natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The procedure with which this case is concerned is an authorisation procedure.
Postopek, na katerega se ta primer nana�a, je postopek pridobitve dovoljenja.
A certain tonnage is authorised for the fishing fleet of each Member State, and specific increases in that tonnage may be authorised by Commission decision if the relevant criteria are fulfilled.
Določena tonaža je dovoljena za ribi�ko floto vsake države članice in določeno povečanje te tonaže se lahko odobri z odločbo Komisije, če so upo�tevna merila izpolnjena.
At paragraph 62 of its judgment, the Court of First Instance took ownership of the replacement vessels at the date of the contested decision as the crucial factor in deciding the appellants’ lack of interest.
V točki 62 sodbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje lastni�tvo nadomestnih plovil na dan izdaje izpodbijane odločbe obravnavalo kot odločilni dejavnik pri odločanju, ali imajo pritožniki pravni interes.
At no point in that judgment did it make any specific finding that the 19 other appellants did own replacement vessels at that date, but it may be assumed to have been satisfied on that score, or its decision on admissibility would have been purely arbitrary.
Nikjer v sodbi ni nobene ugotovitve, da je imelo drugih 19 tožečih strank na ta dan v lasti plovila, lahko pa sklepamo, da so bili glede tega zadovoljni, sicer bi bila odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede dopustnosti popolnoma samovoljna.
It is certainly true that the procedure does not appear to entail any prohibition on effecting the work required for such an increase in tonnage before authorisation is accorded.
Gotovo je res, da ni videti, da bi postopek imel za posledico prepoved izvajanja dela, ki se zahteva za tako povečanje tonaže, preden je izdano dovoljenje.
Nor, however, does it preclude waiting for authorisation before effecting the work.
Vendar niti ne preprečuje čakanja na dovoljenje, preden se delo izvede.
Indeed, the latter might be seen by many to be the more prudent, not to say the more correct, approach.
Slednji pristop je za mnoge bolj razumen, če ne celo pravilnej�i.
It thus proceeded on the basis that applicants who had already built (or perhaps were already building) replacement vessels of which they were owners on the date of the contested decision had an interest in having that decision annulled, whereas applicants who had not taken such steps had no such interest.
Na podlagi tega je odločilo, da so tožeče stranke, ki so že zgradile (ali so morda že gradile) nadomestna plovila, katerih lastniki so bile na dan izpodbijane odločbe, imele pravni interes, da se ta odločba razglasi za nično, medtem ko tožeče stranke, ki niso ravnale tako, nimajo tega pravnega interesa.
That approach appears to me to be wholly flawed.
Ta vidik se mi zdi popolnoma napačen.
16 — See, for a recent example of this caselaw, Case T-136/05 Salvat Père & Fils and Others v Commission [2007] ECR II-4063, paragraph 34, and the judgments to which it refers. 28.
16 – Glej nedavni primer te sodne prakse, sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2007 v zadevi Salvat père & fils in drugi proti Komisiji (T-136/05, ZOdl., str. II-4063, točka 34, in tam navedena sodna praksa). 28.
If, as the Court of First Instance found, an increase in safety tonnage by the construction of a replacement vessel was eligible for authorisation, then any person who sought authorisation for such an increase clearly has an interest in seeking annulment of a decision refusing that authorisation.
Če bi bilo, kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, povečanje varne tonaže z zgraditvijo nadomestnega plovila primerno za izdajo dovoljenja, bi vse osebe, ki so zahtevale dovoljenje za tako povečanje, očitno imele pravni interes za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, s katero je bilo to dovoljenje zavrnjeno.
It is no doubt true that the interest is more urgent for those who had already, at the time of the decision, committed expenditure to the construction in question, but it is present for all.
Nedvomno je res, da imajo večji interes tisti, ki so že v času izpodbijane odločbe imeli stro�ke s to gradnjo, vsi pa ga imajo.
Annulment of the decision means, for all those whose requests were refused, that authorisation is again possible, and such authorisation, if forthcoming, means that whatever steps remain to be taken in order to achieve or
Razglasitev ničnosti odločbe pomeni, da je za vse tiste, katerih zahteve so bile zavrnjene, spet mogoče izdati dovoljenje in da tako dovoljenje, če je bodoče, pomeni, da karkoli je treba storiti, da se doseže ali uporabi povečano varno tonažo, se lahko stori. Izpodbijana
It seems to me that that there are two possibilities as to what the Court of First Instance may have meant by that word.
Zdi se mi, da obstajata dve možnosti, kaj je Sodi�če prve stopnje mislilo s to besedo.
use the increased safety tonnage may now be taken. No grounds are given in the judgment under appeal for distinguishing between applicants on the basis of the extent to which they had already anticipated authorisation before the date of the contested decision, and no such grounds appear to me to exist.
sodba nima nobenega temelja za razlikovanje med tožečimi strankami na podlagi tega, koliko so pričakovale izdajo dovoljenja pred izdajo izpodbijane odločbe in zdi se mi, da ta temelj ne obstaja.
The ordinary meaning of ‘fictitious’ relates to something that is not genuine or is feigned to exist and therefore exists only in the imagination.
Običajni pomen „neobstoja“ se nana�a na nekaj, kar ni resnično ali obstaja navidezno in torej obstaja le v domi�ljiji.
Applied to the present case, it would imply that the appellants did not really want to replace their original vessels with alternative vessels incorporating add -itional safety tonnage, or that it was merely a vague idea or plan to which no effect of a discernible kind was given.
V tem primeru naj bi pomenilo, da pritožniki dejansko niso želeli nadomestiti svojih prvotnih plovil z drugimi z dodatno varno tonažo ali da je �lo le za idejo ali načrt, ki ni imel nobenega resničnega učinka.
The Commission’s arguments to the effect that interest may lapse during the course of the proceedings and that the appellants’ interest is based on a future, hypothetical event therefore fall away.
Trditev Komisije, da ta pravni interes lahko med tem postopkom preneha in da interes pritožnikov temelji na bodočem, hipotetičnem dogodku, torej ne vzdrži.
There is however no finding of fact in the judgment under appeal to support such a view.
Vendar v izpodbijani sodbi ni nobenega dejstva, ki bi podprlo ta vidik.
It cannot be deduced from the mere fact that the appellants had not yet, at the date of the contested decision, built or commenced building the intended replacement vessels.
Ni ga mogoče izvesti iz tega, da pritožniki na dan izpodbijane odločbe �e niso zgradili ali začeli graditi načrtovana nadomestna plovila.
The alternative construction is that, by ‘fictitious’, the Court of First Instance merely intended to indicate that the vessels did not exist.
Druga razlaga je to, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje z izrazom „niso obstajala“ želelo zgolj povedati, da plovila resnično niso obstajala.
It is true that, as the Commission submits, whether a particular vessel has been built or not is a question of fact which
Res je, kot trdi Komisija, da je vpra�anje, ali je bilo določeno plovilo zgrajeno ali ne,
The other criterion on which the Court of First Instance stated the appellants’ actions to be inadmissible was a lack of individual concern within the meaning of Article 230 EC.
Drugo merilo, na podlagi katerega je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da so bile tožbe pritožnikov nedopustne, je bilo pomanjkanje tega, da akt posamično zadeva tožeče stranke v skladu s členom 230 ES.
It accepted that all the applicants were directly concerned by the contested decision and that the ownership of vessels named in the annexes was sufficient to establish individual concern, distinguishing the appellants solely on the ground that the vessels in question were ‘fictitious’.
Ugotovilo je, da je izpodbijana odločba vse posameznike neposredno zadevala in da je lastni�tvo plovil, na�tetih v prilogah, zadostovalo, da se je ugotovilo da je akt posamično zadeval tožeče stranke, kjer so se pritožniki razlikovali le na podlagi tega, da zadevna plovila „niso obstajala“.
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION the appellants’ situation does not stand up to scrutiny.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI
cannot be the subject of an appeal, barring a distortion of the evidence by the Court of First Instance.
dejansko vpra�anje, ki ne more biti predmet pritožbe, saj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne sme izkrivljati dokazov.
The conclusion to be drawn from that fact (in particular, whether the fact that a planned vessel has not yet been built means that an applicant is not individually concerned) is, however, a question of law that may properly be appealed.
Sklep, ki ga dobimo iz tega dejstva (zlasti, če dejstvo, da načrtovano plovilo �e ni bilo zgrajeno, pomeni, da pritožnika ne zadeva posamično), pa je pravno vpra�anje, glede katerega se je mogoče pritožiti.
For the same reasons mutatis mutandis as I have set out above regarding interest, 17
Zaradi enakih razlogov mutatis
As the Court of First Instance found in paragraphs 42 to 60 of its judgment, all the applicants were individually concerned by the contested decision because they had made individual requests for authorisation for extra safety tonnage, because those requests were submitted and examined on a case-by-case basis, and because they were individually identified as the owners of the vessels listed in Annex II to the decision.
Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 42 do 60 sodbe, je izpodbijana odločba vse tožeče stranke posamično zadevala, ker so posamično zahtevale dovoljenja za dodatno varno tonažo, ker so bile te zahteve vložene in se je o njih presojalo v vsakem primeru posebej in ker se jih je posamično identificiralo kot lastnike plovil, na�tetih v Prilogi II k odločbi.
I do not accept that the existence or ownership of the replacement vessels at the date of the contested decision, at the date of the commencement of proceedings before the Court of First Instance or at the date of the judgment under appeal is the correct test to determine whether the appellants are individually concerned by the contested decision.
mutandis, kot sem jih zgoraj predstavila glede interesa 17, ne sprejmem, da je obstoj ali lastni�tvo nadomestnih plovil na dan izpodbijane odločbe, na dan, ko se je začel postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, ali na dan izdaje izpodbijane sodbe, pravilen preizkus za določanje, ali izpodbijana odločba pritožnike posamično zadeva.
That situation cannot be compared to that of an individual who hopes to buy a Ferrari one day and seeks to challenge a general measure concerning Ferraris which might frustrate his ambition.
Tega položaja ni mogoče primerjati s položajem posameznika, ki upa, da bo nekoč kupil ferrari in želi izpodbijati splo�ni akt, ki se nana�a na ferrarije in ki bi ga lahko oviral pri njegovih načrtih.
At the hearing the Commission sought to compare the appellants with a person who might one day buy a Ferrari.
Na zasli�anju je Komisija sku�ala primerjati pritožnike z osebo, ki bo mogoče nekoč kupila ferrari.
It argued that the intention does not make such a person the actual (present) owner of a Ferrari, nor does it individualise him enough to be able to attack any decision concerning Ferraris. The Commission is quite right about the hopeful, some-day Ferrari owner.
Trdila je, da namen �e ne pomeni, da je taka oseba dejanski (sedanji) lastnik ferrarija, niti je ne individualizira dovolj, da bi lahko izpodbijala kakr�nokoli odločbo, ki se nana�a na ferrari.
However, the comparison that it seeks to draw with
Stali�če
The Commission further argues that while a vessel is still on the drawing board, its ownership cannot be ascribed to any particular party.
Dalje Komisija trdi, da ko je plovilo �e v fazi skice, njegovega lastni�tva ni mogoče pripisati nobeni stranki.
Thus, the party who merely possesses the plan for a particular vessel at a particular moment cannot be individually concerned. The plans submitted might
Stranke, ki v določenem času poseduje le načrt za določeno plovilo, akt ne more posamično zadevati.
17 — See points 22 to 28.
17 – Glej točke od 22 do 28.
(alternatively or additionally) subsequently be used by a different party.
Predložene načrte lahko (alternativno ali dodatno) pozneje uporabi druga stranka.
That argument appears to me to be irrelevant.
Ta trditev se mi ne zdi upo�tevna.
Substance of the action at first instance
Predmet tožbe na prvi stopnji
Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides that the Court of Justice may, where the decision of the Court of First Instance is quashed, itself give final judgment in the matter where the state of the proceedings so permits.
Člen 61 Statuta Sodi�ča določa, da Sodi�če lahko, kadar razveljavi odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje.
All plans, whether for new vessels or for modifications to existing vessels, may be copied or reused in various ways, with or without changes.
Vsi načrti, bodisi za nova plovila bodisi za spremembo obstoječih, se lahko preri�ejo ali ponovno uporabijo na različne načine s spremembami ali brez njih.
However, as the Commission itself submitted at the hearing and as is clear from the legal context, requests for safety tonnage are examined on a case-by-case basis.
Vendar, kot je Komisija na zasli�anju sama trdila in kot izhaja iz pravnega konteksta, se zahteve za varno tonažo ocenjujejo v vsakem primeru posebej.
If granted, the safety tonnage accrues to the specific application.
Če je podeljena, varna tonaža pripada k določeni uporabi.
Whether the same plans are used subsequently or add -itionally in a different context, the authorisation for extra safety tonnage accrues solely to the owner of a particular designated vessel.
Če se enaki načrti uporabijo pozneje ali dodatno v drugačnih okoli�činah, dovoljenje za dodatno varno tonažo pripada le lastniku točno določenega plovila.
It will not usually be appropriate for the Court of Justice, after overturning a finding of inadmissibility, to proceed to examine the substance of the case at first instance.
Običajno ne b o primerno, da bi Sodi�če, potem ko spremeni ugotovitev glede dopustnosti, nadaljevalo presojo temelja zadeve na prvi stopnji.
In most cases, by definition, the arguments on the substance will not have been examined by the Court of First Instance, and the state of the proceedings will thus not permit the Court of Justice to reach a decision.
V večini primerov per defi­nitionem trditve glede temelja Sodi�če prve stopnje ni presojalo in stanje postopka tako Sodi�ču ne omogoča, da sprejme odločitev.
In the present case, however, once the admissibility of the appellants’ actions is accepted, there is nothing to differentiate them from the other 19 applicants.
Vendar v tem primeru, ko bo ugotovljena dopustnost tožb pritožnikov, teh ni mogoče razlikovati od preostalih 19 tožečih strank.
All the
Vse tožbe so bile del skupnih serij, vse tožeče
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION actions formed part of a common series, all the applicants were represented by the same lawyers, and the Court of First Instance examined all the arguments together, drawing no distinction between individual applicants.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI stranke so zastopali isti odvetniki in Sodi�če prve stopnje je presojalo vse argumente skupaj, tako da ni razlikovalo med posameznimi tožečimi strankami.
It reached its decision on grounds which were equally applicable to all those applicants.
Svojo odločitev je sprejelo na podlagi, ki je enako veljavna za vse te tožeče stranke.
applications had been declared admissible, it is also necessary for this Court to annul the contested decision in so far as it applies to the vessels of the appellants.
razgla�ene za nedopustne, mora Sodi�če prve stopnje razglasiti za nično odločbo Komisije 2003/245/ES tudi v delu, v katerem se nana�a na plovila pritožnikov.
This would put the appellants in the same position as the applicants that were successful before the Court of First Instance and are now awaiting a new decision of the Commission on their application for safety tonnage.
To bi pritožnike postavilo v enak položaj kot tožeče stranke, ki so pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje uspele in zdaj pričakujejo novo odločbo Komisije glede uporabe varne tonaže.
The substantive analysis in the judgment under appeal can therefore be applied without modification to the appellants, producing precisely the outcome that they originally sought.
Stvarna analiza v izpodbijani sodbi se torej lahko brez spremembe uporabi za pritožnike, saj učinkuje natančno tako, kot so ti na začetku zahtevali.
The judgment should therefore be quashed only in so far as it declared inadmissible the applications by the appellants.
Sodbo se razveljavi le v delu, v katerem določa, da so tožbe pritožnikov nedopustne.
The appellants have applied for costs, and the Commission’s arguments on appeal should in my view be unsuccessful.
Pritožniki so priglasili stro�ke in trditve Komisije glede pritožbe so po mojem mnenju neuspe�ne.
Since, however, the Court of First Instance confined the annulment of the contested decision to annulment of its effect upon the vessels of those applicants whose
Ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje omejilo razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe na razglasitev ničnosti učinka glede plovil tistih tožečih strank, katerih tožbe so bile
I am accordingly of the opinion that the Court should:
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev Sodi�ču predlagam, naj:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Cases T-224/03, T-226/03, and T-236/03 in so far as it dismissed the applications for the annulment of
– razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje T-224/03, T-226/03, in T-236/03 v delu, v katerem je tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe Komisije 2003/245/ES zavrgla kot nedopustne in pritožnikom naložila plačilo stro�kov;
— annul Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the vessels of the appellants;
– razglasi za nično Odločbo Komisije 2003/245/ES z dne 4. aprila 2003 o zahtevah, ki jih je prejela Komisija za povečanje ciljev VUP IV zaradi izbolj�av glede varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih pogojev za plovila, katerih skupna dolžina zna�a več kot 12 metrov, v delu, ki velja za plovila pritožnikov;
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (prvi senat) z dne 17. aprila 2008 *
In Joined Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P,
V združenih zadevah C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P in C-382/06 P, katerih predmet so pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 5. septembra 2006,
Larry Murphy (C-379/06 P), residing in Brandyhill (Ireland),
Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P), s sedežem v Killybegsu (Irska), ki jih zastopajo D. Barry, solicitor, in A.
Ocean Trawlers Ltd (C-382/06 P), established in Killybegs (Ireland), represented by D. Barry, Solicitor, and A. Collins SC (C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P), and additionally by P. Gallagher SC (C-379/06 P), appellants,
Collins, SC, (C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P in C-382/06 P), ter zadnjenavedena in P. Gallagher, SC, (C-379/06 P), tožeče stranke,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P the other parties to the proceedings being:
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P drugi stranki v postopku sta
Ireland, intervener at first instance,
Irska, intervenientka v postopku na prvi stopnji,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Doherty and M. van Heezik, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, defendant at first instance,
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopata B. Doherty in M. van Heezik, zastopnika, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, tožena stranka v postopku na prvi stopnji,
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 September 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 December 2007,
Hewlett, glavna administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 20. septembra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 11. decembra 2007
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION gives the following
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI izreka naslednjo
48; ‘the contested decision’), and (ii) ordered them to bear their own costs.
48, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba), in jim na drugi strani naložilo plačilo svojih stro�kov.
By order of the President of the Court of 5 March 2007, Cases C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P and C-382/06 P were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
Zadeve C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P in C-382/06 P so bile s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 5. marca 2007 združene za ustni postopek in izdajo sodbe.
On 26 June 1997, the Council of the European Union adopted Decision 97/413/EC concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27).
Svet Evropske unije je 26. junija 1997 sprejel Odločbo 97/413/ES o ciljih in pravilih za prestrukturiranje ribi�kega sektorja Skupnosti med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2001 za doseganje trajnega ravnovesja med ribolovnimi viri in njihovim izkori�čanjem (UL L 175, str. 27).
2008 — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P
According to Article 4(2) of that decision:
Člen 4(2) navedene odločbe določa:
‘In the Multiannual Guidance Programmes for Member States, increases in capacity resulting exclusively from safety improvements shall justify, on a case-by-case basis, an increase by the same amount of the objectives for fleet segments where they do not increase the fishing effort of the vessels concerned.’
„V večletnih usmerjevalnih programih, namenjenih državam članicam, povečanje zmogljivosti, ki izhaja izključno iz izbolj�anj na področju varnosti, upravičuje glede na posamezni primer enakovredno povečanje ciljev za segmente flote, če ne povečajo ribolovnega napora zadevnih plovil.“
The first paragraph of point 3.3 of the annex to Commission Decision 98/125/EC of 16 December 1997 approving the multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet of Ireland for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 1998 L 39, p.
V točki 3.3, prvi pododstavek, priloge k Odločbi Komisije 98/125/ES z dne 16. decembra 1997 o odobritvi večletnega usmerjevalnega programa ribi�ke flote Irske za obdobje od 1. januarja 1997 do 31. decembra 2001 (UL 1998, L 39, str.
41; ‘MAGP IV’) is worded as follows:
41, v nadaljevanju: VUP IV) je določeno:
‘Member States may at any time submit to the Commission a programme of safety improvements.
„Države članice lahko Komisiji vedno predložijo program varnostnih izbolj�av.
In accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Decision 97/413/EC the Commission will decide whether any capacity increase foreseen by such a programme justifies a corresponding increase in the objectives of the MAGP IV.’
V skladu z določbami členov 3 in 4 Odločbe 97/413/ES Komisija odloči, ali povečanje zmogljivosti, predvideno v takem programu, upravičuje ustrezno povečanje ciljev VUP IV.“
The background to the dispute giving rise to the judgment under appeal, as set out therein, can be summarised as follows.
Dejansko stanje, na podlagi katerega je bila izdana izpodbijana sodba, lahko povzamemo tako, kot je navedeno v njej.
Between 1999 and 2001, correspondence relating to Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 was exchanged between the Irish Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (‘the Department’) and the Commission.
Med letoma 1999 in 2001 je bila med irskim ministrstvom za pomorstvo in naravne vire (v nadaljevanju: ministrstvo) in Komisijo izmenjana korespondenca v zvezi s členom 4(2) Odločbe 97/413.