natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court also stated in this connection that review of the legality of the conduct of the defendant institutions could have the effect of weakening the position of the Community negotiators in the search for a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute consistent with WTO rules and, in some cases, of thus depriving the legislative or executive organs of a contracting party of the possibility afforded in particular in Article 22 of the DSU of entering into a negotiated arrangement even on a temporary basis.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P je v zvezi s tem tudi navedlo, da bi nadzor nad zakonitostjo ravnanja toženih institucij lahko povzročil poslab�anje položaja pogajalcev Skupnosti pri iskanju vzajemno sprejemljive re�itve spora, ki je združljiva s pravili STO, in bi v tem primeru zakonodajnim ali izvr�ilnim organom pogodbene stranke odvzel možnost, ki jo daje zlasti člen 22 DPPRS, in sicer najti re�itev, doseženo s pogajanji, pa čeprav začasno.
Furthermore, in paragraph 132 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 125 of the Fedon judgment, the Court of First Instance concluded its analysis in this regard, holding that the applicants were 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.
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 132 sodbe FIAMM in 125 sodbe Fedon zaključilo analizo v zvezi s tem z odločitvijo, da sta tožeči stranki torej iz člena 21 in 22 DPPRS nepravilno sklepali, da ima članica STO obveznost, da se v določenem roku uskladi s priporočili in sklepi organov STO, in trdili, da so sklepi ORS izvr�ljivi, razen če pogodbene stranke temu soglasno nasprotujejo.
In so deciding, the Court of First Instance ruled, implicitly at the very least, on the applicants’ assertion that direct effect should be accorded to such recommendations or such rulings once the period of time allowed for their implementation has expired.
S tem se je Sodi�če prve stopnje vsaj implicitno izreklo glede trditve tožečih strank, da bi bilo treba priznati neposredni učinek takim priporočilom oziroma takim sklepom, če se je iztekel rok, določen za njihovo izvr�itev.
It follows from all of the foregoing that the grounds of the judgments under appeal deal adequately with the arguments set out by the applicants at first instance and that they in particular enable the Court of Justice to exercise its power of judicial review, so that the first part of the plea must be declared unfounded.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je z obrazložitvijo izpodbijanih sodb zadostno odgovorjeno na argumentacijo tožečih strank na prvi stopnji in da ta med drugim Sodi�ču omogoča izvajanje sodnega nadzora, tako da je treba prvi del tožbenega razloga razglasiti za neutemeljenega.
Second part of the plea
Drugi del pritožbenega razloga
The following should be stated in relation to the second part of the first plea, alleging an error of law regarding the circumstances in which liability for unlawful conduct of the Community can found an action.
Glede drugega dela prvega pritožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na napačno uporabo prava glede pogojev, pod katerimi se lahko uveljavlja odgovornost zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja Skupnosti, je treba poudariti naslednje.
Here, the applicants essentially contended in support of their claim for compensation before the Court of First Instance that the Community institutions acted unlawfully, and therefore wrongfully, in failing to bring the Community legislation into conformity with the WTO agreements within the reasonable period of time that the Community was allowed for that purpose after a decision of the DSB had found that legislation to be incompatible with the WTO agreements.
V tem primeru sta tožeči stranki v utemeljitev zahtevka za povrnitev �kode pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje navajali, da so institucije Skupnosti ravnale nezakonito in s tem krivdno, ker niso v razumnem roku, ki je bil v ta namen določen Skupnosti, potem ko je bila s sklepom ORS ugotovljena neskladnost zakonodaje Skupnosti s sporazumi STO, uskladile te zakonodaje z navedenimi sporazumi.
It is to be observed in that regard that the effects within the Community of provisions of an agreement concluded by the Community with nonmember States may not be determined without taking account of the international origin of the provisions in question.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da učinkov – v Skupnosti – določb sporazuma, ki ga je Skupnost sklenila s tretjimi državami, ni mogoče opredeliti, ne da bi pri tem upo�tevali mednarodni izvor zadevnih določb.
If that question has not been expressly dealt with in the agreement, it is the courts having jurisdiction in the matter and in particular the Court of Justice within the framework of its jurisdiction under the EC Treaty that have the task of deciding it, in the same
Ker to vpra�anje ni bilo izrecno urejeno v navedenem sporazumu, morajo o njem odločiti pristojna sodi�ča in zlasti Sodi�če v okviru svoje pristojnosti na podlagi Pogodbe ES, enako kot o vsakem drugem vpra�anju o razlagi uporabe zadevnega sporazuma v Skupnosti (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 26. oktobra 1982 v zadevi Kupferberg, 104/81, Recueil,
Therefore, specifically, it falls to the Court to determine, on the basis in particular of the abovementioned criteria, whether the provisions of an international agreement confer on persons subject to Community law the right to rely on that agreement in legal proceedings in order to contest the validity of a Community measure (see, with regard to the GATT 1947, Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others [1972] ECR 1219, paragraph 19).
Zato je �e zlasti naloga Sodi�ča, da na podlagi predvsem zgoraj navedenih meril določi, ali določbe mednarodnega sporazuma dajejo posameznikom v Skupnosti pravico, da se sklicujejo nanje v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo veljavnost akta Skupnosti (glej v zvezi z GATT iz leta 1947 sodbo z dne 12. decembra 1972 v združenih zadevah International Fruit Company in drugi, od 21/72 do 24/72, Recueil, str. 1219, točka 19).
As is apparent from its caselaw, the Court considers that it can examine the validity of secondary Community legislation in the light of an international treaty only where the nature and the broad logic of the latter do not preclude this and, in addition, the treaty’s provisions appear, as regards their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise (see, in particular, Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others [2008] ECR I-4057, paragraph 45 and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi s tem zlasti iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da Sodi�če meni, da lahko veljavnost zakonodaje Skupnosti z vidika mednarodne pogodbe presoja le, če temu ne nasprotujeta narava in sistematika te pogodbe in če se določbe glede na njihovo vsebino izkažejo za nepogojne in dovolj jasne (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 3. junija 2008 v zadevi Intertanko in drugi, C-308/06, ZOdl., str. I-4057, točka 45, in navedena sodna praksa).
As regards, more specifically, the WTO agreements, it is settled caselaw that, given their nature and structure, those agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions (see, in particular, Portugal v Council, paragraph 47; Biret International v Council, paragraph 52; and Van Parys, paragraph 39).
Glede sporazumov STO iz ustaljene sodne prakse natančneje izhaja, da ti sporazumi, upo�tevajoč njihovo naravo in sistematiko, v načelu niso med pravili, ki jih Sodi�če upo�teva pri nadzoru zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti (glej zlasti zgoraj navedene sodbe Portugalska proti Svetu, točka 47; Biret International proti Svetu, točka 52, in Van Parys, točka 39).
It is only where the Community has intended to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements, that it is for the Court to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules (see Biret International v Council, paragraph 53, and Van Parys, paragraph 40 and the caselaw cited).
Sodi�če mora nadzorovati zakonitost akta Skupnosti glede na pravila STO le kadar Skupnost namerava izpolniti posebno obveznost, ki jo je sprejela v okviru STO, ali ko akt Skupnosti izrecno napotuje na natančne določbe sporazumov STO (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Biret International proti Svetu, točka 53, in Van Parys, točka 40, in navedena sodna praksa).
The Court has already held that the common organisation of the market in bananas, as introduced by Regulation No 404/93 and subsequently amended, is not designed to ensure the implementation in the Community legal order of a particular obligation assumed in the context of the GATT and does not refer expressly to specific provisions of the GATT either (order in OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft, paragraph 28).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če že razsodilo, da ni cilj skupne ureditve trgov za banane, kot je bila vzpostavljena z Uredbo �t. 404/93 in nato spremenjena, zagotoviti izvajanje – v pravnem redu Skupnosti – posebne obveznosti, ki je bila sprejeta v okviru GATT, in tudi izrecno ne napotuje na njegove natančne določbe (zgoraj navedeni sklep OGT Fruchthandelsgesellschaft, točka 28).
As regards, in particular, Regulation No 1637/98 and the regulations adopted to implement it, the Court stated in Van Parys, paragraph 52, that they do not expressly refer to specific provisions of the WTO agreements.
Sodi�če je �e zlasti glede Uredbe �t. 1637/98 in uredb, sprejetih za njeno uporabo, v točki 52 zgoraj navedene sodbe Van Parys navedlo, da te ne napotujejo izrecno na natančne določbe sporazumov STO.
The Court also held in that judgment that, by undertaking after the adoption of the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 to comply with the WTO rules and, in particular, with Articles I(1) and XIII of the GATT 1994, the Community did not intend to assume a particular 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 enabling the Community courts to review the legality of Regulation No 1637/98 and the regulations adopted to implement it in the light of those rules (see, to this effect, Van Parys, paragraphs 41 and 52).
V tej sodbi je Sodi�če tudi razsodilo, da čeprav se je Skupnost zavezala, da se po sprejetju sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 uskladi s pravili STO in �e zlasti s členoma I(1) in XIII GATT iz leta 1994, Skupnost ni nameravala sprejeti posebne obveznosti v okviru STO, ki lahko upraviči izjemo glede tega, da se pred sodi�čem Skupnosti ni mogoče sklicevati na pravila STO in omogoči, da slednje nadzoruje zakonitost Uredbe �t. 1637/98 in uredb, sprejetih za njeno uporabo, glede na ta pravila (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Van Parys, točki 41 in 52).
It should be remembered that the decisive factor here is that the resolution of disputes concerning WTO law is based, in part, on negotiations between the contracting parties.
Treba je opozoriti, da je odločilni dejavnik na tem področju dejstvo, da re�itev sporov glede prava STO deloma temelji na pogajanjih med pogodbenimi strankami.
Withdrawal of unlawful measures is admittedly the solution recommended by WTO law, but other solutions are also authorised (Omega Air and Others, paragraph 89).
Umik nezakonitih ukrepov je nedvomno re�itev, ki jo priporoča to pravo, vendar to pravo dovoljuje tudi uporabo drugih re�itev (zgoraj navedena sodba Omega Air in drugi, točka 89).
The Court thus held in Van Parys, paragraph 51, that the expiry of the period granted by the DSB for implementation of its decision of 25 September 1997 does not imply that the Community had exhausted the possibilities under the DSU of finding a solution to the dispute between it and the other parties.
Sodi�če je v točki 51 zgoraj navedene sodbe Van Parys razsodilo, da iztek roka, ki ga je določil ORS za uveljavitev svojega sklepa z dne 25. septembra 1997, ne pomeni, da je Skupnost izčrpala možnosti, ki jih določa DPPRS za re�itev spora med njo in drugimi strankami.
In those circumstances, to require the Community courts, merely on the basis that that period has expired, to
V takih okoli�činah bi lahko dejstvo, da se sodi�ču Skupnosti samo zaradi izteka tega roka naloži nadzor zakonitosti ukrepov Skupnosti glede na pravila STO,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P review the legality of the Community measures concerned in the light of the WTO rules could have the effect of undermining the Community’s position in its attempt to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the dispute in conformity with those rules.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P oslabilo položaj Skupnosti pri iskanju vzajemno sprejemljive re�itve spora v skladu z navedenimi pravili (zgoraj navedena sodba Van Parys, točka 51).
Referring in particular to the memorandum of understanding concluded with the United States of America on 11 April 2001, the Court observed more specifically that such an outcome, by which the Community sought to reconcile its obligations under the WTO agreements with those in respect of the ACP States, and with the requirements inherent in the implementation of the common agricultural policy, could have been compromised if the Community courts had been entitled to review the legality of the Community measures in question in the light of the WTO rules upon the expiry of the reasonable period of time granted by the DSB (see, to this effect, Van Parys, paragraphs 49 and 50).
Z navajanjem zlasti dogovora, sklenejenega 11. aprila 2001 z Združenimi državami Amerike, je Sodi�če �e posebej poudarilo, da bi bila taka re�itev, s katero je Skupnost sku�ala uskladiti svoje obveznosti iz sporazumov STO s temi, sprejetimi za države AKP, kot tudi z zahtevami, neločljivo povezanimi s skupno kmetijsko politiko, lahko združljiva z možnostjo, ki jo ima sodni organ Skupnosti glede nadzora zakonitosti zadevnih ukrepov Skupnosti glede na pravila STO ob izteku razumnega roka, ki ga je določil ORS (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Van Parys, točki 49 in 50).
The Court also pointed out that to accept that the Community courts have the direct responsibility for ensuring that Community law complies with the WTO rules would effectively deprive the Community’s legislative or executive organs of the scope for manoeuvre enjoyed by their counterparts in the Community’s trading partners.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če tudi opozorilo, da bi priznanje, da naloga zagotavljanja skladnosti prava Skupnosti s pravili STO pripada neposredno sodi�ču Skupnosti, prikraj�alo zakonodajne in izvr�ilne organe Skupnosti za manevrski prostor, ki ga imajo podobni organi trgovinskih partnerjev Skupnosti.
It is not in dispute that some of the contracting parties, including the Community’s most important trading partners, have concluded from the subjectmatter and purpose of the WTO agreements that they are not among the rules applicable by their courts when reviewing the legality of their rules of domestic law.
Ni dvoma, da so nekatere pogodbenice, ki so med najpomembnej�imi trgovinskimi partnerji Skupnosti, glede na predmet in cilj sporazumov STO zaključile, da slednji niso med pravili, ki jih uporabijo njihovi sodni organi pri preverjanju zakonitosti pravil njihovega nacionalnega prava.
Such lack of reciprocity, if accepted, would risk introducing an imbalance in the application of the WTO rules (Van Parys, paragraph 53).
Tak�en neobstoj vzajemnosti, če bi bil dopu�čen, bi lahko povzročil tveganje, da pride ob uporabi pravil STO do neravnotežja (zgoraj navedena sodba Van Parys, točka 53).
As is apparent from the Court’s caselaw, there is also no reason to draw a distinction in these various respects according to whether the legality of the Community action is to be reviewed in annulment proceedings or for the purpose of deciding an action for compensation (see to this effect, with regard to the period preceding the expiry of the reasonable period of time allowed for implementing a decision of the DSB, Biret International v Council, paragraph 62).
Kot izhaja iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča, poleg tega ni treba razlikovati med tema različnima vidikoma, glede na to, da mora do nadzora zakonitosti ravnanja Skupnosti priti v okviru spora o razglasitvi ničnosti ali za namene odločanja o od�kodninski tožbi (v zvezi z obdobjem pred iztekom razumnega roka, določenega za izvr�itev sklepa ORS, glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Biret International proti Svetu, točka 62).
Second, any determination by the Community courts that a Community measure is unlawful, even when not made in the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 230 EC to annul measures, is inherently liable to have repercussions on the conduct required of the institution that adopted the measure in question.
Po drugi strani pa lahko vsaka ugotovitev nezakonitosti akta Skupnosti s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti, tudi če do nje ne pride na podlagi pristojnosti za razglasitev ničnosti, ki jo ima ta sodnik na podlagi člena 230 ES, vpliva na stali�če, ki ga mora sprejeti institucija, ki izda zadevni akt.
Thus, in particular, it is settled caselaw that when the Court rules, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, that a measure adopted by a Community authority is invalid, its decision has the legal effect of requiring the competent Community institutions to take the necessary measures to remedy that illegality, as the obligation laid down in Article 233 EC in the case of a judgment annulling a measure applies in such a situation by analogy (see, in particular, the order of 8 November 2007 in Case C-421/06 Fratelli Martini and Cargill, paragraph 52 and the caselaw cited).
Tako je pravna posledica odločitve Sodi�ča, ko, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, v okviru postopka, sproženega na podlagi člena 234 ES, ugotovi neveljavnost akta, ki ga je sprejel organ Skupnosti, da pristojnim institucijam Skupnosti naloži, naj sprejmejo nujne ukrepe za popravo ugotovljene nezakonitosti, kar je v primeru ničnostne sodbe obveznost, ki je določena v členu 233 ES, ki se uporablja v enakem primeru po analogiji (glej zlasti sklep z dne 8. novembra 2007 v zadevi Fratelli Martini in Cargill, C-421/06, povzetek v ZOdl., str. I-152*, točka 52, in navedena sodna praksa).
There is nothing to suggest that the position should be different in the case of a judgment delivered in an action for compensation in which it is found that a measure adopted by the Community or a failure by it to act is unlawful.
Torej a priori ni mogoče �teti, da je treba ukrepati drugače, če obstaja sodba, izrečena v okviru od�kodninskega spora, s katero je bila ugotovljena nezakonitost akta ali nezakonitost nedelovanja Skupnosti.
As the Advocate General has observed in point 49 of his Opinion, any determination by the Community courts that a measure is unlawful, even when made in an action for compensation, has the force of res judicata and accordingly compels the institution concerned to take the necessary measures to remedy that illegality.
Kot je generalni pravobranilec poudaril v točki 49 sklepnih predlogov, vsaka ugotovitev nezakonitosti s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti, tudi če jo ugotovi v okviru od�kodninskega spora, velja za pravnomočno in zato zavezuje zadevno institucijo, da sprejme nujne ukrepe za odpravo ugotovljene nezakonitosti.
The distinction which the appellants seek to draw between the ‘direct effect’ of the WTO rules imposing substantive obligations and the ‘direct effect’ of a decision of the DSB, asserting that it should be open to individuals to have the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions reviewed by the Community courts in the light of the DSB decision itself if such a review is not possible in the light of the WTO rules which that decision has found to have been infringed, calls for the following comments.
Glede razlikovanja, ki ga tožeči stranki delata med „neposrednim učinkom“ predpisov STO, ki določajo vsebinske obveznosti, in „neposrednim učinkom“ sklepa ORS, pri čemer navajata, da bi posameznikom moralo biti omogočeno, da jim sodi�če Skupnosti zagotovi nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti ob upo�tevanju sklepa ORS, oziroma če ni takega nadzora, da lahko intervenirajo v skladu s predpisi STO, katerih kr�itev je bila ugotovljena z navedenim sklepom, je treba opredeliti, kar sledi.
Even though the Court has not yet been required to rule expressly on such a distinction, it nevertheless necessarily follows from its caselaw mentioned above that there is no basis for the distinction.
Čeprav se Sodi�ču �e ni bilo treba izreči o tem razlikovanju, iz njegove zgoraj navedene sodne prakse vendarle nujno izhaja, da razlikovanje ni potrebno.
In holding that the WTO rules which have been found by a decision of the DSB to have been infringed cannot, notwithstanding the expiry of the period of time laid down for implementing that decision, be relied upon before the Community courts for the purpose of having the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions reviewed by the Community courts in the light of those rules, the Court has necessarily excluded such a review in the light of the DSB decision itself.
Z odločitvijo, da se na predpise STO, katerih kr�itev je bila ugotovljena s sklepom ORS, namreč ni mogoče, kljub izteku roka, določenega za izvr�itev tega sklepa, sklicevati pred sodi�čem Skupnosti z namenom, da bi to sodi�če opravilo nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti glede navedenih predpisov, je Sodi�če nujno izključilo, da bi do takega nadzora pri�lo na podlagi samega sklepa ORS.
A DSB decision, which has no object other than to rule on whether a WTO member’s conduct is consistent with the obligations entered into by it within the context of the WTO, cannot in principle be fundamentally distinguished from the substantive rules which convey such obligations and by reference to which such a review is carried out, at least when it is a question of determining whether or not an infringement of those rules or that decision can be relied upon before the Community courts for the purpose of reviewing the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions.
Sklepa ORS, ki nima drugega namena kot izreči se o skladnosti ravnanja države članice STO z obveznostmi, ki jih je v tem okviru prevzela ta članica, načeloma ni mogoče razlikovati od materialnih predpisov, ki izhajajo iz teh obveznosti in glede katerih izvaja tak nadzor, razen če gre za opredelitev, ali se je za namene nadzora zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti mogoče pred sodi�čem Skupnosti sklicevati na kr�itev navedenih predpisov oziroma sklepa ali ne (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Biret International proti Svetu, točka 67).
A recommendation or a ruling of the DSB finding that the substantive rules contained in the WTO agreements have not been complied with is, whatever the precise legal effect attaching to such a recommendation or ruling, no more capable than those rules of conferring upon individuals a right to rely thereon before the Community courts for the purpose of having the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions reviewed.
Tako kot materialni predpisi, ki jih vsebujejo sporazumi STO, tudi priporočilo ali sklep ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena kr�itev navedenih predpisov, ne moreta, ne glede na to, kak�en je pravni pomen takih priporočil oziroma sklepa, za posameznike ustvariti pravice, da se nanju sklicujejo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti za namene pridobitve nadzora zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti.