussels Treaties cited above - powers which, moreover, are not at issue in the present case - in order to obtain recognition of its right to bring actions for the annulment of measures emanating from the Commission and the Council .
Slijedom navedenog Europski se parlament na proračunske ovlasti koje su mu dodijeljene prethodno navedenim Ugovorima iz Luxembourga i Bruxellesa, ovlasti o kojima se, uostalom, ne raspravlja u ovom predmetu, ne može pozvati kako bi mu se priznalo pravo podnošenja tužbe za poništenje akata koje donose Komisija i Vijeće.