natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, unlike the General Court, the Court of Justice took the view that the designation of a regional or local entity in a decision to grant Community ¤nancial assistance as the authority responsible for the implementation of a European Regional Development Fund project does not imply that that entity is itself entitled to the assistance.
V zvezi s tem je že bilo odločeno, da je vnaprejšnja določitev razumnih prekluzivnih rokov za vložitev pravnih sredstev združljiva s pravom Skupnosti. Sodišče je dodalo, da mora biti poleg tega tak rok za zadevno osebo dovolj predvidljiv.
Also, the very fact that the national authorities stated their intention to recover the sums wrongly received by that regional or local entity was, in the absence of obligations in that regard pursuant to Community law, an expression of an autonomous will on their part, which clearly demonstrated a discretion on the part of the Member State concerned.
Nacionalno sodišče je pristojno, da ob upoštevanju vseh elementov v zvezi s pravnim položajem in dejanskim stanjem v času nastanka dejstev preveri, ali je tako.
Therefore, the Court decided that the entity in question was not directly concerned by the Commission’s decision and, as a result, could only turn to its national courts in order to challenge the legality of national measures relating to the application of a Community act.
Prav tako mora nacionalno sodišče preveriti, ali niso zaradi uporabe roka iz nacionalne zakonodaje po analogiji pogoji za odškodnino za škodo, ki je nastala posameznikom, ker je zadevna država članica kršila pravo Skupnosti, manj ugodni od tistih za odškodnino za podobno škodo na podlagi nacionalnega prava.
The Court also had occasion to recall the requirements of the rule that the parties should be heard, which governs proceedings before the Community Courts.
Sodišče je nato presojalo konkretno uporabo zastaralnega roka in odločilo, da pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva, da se zastaranje pretrga ali zadrži, če je Evropska komisija začela postopek zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena 226 ES.
In Case C-89/08°P Commission v Ireland and Others (judgment of 2 December 2009) it held that that principle does not, as a rule, merely confer on each party to proceedings the right to be apprised of the documents produced and observations made to the Community Courts by the other party and to discuss them, and does not merely prevent the Community Courts from basing their decision on facts and documents which the parties, or one of them, have not had an opportunity to examine and on which they have therefore been unable to comment, but also implies a right for the parties to be apprised of pleas in law raised by those Courts of their own motion, on which they intend basing their decisions, and to discuss them.
Nazadnje je Sodišče glede ravnanja, ki se zahteva od oškodovanca, odločilo, da je s pravom Skupnosti združljiva nacionalna ureditev, v kateri je določeno, da posameznik ne more dobiti odškodnine za škodo, katere nastanka namenoma ali iz malomarnosti ni odvrnil z uporabo pravnega sredstva, če se lahko uporaba tega pravnega sredstva od oškodovanca razumno zahteva, pri čemer je predložitveno sodišče pristojno, da to preveri.
In order to satisfy the requirements associated with the right to a fair hearing, it is important for the parties to be apprised of, and to be able to debate and be heard on, the matters of fact and of law which will determine the outcome of the proceedings.
Verjetnost, da bo nacionalno sodišče vložilo predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ali to, da je bila pri Sodišču
Accordingly, except in particular cases such as, inter alia, those provided for by the rules of procedure of the Community Courts, those Courts cannot base their decisions on a plea raised of their own motion, even one involving a matter of public policy and — as in the present case — based
Letno poročilo 2009
Proceedings on the absence of a statement of reasons for the decision at issue, without ¤rst having invited the parties to submit their observations on that plea.
Razvoj in dejavnost vložena tožba zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, sama po sebi nista zadosten razlog za sklep, da uporaba pravnega sredstva ni ustrezna.
The Court stated that, in the analogous context of Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), it had already held that it is precisely in deference to that article and to the very purpose of every individual’s right to adversarial proceedings and to a fair hearing within the meaning of that provision that the Court may of its own motion, on a proposal from the Advocate General or at the request of the parties order that the oral procedure be reopened, in accordance with Article 61 of its Rules of Procedure, if it considers that it lacks sucient information, or that the case must be dealt with on the basis of an argument which has not been debated between the parties (see order in Case C-17/98 Emesa Sugar [2000] ECR I-665, paragraphs 8, 9 and 18, and Joined Cases C-270/97 and C-271/97 Deutsche Post [2000] ECR I-929, paragraph 30).
Sodišče je v mnenju 1/08 z dne 30. novembra 2009 na predlog Komisije na podlagi člena 300(6)¥ES odločilo o vprašanjih, ali ima Evropska skupnost izključno pristojnost ali le deljeno pristojnost skupaj z državami članicami za sklepanje sporazumov, katerih namen je spremeniti liste specičnih obvez Skupnosti in njenih držav članic na podlagi Splošnega sporazuma o trgovini s storitvami (GATS), z nekaterimi članicami Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) in katera je ustrezna pravna podlaga, ki jo je treba uporabiti pri sklepanju teh sporazumov.
In the present case, it was apparent from the ¤le and from the hearing before the Court of Justice that, by the judgment under appeal, the General Court annulled the Commission’s decision on the basis of a plea that it had raised of its own motion concerning an infringement of Article 253°EC without ¤rst having invited the parties, in the course of the written or oral procedures, to submit their observations on that plea.
V obravnavanem primeru je bilo zaradi širitev v letih 1995 in 2004 nujno oblikovanje nove liste z¥vključenimi trinajstimi novimi državami članicami, ki so do takrat imele svoje liste obvez v okviru GATS. Da bi se združile liste trinajstih novih držav članic z aktualno listo Skupnosti in njenih držav članic, je Komisija 28. maja 2004 sporočila listo sprememb in odstopov od obvez.
In so doing, the General Court failed to have regard to the rule that the parties should be heard, thereby adversely a¥ecting the interests of the Commission.
Na podlagi člena XXI GATS pa so spremembe list obvez sprožile zahtevke po kompenzaciji v korist članic STO, ki so bile prizadete z različnimi spremembami list zaradi združitve. Sodišče je najprej spomnilo, da je izbira ustrezne pravne podlage pomembna z ustavnopravnega vidika.
The Court of Justice explained that, as the Advocate General had noted, while an inadequate statement of reasons is a defect which, in principle, cannot be remedied, the ¤nding of such a defect nevertheless follows from an assessment which, as has consistently been held, must take certain matters into consideration.
Ker ima Skupnost namreč le pristojnosti, ki so ji bile dodeljene, mora sporazum, ki ga namerava skleniti, opreti na neko določbo Pogodbe, s katero je pooblaščena, da ta akt odobri. Proučilo je torej pristojnost Skupnosti za sklepanje zadevnih sporazumov in mogoče pravne podlage za to, saj sta ti vprašanji neločljivo povezani.
Such an assessment may be open to debate, particularly where it relates to the reasons for a spe-ci¤c point of fact and of law rather than to the total absence of reasons.
Sodišče je po proučitvi člena 133(1), (5) in (6) ES sklenilo, da spadajo sporazumi s prizadetimi članicami STO v deljeno pristojnost Evropske skupnosti in držav članic.
In the present case, if the Commission had been in a position to submit its observations, it could, inter alia, have put forward the same arguments as those advanced in relation to the fourth and ¤fth grounds of the appeal.
V zvezi z¥ustrezno pravno podlago je pojasnilo, da sklop„prevoz“, ki ga vsebujejo zadevni sporazumi, spada v skladu s členom 133(6), tretji pododstavek, ES na področje prometne politike, in ne na področje skupne trgovinske politike.
With regard to the obligations which Community law places on Member States, the Court had the opportunity, in Case C-445/06 Danske Slagterier (judgment of 24 March 2009), to recall the principles of the Member States’ non-contractual liability for breach of Community law, while at the same time providing clari¤cation and explanations in relation to their speci¤c application.
Nazadnje je Sodišče na podlagi analize sklepalo, da mora akt Skupnosti o sklenitvi navedenih sporazumov temeljiti tako na členu 133(1), (5) in (6), drugi pododstavek, ES kot na členih 71 ES in 80(2) ES v povezavi s členom 300(2) in (3), prvi pododstavek, ES.
As regards the enforcement of that liability, the Court observed that, in the absence of Community legislation, it is on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the loss or damage caused to individuals by the breach of Community law, provided that the conditions, including time limits, for reparation of loss or damage laid down by national law accord with the principles of equivalence and e¥ectiveness.
Sodišče je v okviru postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki ga je začela Komisija, v zadevah Komisija proti Avstriji in Komisija proti Švedski (sodbi z dne 3. marca 2009, C-205/06 in C-249/06) ugotovilo, da Kraljevina Švedska in Republika Avstrija s tem, da nista sprejeli ustreznih ukrepov za odpravo nezdružljivosti med njunimi obveznostmi iz prava Skupnosti in določbami na področju prenosa kapitala, vsebovanimi v sporazumih o naložbah, ki sta jih sklenili z nekaterimi tretjimi državami, nista izpolnili obveznosti iz člena 307, drugi odstavek, ES.
The laying down in advance of reasonable time limits for bringing proceedings has already been held to be compatible with Community law.
V obravnavanih primerih so različni zadevni sporazumi o naložbah vsebovali določbe, ki so zagotavljale prosti prenos plačil v zvezi z naložbo v konvertibilni valuti.
The Court added that such a time limit must also be suciently foreseeable for individuals.
Ti sporazumi so bili v tem delu v skladu z besedilom člena 56(1) ES, ki prepoveduje vse omejitve pretoka kapitala in plačil med državami članicami ter med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
It is for the national court, taking account of all the features of the legal and factual situation at the material time, to determine whether that is the case.
Vendar je Svet na podlagi določb členov 57(2) ES, 59¥ES in 60(1) ES pristojen, da v natančno določenih primerih omeji pretok kapitala in plačil med državami članicami in tretjimi državami.
It is likewise for the national court to determine whether, as a result of the application by analogy of the time limit laid down in national legislation, the conditions for reparation of loss or damage caused to individuals by the breach of Community law by the Member State concerned are less favourable than those applicable to the reparation of similar domestic loss or damage.
Sodišče je najprej ugotovilo, da je za zagotovitev polnega učinka navedenih določb potrebno, da je ukrepe, ki omejujejo prosti pretok kapitala – če jih je sprejel Svet – mogoče takoj uporabiti v zvezi z državami, na katere se nanašajo in med katerimi so lahko tiste, ki so podpisale enega od spornih sporazumov s Kraljevino Švedsko in Republiko Avstrijo.
Next, ruling on the speci¤c application of the limitation period, the Court held that Community law does not require the period to be interrupted or suspended where the European Commission has brought infringement proceedings under Article 226°EC.
Te pristojnosti Sveta – in sicer enostransko sprejetje omejevalnih ukrepov glede tretjih držav na področju, ki je enako področju, ki je urejeno s predhodno sklenjenim sporazumom med državo članico in tretjo državo, ali je s takim področjem povezano – razkrijejo nezdružljivost z¥navedenim sporazumom, prvič, če ta ne vsebuje določbe, na podlagi katere bi zadevna država članica lahko izvrševala svoje pravice in izpolnjevala svoje obveznosti kot članica Skupnosti, in, drugič, če tega ne omogoča niti noben mehanizem mednarodnega prava.
Court of Justice injurious e¥ects thereof are foreseeable, even if that date is prior to the correct transposition of the directive.
Sodišče pojasnilo, da je čas, ki ga zahtevajo mednarodna pogajanja in je potreben za ponovno razpravo o¥zadevnih sporazumih, sam po sebi nezdružljiv s polnim učinkom teh ukrepov.
The likelihood that a national court will make a reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234°EC or the existence of infringement proceedings pending before the Court of Justice cannot, in itself, constitute a sucient reason for concluding that it is not reasonable to have recourse to a legal remedy.
Možnost uporabe drugih mednarodnopravnih ukrepov, kakršna je začasna prekinitev izvajanja sporazuma ali celo odpoved zadevnih sporazumov oziroma nekaterih njihovih določb, je preveč negotova za zagotovitev¥učinkovite uporabe ukrepov, ki jih je sprejel Svet.
With regard to the law governing the Community’s external relations, an opinion and three cases are particularly noteworthy.
Sodišče je v zadevi Soysal in Savatli (sodba z dne 19. februarja 2009, C-228/06) presojalo klavzulo
In Opinion 1/08 of 30 November 2009, the Court ruled pursuant to Article 300(6)°EC, at the request of the Commission, on whether the European Community’s competence to conclude with certain members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreements modifying the Schedules of Speci¤c Commitments of the Community and its Member States under the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is exclusive or merely shared with the Member States, and on what the appropriate legal basis is to which recourse must be had when concluding those agreements.
„standstill“ iz člena 41(1) Dodatnega protokola k Sporazumu o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija klavzulo pogodbenici od začetka veljavnosti navedenega protokola medsebojno ne smeta uvajati novih omejitev za svobodo ustanavljanja in svobodo opravljanja storitev.
In this instance, the enlargements which took place in 1995 and 2004 made it necessary to draw up a new schedule, including the 13 new Member States which until then had had their own schedules of commitments in relation to GATS.
Obravnavani primer se je nanašal na turška državljana, ki sta nameravala na ozemlju države članice izvrševati pravico svobodnega opravljanja storitev na podlagi navedenega sporazuma o¥pridružitvi.
In order to merge the schedules of commitments of the 13 new Member States with the existing schedule of the Community and of its Member States, the Commission noti¤ed the list of modi¤cations and withdrawals of commitments on 28 May 2004.
Sodišče je najprej opozorilo, da ima ta določba, ki je jasna, natančna in brezpogojna, neposredni učinek.
Under Article XXI of GATS, those modi¤cations to the schedule of commitments resulted in requests for compensation for the WTO members a¥ected by the various adjustments to the lists on account of the merger.
Nato je zadevno določbo razložilo tako, da ta od začetka veljavnosti Dodatnega protokola k Sporazumu o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija v zvezi z zadevno državo članico prepoveduje uvedbo obveznosti vizuma, da bi se turškim državljanom dovolil vstop na ozemlje države članice zaradi opravljanja storitev na tem ozemlju za podjetje s sedežem v Turčiji, ker se takšen vizum na ta dan ni zahteval.
The Court recalled, ¤rst of all, that the choice of the appropriate legal basis has constitutional signi¤cance.
Po mnenju Sodišča o tej ugotovitvi ni mogoče dvomiti zaradi okoliščine, da navedena omejitev izhaja iz nacionalnega predpisa za izvajanje določbe Skupnosti iz sekundarne zakonodaje, ker so mednarodni sporazumi, ki jih je sklenila Skupnost, hierarhično nad akti sekundarne zakonodaje Skupnosti.
Since the Community has conferred powers only, it must tie the agreement that it seeks to conclude to a Treaty provision which empowers it to approve such a measure.
Zadeva Rüer (sodba z dne 23. aprila 2009, C-544/07) je dober primer uporabe pravice državljanov Unije do gibanja in prebivanja.
It therefore considered the Community’s competence to conclude the agreements at issue and the possible legal bases for such a conclusion, the two questions being inextricably linked.
Nekdanji nemški delavec U. Rü±er, ki se je po upokojitvi nastanil na Poljskem, prejema v Nemčiji dve pokojnini, od katerih je ena obdavčena v tej državi članici, druga pa na poljskem ozemlju.
Having analysed Article 133(1), (5) and (6)°EC, the Court came to the conclusion that the agreements with the a¥ected WTO members fall within the sphere of shared competence of the European Community and the Member States.
U.¥Rü±er je poljski davčni upravi predlagal, naj mu od dohodnine, za plačilo katere je zavezan na Poljskem, odbije znesek prispevkov za zdravstveno zavarovanje, ki jih je plačal v Nemčiji.
With regard to the appropriate legal basis, it stated that the ‘transport’ aspect of the agreements at issue falls, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 133(6)°EC, within the sphere of transport policy and not that of the common commercial policy.
Ta predlog je bil zavrnjen, ker poljska zakonodaja določa, da se lahko od dohodnine odbijejo le prispevki, plačani poljskemu nosilcu zdravstvenega zavarovanja.
Finally, the Court’s analysis led it to conclude that the Community act concluding the abovementioned agreements must be based both on Article 133(1), (5) and (6), second subparagraph, EC and on Articles 71°EC and 80(2)°EC, in conjunction with Article 300(2) and (3), ¤rst subparagraph, EC.
Zadeva je bila predložena nacionalnemu sodišču in nato še sodišču Skupnosti.
In Case C-205/06 Commission v Austria and Case C-249/06 Commission v Sweden (judgments of 3 March 2009) the Court held, in infringement proceedings brought by the Commission, that, by not having taken appropriate steps to eliminate incompatibilities between their obligations under Community law and provisions on transfer of capital contained in investment agreements entered into with certain third countries, the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Austria had failed to ful¤l their obligations under the second paragraph of Article 307°EC.
Rü±er opre na svoj status državljana Unije in torej na svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, kot jo določa člen 18 ES. Sodišče je zato proučilo skladnost poljskega davčnega sistema s tem členom in odločilo, da je v¥delu, v katerem je pridobitev davčne ugodnosti na podlagi prispevkov odvisna od tega, da so bili ti plačani poljskemu nosilcu zdravstvenega zavarovanja, in se zavezancem, ki so plačali prispevke nosilcu iz druge države članice, ta ugodnost ne prizna, poljska ureditev v škodo zavezancev, ki so izvrševali pravico do prostega gibanja, tako da so zapustili državo članico, v kateri so opravljali
In the cases in point, the various investment agreements at issue contained provisions guaranteeing the free transfer,
Dodatni protokol, ki je bil podpisan 23. novembra 1970 v Bruslju ter sprejet, odobren in potrjen v imenu Skupnosti z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 2760/72 z dne 19. decembra 1972 (UL L 293, str. 1).
Proceedings in freely convertible currency, of payments connected with an investment.
Razvoj in dejavnost vso svojo poklicno dejavnost, da bi se nastanili na Poljskem.
To that extent, those agreements were consistent with the wording of Article 56(1)°EC which prohibits any restriction on the movement of capital and of payments between Member States and between Member States and third countries.
Taka omejitev pravice do zmanjšanja dohodnine je omejitev svobode gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki ni objektivno utemeljena.
However, the provisions of Articles 57(2)°EC, 59°EC and 60(1)°EC confer on the Council power to restrict, in certain speci¤c circumstances, movements of capital and payments between Member States and third countries.
S tega področja je treba navesti tri zadeve, ki kažejo, kako težko je opredeliti obseg pojma ukrepa z enakim učinkom.
The Court ¤rst of all observed that, in order to ensure the e¥ectiveness of those provisions, measures restricting the free movement of capital must be capable, where adopted by the Council, of being applied immediately with regard to the States to which they relate, which may include some of the States party to one of the agreements at issue with the Kingdom of Sweden and the Republic of Austria.
Sodišče je v zadevi Komisija proti Italiji (sodba z dne 10. februarja 2009, C-110/05), potem ko je ponovno odprlo ustni postopek, odločalo o tožbi Komisije, v kateri je ta Sodišču predlagala, naj ugotovi, da Italijanska republika s tem, da je prepovedala, da mopedi, motorna kolesa, trikolesa in štirikolesa vlečejo priklopnik, ni izpolnila obveznosti iz člena 28 ES.
Those powers of the Council, which consist in the unilateral adoption of restrictive measures with regard to third countries on a matter which is identical to or connected with that covered by an earlier agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country, reveal an incompatibility with that agreement where, ¤rst, the agreement does not contain a provision allowing the Member State concerned to exercise its rights and to ful¤l its obligations as a member of the Community and, second, there is also no international law mechanism which makes that possible.
Po mnenju Sodišča država članica, ki zaradi zagotavljanja varnosti v cestnem prometu prepove, da taka vozila vlečejo priklopnik, ki je za to posebej zasnovan in zakonito proizveden ter tržen v drugih državah članicah, ne krši obveznosti iz navedenega člena.
The Court stated, moreover, that the periods of time necessarily involved in any international negotiations which would be required in order to reopen discussion of the agreements at issue were inherently incompatible with the practical e¥ectiveness of those measures.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da taka prepoved sicer pomeni ukrep z enakim učinkom, kot so količinske omejitve pri uvozu, ki je prepovedan z navedenim členom, ker je njegov učinek oviranje dostopa do zadevnega trga za priklopnike, ki so posebej zasnovani za motorna kolesa, saj znatno vpliva na ravnanje uporabnikov in preprečuje povpraševanje po takih priklopnikih na tem trgu.
The possibility of relying on other mechanisms o¥ered by international law, such as suspension of the agreement, or even denunciation of the agreements at issue or of some of their provisions, was too uncertain in its e¥ects to guarantee that the measures adopted by the Council could be applied e¥ectively.
Vendar pa je treba navedeno prepoved v obravnavanem primeru šteti za utemeljeno z razlogi zagotavljanja varnosti v cestnem prometu.
In Case C-228/06 Soysal and Savatli (judgment of 19 February 2009) the Court ruled on the ‘stand-still’ clause provided for in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC–Turkey Association
Čeprav mora država članica, ki se sklicuje na nujno zahtevo za utemeljitev ovire za prosti pretok blaga, dokazati, da je njena ureditev ustrezna in nujna za dosego legitimnega cilja, ki mu sledi, pa to dokazno breme ne more biti takšno, da bi se od te države članice zahtevalo, naj pozitivno dokaže, da tega cilja v enakih razmerah ne bi bilo mogoče izpolniti z nobenim drugim ukrepom, ki si ga je mogoče predstavljati.
), according to which the contracting parties are to refrain from introducing between themselves any new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services as from the date of entry into force of the protocol.
Namreč – čeprav ni izključeno, da se z drugačnimi ukrepi od zadevne prepovedi lahko zagotovi neka raven varnosti v cestnem prometu za uporabo motornega kolesa in priklopnika skupaj – državam članicam ni mogoče odreči možnosti, da uresničijo cilj, kot je varnost v cestnem prometu, z uvedbo splošnih in preprostih pravil, ki bi jih vozniki zlahka razumeli in uporabljali, pristojni organi pa bi jih preprosto upravljali in nadzorovali.