natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
28 a sanctions regime imposed by Security Council resolutions?
28 izvaja ureditev sankcij, ki jo nalagajo resolucije Varnostnega sveta?
In this regard, the ruling of this Court in Bosphorus 26immediately comes to mind.
V zvezi s tem takoj pomislimo na sodbo tega sodi�ča v zadevi Bosphorus. 26V tej
Nevertheless, the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom claim that the judgment in Bosphorus is silent on the matter of the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction, because, at any rate, the regulation did not infringe fundamental rights.
Vendar Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo trdijo, da v sodbi Bosphorus ni nobenih navedb v zvezi z obsegom pristojnosti Sodi�ča, ker z Uredbo nikakor niso bile kr�ene temeljne pravice.
True, while the Advocate General dismissed the idea in passing, the Court did not explicitly address whether the fact that the regulation implemented a Security Council resolution could preclude it from exercising judicial review.
Res je, da je generalni pravobranilec idejo ovrgel, Sodi�če pa ni izrecno odločilo, ali zaradi dejstva, da se z uredbo izvaja resolucija Varnostnega sveta, nima pristojnosti sodnega nadzora.
None the less, I would suppose that, instead of deliberately leaving the matter undecided, the Court accepted as self-evident what the Advocate General had felt useful to spell out, namely that ‘respect for fundamental rights is … a condition of the lawfulness of Community acts’. 29
Vendar menim, da je Sodi�če – namesto da o vpra�anju ne bi odločilo – to, kar je generalni pravobranilec ocenil za koristno, sprejelo za očitno, in sicer, da je „spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic […] pogoj za zakonitost aktov Skupnosti“. 29
In that ruling, the Court assessed whether a regulation that was adopted to implement a Security Council resolution which imposed a trade embargo on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia infringed fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality.
V vsakem primeru, čeprav bi bilo mogoče sprejeti predlog, da je Sodi�če v sodbi Bosphorus ob�lo problem pristojnosti, ostaja dejstvo, da Svet, Komisija in Združeno zadevi je Sodi�če preizkusilo, ali so bile z uredbo, ki je bila sprejeta za izvedbo resolucije Varnostnega sveta, s katero je bil naložen trgovski embargo proti Zvezni republiki Jugoslaviji, kr�ene temeljne pravice in načelo sorazmernosti.
The Court held that the interest of ‘putting an end to the state of war in the region and to the massive violations of human rights and humanitarian law in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina’ outweighed the interest of a wholly innocent party to be able to pursue its economic activities using assets it had leased from a company based in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Sodi�če je odločilo, da je interes „končati vojno stanje v regiji ter masovno kr�enje človekovih pravic in mednarodnega humanitarnega prava v Republiki Bosni in Hercegovini“ prevladal nad interesom, da bi popolnoma nedolžna stranka lahko nadaljevala svoje gospodarske dejavnosti, s tem da bi uporabila sredstva, ki si jih je sposodila pri podjetju s sedežem v Zvezni republiki Jugoslaviji.
27 The Court made no suggestion whatsoever that it might not have powers of review because the regulation was necessary
27Sodi�če ni podalo nobenega predloga, da morebiti ni pristojno za nadzor uredbe, ker je bila ta
29 — Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Bosphorus, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 53.
29 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi Bosphorus, navedeni v opombi 26, točka 53.
See also paragraph 34 of Opinion 2/94, cited in footnote 22.
Glej tudi točko 34 Mnenja 2/94, navedeno v opombi 22.
26 — Case C-84/95 [1996] ECR I-3953.27 — Bosphorus, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 26.
27 – Sodba Bosphorus, navedena v opombi 26, točka 26.
Commission and the United Kingdom fail to identify any basis in the Treaty from which it could logically follow that measures taken for the implementation of Security Council resolutions have supra-constitutional status and are hence accorded immunity from judicial review.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI kraljestvo niso opredelili nobene podlage v Pogodbi, iz katere bi lahko logično izhajalo, da imajo ukrepi, sprejeti za izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta, nadustavni položaj in so zato upravičeni do imunitete pred izvajanjem sodnega nadzora.
Indeed, in the absence of a Community measure, it would in principle be open to the Member States to take their own implementing measures, since they are allowed, under the Treaty, to adopt measures which, though affecting the functioning of the common market, may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Države članice lahko namreč, kadar ukrep Skupnosti ne obstaja, sprejmejo svoje izvedbene ukrepe, ker lahko v skladu s Pogodbo sprejemajo akte, ki so, čeprav vplivajo na delovanje skupnega trga, nujni za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti.
31 None the less, the powers retained by the Member States in the field of security policy must be exercised in a manner consistent with Community law.
31Vendar morajo države članice svoje pristojnosti na področju varnostne politike izvajati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti.
The United Kingdom suggests that such immunity from review can be derived from Article 307 EC.
Združeno kraljestvo zatrjuje, da lahko taka imuniteta pred nadzorom izhaja iz člena 307 ES.
31 — Articles 297 EC and 60(2) EC. See also: Case C-70/94 Werner [1995] ECR I-3189; Case C-83/94 Leifer and Others [1995] ECR I-3231; and the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-120/94 Commission v Greece [1996] ECR I-1513.
33 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 18. junija 1991 v zadevi Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE in drugi, C-260/89, Recueil, str. I-2925.
32 — Case C-124/95 Centro­Com [1997] ECR I-81, paragraph 25.
Glej tudi sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 26. junija 1997 v zadevi Familiapress, C-368/95, Recueil, str. I-3689, in z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Carpenter, C-60/00, Recueil, str. I-6279.
30 — Paragraphs 235 to 241 of the judgment under appeal.
30 – Točke od 235 do 241 izpodbijane sodbe.
35More straightforwardly, in Schmidberger, the Court reaffirmed that ‘measures which are incompatible with the observance of human rights … are not acceptable in the Community’.
v sodbi Schmidberger potrdilo, da „ukrepi, ki niso združljivi s spo�tovanjem človekovih pravic […] v Skupnosti niso sprejemljivi“. 36
The crucial problem with the argument raised by the United Kingdom, however, is that it presents Article 307 EC as the source of a possible derogation from Article 6(1) EU, according to which ‘the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law’.
Vendar je odločilni problem trditve Združenega kraljestva, da člen 307 ES predstavlja kot vir mogočega odstopanja od člena 6(1) EU, v skladu s katerim „Unija temelji na načelih svobode, demokracije, spo�tovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin ter pravne države“.
34This would plainly run counter to firmly established caselaw of this Court, according to which the Community guarantees a complete system of judicial protection in which fundamental rights are safeguarded in consonance with the constitutional traditions of the Member States.
34To bi bilo popolnoma v nasprotju z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, v skladu s katero Skupnost zagotavlja popoln sistem sodnega varstva, v katerem se temeljne pravice varujejo v skladu z ustavnimi tradicijami držav članic.
37 The second paragraph of Article 307 EC provides that ‘the Member State or States concerned shall take all appropriate steps to eliminate … incompatibilities’ between their prior treaty obligations and their obligations under Community law.
37Drugi odstavek člena 307 ES določa, da „država članica ali države članice, ki jih to zadeva, ustrezno ukrepajo, da bi odpravile […] nezdružljivost“.
To this end, Member States shall ‘assist each other … and shall, where appropriate adopt
V ta namen si države članice „pomagajo, in kadar je primerno, sprejmejo skupno stali�če“.
35 — Les Verts, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 23.
35 – Sodba Les Verts, navedena v opombi 18 zgoraj, točka 23.
36 — Case C-112/00 paragraph 73.
I-5659, točka 73.
See, for instance, the following sources. Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order of 14 October 2004 (Görgülü) 2 BvR 1481/04, reported in NJW 2004, p. 3407-3412. The Czech Republic: Ústavní soud, 15 April 2003 (I. ÚS 752/02); Ústavní soud, 21 February 2007 (I. ÚS 604/04). Italy: Corte Costituzionale, 19 March 2001, No 73.
Glej npr. vire v nadaljevanju. Nemčija: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Sklep z dne 14. oktobra 2004 (Görgülü) 2 BvR 1481/04, objavljen v NJW 2004, str. 3407 3412. Če�ka republika: Ústavní soud, 15. april 2003 (I. ÚS 752/02); Ústavní soud, 21. februar 2007 (I. ÚS 604/04). Italija: Corte Costituzionale, 19. marec 2001, �t. 73.
39In brief, one could say that the Commission, the Council and the United Kingdom contend that the specific subjectmatter at issue in the present case does not lend itself to judicial review.
39Skratka, trditi je mogoče, da Komisija, Svet in Združeno kraljestvo zatrjujejo, da posebni sporni predmet obravnavane zadeve ni primeren za sodni nadzor.
They claim that the European Court of Human Rights takes a similar position.
Zatrjujejo, da je Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice (v nadaljevanju: ESČP) podobnega mnenja.
a common attitude’. That duty requires Member States to exercise their powers and responsibilities in an international organisation such as the United Nations in a manner that is compatible with the conditions set by the primary rules and the general principles of Community law.
v mednarodni organizaciji, kot so Združeni narodi, izvajati v skladu s pogoji, ki so določeni v primarnih pravilih in splo�nih načelih prava Skupnosti.
38As Members of the United Nations, the Member States, and particularly — in the context of the present case — those belonging to the Security Council, have to act in such a way as to prevent, as far as possible, the adoption of decisions by organs of the United Nations that are liable to enter into conflict with the core principles of the Community legal order.
38Države članice, kot članice Združenih narodov, in zlasti – v smislu obravnavane zadeve – tiste, ki so članice Varnostnega sveta, morajo delovati tako, da kolikor je le mogoče preprečijo, da bi organi Združenih narodov sprejeli sklepe, ki bi bili lahko v nasprotju s temeljnimi cilji pravnega reda Skupnosti.
This does not detract from the importance of the interest in maintaining international peace and security; it simply means that it remains the duty of the courts to assess the lawfulness of
To ne zmanj�a pomena interesa ohraniti mednarodni mir in varnost, pomeni le, da ostaja dolžnost sodi�č, da ocenijo zakonitost ukrepov, ki bi lahko bili nezdružljivi z drugimi interesi, ki so prav tako velikega pomena in ki jih morajo sodi�ča varovati.
In this connection, the Commission evokes the notion of ‘political
Komisija v zvezi s tem navaja pojem „političnih
39 — The term ‘political question’ was coined by United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney in Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), 46-47.
38 – Glej, podobno, v zvezi z zahtevo enotnosti zastopa - nja Skupnosti na mednarodni ravni, Mnenje 1/94 z dne 15. novembra 1994, Recueil, str.
The precise meaning of this notion within the Community context is far from clear.
I-5267, točke od 106 do 109, in sodbo Komisija proti Svetu, navedena v opombi 23 zgoraj, točke od 40 do 51.
38 — See, in a similar vein, on the requirement of unity in the international representation of the Community, Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267, paragraphs 106 to 109, and Commission v Council, cited in footnote 23, paragraphs 40 to 51.
Komisija trditve, ki jo je podala na obravnavi, ni raz�irila, vendar naj bi bilo predlagano, naj se Sodi�če vzdrži izvajanja sodnega nadzora, ker ni pravnih meril, v skladu s katerimi bi bilo mogoče presoditi sporna vpra�anja.
As Justice Murphy rightly stated in his dissenting opinion in the Korematsu case of the United States Supreme Court: the risks to public security are believed to be extraordinarily high, the pressure is particularly strong to take measures that disregard individual rights, especially in respect of individuals who have little or no access to the political process.
Kot je sodnik Murphy pravilno navedel v ločenem mnenju v sodbi Korematsu, ki jo je sprejelo United States Supreme Court: sprejmejo ukrepi, s katerimi se ne spo�tujejo osebne pravice, zlasti v primeru posameznikov, katerih dostop do političnega procesa odločanja je majhen ali ga ni, posebej močan.
‘Like other claims conflicting with the asserted constitutional rights of the individual, [that] claim must subject itself to the judicial process of having its reasonableness determined and its conflicts with other interests reconciled.
„[ta] trditev mora biti, tako kot druge trditve v neskladju z zatrjevanimi ustavnimi pravicami posameznika, predložena v sodni postopek, v katerem se opredeli njen smisel in uskladi njeno neskladje z drugimi interesi. Vpra�anji, kje so dopustne meje [diskrecije], in ali so bile te v določenem primeru prekoračene, sta sodni vpra�anji“. 40
41 Nor does it mean, as the United Kingdom submits, that judicial review in those cases should be only ‘of the most marginal kind’.
41 Niti ne pomeni, kot trdi Združeno kraljestvo, da bi moral biti sodni nadzor v teh primerih „zgolj obroben“.
40 — United States Supreme Court, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 233-234 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted).
40 – United States Supreme Court, Korematsu proti Združenim državam, 323 U.S. 214, 233 in 234 (1944) (Murphy, J., ločeno mnenje) (notranji narekovaji so izpu�čeni).
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION its own jurisdiction in that way.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI omejilo na tak način.
42 Moreover, even if it were to do so, I do not think that that would be of consequence in the present case.
42Poleg tega, tudi če bi to storilo, menim, da to ne bi vplivalo na obravnavano zadevo.
43 — See, for instance, Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 33.
43 – Glej na primer sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Omega Spielhallen, C-36/02, Zodl., str. I-9609, točka 33.
Yet, the European Court of Human Rights declined jurisdiction ratione personae mainly because the ultimate authority and control over the security mission remained with the Security Council and, therefore, the impugned actions and inactions were attributable to the United Nations and not to the respondent States (see §§121 and 133 to 135 of the decision).
Vendar je ESČP svojo pristojnost ratione personae zanikalo predvsem zato, ker sta končna pristojnost in nadzor nad varnostnimi misijami ostala Varnostnemu svetu, in so bila zato izpodbijana delovanja in nedelovanja pripisana Združenim narodom in ne toženim državam (glej točke 121 in od 133 do 135 odločbe).
Indeed, in this respect the Court carefully distinguished the case from Bosphorus Airways (see, in particular, §151 of the decision).
Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem skrbno ločilo to sodbo od sodbe Bosphorus Airways (glej zlasti točko 151 odločbe).
46 Indeed, the possibility of a successful challenge cannot be entirely unexpected on the Security Council’s part, given that it was expressly contemplated by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team of the Sanctions Committee.
nacionalnem sodi�ču. 46Možnost uspe�ne tožbe naj namreč ne bi bila popolnoma nepričakovana za Varnostni svet, saj je to možnost izrecno predvidela skupina za analitično podporo in spremljanje sankcij sankcijskega odbora. 47
To the extent that such a ruling would prevent the Community and its Member States from implementing Security Council resolutions, the legal consequences within the international legal order remain to be determined
Če bi taka sodba Skupnosti in njenim državam članicam preprečila izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta, bi pravne učinke v mednarodnem pravnem redu �e vedno opredelilo mednarodno javno pravo. Čeprav je res, da so omejitve, ki jih splo�na načela
47 — See, in particular, the Second Report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team (S/2005/83), in which it is noted, in paragraph 54, that ‘the way entities or individuals are added to the terrorist list maintained by the Council and the absence of review or appeal for those listed raise serious accountability issues and possibly violate fundamental rights norms and conventions’ and, in paragraph 58, that ‘revisions to the process could help to reduce the possibility of one or more potentially negative court decisions’.
47 – Glej zlasti drugo poročilo skupine za analitično podporo in spremljanje sankcij (S/2005/83), v katerem je v točki 54 navedeno, da „način, kako so subjekti ali posamezniki dodani na seznam teroristov, ki ga vodi Svet, in dejstvo, da navedeni nimajo na voljo sredstev nadzora ali pritožbe, povzročata resne probleme odgovornosti in možno kr�itev pravil in konvencij o temeljnih pravicah“ in v točki 58, da „bi lahko nadzori postopka prispevali k zmanj�anju domnevno negativnih odločb sodi�ča“.
The Council asserted at the hearing that, by exercising its judicial task in respect of acts of Community institutions which have their source in Security Council resolutions, the Court would exceed its proper function and ‘speak on behalf of the international community’.
Svet je na obravnavi zatrjeval, da naj bi Sodi�če, s tem ko je izvajalo svojo sodno funkcijo v zvezi z akti institucij Skupnosti, sprejetimi na podlagi resolucij Varnostnega sveta, prekoračilo svojo funkcijo in „govorilo v imenu mednarodne skupnosti“.
However, that assertion clearly goes too far.
Vendar gre ta trditev očitno predaleč.
Of course, if the Court were to find that the contested resolution cannot be applied in the Community legal order, this is likely to have certain repercussions on the international stage.
Če bi Sodi�če seveda ugotovilo, da v pravnem redu Skupnosti izpodbijane resolucije ni mogoče uporabiti, bi to najverjetneje imelo določene posledice na mednarodni ravni.
It should be noted, however, that these repercussions need not necessarily be negative.
Navesti pa bi bilo treba, da te posledice ne bi bile nujno negativne.
They are the immediate consequence of the fact that, as the system governing the functioning of the United Nations now stands, the only option available to individuals who wish to have access to an independent tribunal in order to obtain adequate protection of their fundamental rights is to challenge domestic implementing measures before a domestic
So takoj�nja posledica dejstva, da je v skladu s sedanjim sistemom, ki ureja delovanje Združenih narodov, edina možnost, ki jo imajo posamezniki, ki želijo dostop do neodvisnega sodi�ča za ustrezno varstvo njihovih temeljnih pravic, izpodbijanje nacionalnih izvedbenih ukrepov pri
Court make use of the possibility of giving final judgment in this case.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI stopnje, v tej zadevi uporabi možnost, da samo dokončno odloči o njej.
by the rules of public international law. While it is true that the restrictions which the general principles of Community law impose on the actions of the institutions may inconvenience the Community and its Member States in their dealings on the international stage, the application of these principles by the Court of Justice is without prejudice to the application of international rules on State responsibility or to the rule enunciated in Article 103 of the UN Charter.
prava Skupnosti nalagajo za ukrepe institucij, lahko neugodne za Skupnost in njene države članice pri njihovih pogajanjih na mednarodnem prizori�ču, Sodi�če te ukrepe uporablja brez �kode za uporabo mednarodnih pravil o odgovornosti države ali pravila, določenega v členu 103 Ustanovne listine ZN.
The Council’s contention that, by reviewing the contested regulation, the Court would assume jurisdiction beyond the perimeters of the Community legal order is therefore misconceived.
Trditev Sveta, da naj bi Sodi�če z nadzorom izpodbijane uredbe izvajalo pristojnost, ki presega meje pravnega reda Skupnosti, je torej napačna.
In consequence, the Court should consider the appellant’s third plea well founded and set aside the judgment under appeal.
Sodi�če bi moralo zato tretji pritožbeni razlog pritožnika �teti za utemeljenega in izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti.
The appellant alleges that the contested regulation infringes a number of its fundamental rights and, on those grounds, seeks the annulment of that regulation.
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da je z izpodbijano uredbo kr�enih več njegovih temeljnih pravic in na tej podlagi predlaga razglasitev ničnosti te uredbe.
They advocate a type of judicial review that at heart is very similar to the approach taken by the Court of First Instance under the heading
Zagovarjajo vrsto sodnega nadzora, ki je v bistvu zelo podoben pristopu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, povezanem z jus cogens. V
Instead of referring the matter back to the Court of First Instance, I suggest that the
Sodi�ču predlagam, naj, namesto da bi zadevo vrnilo v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve
Consequently, in situations where the Community’s fundamental values are in the balance, the Court may be required to reassess, and possibly annul, measures adopted by the Community institutions, even when those measures reflect the wishes of the Security Council.
Zato je v primerih, ko so temeljne vrednote Skupnosti ogrožene, od Sodi�ča mogoče zahtevati, naj ponovno oceni in morebiti razglasi za nične ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele institucije Skupnosti, in to tudi kadar ti ukrepi odražajo namene Varnostnega sveta.
of jus cogens. In a sense, their argument is yet another expression of the belief that the present case concerns a ‘political question’ and that the Court, unlike the political institutions, is not in a position to deal adequately with such questions.
določenem smislu je njihova trditev �e en izraz prepričanja, da se obravnavana zadeva nana�a na „politično vpra�anje“ in da Sodi�če, nasprotno kot politične institucije, ni v položaju, da bi lahko ustrezno obravnavalo taka vpra�anja.
The reason would be that the matters at issue are of inter national significance and any intervention of the Court might upset globally-coordinated efforts to combat terrorism.
Razlog naj bi bil, da je sporno vpra�anje mednarodnega pomena in da lahko vsak poseg Sodi�ča �koduje globalno usklajenim prizadevanjem za boj proti terorizmu.
The Security Council, in contrast, presumably has the expertise to make that determination.
Varnostni svet ima nasprotno nedvomno strokovno znanje in izku�nje za tako opredelitev.
For these reasons, the respondents conclude that the Court should treat assessments made by the Security Council with the utmost deference and, if it does anything at all, should exercise a minimal review in respect of Community acts based on those assessments.
Iz teh razlogov tožene stranke ugotavljajo, da bi Sodi�če moralo ocene Varnostnega sveta obravnavati nadvse spo�tljivo in da bi moralo, če bi karkoli storilo, minimalni nadzor aktov Skupnosti izvajati na podlagi teh ocen.
As a result, the Court cannot always assert a monopoly on determining how certain fundamental
Iz tega izhaja, da Sodi�če ne more vedno uveljavljati monopola pri opredeljevanju načina usklajevanja določenih
Especially in matters of public security, the political process is liable to become overly responsive to immediate
Zlasti na področju javne varnosti lahko politika postane preveč dovzetna za trenutno zaskrbljenost javnosti, tako da oblasti pomirijo
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION law’s war against those who rise up against it.’ 49 popular concerns, leading the authorities to allay the anxieties of the many at the expense of the rights of a few.
Vojna zoper terorizem je tudi vojna prava proti tistim, ki mu nasprotujejo.“ 49 zaskrbljenost večine v �kodo pravic manj�ine.