natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If, nevertheless, the Court were to accept that it could carry out such a review, the Commission argues that the Court, as the judicature of an international organisation other than the United Nations, could express itself on this question only if the breach of human rights was particularly flagrant and glaring, referring here to Racke.
Ob domnevi, da bi moralo biti izvajanje tak�nega nadzora kljub temu dopustno, Komisija uveljavlja, da lahko Sodi�če, kot sodi�če mednarodne organizacije, ki ni OZN, samo odloči o vpra�anju le, če je kr�itev človekovih pravic posebej očitna in jasna, pri čemer se Komisija v tej zvezi sklicuje na zgoraj navedeno sodbo Racke.
That is not, in the Commission’s view, the case here, owing to the existence of the re-examination procedure before the Sanctions Committee and because it must be supposed that the Security Council had weighed the requirements of international security at issue against the fundamental rights concerned.
V tem primeru pa ni tako, ker obstaja postopek ponovnega preizkusa pred sankcijskem odborom in ker je treba domnevati, da je Varnostni svet tehtal med zadevnimi zahtevami na področju mednarodne varnosti in temeljnimi pravicami.
With regard to the guidance given in Bosphorus, the Commission maintains that, in contrast to the case giving rise to that judgment, the question of the lawfulness and possible nullity of the resolution in question could arise with regard to the contested regulation if the Court were to rule that the Community may not implement a binding resolution of the Security Council because the standards applied by that body in the sphere of human rights, especially in respect of the right to be heard, are insufficient.
Glede presoje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Bosphorus Komisija poudarja, da bi se vpra�anje zakonitosti oziroma morebitne ničnosti zadevne resolucije – drugače kot v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena omenjena sodba – lahko pojavilo v zvezi s sporno uredbo, če bi Sodi�če moralo presoditi, da Skupnost ne more izvajati zavezujoče resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ker standardi na področju človekovih pravic, ki jih ta instanca uporabi, zlasti pravica do izjave, niso zadostni.
That Member State submits that in accordance with Articles 42(2) and 118 of the Rules of Procedure, those arguments must therefore be rejected.
Zato bi bilo treba to trditev v skladu s členi 42(2) in 118 Poslovnika Sodi�ča zavrniti.
In the alternative, the United Kingdom maintains that the special status of resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, as a result of the interaction of Articles 25, 48 and 103 of that Charter, recognised by Article 297 EC,
Podredno, ta država članica navaja, da poseben položaj resolucij, sprejetih na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, ki izhaja iz medsebojnega vpliva členov 25, 48 in 103 te listine ter je priznan s členom 297 ES, vključuje, da je ukrep, ki
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION implies that action taken by a Member State to perform its obligations with a view to maintaining international peace and security is protected against any action founded on Community law.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI ga izvede država članica za izvr�itev svojih obveznosti za ohranitev miru in mednarodne varnosti, varen pred vsemi pravnimi sredstvi, ki temeljijo na pravu Skupnosti.
The primacy of those obligations clearly extends to principles of Community law of a constitutional nature.
Prednost tak�nih obveznosti naj bi na jasen način zajemala načela Skupnosti, ki so ustavne narave.
That Member State maintains that, in Bosphorus, the Court did not declare that it had jurisdiction to determine the validity of a regulation intended to give effect to a resolution of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, but did no more than interpret the regulation concerned for the purpose of determining whether a measure laid down by that regulation had to be applied by the authorities of a Member State in a given case.
Ista država članica poudarja, da se Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Bosphorus ni izreklo za pristojno za presojanje veljavnosti uredbe, katere namen je izvedba resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, temveč se je omejilo na razlago zadevne uredbe, da bi ugotovilo, ali morajo organi države članice v konkretnem primeru uporabiti ukrep, ki ga določa ta uredba.
The French Republic essentially agrees with that interpretation of Bosphorus.
Francoska republika se v bistvu strinja s tak�no razlago navedene sodbe.
The Court will now consider the heads of claim in which the appellants complain that the Court of First Instance, in essence, held that it followed from the principles governing the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the Community legal order that the contested regulation, since it is designed to give effect to a resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations affording no latitude in that respect, could not be subject to judicial review of its internal lawfulness, save with regard to its compatibility with the norms of jus cogens, and therefore to that extent enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction.
Preučiti je treba očitke pritožnikov, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v bistvu presodilo, da iz načel, ki urejajo odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in pravnim redom Skupnosti, izhaja, da izpodbijana uredba, ker izvaja resolucijo Varnostnega sveta, sprejeto na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, ki v ta namen ne dopu�ča prostora pri izvajanju, ne more biti predmet sodnega nadzora glede njene notranje zakonitosti, razen glede njene združljivosti s pravili, ki izhajajo iz ius cogens, zato je v tem okviru deležna sodne imunitete.
In this connection it is to be borne in mind that the Community is based on the rule of law, inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the conformity of their acts with the basic constitutional charter, the EC Treaty, which established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to enable the Court of Justice to review the legality of acts of the institutions (Case 294/83 Les Verts v Parliament [1986] ECR 1339, paragraph 23).
V tej zvezi je treba opomniti, da je Evropska skupnost skupnost, ki temelji na pravu, saj se ne države članice ne institucije ne morejo izogniti nadzoru skladnosti svojih aktov s temeljno ustavno listino, Pogodbo ES, pri čemer je ta oblikovala celosten sistem pravnih sredstev in postopkov, ki Sodi�ču omogočajo nadzor nad zakonitostjo aktov institucij (sodba z dne 23. aprila 1986 v zadevi Les Verts proti Parlamentu, 294/83, Recueil, str. 1339, točka 23).
In addition, according to settled caselaw, fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law whose observance the Court ensures.
Poleg tega so v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso temeljne pravice del splo�nih pravnih načel, katerih spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če.
In that regard, the ECHR has special significance (see, inter alia, Case C-305/05 Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone and Others [2007] ECR I-5305, paragraph 29 and caselaw cited).
EKČP ima pri tem poseben pomen (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 26. junija 2007 v zadevi Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone in drugi, C-305/05, ZOdl., str. I-5305, točka 29 in navedena sodna praksa).
It is also clear from the caselaw that respect for human rights is a condition of the lawfulness of Community acts (Opinion 2/94, paragraph 34) and that measures incompatible with respect for human rights are not acceptable in the Community (Case C-112/00 Schmidberger [2003] ECR I-5659, paragraph 73 and caselaw cited).
Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča prav tako izhaja, da je spo�tovanje človekovih pravic pogoj za zakonitost aktov Skupnosti (zgoraj navedeno mnenje 2/94, točka 34) in da v Skupnosti niso dopustni ukrepi, ki niso združljivi s spo�tovanjem človekovih pravic (sodba z dne 12. junija 2003 v zadevi Schmidberger, C-112/00, Recueil, str. I-5659, točka 73 in navedena sodna praksa).
It follows from all those considerations that the obligations imposed by an international agreement cannot have the effect of prejudicing the constitutional principles of the EC Treaty, which include the principle that all Community acts must respect fundamental rights, that respect constituting a condition of their lawfulness which it is for the Court to review in the framework of the complete system of legal remedies established by the Treaty.
Iz vsega navedenega izhaja, da obveznosti, ki jih nalaga mednarodni sporazum, ne morejo ogroziti ustavnih načel Pogodbe ES, med katerimi se pojavlja načelo, v skladu s katerim morajo vsi akti Skupnosti spo�tovati temeljne pravice, kar je pogoj za njihovo zakonitost, ki jo mora nadzirati Sodi�če v okviru popolnega sistema pravnih sredstev, ki ga vzpostavlja ta Pogodba.
In this regard it must be emphasised that, in circumstances such as those of these cases, the review of lawfulness thus to be ensured by the Community judicature applies to the Community act intended to give effect to the international agreement at issue, and not to the latter as such.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da se v okoli�činah, kot so v tej zadevi, nadzor zakonitosti, ki ga mora zagotoviti sodi�če Skupnosti, nana�a na akt Skupnosti, katerega namen je izvajanje zadevnega mednarodnega sporazuma, ne pa na tega kot takega.
With more particular regard to a Community act which, like the contested regulation, is intended to give effect to a resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, it is not, therefore, for the Community judicature, under the exclusive jurisdiction provided for by Article 220 EC, to review the lawfulness of such a resolution adopted by an international body, even if that review were to be limited to examination of the compatibility of that resolution with jus cogens.
Zlasti glede akta Skupnosti, katerega namen je tako kot v primeru izpodbijane uredbe izvajanje resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, zato ni naloga sodi�ča Skupnosti, da v okviru izključne pristojnosti, določene v členu 220 ES, nadzira zakonitost tak�ne resolucije, ki jo je sprejel ta mednarodni organ, čeprav bi bil ta nadzor omejen na preizkus združljivosti te resolucije z ius cogens.
However, any judgment given by the Community judicature deciding that a Community measure intended to give effect to such a resolution is contrary to a higher rule of law in the Community legal order would not entail any challenge to the primacy of that resolution in international law.
Poleg tega morebitna sodba sodi�ča Skupnosti, s katero bi bilo ugotovljeno, da je akt Skupnosti, katerega namen je izvajanje tak�ne resolucije, v nasprotju z vi�jo določbo, ki izhaja iz prava Skupnosti, ne bi omajala prednosti te resolucije na ravni mednarodnega prava.
The Court has thus previously annulled a decision of the Council approving an international agreement after considering the internal lawfulness of the decision in the light of the agreement in question and finding a breach of a general principle of Community law, in that instance the general principle of non-discrimination (Case C-122/95 Germany v Council [1998] ECR I-973).
Sodi�če je tako že razglasilo za ničen sklep Sveta, s katerim je bil odobren mednarodni sporazum, potem ko je, ob upo�tevanju zadevnega sporazuma, preučilo njegovo notranjo zakonitost, in ugotovilo kr�itev splo�nega načela prava Skupnosti, namreč splo�no načelo prepovedi diskriminacije (sodba z dne 10. marca 1998 v zadevi Nemčija proti Svetu, C-122/95, Recueil, str. I-973).
It must therefore be considered whether, as the Court of First Instance held, as a result of the principles governing the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the Community legal order, any judicial review of the internal lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental freedoms is in principle excluded, notwithstanding the fact that, as is clear from the decisions referred to in paragraphs 281 to 284 above, such review is a constitutional guarantee forming part of the very foundations of the Community.
Zato je treba preučiti, ali kot je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, načela, ki urejajo odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in pravnim redom Skupnosti, vključujejo, da je sodni nadzor notranje zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe glede na temeljne pravice načeloma izključen, čeprav tak nadzor – kot izhaja iz sodne prakse, navedene v točkah od 281 do 284 te sodbe – pomeni ustavno jamstvo, ki izhaja iz temeljev Skupnosti.
In this respect it is first to be borne in mind that the European Community must respect international law in the exercise of its powers (Poulsen and Diva Navigation, paragraph 9, and Racke, paragraph 45), the Court having in addition stated, in the same paragraph of the first of those judgments, that a measure adopted by virtue of those powers must be interpreted, and its scope limited, in the light of the relevant rules of international law.
V tej zvezi je treba najprej spomniti, da je treba pristojnosti Skupnosti izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju mednarodnega prava (zgoraj navedeni sodbi Poulsen in Diva Navigation, točka 9, ter Racke, točka 45), pri čemer je Sodi�če v isti točki prve sodbe poleg tega pojasnilo, da je treba akt, sprejet na podlagi teh pristojnosti, in njegovo omejeno področje uporabe, razlagati v okviru upo�tevnih pravil mednarodnega prava.
Moreover, the Court has held that the powers of the Community provided for by Articles 177 EC to 181 EC in the sphere of cooperation and development must be exercised in observance of the undertakings given in the context of the United Nations and other international organisations (Case C-91/05 Commission v Council [2008] ECR I-3651, paragraph 65 and caselaw cited).
Poleg tega je Sodi�če presodilo, da je treba pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju sodelovanja in razvoja, določene v členih od 177 ES do 181 ES, izvr�evati ob spo�tovanju obveznosti, sprejetih v okviru OZN in drugih mednarodnih organizacij (sodba z dne 20. maja 2008 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu, C-91/05, ZOdl., str. I-3651, točka 65 in navedena sodna praksa).
Observance of the undertakings given in the context of the United Nations is required just as much in the sphere of the maintenance of international peace and security when the Community gives effect, by means of the adoption of Community
Spo�tovanje obveznosti, sprejetih v okviru OZN, je prav tako obvezno na področju ohranitve miru in mednarodne varnosti, ko Skupnost s sprejetjem aktov Skupnosti
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION measures taken on the basis of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES izvaja resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
In the exercise of that latter power it is necessary for the Community to attach special importance to the fact that, in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, the adoption by the Security Council of resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter constitutes the exercise of the primary responsibility with which that international body is invested for the maintenance of peace and security at the global level, a responsibility which, under Chapter VII, includes the power to determine what and who poses a threat to international peace and security and to take the measures necessary to maintain or restore them.
Skupnost mora namreč pri izvajanju te pristojnosti pripisati poseben pomen temu, da sprejetje resolucij – s strani Varnostnega sveta na podlagi VII. poglavja te listine – v skladu s členom 24 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov pomeni izvr�evanje poglavitne pristojnosti, ki jo ima ta mednarodni organ za ohranjanje miru in varnosti v svetovnem merilu, to je odgovornost, ki v okviru tega VII. poglavja vključuje to, da določi, ali obstaja kak�no ogrožanje miru in mednarodne varnosti, ter da sprejme potrebne ukrepe za njuno ohranitev in ponovno vzpostavitev.
Next, it is to be noted that the powers provided for in Articles 60 EC and 301 EC may be exercised only in pursuance of the adoption of a common position or joint action by virtue of the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to the CFSP which provides for action by the Community.
Nato je treba ugotoviti, da je mogoče pristojnosti, določene v členih 60 ES in 301 ES, izvr�evati le po sprejetju skupnega stali�ča ali skupnega ukrepa na podlagi določb Pogodbe EU v zvezi s SZVP, ki predvideva ukrepanje Skupnosti.
Although, because of the adoption of such an act, the Community is bound to take, under the EC Treaty, the measures necessitated by that act, that obligation means, when the object is to implement a resolution of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, that in drawing up those measures the Community is to take due account of the terms and objectives of the resolution concerned and of the relevant obligations under the Charter of the United Nations relating to such implementation.
Čeprav mora Skupnost zaradi sprejetja tak�nega akta sprejeti v okviru Pogodbe ES ukrepe, ki jih ta akt nalaga, pa ta obveznost, kadar gre za izvajanje resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, vključuje, da Skupnost pri določanju teh ukrepov primerno upo�teva besedilo in cilje zadevne resolucije ter upo�tevne obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov in se nana�ajo na tak�no izvajanje.
Furthermore, the Court has previously held that, for the purposes of the interpretation of the contested regulation, account must also be taken of the wording and purpose of Resolution 1390 (2002) which that regulation, according to the fourth recital in the preamble thereto, is designed to implement (Möllendorf and Möllen­dorf­Niehuus, paragraph 54 and caselaw cited).
Kot je Sodi�če že presodilo, je pri razlagi izpodbijane uredbe prav tako treba upo�tevati besedilo in cilj Resolucije 1390(2002), izvajanju katere je v skladu s četrto uvodno izjavo namenjena ta uredba (zgoraj navedena sodba Möllendorf in Möllendorf-Niehuus, točka 54 in navedena sodna praksa).
It must however be noted that the Charter of the United Nations does not impose the choice of a particular model for the implementation of resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter, since they are to be given effect in accordance with the procedure applicable in that respect in the domestic legal order of each Member of the United Nations.
Vendar je treba navesti, da Ustanovna listina Združenih narodov ne daje na izbiro določenega modela za izvajanje resolucij Varnostnega sveta, sprejetih na podlagi VII. poglavja te listine, ker mora to izvajanje nastopiti v skladu z načini, ki se v tem okviru uporabijo v nacionalnem pravnem redu vsake države članice OZN.
The Charter of the United Nations leaves the Members of the United Nations a free choice among the various possible models for transposition of those resolutions into their domestic legal order.
Ustanovna listina Združenih narodov članicam OZN namreč pu�ča prosto izbiro med različnimi mogočimi modeli prenosa tak�nih resolucij v njihov nacionalni pravni red.
It follows from all those considerations that it is not a consequence of the principles governing the international legal order under the United Nations that any judicial review of the internal lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental freedoms is excluded by virtue of the fact that that measure is intended to give effect to a resolution of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Iz vsega navedenega izhaja, da načela, ki urejajo mednarodni pravni red Združenih narodov, ne implicirajo, da je sodni nadzor notranje zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe glede na temeljne pravice izključen, na podlagi tega da je namen tega akta izvajanje resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
What is more, such immunity from jurisdiction for a Community measure like the contested regulation, as a corollary of the principle of the primacy at the level of international law of obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, especially those relating to the implementation of resolutions of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter, cannot find a basis in the EC Treaty.
Tak�na sodna imuniteta akta Skupnosti, kakr�na je izpodbijana uredba, kot posledica načela primarnosti obveznosti – ki izhajajo iz Ustanovne listine Združenih naro -dov – na ravni mednarodnega prava, zlasti tistimi v zvezi z izvajanjem resolucij Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov, sprejetih na podlagi VII. poglavja te listine, sicer nima nobene podlage v Pogodbi ES.
Admittedly, the Court has previously recognised that Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 307 EC) could, if the conditions for application have been satisfied, allow derogations even from primary law, for example from Article 113 of the EC Treaty on the common commercial policy (see, to that effect, Centro­Com, paragraphs 56 to 61).
Gotovo drži, da je Sodi�če že odločilo, da bi člen 234 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi je postal člen 307 ES), če bi bili njegovi pogoji za uporabo izpolnjeni, lahko omogočil izjeme tudi od primarnega prava, na primer od člena 113 Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�a na skupno trgovinsko politiko (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Centro-Com, točke od 56 do 61).
It is true also that Article 297 EC implicitly permits obstacles to the operation of the common market when they are caused by measures taken by a Member State to carry out the international obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining international peace and security.
Prav tako drži, da člen 297 ES implicitno dovoljuje ovire pri delovanju skupnega trga, kot posledico ukrepov, ki jih sprejme država članica zaradi izpolnjevanja mednarodnih obveznosti, ki jih je sprejela za ohranjanje mednarodnega miru in varnosti.
Those provisions cannot, however, be understood to authorise any derogation from the principles of liberty, democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in Article 6(1) EU as a foundation of the Union.
Vendar se teh določb ne more razumeti v smislu, kot da dovoljujejo izjemo od načel svobode, demokracije ter spo�tovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, določenih v členu 6(1) Pogodbe EU, kot temelja Unije.
Article 307 EC may in no circumstances permit any challenge to the principles that form part of the very foundations of the Community legal order, one of which is the protection of fundamental rights, including the review by the Community judicature of the lawfulness of Community measures as regards their consistency with those fundamental rights.
Člen 307 ES namreč v nobenem primeru ne more omajati načel, ki izhajajo iz temeljev pravnega reda Skupnosti, med katerimi je varstvo temeljnih pravic, ki vključuje nadzor zakonitosti aktov Skupnosti s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti glede njihove skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami.