natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, the imposition of the restrictive measures laid down by that regulation in respect of a person or entity, by including him or it in the list contained in its Annex I, constitutes an unjustified restriction of the right to property, for that regulation was adopted without furnishing any guarantee enabling that person or entity to put his or its case to the competent authorities, in a situation in which the restriction of property rights must be regarded as significant, having regard to the general application and actual continuation of the restrictive measures affecting him or it.
Naložitev omejevalnih ukrepov, ki jih zajema ta uredba glede osebe ali subjekta, zaradi vključitve osebe ali subjekta na seznam priloge I k izpodbijani uredbi pomeni neutemeljeno omejitev njune lastninske pravice, ker je bila ta uredba sprejeta, ne da bi tej osebi ali subjektu zagotavljala kakr�no koli jamstvo, v okviru katerega bi lahko pristojnim organom predstavila svojo zadevo, in to v položaju, v katerem je treba omejitev njune lastninske pravice �teti za precej�njo – glede na splo�ni obseg ukrepa in dejansko trajanje ukrepov, katerih predmet je.
With reference to an objective of public interest as fundamental to the international community as the fight by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, against the threats to international peace and security posed by acts of terrorism, the freezing of the funds, financial assets and other economic resources of the persons identified by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee as being associated with Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban cannot per se be regarded as inappropriate or disproportionate.
Glede na cilj splo�nega interesa, ki je za mednarodno Skupnost enako pomemben kot boj – skladno z Ustanovno listino Združenih narodov – z vsemi sredstvi zoper grožnje miru in mednarodni varnosti, ki jih pomenijo teroristična dejanja, ukrep zamrznitve sredstev, finančnega premoženja in drugih gospodarskih virov posameznikov, ki jih je Varnostni svet ali sankcijski odbor opredelil za povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani, ne more biti neprimeren ali nesorazmeren.
In this respect, the restrictive measures imposed by Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban constitute restrictions of the right to property which may, in principle, be justified.
V tej zvezi so omejevalni ukrepi, ki jih določa Uredba �t. 881/2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani, omejitve lastninske pravice, ki so načeloma lahko utemeljeni.
In so far as a regulation such as Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the
Če je treba za nično razglasiti uredbo, kot je Uredba �t. 881/2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani,
The applicable procedures must, however, afford the person or entity concerned a reasonable opportunity of
Vendar morajo postopki, ki se uporabijo, zadevni osebi ali subjektu dajati tudi ustrezno priložnost za predstavitev
Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban must be annulled so far as concerns the appellants, by reason of breach of principles applicable in the procedure followed when the restrictive measures introduced by that regulation were adopted, it cannot be excluded that, on the merits of the case, the imposition of those measures on the appellants may for all that prove to be justified.
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika, zaradi kr�itve načel, ki se uporabijo v okviru postopka po sprejetju omejevalnih ukrepov, ki jih določa ta uredba, se ne more izključiti, da se lahko po temelju naložitev tak�nih ukrepov zoper pritožnika vednarle izkaže za utemeljeno.
measures imposed by the regulation and which the Community is required to implement, because in the interval preceding its replacement by a new regulation the appellants might take steps seeking to prevent measures freezing funds from being applied to them again.
uredba in ki jih mora izvajati Skupnost, saj bi lahko pritožnika do njene morebitne nadomestitve z novo uredbo ukrepala tako, da bi se izognila temu, da bi se ukrepi zamrznitve sredstev zanju �e vedno uporabili.
In those circumstances, Article 231 EC will be correctly applied in maintaining the effects of the contested regulation, so far as concerns the appellants, for a period that may not exceed three months running from the date of delivery of this judgment.
V teh okoli�činah se ustrezno uporabi člen 231 ES, in sicer tako, da se ohranijo učinki izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnike, v obdobju, ki ne sme biti dalj�e od treh mesecev od dneva razglasitve sodbe.
Annulment of that regulation with immediate effect would thus be capable of seriously and irreversibly prejudicing the effectiveness of the restrictive
Ugotovitev ničnosti te uredbe s takoj�njim učinkom bi lahko v tem okviru resno in nepopravljivo ogrozila učinkovitost omejevalnih ukrepov, ki jih nalaga ta
(see paras 373, 374, 376)
(Glej točke 373, 374 in 376.)
Mr Kadi (‘the appellant’) is resident in Saudi Arabia.
Pritožnik je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje izpodbijal zakonitost uredbe, s katero je Svet izvedel sklep o zamrznitvi v Skupnosti.
On 19 October 2001, he was included in the list in Annex I to Regulation No 467/2001 as a person suspected of supporting terrorism.
Neuspe�no je zatrjeval, da Skupnost ni pristojna za sprejetje te uredbe in da je z uredbo kr�enih več njegovih temeljnih pravic.
2As a consequence, all his funds and other financial resources in the Community were to be frozen.
Na podlagi v bistvu enakih pritožbenih razlogov sedaj Sodi�ču predlaga, naj sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje razveljavi.
On 27 May 2002, that regulation was repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (‘the contested regulation’).
Bolj bistveno, zatrjujeta, da je uredba nujna za izvedbo zavezujočih resolucij Varnostnega sveta in da zato sodi�ča Skupnosti ne bi smela presojati njene skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami.
3However, the appellant continued to be listed — in Annex I to the contested regulation — as a person suspected of supporting terrorism whose funds were to be frozen.
V bistvu zatrjujeta, da ima Sodi�če, kadar Varnostni svet zavzame stali�če, dolžnost, da ne odloča.
He argued — unsuccessfully — that the Community lacked competence to adopt that regulation, and, moreover, that the regulation breached a number of his fundamental rights.
Pritožnik je bil 19. oktobra 2001 dodan na seznam v prilogi I k Uredbi �t.
On what are essentially the same grounds, he now asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
467/2001 kot oseba, za katero se sumi, da podpira terorizem.
The Council and the Commission disagree with the appellant on both counts.
2Vsa njegova sredstva in drugi finančni viri v Skupnosti so bili zato zamrznjeni.
Most importantly, however, they contend that the regulation is necessary for the implementation of binding Security Council resolutions, and, accordingly, that the Community Courts should not assess its conformity with fundamental rights.
Ta uredba je bila spremenjena in nadome�čena 27. maja 2002 z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 881/2002 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana uredba).
Essentially they argue that, when the Security Council has spoken, the Court must remain silent.
3Vendar je ime pritožnika ostalo �e naprej na sezna- mu – v prilogi I k izpodbijani uredbi – oseb, za katere se sumi, da podpirajo terorizem in katerih sredstva je treba zamrzniti.
3 — Imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).
3 – O posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al-Kaida in talibani, in razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 467/2001 (UL 2002 L 139, str. 9).
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-402/05 P of the appellant was added to the list by the Sanctions Committee on 19 October 2001.
Sankcijski odbor je ime pritožnika dodal 19. oktobra 2001.
The contested regulation was adopted on the basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC in order to give effect, within the Community, to Council Common Position 2002/402/CFSP.
Izpodbijana uredba je bila sprejeta na podlagi členov 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES, da bi se v Skupnosti izvedlo Skupno stali�če Sveta 2002/402/SZVP.
4That Common Position, in turn, reflected Resolutions 1267(1999), 51333(2000) 6and 1390(2002) 7of the United
4Skupno stali�če je odražalo resolucije Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov �t. 1267(1999) 5, 1333(2000) 6in 1390(2002) 7.
Considering that the suppression of international terrorism is essential for the maintenance of international peace and security, the Security Council adopted those resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
Varnostni svet je glede na to, da je zatiranje mednarodnega terorizma bistveno za ohranitev miru in krepitev mednarodne varnosti, sprejel te resolucije na podlagi poglavja VII Ustanovne listine ZN.
On 20 December 2002, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1452(2002), intended to facilitate the implementation of counter-terrorism measures.
Sankcijski odbor je 20. decembra 2002 sprejel Resolucijo 1452(2002), katere namen je bil olaj�anje izvajanja ukrepov na področju boja proti terorizmu.
That resolution provides for a number of exceptions to the freezing of funds imposed by Resolutions 1267(1999), 1333(2000) and 1390(2002) that may be granted by the States on humanitarian grounds, on condition that the Sanctions Committee has been notified and has not objected or, in some cases, has given its consent.
Ta resolucija določa več izjem od zamrznitve sredstev, ki so bile določene v resolucijah 1267(1999), 1333(2000) in 1390(2002), ki jih bodo države lahko odobrile iz humanitarnih razlogov, če so bile posredovane sankcijskemu odboru in jim ta ni ugovarjal oziroma je v določenih primerih podal svoje soglasje.
In addition, on 17 January 2003, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1455(2003), intended to improve the implementation of the measures for the freezing of funds.
Poleg tega je sankcijski odbor 17. januarja 2003 sprejel Resolucijo 1455(2003) z namenom izbolj�ati izvedbo ukrepov v zvezi z zamrznitvijo sredstev.
The resolutions provide, inter alia, that all States are to take measures to freeze the funds and other financial assets of individuals and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, as designated by a committee of the Security Council composed of all its members (‘the Sanctions Committee’).
Resolucije med drugim določajo, da morajo vse države sprejeti ukrepe v zvezi z zamrznitvijo sredstev in drugih finančnih virov posameznikov in subjektov, ki so povezani z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al-Kaida in talibani, kot je to določil odbor Varnostnega sveta, sestavljen iz vseh njegovih članov (v nadaljevanju: sankcijski odbor).
On 8 March 2001, the Sanctions Committee published a first consolidated list of the persons and entities that were to be subjected to the freezing of funds.
Sankcijski odbor je 8. marca 2001 objavil prvi konsolidirani seznam oseb in subjektov, katerih sredstva je treba zamrzniti.
That list has since been amended and supplemented several times. The name
Ta seznam je bil od takrat večkrat spremenjen in nadome�čen.
In the light of those resolutions, the Council adopted Common Position 2003/140/CFSP 8in order to provide for the exceptions permitted by the Security Council.
Ob upo�tevanju teh resolucij je Svet sprejel Skupno stali�če 2003/140/SZVP, 8da bi zagotovil izjeme, ki jih je odobril sankcijski odbor.
In addition, on 27 March 2003, the
Poleg tega je Svet 27. marca 2003
4 — Concerning restrictive measures against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaida organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them and repealing Common Positions 96/746/CFSP, 1999/727/CFSP, 2001/154/CFSP and 2001/771/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 4).
4 – O omejevalnih ukrepih proti Osami bin Ladnu, članom organizacije Al-Kaida in talibanom ter drugim osebam, skupinam, podjetjem in subjektom, ki so z njimi povezani, in o razveljavitvi Skupnih stali�č 96/746/SZVP, 1999/727/SZVP, 2001/154/SZVP in 2001/771/SZVP (UL L 139, str. 4).
See, in particular, Article 3 and the ninth recital in the Preamble.
Glej zlasti člen 3 in deveto uvodno izjavo preambule.
8 — Concerning exceptions to the restrictive measures imposed by Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (OJ 2003 L 53, p. 62).
8 – O izjemah k omejevalnim ukrepom, določenim v Skupnih stali�čih 2002/402/SZVP (UL 2003 L 53, str. 62).
5 — S/RES/1267(1999) of 15 October 1999.6 — S/RES/1333(2000) of 19 December 2000.7 — S/RES/1390(2002) of 16 January 2002.
5 – S/RES/1267(1999) z dne 15. oktobra 1999.6 – S/RES/1333(2000) z dne 19. decembra 2000.7 – S/RES/1390(2002) z dne 16. januarja 2002.
Council amended the contested regulation as regards exceptions to the freezing of funds and economic resources.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI izpodbijano uredbo spremenil glede izjem od zamrznitve sredstev in gospodarskih virov. 9 toženih strank.
9 was given leave to intervene in support of the defendants.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je po tem, ko je bila Uredba �t.
Following the repeal of Regulation No 467/2001, the Court of First Instance decided to treat the case as an action for annulment of the contested regulation directed against the Council alone, supported by the Commission and the United Kingdom.
467/2001 razgla�ena za nično, odločilo, da bo to zadevo obravnavalo kot tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe, usmerjeno zgolj proti Svetu, ob podpori Komisije in Združenega kraljestva.
The contested regulation, as amended, provides in Article 2 that ‘all funds and other financial resources belonging to, or owned or held by, a natural or legal person, group or entity designated by the Sanctions Committee and listed in Annex I shall be frozen’.
V členu 2 izpodbijane uredbe, kot je bila spremenjena, je določeno, da se „[z]amrznejo […] vsa sredstva in gospodarski viri, ki pripadajo katerikoli fizični ali pravni osebi, subjektu ali organu, ki jih imenuje sankcijski odbor in so navedeni v Prilogi I.
Article 2a provides for certain exceptions, for instance as regards food, medical expenses and reasonable legal fees, on condition that the Sanctions Committee has been notified and has not objected.
Člen 2a predpisuje določene izjeme, na primer v zvezi z živili, zdravstvenimi stro�ki ter razumno nagrado odvetnika in sodnimi stro�ki, če je bil sankcijski odbor o tem obve�čen in temu ni ugovarjal.
By application lodged on 18 December 2001, the appellant brought an action before the Court of First Instance against the Council and the Commission, claiming that that Court should annul Regulations Nos 2062/2001 and 467/2001, in so far as they related to him.
Pritožnik je 18. decembra 2001 pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje proti Svetu in Komisiji vložil tožbo, v kateri je zatrjeval, da bi Sodi�če moralo uredbi �t. 2062/2001 in 467/2001, v delu, v katerem se nana�ata nanj, razglasiti za nični.
The United Kingdom
Združenemu kraljestvu je bilo dovoljeno, da posreduje v podporo predlogov
Before the Court of First Instance, the appellant argued that the Council had lacked competence to adopt the contested regulation.
Pritožnik je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje zatrjeval, da Svet ni pristojen za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe.
Most importantly, the appellant asserted that that regulation breached a number of his fundamental rights, in particular the right to property and the right to a fair hearing.
Bolj bistveno, pritožnik je zatrjeval, da je bilo z uredbo kr�eno več temeljnih pravic, zlasti lastninska pravica in pravica do po�tenega sojenja.
By judgment of 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’), 10the Court of First Instance upheld the contested regulation and rejected all of the appellant’s pleas.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi Kadi proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-315/01 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), 10izpodbi -jano uredbo potrdilo in zavrnilo vse tožbe - ne razloge tožeče stranke.
On 17 November 2005, the appellant brought the present appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnik je 17. novembra 2005 vložil obravnavano pritožbo zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Apart from the appellant, the parties to the present appeal proceedings are the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom, as well as Spain, France and the Netherlands, as interveners in the appeal.
Poleg pritožnika so stranke v obravnavani pritožbi Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo, ter Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika in Kraljevina Nizozemska, kot intervenientke v pritožbi.
For the sake of brevity I shall refer, on occasion, to the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom as ‘the respondents’.
Skraj�ano bom Svet, Komisijo in Združeno kraljestvo včasih naslovil kot „tožene stranke“.
The Commission, however, takes a different view and concludes that Articles 60 EC and 301 EC alone would have provided a sufficient legal basis.
Komisija pa meni drugače in zatrjuje, da bi sama člena 60 ES in 301 ES zagotavljala zadostno pravno podlago.
My analysis of the appeal will proceed as follows.
Pritožbo bom analiziral naslednje.
First, I shall discuss the pleas concerning the legal basis of the contested regulation.
Najprej bom obravnaval pritožbene razloge v zvezi s pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe.
Subsequently, I shall address the pleas concerning the jurisdiction of the Community Courts to review whether the contested regulation breaches fundamental rights.
Nato bom razpravljal o pritožbenem razlogu v zvezi s pristojnostjo sodi�č Skupnosti za nadzor tega, ali so z izpodbijano uredbo kr�ene temeljne pravice.
Finally, I shall discuss the question of the appropriate standard of review and I shall assess whether or not the contested regulation infringes the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant.
Nazadnje bom obravnaval vpra�anje o merilih ustreznega nadzora in bom ocenil, ali so z izpodbijano uredbo kr�ene temeljne pravice, ki jih uveljavlja pritožnik.
II — The legal basis of the contested regulation
II – Pravna podlaga izpodbijane uredbe
The appellant’s first plea relates to the legal basis of the contested regulation.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe.
The judgment under appeal devotes considerable attention to this issue.
V izpodbijani sodbi je temu vpra�anju namenjena velika pozornost.
Upon consideration of various alternatives, the Court of First Instance concluded that the combined effect of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC gave the Community power to adopt the contested regulation.
Na podlagi obravnavanja več možnosti je Sodi�če prve stopnje sklenilo, da je Skupnost zaradi kombiniranega učinka členov 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES pristojna za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe.
11 The appellant argues that this finding is mistaken in law and maintains that the Community lacked competence altogether to adopt the contested regulation.
11 Pritožnik trdi, da ta ugotovitev pomeni napačno razlago prava, in zatrjuje, da Skupnost absolutno ni
I agree with that argument.
S to trditvijo se strinjam.
The Court of First Instance considered that the powers to impose economic and financial sanctions provided for by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, namely, the interruption or reduction of economic relations with one or more third countries, do not cover the interruption or reduction of economic relations with individuals within those countries, but only with their governing regimes.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da pristojnost naložiti gospodarske in finančne sankcije, določene s členoma 60 ES in 301 ES, in sicer prekinitve ali omejitve ekonomskih odnosov z eno ali več tretjimi državami, ne zajemajo prekinitve ali omejitve ekonomskih odnosov s posamezniki v teh državah ampak le z vladami.
That view is difficult to reconcile with the wording and the purpose of those provisions.
To mnenje je težko uskladiti z besedilom in namenom teh določb.
Article 301 EC authorises the Council to ‘interrupt or to reduce … economic relations with one or more third countries’ through unspecified ‘urgent measures’ that are necessary to carry out the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’).
Člen 301 ES Svet poobla�ča, da „prekine ali omeji … gospodarske odnose z eno ali več tretjimi državami“ z neopredeljenimi „nujnimi ukrepi“, ki so potrebni za izvedbo skupne zunanje in varnostne politike Evropske unije (SZVP).
As such, Article 301 EC is fundamentally concerned with the objectives of these measures, namely the objectives of the CFSP, to be achieved by affecting the Community’s economic relations with third countries.
Člen 301 ES kot tak se v bistvu nana�a na cilje teh ukrepov, in sicer cilje SZVP, ki jih je treba doseči z vplivanjem na gospodarske odnose Skupnosti s tretjimi državami.
Article 60(1) EC authorises the Council to take such measures with respect to the ‘movement of capital and on payments as regards the third countries concerned’.
Člen 60(1) ES poobla�ča Svet, da sprejme take nujne ukrepe na področju „pretoka kapitala in plačil, ki se nana�ajo na zadevne tretje države“.
It therefore indicates the means for carrying out the objectives stated earlier; those means involve restricting the flow of funds into and
Tako določa načine za izvajanje zgoraj navedenih ciljev, torej omejitev pretoka sredstev v Skupnost in iz nje.
11 — Paragraphs 87 to 135 of the judgment under appeal.
11 – Točke od 87 do 135 izpodbijane sodbe.
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION out of the Community.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI morali nana�ati oziroma kdo bi moral nositi breme ukrepov.
Rather, the only requirement is that the measures ‘interrupt or reduce’ economic relations with third countries, in the area of movement of capital or payments.
Edina zahteva je, da ukrepi „prekinejo ali omejijo“ gospodarske odnose s tretjimi državami na področju pretoka kapitala in plačil.
this provision of much of its practical use.
odvzema velik del njene uporabne vrednosti.
Within the framework of the CFSP, the Union may decide, for reasons relating to the maintenance of international peace and security, to impose economic and financial sanctions against non-State actors who are situated in third countries.
Evropska unija lahko v okviru SZVP zaradi ohranitve mednarodnega miru in varnosti odloči, da bo naložila gospodarske in finančne sankcije zoper nedržavne subjekte, ki se nahajajo v tretjih državah.
I fail to see why Article 301 EC should be interpreted more narrowly.
Ne razumem, zakaj bi bilo treba člen 301 ES razlagati bolj ozko.
As the Court of First Instance itself recognised, ‘the Union and its Community pillar are not to be prevented from adapting to [threats to international peace and security] by imposing economic and financial sanctions not only on third countries, but also on associated persons, groups, undertakings or entities engaged in international terrorist activity or in any other way constituting a threat to international peace and security’. 12
Kot je ugotovilo samo Sodi�če prve stopnje, „Unija in njen steber Skupnosti naj ne bi bila ovirana, ne bolj kot mednarodna skupnost, pri prilagajanju tem novim grožnjam [za mednarodni mir in varnost], tako da se naložijo ekonomske in finančne sankcije ne le tretjim državam, ampak tudi osebam, skupinam, podjetjem ali subjektom, povezanim z njimi, ki razvijajo mednarodno teroristično dejavnost ali drugače ogrožajo mednarodni mir in varnost“. 12
The financial sanctions in the contested regulation meet that requirement: they are targeted predominantly at individuals and groups within third countries.
Finančne sankcije v izpodbijani uredbi to zahtevo izpolnjujejo: v bistvu se nana�ajo na posameznike in subjekte v tretjih državah.