natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, the Court of First Instance exceeded the limits to which judicial review of his activity is subject.
U tom pogledu, Prvostupanjski sud prekoračio je granice koje vrijede za sudski nadzor kojem podliježe njegovo djelovanje.
37 In support of his appeal the Ombudsman raises a single plea based, on the one hand, on breach by the Court of First Instance of Community law, in particular, of Article 195 EC and Decision 94/262, and, on the other, on disregard or misinterpretation by the Court of First Instance of its own case-law and that of the Court.
37 U prilog svojoj žalbi, ombudsman navodi jedan žalbeni razlog koji se temelji, s jedne strane, na tome da je Prvostupanjski sud povrijedio pravo Zajednice, posebno članak 195. UEZ-a i Odluku 94/262, a, s druge strane, na tome da je Prvostupanjski sud zanemario ili pogrešno tumačio vlastitu sudsku praksu i praksu Suda.
38 That plea is divided into three limbs.
38 Taj je žalbeni razlog podijeljen na tri dijela.
First limb of the plea
Prvi dio žalbenog razloga
Presentation and arguments
Predstavljanje i argumentacija
39 In the first limb of his plea the Ombudsman, supported by the Parliament, criticises the Court of First Instance for carrying out a judicial review of the legality of the inquiry and of the decision to close the procedure, since, under the provisions governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties and his liability, the power of review is conferred on the Parliament.
39 U prvom dijelu žalbenog razloga ombudsman, uz potporu Parlamenta, prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu zbog obavljanja sudskog nadzora zakonitosti istrage i odluke o zaključenju postupka, budući da su, prema odredbama koje uređuju obnašanje dužnosti ombudsmana i njegove odgovornosti, ovlasti nadzora dodijeljene Parlamentu.
40 In that regard he relies on Article 195 EC and Article 3(7) and (8) of Decision 94/262 according to which the Ombudsman has to submit to the Parliament special reports and an annual report on his activities.
40 U tom smislu, on se oslanja na članak 195. UEZ-a i članak 3. stavke 7. i 8. Odluke 94/262 prema kojima ombudsman mora Parlamentu podnijeti posebna izvješća i godišnje izvješće o svom djelovanju.
Essentially he points out that those reports are analysed by the Parliament and deliberated on.
U suštini on ističe da Parlament analizira ta izvješća i raspravlja o njima.
He stresses that the inquiry conducted into the complaint by Mr Lamberts was mentioned in the 1999 annual report which was submitted to the Parliament in April 2000.
Naglašava da je istraga provedena povodom pritužbe F. Lambertsa spomenuta u godišnjem izvješću za 1999. koje je podneseno Parlamentu u travnju 2000.
After analysing it, the Parliament drew up its own report which it adopted in July 2000.
Nakon što ga je analizirao, Parlament je izradio svoje izvješće, koje je usvojeno u srpnju 2000.
By agreeing to examine on its merits a case in which Mr Lamberts contested the manner in which the Ombudsman had dealt with his complaint and the conclusions which he had arrived at, the Court of First Instance wrongly conducted a review of the legality of the inquiry conducted by the Ombudsman and of his conclusions, which duplicates the review incumbent on the Parliament under the EC Treaty and which has already been conducted.
Time što je pristao na ispitivanje merituma predmeta u kojem F. Lamberts osporava način na koji je ombudsman postupao u rješavanju njegove pritužbe i zaključke do kojih je došao, Prvostupanjski sud pogrešno je proveo nadzor zakonitosti istrage koju je vodio ombudsman i njegovih zaključaka, čime udvostručuje nadzor za koji je zadužen Parlament na temelju Ugovora o UEZ-u i koji je već bio proveden.
41 Furthermore, the Ombudsman maintains that Article 195(2) EC and Article 8 of Decision 94/262 provide for a specific procedure for the case where the Ombudsman is guilty of serious misconduct or several cases of misconduct calling in question his capacity to perform his duties.
41 Nadalje, ombudsman tvrdi da članak 195. stavak 2. UEZ-a i članak 8. Odluke 94/262 propisuju posebni postupak za slučaj ako ombudsman počini teži propust u radu ili više težih propusta koji dovode u pitanje njegovu sposobnost obavljanja dužnosti.
In that situation the Ombudsman may, at the request of the Parliament, be dismissed by the Court.
U tim okolnostima Sud može, na zahtjev Parlamenta, ombudsmana smijeniti s dužnosti.
If Mr Lamberts was of the view that the Ombudsman had not dealt correctly with his complaint, he ought to have referred the matter to the Parliament and not to the Court of First Instance in the context of an action for damages.
Ako je F. Lamberts smatrao da ombudsman nije pravilno postupio u rješavanju njegove pritužbe, trebao je predmet uputiti Parlamentu a ne Prvostupanjskom sudu u okviru tužbe za naknadu štete.
42 The Ombudsman and the Parliament add that the interpretations relied on by the Court of First Instance in declaring admissible an action for damages in respect of damage occasioned by the Ombudsman are likely to disturb the institutional equilibrium established around him and to call in question his independence under Article 195(3) EC.
42 Ombudsman i Parlament dodaju da tumačenja na temelju kojih Prvostupanjski sud proglašava dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete koju je prouzročio ombudsman mogu poremetiti institucionalnu ravnotežu uspostavljenu oko njega i dovesti u pitanje njegovu neovisnost iz članka 195. stavka 3. UEZ-a.
43 The Court of First Instance did not err in law in considering that judicial review of the activities of the Ombudsman is not precluded by the review powers available to the Parliament in regard of him.
43 Valja utvrditi da Prvostupanjski sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava time što je procijenio da sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana nije isključen ovlastima nadzora koje u odnosu na njega ima Parlament.
44 First, the obligation on the Ombudsman to report to the Parliament cannot be analysed as review by the Parliament of the proper performance by the Ombudsman of his duties in dealing with citizens' complaints.
44 Prvo, obveza ombudsmana da podnosi izvješća Parlamentu ne može se analizirati kao nadzor Parlamenta nad pravilnim obnašanjem dužnosti ombudsmana u postupanju s pritužbama građana.
45 Secondly, the procedure for dismissal of the Ombudsman relates to an appraisal of his overall activity and not to review by the Parliament of the performance by the Ombudsman of his tasks when dealing with a citizen's complaint.
45 Drugo, postupak za razrješenje ombudsmana odnosi se na ocjenu njegovog ukupnog djelovanja, a ne na nadzor Parlamenta nad obnašanjem dužnosti ombudsmana u postupanju s pritužbama građana.
46 In any event, the Parliament's powers with regard to the Ombudsman are not akin to judicial review.
46 U svakom slučaju, ovlasti Parlamenta u odnosu na ombudsmana nikako nisu jednake ovlastima sudskog nadzora.
47 Consequently, judicial review of the Ombudsman's activity does not duplicate review by the Parliament.
47 Prema tome, sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana nije udvostručavanje nadzora koji provodi Parlament.
48 As regards the alleged risk that judicial review of the Ombudsman's activity calls in question his independence, a finding of liability owing to damage occasioned by the Ombudsman's activity concerns not the personal liability of the Ombudsman but that of the Community.
48 Što se tiče navodne opasnosti da sudski nadzor nad djelovanjem ombudsmana dovodi u pitanje njegovu neovisnost, ocjena odgovornosti zbog štete koju je uzrokovalo djelovanje ombudsmana odnosi se ne na osobnu odgovornost ombudsmana, već na odgovornost Zajednice.
It does not appear that the possibility that, under certain circumstances, the Community may incur liability owing to conduct on the part of the Ombudsman in the performance of his duties which is contrary to Community law is of such a nature as to call in question the Ombudsman's independence.
Ne čini se da je, u određenim okolnostima, mogućnost da Zajednica snosi odgovornost za postupanje ombudsmana u obnašanju njegovih dužnosti koje je u suprotnosti s pravom Zajednice, takva da dovede u pitanje neovisnost ombudsmana.
49 According to settled case-law on the Community's liability for damage caused to individuals by a breach of Community law attributable to a Community institution or body, a right to reparation is afforded where three conditions are met: the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties (see Case C-472/00 P Commission v Fresh Marine [2003] ECR I-7541, paragraph 25, and case-law cited).
49 U skladu s ustaljenom sudskom praksom u području odgovornosti Zajednice za štetu nanesenu pojedincima kršenjem prava Zajednice koje se može pripisati instituciji ili tijelu Zajednice, pravo na naknadu priznaje se kada se ispune tri uvjeta, odnosno kada povrijeđeno pravo ima za cilj dodijeliti prava pojedincima, kada je povreda dovoljno ozbiljna i kada postoji izravna kauzalna veza između povrede obveze počinitelja djela i štete koju su pretrpjele oštećene strane (vidjeti presudu od 10. srpnja 2003., Komisija/Fresh Marine, C-472/00 P, Zb., str. I-7541., t. 25. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
As regards the second condition, the decisive test for finding that a breach of Community law is sufficiently serious, in circumstances such as those in the present case, is whether the Community institution or body concerned manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on its discretion (Commission v Fresh Marine, cited above, paragraph 26).
Vezano za drugi uvjet, odlučujući kriterij za utvrđivanje da je povreda prava Zajednice dovoljno ozbiljna, u okolnostima kakve jesu u ovom slučaju, jest očito i grubo nepoštovanje granica diskrecijske ovlasti od strane dotične države članice ili institucije Zajednice (gore navedena presuda Komisija/Fresh Marine, t. 26.).
50 In order to determine whether there has been a sufficiently serious breach of Community law rendering the Community non-contractually liable owing to the conduct of the Ombudsman, regard must be had to the specific nature of the latter's function.
50 Kako bi se utvrdilo je li došlo do dovoljno ozbiljne povrede prava Zajednice čime bi Zajednica postala izvanugovorno odgovorna zbog postupanja ombudsmana, potrebno je uzeti u obzir posebnu prirodu njegove funkcije.
In that context, it should be borne in mind that the Ombudsman is merely under an obligation to use his best endeavours and that he enjoys wide discretion.
U tom kontekstu valja imati na umu da ombudsman ima samo obvezu uložiti najveće napore i da on uživa široku marginu prosudbe.
51 Thus, contrary to the assertions of the Ombudsman and the Parliament, the review conducted by the latter over the former does not preclude judicial review which must be carried out with due regard for the specific nature of the Ombudsman's function.
51 Stoga, suprotno tvrdnjama ombudsmana i Parlamenta, nadzor koji potonji provodi nad prvim ne isključuje sudski nadzor koji se mora provesti uz dužno poštovanje posebnosti funkcije ombudsmana.
52 Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not infringe the provisions of Community law governing the performance of the Ombudsman's duties and review of the Ombudsman by declaring admissible in principle an action for damages founded on the Community's non-contractual liability as a result of the alleged mishandling by the Ombudsman of a complaint.
52 Prema tome, Prvostupanjski sud nije povrijedio odredbe prava Zajednice kojima se uređuje obavljanje dužnosti ombudsmana i nadzor ombudsmana time što je, zbog toga što je ombudsman navodno pogrešno postupao s pritužbom, u načelu proglasio dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete temeljenu na izvanugovornoj odgovornosti Zajednice.
The Court of First Instance was therefore entitled to find, in paragraph 57 of the judgment appealed against, that not only does the Ombudsman enjoy very wide discretion as regards the merits of complaints and the way in which he deals with them, and that in so doing he is under no obligation as to the result to be achieved, but also that, even if review by the Community judicature must consequently be limited, it is possible that in very exceptional circumstances a citizen may be able to demonstrate that the Ombudsman has committed a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in the performance of his duties likely to cause damage to the citizen concerned.
Prvostupanjski sud je dakle imao pravo smatrati u točki 57. pobijane presude da ombudsman ne samo da uživa široku marginu prosudbe u pogledu osnovanosti pritužbi i načina na koji postupa s njima te da pri tome nema obavezu u pogledu rezultata koje treba postići, nego isto tako da, čak i ako sudski nadzor Zajednice zbog toga mora biti ograničen, nije isključeno da u zaista iznimnim okolnostima građanin može dokazati da je ombudsman počinio dovoljno ozbiljnu povredu prava Zajednice u obavljanju svojih dužnosti koja može biti takva da prouzroči štetu predmetnom građaninu.
53 The first limb of the plea is therefore unfounded.
53 Stoga prvi dio žalbenog razloga nije osnovan.
Second limb of the plea
Drugi dio žalbenog razloga
54 In the second limb of his plea the Ombudsman, supported by the Parliament, criticises the Court of First Instance for erring in law by declaring admissible an action for damages which in actual fact is seeking to question the legality of the inquiry and the decision to close the procedure although, under the case-law of the Court of First Instance and the Court, the legal remedies provided for in that regard by the Treaty are not available where the Ombudsman is concerned.
54 U drugom dijelu žalbenog razloga ombudsman, uz potporu Parlamenta, prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu da je počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava proglasivši dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete koja u biti nastoji dovesti u pitanje zakonitost istražnog postupka i odluke o zaključenju postupka iako su prema sudskoj praksi Prvostupanjskog suda i Suda pravna sredstva koje Ugovor predviđa u tu svrhu nedopuštena kada se radi o ombudsmanu.
55 The Ombudsman argued in particular that the inquiries which he conducts and the conclusions which he reaches, even if they are termed `decisions', have no direct legal effect on the situation of citizens and no binding legal effect on the institution concerned.
55 Ombudsman je posebno isticao da istrage koje vodi i zaključci do kojih dođe, čak i ako se oni nazivaju „odluke", nemaju izravan pravni učinak na položaj građana niti imaju obvezujući pravni učinak za predmetnu instituciju.
Consequently, he considers that, even if his inquiries were vitiated by formal defects and his conclusions by errors of law, those inquiries and conclusions could not in any event occasion loss to complainants who have suffered damage owing to maladministration attributable to a Community institution and not to the Ombudsman.
Slijedom toga on smatra da je čak i ako je u njegovim istragama bilo formalnih nedostataka i u njegovim zaključcima pogrešaka koje se tiču prava, te istrage i zaključci ni u kojem slučaju nisu mogli uzrokovati štetu podnositeljima pritužbe koji su štetu pretrpjeli zbog nepravilnosti u djelovanju koja se može pripisati instituciji Zajednice, a ne ombudsmanu.
56 The Ombudsman further criticises the Court of First Instance for conducting, in paragraphs 64 to 85 of the judgment appealed against, a detailed analysis of his inquiry and conclusions, as it would have done in the case of an action for annulment, and thus for carrying out an actual review of legality of the whole of the inquiry and his conclusions.
56 Ombudsman nadalje prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu, u točkama 64. do 85. pobijane presude, zbog provođenja detaljne analize njegove istrage i zaključaka kakvu bi proveo u slučaju tužbe za poništenje, kojom je tako proveo stvarni nadzor zakonitosti cijele istrage i njegovih zaključaka.
57 In doing so, the Court of First Instance did not observe the distinction between actions for damages, on the one hand, and actions for annulment and for failure to act, on the other, and disregarded its own case-law and that of the Court from which it is apparent that the Ombudsman's inquiries and decisions cannot be subject to judicial review in the context of the two last-mentioned forms of action.
57 Pritom Prvostupanjski sud nije poštovao razliku između tužbe za naknadu štete, s jedne strane, te tužbe za poništenje i tužbe zbog propusta, s druge strane, te je zanemario svoju sudsku praksu i praksu Suda iz koje je vidljivo da istrage i odluke ombudsmana ne mogu biti predmet sudskog nadzora u okviru zadnje navedenih dvaju oblika tužbi.
58 The Ombudsman criticises the Court of First Instance for none the less allowing such judicial review under the guise of an action for damages and thus opening the way to the introduction of numerous actions for annulment, or for failure to act, against the Ombudsman in the guise of purported actions for damages.
58 Ombudsman prigovara Prvostupanjskom sudu da je dopustio takav sudski nadzor pod krinkom tužbe za naknadu štete i tako otvorio put za uvođenje brojnih tužbi za poništenje odnosno tužbi zbog propusta protiv ombudsmana pod krinkom navodnih tužbi za naknadu štete.
The Court of First Instance failed to take account of the fact that, in actual fact, the action for damages against the Ombudsman constituted a misuse by Mr Lamberts of the actions for annulment and for failure to act.
Prvostupanjski sud propustio je uzeti u obzir činjenicu da tužbom za naknadu štete protiv ombudsmana F. Lamberts u biti zloupotrebljava tužbu za poništenje i tužbu zbog propusta kao pravna sredstva.
59 The action to establish liability is an autonomous form of action, with a particular purpose to fulfil within the system of legal remedies and subject to conditions of use dictated by its specific purpose (Case 4/69 Lütticke v Commission [1971] ECR 325, paragraph 6, and the order of 21 June 1993 in Case C-257/93 Van Parijs and Others v Council and Commission [1993] ECR I-3335, paragraph 14).
59 Tužba za utvrđivanje odgovornosti autonomno je pravno sredstvo koje ima posebnu funkciju u sustavu pravnih sredstava i ovisi o pretpostavkama za primjenu koje su određene uzimajući u obzir njegovu posebnu svrhu (presuda od 28. travnja 1971., Lütticke/Komisija, 4/69, Zb., str. 325., t. 6., i rješenje od 21. lipnja 1993., Van Parijs i dr./Vijeće i Komisija, C-257/93, Zb., str. I-3335., t. 14.).
Although actions for annulment and for failure to act seek a declaration that a legally binding measure is unlawful or that such a measure has not been taken, an action to establish liability seeks compensation for damage resulting from a measure or from unlawful conduct, attributable to a Community institution or body (see to that effect Case 118/83 CMC v Commission [1985] ECR 2325, paragraphs 29 to 31; Case C-308/87 Grifoni v Commission [1990] ECR I-1203, and Case C-146/91 KYDEP v Council and Commission [1994] ECR I-4199).
Iako tužbe za poništenje ili zbog propusta imaju za cilj sankcioniranje nezakonitosti obvezujućeg pravnog akta ili nedostatka takvog akta, predmet je tužbe za utvrđivanje odgovornosti zahtjev za naknadu štete koja proizlazi iz akta ili nezakonitog ponašanja pripisivog instituciji ili tijelu Zajednice (vidjeti u tom smislu presude od 10. srpnja 1985., CMC/Komisija, 118/83, Zb., str. 2325., t. 29. do 31.; od 27. ožujka 1990., Grifoni/ Komisija, C-308/87, Zb., str. I-1203., i od 15. rujna 1994., KYDEP/Vijeće i Komisija, C-146/91, Zb., str. I-4199.).
60 One of the preconditions of the right to reparation is, as has been recalled in paragraph 49 above, that there must be a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals.
60 Jedan od preduvjeta za pravo na naknadu štete je, kako je navedeno u točki 49. ove presude, da mora postojati dovoljno ozbiljna povreda pravnog pravila kojim se pojedincu dodjeljuju prava.
Thus, with regard to the non-contractual liability of the Community, it is necessary to assess the conduct causing the damage in order to establish the liability of a Community institution or body.
Stoga, u području izvanugovorne odgovornosti Zajednice, kako bi se utvrdila odgovornost institucije ili tijela Zajednice, valja ocijeniti postupanje koje je prouzročilo štetu.
61 In fact, if a Community court were unable to assess the legality of the conduct of a Community institution or body, the procedure provided for in Article 235 EC would be rendered ineffective.
61 U stvari, ako sud Zajednice ne bi mogao ocijeniti zakonitost postupanja institucije ili tijela Zajednice, postupak predviđen u članku 235. UEZ-a bio bi lišen svojeg korisnog učinka.
62 Consequently, in the context of an action founded on the non-contractual liability of the Community and seeking reparation for loss allegedly caused by the manner in which the Ombudsman dealt with a complaint, it is appropriate to assess the lawfulness of the Ombudsman's conduct in the performance of his duties.
62 Prema tome, u sklopu tužbe koja se temelji na izvanugovornoj odgovornosti Zajednice i kojom se traži naknada štete za štetu navodno uzrokovanu načinom na koji je ombudsman postupao u rješavanju pritužbe, valja ocijeniti zakonitost postupanja ombudsmana u obavljanju dužnosti.
63 The Court of First Instance was therefore entitled, in paragraphs 64 to 85 of the judgment appealed against, to seek to determine whether the Ombudsman had committed the sufficiently serious breach of Community law alleged against him by Mr Lamberts and to review the manner in which the Ombudsman had dealt with the latter's complaint, in order to determine whether it should uphold the action brought before it.
63 Prvostupanjski sud je, dakle, imao pravo kada je u točkama 64. do 85. pobijane presude želio utvrditi je li ombudsman počinio dovoljno ozbiljnu povredu prava Zajednice za koje ga tereti F. Lamberts i ispitati način na koji je ombudsman postupio s pritužbom potonjeg kako bi utvrdio treba li prihvatiti tužbu koja mu je podnesena.
64 In conclusion the Court of First Instance did not err in law as to the scope of the action for damages by declaring admissible the action brought by Mr Lamberts.
64 Zaključno, Prvostupanjski sud nije počinio pogrešku koja se tiče prava u pogledu područja primjene tužbe za naknadu štete proglasivši tužbu koju je podnio F. Lamberts dopuštenom.
65 Accordingly, the second limb of the plea is unfounded.
65 U skladu s tim, drugi dio žalbenog razloga je neosnovan.
Third limb of the plea
Treći dio žalbenog razloga
66 In the third limb of his plea the Ombudsman, supported by the Parliament, is essentially alleging that the Court of First Instance infringed Community law by declaring admissible the action for damages brought against him by Mr Lamberts, although that action sought reparation of damage caused by the conduct of the Commission.
66 U trećem dijelu žalbenog razloga ombudsman, kojeg podupire Parlament, u biti navodi da je Prvostupanjski sud povrijedio pravo Zajednice proglasivši dopuštenom tužbu za naknadu štete koju je protiv njega podnio F. Lamberts, iako se u toj tužbi traži naknada štete koja je uzrokovana postupanjem Komisije.
In reality Mr Lamberts, who had not brought within the requisite time-limit an action for annulment against the decisions of the Commission concerning him, was seeking, in the guise of an action for damages against the Ombudsman, to circumvent the mandatory time-limits governing the action for annulment in order to challenge before the Community courts the legality of those Commission decisions.
U stvari, F. Lamberts, koji nije u traženom roku podnio tužbu za poništenje odluka Komisije koje se odnose na njega, htio je, pod krinkom tužbe za naknadu štete protiv ombudsmana, izbjeći obvezne rokove koji uređuju postupak za poništenje kako bi pred sudom Zajednice osporio zakonitost tih odluka Komisije.
67 The Ombudsman cannot in any event be held liable for the conduct of the Commission.
67 Ombudsman ni u kojem slučaju ne može biti odgovoran za postupanje Komisije.