natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the alternative, FIAMM and Fedon claimed, in particular, that the Community had incurred noncontractual liability even in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions.
FIAMM in Fedon podredno med drugim navajata nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti, tudi če njeni organi niso ravnali nezakonito.
Proceedings before the Court of First Instance
Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje
It is apparent from paragraphs 48 to 59 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 48 to 55 of the Fedon judgment that the proceedings before the Court of First Instance took the following course.
Iz točk od 48 do 59 sodbe FIAMM in iz točk od 48 do 55 sodbe Fedon izhaja, da je postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje potekal tako.
FIAMM’s action was brought on 23 March 2000 (Case T-69/00).
Tožba FIAMM je bila vložena 23. marca 2000 (zadeva T-69/00). S sklepom z dne 11. septembra 2000 je bilo Kraljevini Španiji odobreno, da intervenira v tej zadevi.
Fedon’s action was brought on 18 June 2001 (Case T-135/01).
Tožba Fedon pa je bila vložena 18. junija 2001 (zadeva T-135/01).
Following a request made by the Commission pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, both cases were reassigned to a chamber in extended composition, composed of five judges, by decisions of the Court of First Instance of 4 July and 7 October 2002.
Ti dve zadevi sta bili na predlog Komisije, ki je bil vložen v skladu s členom 51(1), drugi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, odstopljeni raz�irjenemu senatu petih sodnikov s sklepoma Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 4. julija in 7. oktobra 2002.
Following the departure from office of the Judge-Rapporteur initially designated in those cases, a new Judge-Rapporteur was appointed on 13 December 2002.
Zaradi prenehanja funkcij sodnika poročevalca, ki je bil prvotno določen v navedenih zadevah, je bil 13. decembra 2002 imenovan novi sodnik poročevalec.
By order of 3 February 2003, the case which gave rise to the FIAMM judgment and the cases which gave rise to the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 in Laboratoire du Bain v Council and Commission (Case T-151/00) and Groupe Fremaux and Palais Royal v Council and Commission (Case T-301/00) were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure.
Zadeva, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba FIAMM, ter zadevi Laboratoire du Bain proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-151/00) ter Grupe Fremaux in Palais Royal proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-301/00), v katerih sta bili izrečeni sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 14. decembra 2005, so bile s sklepom z dne 3. februarja 2003 združene za namene ustnega postopka.
A hearing was held in those cases on 11 March 2003.
Obravnava teh zadev je bila 11. marca 2003.
By decisions of 23 March and 1 April 2004, the Court of First Instance reopened the oral procedure in those cases and referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court of First Instance both them and the related cases which gave rise to the judgments of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 in CD Cartondruck v Council and Commission (Case T-320/00) and Beamglow v Parliament and Others (Case T-383/00) and to the Fedon judgment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sklepoma z dne 23. marca in 1. aprila 2004 ponovno začelo ustni postopek v navedenih zadevah in je te zadeve ter povezani zadevi CD Cartondruck proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-320/00) ter Beamglow proti Parlamentu (T-383/00), v katerih sta bili izrečeni sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 14. decembra 2005, in sodbo Fedon predložilo velikemu senatu Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
These six cases were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure by order of 19 May 2004.
Teh �est zadev je bilo združenih s sklepom z dne 19. maja 2004 za namene ustnega postopka.
The hearing was held on 26 May 2004.
Obravnava je bila 26. maja 2004.
The judgments under appeal
Izpodbijani sodbi
By the judgments under appeal, the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought by FIAMM and Fedon.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijanimi sodbami zavrnilo tožbi FIAMM in Fedon.
The Court first dismissed, in paragraphs 84 to 150 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 77 to 143 of the Fedon judgment, those applicants’ actions for compensation in so far as they were founded on the regime governing noncontractual liability for unlawful conduct of the Community institutions.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej zavrnilo, v točkah od 84 do 150 sodbe FIAMM in od 77 do 143 sodbe Fedon, od�kodninske tožbe teh tožečih strank, kolikor so temeljile na nepogodbeni odgovornosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja institucij Skupnosti.
Paragraph 100 of the FIAMM judgment is worded as follows:
V točki 100 sodbe FIAMM je navedeno:
‘The applicants observe that all the principles infringed by the defendants are higherranking and are designed to protect individuals.
„Tožeči stranki menita, da so vsa načela, ki jih toženi stranki nista spo�tovali, prednostna in so namenjena varstvu posameznikov.
Before the United States increased the import duty, the WTO regime directly granted the applicants the right to import their products into the United States paying the original import duty at the reduced rate of 3.5%.
Pred uvedbo ameri�ke dodatne dajatve je ureditev STO tožečima strankama neposredno zagotavljala pravico do uvoza njunih proizvodov v Združene države ob plačilu prvotne uvozne dajatve po znižani stopnji 3,5 %.
Even if the WTO agreements are not to be regarded as directly applicable, such effect must be accorded to the [DSB’s] decision [of 25 September 1997] that found against the Community, which meets all the conditions laid down for that purpose by Community case-law.’
Če predpostavimo, da sporazumov STO ni mogoče �teti za neposredno uporabne, bi moral biti tak učinek priznan sklepu ORS [z dne 25. septembra 1997], s katerim je bila Skupnost obsojena, ki izpolnjuje vse pogoje, ki jih je za to določila sodna praksa Skupnosti.“
Paragraph 93 of the Fedon judgment is couched in the following terms:
V točki 93 sodbe Fedon pa je navedeno:
‘The applicants observe that, even if the WTO agreements were to be considered not to have direct effect, the DSB’s decision [of 25 September 1997] that found against the Community should on the other hand be recognised as having such a property.
„Tožeči stranki navajata da, tudi če je treba �teti, da sporazumi STO nimajo neposrednega učinka, bi moral biti tak učinek priznan sklepu ORS [z dne 25. septembra 1997], s katerim je bila Skupnost obsojena.
The Court of Justice has acknowledged that it has the power to review the legality of actions of the Community institutions where, as here, they intended to implement a specific obligation assumed within the framework of the GATT.’
Sodi�če naj bi priznalo svojo pristojnost za nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, če so, kot v obravnavani zadevi, nameravale izvr�iti posebno obveznost, ki so jo prevzele v okviru GATT.“
Ruling on the preliminary question as to whether the WTO rules could be relied upon, the Court of First Instance held in particular, in paragraphs 108 to 115 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 101 to 108 of the Fedon judgment:
Z izrekom o predhodnem vpra�anju o možnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 108 do 115 sodbe FIAMM in v točkah od 101 do 108 sodbe Fedon med drugim presodilo:
[101] Before examining the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions, it is necessary to decide whether the WTO agreements give rise, for persons subject to Community law, to the right to rely on those agreements when contesting the validity of Community legislation if the DSB has declared that both that legislation and the subsequent legislation adopted
„108 [101] Preden začnemo preizkus zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, je treba odločiti glede vpra�anja, ali sporazumi STO dajejo posameznikom v Skupnosti pravico, da se sklicujejo nanje v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo veljavnost skupnostne ureditve, če je ORS odločil, da je tako ta kot
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION by the Community in order to comply with the WTO rules in question are incompatible with those rules.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI tudi ureditev, ki jo je Skupnost sprejela naknadno zaradi uskladitve z zadevnimi pravili STO, z njimi nezdružljiva.
[102] The applicants rely in this connection on the principle pacta sunt serv­anda, which is one of the rules of law with which the Community institutions must comply when carrying out their functions, being a fundamental principle of all legal orders and particularly of the international legal order (Case C-162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I-3655, paragraph 49).
109 [102] Tožeči stranki se glede tega sklicujeta na načelo pacta sunt servanda, ki se dejansko nahaja v �tevilnih pravnih pravilih, ki jih morajo institucije Skupnosti spo�tovati pri izvr�evanju svojih nalog, in pomeni temeljno načelo vsakega pravnega reda in zlasti mednarodnega pravnega reda (sodba Sodi�ča z dne 16. junija 1998 v zadevi Racke, C-162/96, Recueil, str. I-3655, točka 49).
[104] First, the Agreement establishing the WTO is founded on reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements which distinguish it from those agreements concluded between the Community and nonmember States that introduce a certain asymmetry of obligations.
111 [104] Dejansko Sporazum o ustanovitvi STO temelji na vzajemnosti in medsebojnih ugodnostih, kar ta sporazum razlikuje od sporazumov, ki jih je Skupnost sklenila s tretjimi državami in ki uvajajo določeno asimetrijo v obveznostih.
It is common ground that some of the most important commercial partners of the Community do not include the WTO agreements among the rules by reference to which their courts review the legality of their rules of domestic law.
Vendar ni sporno, da nekateri najpomembnej�i trgovinski partnerji Skupnosti sporazumov STO ne uvr�čajo med norme, ob upo�tevanju katerih bi njihovi sodni organi nadzorovali zakonitost njihovih nacionalnih pravnih pravil.
To review the legality of actions of the Community institutions in the light of those rules could therefore lead to an unequal application of the WTO rules depriving the legislative or executive organs of the Community of the scope for manoeuvre enjoyed by their counterparts in the Community’s trading partners (Portugal v Council, cited … above, paragraphs 42 to 46).
S tem bi torej tvegali, da nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti ob upo�tevanju teh norm povzroči neravnotežje pri uporabi pravil STO, pri čemer bi bili zakonodajni ali izvr�ilni organi Skupnosti prikraj�ani za diskrecijo, ki jo imajo podobni organi trgovinskih partnerjev Skupnosti ([zgoraj navedena] sodba Portugalska proti Svetu, […] točke od 42 do 46).
[105] Second, to require the courts to refrain from applying rules of internal law which are incompatible with the WTO agreements would have the consequence of depriving the legislative or executive organs of the contracting parties of the possibility afforded by Article 22 of the DSU of entering into negotiated arrangements, even on a temporary basis, in order to arrive at mutually acceptable compensation (Portugal v Council, cited … above, paragraphs 39 and 40).
112 [105] Na drugi strani bi bila posledica naložitve obveznosti sodnim organom, da odstopijo od uporabe pravil notranjega prava, ki niso združljiva s sporazumi STO, to, da bi zakonodajnim in izvr�ilnim organom pogodbenih strank odvzela možnost, ki jo daje člen 22 DPPRS, in sicer najti čeprav začasno re�itev, doseženo s pogajanji, z namenom doseči vzajemno sprejemljivo nadomestilo ([zgoraj navedena] sodba Portugalska proti Svetu, […] točki 39 in 40).
[108] However, notwithstanding the existence of a decision of the DSB finding the measures taken by a member to be incompatible with WTO rules, neither of those exceptions is applicable in this instance.’
115 [108] Vendar tudi če obstaja sklep ORS, s katerim je ugotovljena nezdružljivost ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela članica, s pravili STO, se nobena od teh dveh izjem v tem primeru ne uporablja.“
The Court of First Instance then stated the reasons why it considered that neither of those exceptions could apply.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato navedlo razloge, zakaj je �telo, da ni mogoče uporabiti nobene od navedenih izjem.
With regard to the exception based on an intention to implement a specific obligation assumed within the WTO, the Court held as follows in paragraphs 116, 121, 122 and 125 to 137 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 109, 114, 115 and 118 to 130 of the Fedon judgment:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede izjeme, ki izhaja iz namena izpolnitve določene obveznosti, prevzete v okviru STO, presodilo tako, kot je navedeno v točkah 116, 121, 122 in od 125 do 137 sodbe FIAMM ter v točkah 109, 114, 115 in od 118 do 130 sodbe Fedon:
[109] In undertaking, after the adoption of the [DSB’s] decision of 25 September 1997, to comply with the WTO rules, the Community did not intend to assume a specific obligation in the context of the WTO capable of justifying an exception to the principle that WTO rules cannot be relied upon before the Community courts and of allowing the latter to review the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions by reference to those rules.
„116 [109] Skupnost s tem, da se je po sprejetju sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 zavezala uskladiti se s pravili STO, ni nameravala prevzeti določene obveznosti v okviru STO, kar bi lahko upravičevalo izjemo od tega, da se pred sodi�čem Skupnosti ni mogoče sklicevati na pravila STO, in mu dopustilo, da ob upo�tevanju teh pravil opravi nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti.
[114] The DSU … allows the WTO member involved several methods of implementing a recommendation or ruling of the DSB finding a measure incompatible with WTO rules.
121 [114] DPPRS […] vpleteni članici STO nudi več načinov za izvr�itev priporočila ali sklepa ORS, s katerim je ugotovljena nezdružljivost ukrepa s pravili STO.
[115] Where immediate withdrawal of the incompatible measure is impracticable, the DSU envisages, in Article 3(7), that the member harmed may be granted compensation or may be authorised to suspend the application of concessions or other obligations on an interim basis pending the withdrawal of the incompatible measure (see Portugal v Council, cited … above, paragraph 37).
122 [115] Kadar takoj�nji umik nezdružljivega ukrepa ni izvedljiv, DPPRS v členu 3(7) predvideva možnost, da se prikraj�ani članici zagotovi nadomestilo ali dovoli, da v pričakovanju umika nezdružljivega ukrepa začasno preneha uporabo koncesij ali izpolnjevanje drugih obveznosti (glej [zgoraj navedeno] sodbo Portugalska proti Svetu, […] točka 37).
[118] Even on expiry of the period of time set for bringing the measure declared incompatible into conformity with WTO rules and after authorisation and adoption of measures granting compensation or suspending concessions under Article 22(6) of the DSU, considerable importance is still accorded to negotiation between the parties to the dispute.
125 [118] Tako tudi po izteku roka, določenega za uskladitev ukrepa, razgla�enega za nezdružljivega s pravili STO, in po odobritvi in sprejetju nadomestnih ukrepov ali prekinitvi koncesij v skladu s členom 22(6) DPPRS ostajajo v vsakem primeru pogajanja med strankami v sporu pomembna.
[119] Article 22(8) of the DSU thus makes it clear that the suspension of concessions or other obligations is temporary in nature and states that the suspension is only to be applied “until such time as the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been removed, or the Member that must implement recommendations or rulings provides a solution to the nullification or impairment of benefits, or a mutually satisfactory solution is reached”.
126 [119] Člen 22(8) DPPRS tako poudarja začasnost prekinitve koncesij ali drugih obveznosti in omejuje trajanje ‚do ukinitve ukrepa, za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni združljiv z zadevnim sporazumom, dokler članica, ki mora uresničiti priporočila ali sklepe, ne zagotovi re�itve glede izničenja ali zmanj�anja koristi ali se ne doseže medsebojno zadovoljiva re�itev‘.
[120] Article 22(8) further provides that, in accordance with Article 21(6), the DSB is to continue to keep the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings under surveillance.
127 [120] Ta določba v skladu s členom 21(6) določa tudi, da ORS �e naprej nadzoruje izvr�evanje sprejetih priporočil ali sklepov.
[121] In the event of disagreement as to the compatibility with a WTO agreement of measures taken to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, Article 21(5) of the DSU provides that the dispute is to be decided “through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures”, which include pursuit by the parties of a negotiated solution.
128 [121] Kadar ni soglasja glede združljivosti ukrepov, sprejetih za uskladitev s priporočili in sklepi ORS, člen 21(5) DPPRS določa, da se o sporu odloči ‚s pomočjo teh postopkov re�evanja sporov‘, kar vključuje iskanje re�itve, dosežene s pogajanji med strankami.
[123] To that extent, review by the Community courts of the legality of the conduct of the defendant institutions by reference to WTO rules could have the effect of weakening the position of the Community negotiators in the search for a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute that is consistent with WTO rules.
130 [123] V tem okviru bi lahko bila posledica nadzora sodi�ča Skupnosti nad zakonitostjo ravnanja toženih institucij ob upo�tevanju pravil STO poslab�anje položaja pogajalcev Skupnosti pri iskanju vzajemno sprejemljive re�itve spora, ki je združljiva s pravili STO.
[124] In those circumstances, to require courts to refrain from applying the rules of internal law which are incompatible with the WTO agreements would have the consequence of depriving the legislative or executive organs of the contracting parties of the possibility afforded in particular by Article 22 of the DSU of entering into a negotiated arrangement even on a temporary basis (Portugal v Council, cited … above, paragraph 40).
131 [124] V teh okoli�činah bi naložitev obveznosti sodnim organom, naj odstopijo od uporabe pravil notranjega prava, ki niso združljiva s sporazumi STO, zakonodajnim ali izvr�ilnim organom pogodbenih strank odvzela možnost, ki jo daje zlasti člen 22 DPPRS, in sicer najti čeprav začasno re�itev, doseženo s pogajanji ([zgoraj navedena] sodba Portugalska proti Svetu, […] točka 40).
[125] The applicants are therefore wrong in inferring from Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU an obligation on the WTO member to comply, within a specified period, with the recommendations and rulings of the WTO bodies and in contending that DSB rulings are enforceable unless the contracting parties unanimously oppose this.
132 [125] Tožeči stranki torej iz člena 21 in 22 DPPRS nepravilno sklepata, da ima član STO obveznost, da se v določenem roku uskladi s priporočili in sklepi organov STO, in trdita, da so sklepi ORS izvr�ilni naslov, razen če pogodbene stranke temu soglasno nasprotujejo.
[126] Moreover, in again amending, by Regulation No 216/2001, the banana import regime, the Council sought to reconcile various divergent objectives.
133 [126] Poleg tega je Svet z novo spremembo ureditve uvoza banan, sprejeto z Uredbo �t.
[127] It was, ultimately, in return for the Community’s undertaking to establish a tariff-only regime for imports of bananas before 1 January 2006 that the United States of America agreed, as set out in the memorandum
134 [127] Združene države Amerike so v zameno za zavezo Skupnosti, da bo pred 1. januarjem 2006 vzpostavila zgolj tarifno ureditev za uvoz banan, v skladu
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P of understanding concluded on 11 April 2001, to suspend provisionally the imposition of the increased customs duty.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P z dogovorom z dne 11. aprila 2001 začasno prekinile z odmero dodatne carinske dajatve.
[128] Such an outcome could have been jeopardised by intervention of the Community courts in reviewing the legality by reference to WTO rules of the conduct of the defendant institutions in the present case with a view to awarding compensation for the loss sustained by the applicants.
135 [128] Vendar bi tak rezultat lahko ogrozil poseg sodi�ča Skupnosti, ki bi z namenom povrnitve �kode, ki sta jo utrpeli tožeči stranki, opravilo nadzor zakonitosti zadevnega ravnanja toženih institucij ob upo�tevanju pravil STO.
[129] The Court notes in this regard that, as the United States of America has expressly stated, the memorandum of understanding of 11 April 2001 does not in itself constitute a mutually agreed solution for the purposes of Article 3(6) of the DSU and that the question of implementation by the Community of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings was still included on 12 July 2001, that is to say after the present action had been brought, on the agenda of the meeting of the DSB.
136 [129] Glede tega je treba poudariti, da, kot so to izrecno poudarile Združene države Amerike, dogovor z dne 11. aprila 2001 sam po sebi ne pomeni medsebojno dogovorjene re�itve v smislu člena 3(6) DPPRS in da vpra�anje izvedbe priporočil in sklepov ORS Skupnosti 12. julija 2001, torej po vložitvi te tožbe, ostaja na dnevnem redu zasedanja ORS.
[130] It follows that the defendant institutions did not intend, by amending the Community regime at issue governing the import of bananas, to implement specific obligations arising from the WTO rules and in the light of which the DSB had found that regime to be incompatible with those rules.’
137 [130] Iz tega izhaja, da toženi instituciji s tem, da sta spremenili sporno skupnostno ureditev uvoza banan, nista nameravali izpolniti določenih obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz pravil STO, ob upo�tevanju katerih je ORS ugotovil nezdružljivost te ureditve.“
The Court also ruled out any application of the exception derived from express reference to specific provisions of the WTO agreements, after having in particular found in paragraph 142 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 135 of the Fedon judgment that ‘the preambles to the various regulations amending the banana import regime do not show that the Community legislature referred to specific provisions of the WTO agreements when it purported to bring the regime into conformity with those agreements’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je prav tako zavrnilo vsako uporabo izjeme, ki temelji na izrecnem napotilu na točno opredeljene določbe sporazumov STO, potem ko je v točkah 142 sodbe FIAMM in 135 sodbe Fedon ugotovilo, da „iz preambule različnih uredb, ki spreminjajo ureditev uvoza banan, ne izhaja, da se je zakonodajalec Skupnosti skliceval na posebne določbe sporazumov STO, medtem ko je nameraval to ureditev uskladiti s temi sporazumi.“
The Court thus concluded, in paragraphs 144 and 145 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 137 and 138 of the Fedon judgment, that, ‘notwithstanding a finding of
Sodi�če prve stopnje je torej v točkah 144 in 145 sodbe FIAMM ter točkah 137 in 138 sodbe Fedon ugotovilo, da „ne glede na to, da je ORS ugotovil nezdružljivost,
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION incompatibility made by the DSB, the WTO rules do not in the present case, whether because of particular obligations which the Community intended to implement or because of an express reference to specific provisions, amount to rules of law by reference to which the legality of the institutions’ conduct may be assessed’ and that ‘the applicants are not entitled to argue, for the purposes of their claim for compensation, that the conduct of which the Council and the Commission are accused is contrary to WTO rules’.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI pravila STO v obravnavanem primeru bodisi zaradi posebnih obveznosti, katere naj bi Skupnost sku�ala izvr�iti, bodisi zaradi izrecnega napotila na točno opredeljene določbe ne pomenijo norm, po katerih je mogoče presojati zakonitost ravnanja institucij“, in da „tožeči stranki v svojem od�kodninskem zahtevku ne moreta učinkovito trditi, da je ravnanje, ki se očita Svetu in Komisiji, v nasprotju s pravili STO“.