natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
66 The appellants claim that the armed conflict which took place in Côte d'Ivoire should be regarded as a case of force majeure as far as they are concerned, since, during that period, they had no means of communication whereby they could become aware of the contested measures and therefore could not exercise their right to bring proceedings. 
66 Žalitelji tvrde da oružani sukob koji se dogodio u Côte d'Ivoireu treba smatrati višom silom što se njih tiče jer u tom razdoblju nisu imali sredstva komunikacije kojima bi saznali o postojanju spornih mjera i stoga nisu mogli ostvariti svoje pravo podnošenja tužbe.
67 The Council states that one of the constituent elements of the concept of force majeure is the occurrence of an event outside the control of the person who wishes to rely on it, that is to say when something happens which the person concerned can take no action to influence (Case C-334/08 Commission v Italy [2010] ECR I-6869, paragraph 47). 
67 Vijeće navodi da je jedan od sastavnih elemenata pojma više sile pojava događaja izvan kontrole osobe koja se želi pozvati na nju, to jest, kada se dogodi nešto na što dotična osoba ne može nikako utjecati (presuda od 8. srpnja 2010., Komisija/Italija, C-334/08, Zb., str. I-6869., t. 47.).
Yet the post-election crisis in Côte d'Ivoire and the violence associated with that crisis were provoked by the refusal of Mr Gbagbo and his colleagues to surrender power to the elected President. 
No, kriza nastala poslije izbora u Côte d'Ivoireu i nasilje povezano s tom krizom izazvani su odbijanjem L. Gbagba i njegovih kolega da predaju vlast izabranom predsjedniku.
Those circumstances are therefore not outside the control of the appellants. 
Te okolnosti, stoga, nisu izvan kontrole žalitelja.
68 Under the second paragraph of Article 45 of the Statute of the Court, `no right shall be prejudiced in consequence of the expiry of a time-limit if the party concerned proves the existence of unforeseeable circumstances or of force majeure.' 
68 Prema članku 45. stavku 2. Statuta Suda, „istek roka nema štetan utjecaj na prava zainteresirane stranke ako ona dokaže postojanje nepredvidivih okolnosti ili više sile".
69 It is clear that, as stated by the General Court in the orders under appeal, the appellants did not argue before it that such circumstances existed. 
69 Jasno je da, kao što je Opći sud naveo u pobijanim rješenjima, žalitelji nisu pred njim iznijeli žalbeni razlog postojanja takvih okolnosti.
70 The Court has however held that an appellant cannot be criticised for relying for the first time at the appeal stage on the existence of force majeure where the General Court gave its decision by order on the basis of Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure, did not inform the applicant of its intention to dismiss his action as being out of time and did not ask the applicant to explain the delay in the arrival at the Registry of the original of the application (order of 18 January 2005 in Case C-325/03 P Zuazaga Meabe v OHIM [2005] ECR I-403, paragraph 24). 
70 Sud, međutim, smatra da se žalitelju ne može prigovoriti što se na postojanje više sile poziva po prvi put u fazi žalbe, kad je Opći sud donio svoju odluku rješenjem na temelju članka 111. Poslovnika Suda, nije obavijestio žalitelja da namjerava odbiti njegovu tužbu kao podnesenu nakon proteka roka i nije od njega zatražio da objasni kašnjenje dospijeća izvornika tužbe u tajništvo (rješenje od 18. siječnja 2005., Zuazaga Meabe/OHIM, C-325/03 P, Zb., str. I-403., t. 24.).
The appellants' first ground of appeal on the existence of force majeure must therefore be examined. 
Zato prvi žalbeni razlog žalitelja o postojanju više sile valja ispitati.
71 In that regard, it must first be recalled that the strict application of procedural rules serves the requirements of legal certainty and the need to avoid any discrimination or arbitrary treatment in the administration of justice (Case C-426/10 P Bell & Ross v OHIM [2011] ECR I-8849, paragraph 43 and case-law cited). 
71 U tom pogledu valja podsjetiti da stroga primjena postupovnih pravila služi osiguravanju pravne sigurnosti i potrebi izbjegavanja diskriminacije ili proizvoljnog postupanja pri vođenju sudskih postupaka (presuda od 22. rujna 2011., Bell & Ross/OHIM, C-426/10 P, Zb., str. I-8849., t. 43. i navedena sudska praksa).
72 It must next be observed that, in accordance with the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and Article 45 of the Statute of the Court, it is for the party concerned to establish, first, that abnormal circumstances, unforeseeable and outside his control, made it impossible for him to comply with the time-limit for bringing proceedings laid down in the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and, secondly, that he could not guard against the consequences of those circumstances by taking appropriate steps without making unreasonable sacrifices (see, to that effect, Case C-314/06 Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône [2007] ECR I-12273, paragraph 24 and case-law cited). 
72 Zatim valja primijetiti da je, u skladu s člankom 263. stavkom 6. UFEU-a i člankom 45. Statuta Suda, na zainteresiranoj stranki da utvrdi, kao prvo, da su joj neuobičajene okolnosti, koje su nepredvidive i izvan njezine kontrole, onemogućile poštovanje roka za podnošenje tužbe utvrđenog u članku 263. stavku 6. UFEU-a, i kao drugo, da se ne bi mogla zaštiti od posljedica tih okolnosti poduzimanjem odgovarajućih koraka bez nerazumne žrtve (vidjeti u tom smislu presudu od 18. prosinca 2007., Société Pipeline Méditerranée et Rhône, C-314/06, Zb., str. I-12273., t. 24. i navedenu sudsku praksu).
73 In this case, the appellants make general reference to there being in Côte d'Ivoire a situation of armed conflict, which according to them began in November 2010 and continued at least until April 2011. 
73 U ovom predmetu žalitelji uopćeno navode da je u Côte d'Ivoireu bilo stanje oružanog sukoba, koji je prema njihovom mišljenju počeo u studenom 2010. i nastavio se barem do travnja 2011.
74 However, none of the appellants has presented, in their appeals before the Court, any material which might enable the Court to understand in what way and for what specific period of time the general situation of armed conflict in Côte d'Ivoire and the personal circumstances relied on by the appellants prevented them from bringing their actions in good time. 
74 Međutim, u svojim žalbama pred Sudom niti jedan od žalitelja nije predočio nikakav materijal koji bi omogućio Sudu da razumije na koji način i u kojem su određenom razdoblju stanje oružanog sukoba u Côte d'Ivoireu i osobne okolnosti na koje se pozivaju sprečavali žalitelje da pravovremeno podnesu tužbe.
75 In those circumstances, the first ground of appeal must be rejected. 
75 U tim okolnostima prvi žalbeni razlog treba odbiti.
76 Since neither of the grounds relied on by the appellants is well founded, the appeals must be dismissed. 
76 Budući da nijedan od razloga koje su žalitelji istaknuli u prilog svojoj žalbi nije osnovan, žalbe valja odbiti.
77 Under Article 138(1) of the Court's Rules of Procedure, which applies to the procedure on appeal by virtue of Article 184(1) thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. 
77 U skladu s člankom 138. stavkom 1. Poslovnika Suda, koji se na temelju članka 184. stavka 1. tog poslovnika primjenjuje na žalbeni postupak, stranka koja ne uspije u postupku dužna je, na zahtjev protivne stranke, snositi troškove.
Since the Council has applied for costs and the appellants have been unsuccessful, the appellants must be ordered to pay the costs. 
Budući da žalitelji nisu uspjeli u postupku te s obzirom da je je Vijeće zatražilo da oni snose troškove, treba im naložiti snošenje troškova.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby 
Slijedom navedenoga, Sud (veliko vijeće) proglašava i presuđuje:
1. Dismisses the appeals; 
1. Žalbe se odbijaju;
2. Orders Mr Laurent Gbagbo, Mr Katinan Justin Koné, Ms Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Mr Alcide Djédjé and Mr Affi Pascal N'Guessan to pay the costs. 
2. Laurentu Gbagbu, Katinanu Justinu Konéu, Akissi Danièle Boni-Claverie, Alcideu Djédjéu i Affiu Pascalu N'Guessanu nalaže se snošenje troškova.
Judgment of the Court of 27 September 1988. - European Parliament v Council of the European Communities. - Capacity of the European Parliament to bring an action for annulment. 
PRESUDA SUDA 27. rujna 1988. () „Aktivna procesna legitimacija Europskog parlamenta za podnošenje tužbe za poništenje"
In Case 302/87 
U predmetu 302/87,
European Parliament, represented by F . Pasetti Bombardella, Jurisconsult of the Parliament, assisted by C . Pennera and J . Schoo, members of the Parliament' s Legal Department, acting as Agents, with an address for service at the Secretariat-General of the European Parliament, Kirchberg, Luxembourg, 
Europski parlament, koji zastupaju F. Pasetti Bombardella, pravni savjetnik Parlamenta uz asistenciju C. Pennere i J. Schooa, članova pravne službe Parlamenta, u svojstvu agenata, s izabranom adresom za dostavu pri glavnom tajništvu Europskog parlamenta, Plateau du Kirchberg, Luxembourg,
v Council of the European Communities, represented by A . A . Dashwood, Director, F . Van Craeyenest, a Principal Administrator in the Council' s Legal Department, and B . Laloux, a member of that department, acting as Agents, with an address for service at the office of J . Kaeser, Manager of the Legal Directorate of the European Investment Bank, 100 boulevard Konrad-Adenauer, Luxembourg, 
protiv Vijeća Europskih zajednica, koje zastupaju A. A. Daschwood, direktor, F. Van Craeyenest, glavni administrator, i B. Laloux, članica Pravne službe Vijeća, u svojstvu agenata, s izabranom adresom za dostavu pri uredu J. Kaesera, direktora uprave za pravne poslove Europske investicijske banke, 100, Boulevard Konrad-Adenauer, Luxembourg,
APPLICATION for a declaration that Council Decision 87/373/EEC of 13 July 1987 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission is void, 
povodom zahtjeva za poništenje Odluke Vijeća 87/373/EEZ od 13. srpnja 1987. o utvrđivanju postupaka za izvršavanje provedbenih ovlasti dodijeljenih Komisiji,
THE COURT 
SUD,
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.