natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As to the latter, the Court of First Instance held that, at the date of the contested decision, they had not yet built the vessels referred to in Annex II to that decision, so that they were not owners of the vessels in question.
V zvezi z zadnjenavedenimi je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da na dan izdaje navedene odločbe �e niso začele graditi plovil, določenih v Prilogi II k tej odločbi, tako da niso bili lastniki.
The Court of First Instance inferred from this that they had no interest in bringing an action.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi tega sklepalo, da nimajo pravnega interesa.
In that respect, it must be borne in mind that the present cases concern an authorisation procedure.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je predmet obravnavanih sporov postopek pridobitve dovoljenja.
A certain tonnage is authorised for the fishing fleet of each Member State and specific increases in that tonnage may be approved by Commission decision if certain 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 izpolnjena določena merila.
Those criteria include the increase in tonnage capacity resulting from modernisation works to the vessels concerned in order to improve safety.
Ta merila se med drugim nana�ajo na to, da je povečanje zmogljivosti na področju tonaže posledica posodobitve zadevnih plovil za izbolj�anje varnosti.
It must be noted also that it was not submitted before the Court of First Instance that that procedure requires the necessary works to be carried out, or at least initiated, before the authorisation in question is granted.
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje niti ni bilo zatrjevano, da ta postopek zahteva, da se nujna dela izvedejo ali vsaj začnejo pred izdajo zadevnega dovoljenja.
As paragraph 61, read in conjunction with paragraph 17, of the judgment under appeal shows, it is the Court of First Instance which raised that question of its own motion.
Kot izhaja iz točke 61 v povezavi s točko 17 izpodbijane sodbe, je Sodi�če prve stopnje samo po uradni dolžnosti postavilo to vpra�anje.
However, in its examination of that question, the Court of First Instance did not refer to any provision of applicable Community law that would give rise to such a requirement.
V okviru preučitve navedenega vpra�anja se Sodi�če prve stopnje ni sklicevalo na nobeno določbo iz veljavne Skupnostne ureditve, iz katere bi izhajala taka zahteva.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance held in paragraphs 100 to 134 of the judgment under appeal, and it is not disputed in the present appeals, that safety improvements which would justify an increase in tonnage capacity may be achieved by having a replacement vessel built.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 100 do 134 izpodbijane sodbe odločilo – in tega se v okviru obravnavanih pritožb ne izpodbija – da so lahko izbolj�anja varnosti, ki utemeljujejo povečanje zmogljivosti na področju tonaže, posledica gradnje nadomestnega plovila.
In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that anyone who, in compliance with the applicable rules in that regard, has sought an increase in capacity on the ground of safety improvements by having a replacement vessel built clearly has an interest in seeking the annulment of a decision refusing the corresponding authorisation.
V teh okoli�činah Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo dejstva, da ima vsaka oseba, ki je ob upo�tevanju pravil, ki veljajo v zvezi s tem, zahtevala povečanje zmogljivosti na podlagi izbolj�av varnosti zaradi gradnje nadomestnega plovila, očitno pravni interes za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe o zavrnitvi ustreznega dovoljenja.
While it is true that the interest is more urgent for those who had already, at the time of the decision, committed expenditure to the building of a vessel, those who have not yet commenced such building nevertheless have such an interest.
Čeprav je res, da je ta interes nujnej�i za osebe, ki so na dan izdaje te odločbe že imele stro�ke za gradnjo plovila, tak interes za tiste, ki �e niso začele graditi, vendarle obstaja.
Where such authorisation is forthcoming, it means that whatever steps remain to be taken in order to achieve or use the increased capacity sought may be taken in compliance with any applicable conditions and time-limits.
Kadar se to dovoljenje izda, je mogoče vse ukrepe, ki jih je treba sprejeti za izvedbo ali uporabo zahtevane povečane zmogljivosti, sprejeti ob upo�tevanju morebitnih veljavnih pogojev in rokov.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants did not have an interest in bringing an action on the ground that, at the date of the contested decision, they had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, so that at the date of that decision they were not owners of the vessels.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je torej napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je v točki 62 izpodbijane sodbe odločilo, da pritožniki niso imeli pravnega interesa, ker na dan izdaje sporne odločbe niso začeli graditi plovila, določena v Prilogi II k tej odločbi, tako da na ta dan niso bili njihovi lastniki.
Consequently, it must be held that all the applicants at first instance had an interest in bringing an action against the contested decision.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da so vse tožeče stranke na prvi stopnji imele pravni interes za izpodbijanje sporne odločbe.
In declaring the actions of four of the applicants, including the present appellants, to be inadmissible, the Court of First Instance also concluded that the latter were not individually concerned within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ob razglasitvi nedopustnosti tožb �tirih tožečih strank, vključno s pritožniki v obravnavani zadevi, tudi menilo, da zadnjenavedenih odločba ni zadevala posamično v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
The Court of First Instance did accept that all the applicants at first instance were directly concerned by the contested decision and that the fact that they were owners
Sodi�če prve stopnje je sicer priznalo, da je vse tožeče stranke na prvi stopnji sporna odločba neposredno
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION of the vessels mentioned in the annexes thereto was sufficient to establish individual concern, but it nevertheless distinguished the appellants solely on the ground that the vessels in question were ‘fictitious’.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI zadevala in da je dejstvo, da so bile zadnjenavedene lastniki plovil, navedenih v prilogah k tej odločbi, zadostovalo za ugotovitev, da jih je odločba zadevala posamično, vendar je pritožnike razlikovalo le zaradi dejstva, da plovila „niso obstajala“.
As the Advocate General noted at points 31 and 32 of her Opinion, the word ‘fictitious’ has two possible meanings.
Kot poudarja generalna pravobranilka v točkah 31 in 32 sklepnih predlogov, izraz „neobstoj“ zajema dva mogoča pomena.
The ordinary meaning of the word relates to something that is not genuine or is feigned to exist and therefore exists only in the imagination.
Običajni pomen tega izraza se nana�a na nekaj, kar ni resnično ali obstaja navidezno, in torej obstaja le v domi�ljiji.
Applied to the present cases, it would imply that the appellants did not really want to replace their original vessels with alternative vessels incorporating additional safety capacity, or that it was merely a vague idea or plan to which no effect of a discernible kind was given.
V obravnavani zadevi naj bi pomenilo, da pritožniki dejansko niso želeli nadomestiti svojih prvotnih plovil z drugimi z dodatno varno zmogljivostjo ali da je �lo le za nejasen načrt ali idejo, ki ni imela nobenega resničnega učinka.
It follows from paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal that, with regard to the appellants, the Court of First Instance inferred that their vessels were ‘fictitious’ from the fact that those vessels had not been built at the date of the contested decision.
Iz točke 62 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da je v zvezi s pritožniki Sodi�če prve stopnje o takem „neobstoju“ njihovih plovil sklepalo iz dejstva, da ta plovila na dan izdaje sporne odločbe niso bila zgrajena.
It is true, as the Commission submits, that the question whether a particular vessel has been built or not is a question of fact which cannot be the subject of an appeal, unless it transpires that the Court of First Instance has distorted the facts in that regard.
Res je torej, kot trdi Komisija, da je vpra�anje, ali je bilo določeno plovilo zgrajeno ali ne, dejansko vpra�anje, ki ne more biti predmet pritožbe, razen če se izkaže, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje izkrivilo dejstva v zvezi s tem.
However, whether the fact that a planned vessel has not yet been built means that an applicant is not individually concerned is a question of law which may properly be appealed.
Nasprotno pa je vpra�anje, ali dejstvo, da načrtovano plovilo �e ni bilo zgrajeno, pomeni, da tožeče stranke ne zadeva posamično, pravno vpra�anje, glede katerega se je mogoče pritožiti.
For the same reasons as those indicated in paragraphs 25 to 32 of this judgment in relation to the interest in bringing proceedings, it must be held that the Court of First Instance committed an error of law in holding, in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal, that the appellants were not individually concerned on the ground
Zaradi razlogov, kot so v zvezi s pravnim interesom navedeni v točkah od 25 do 32 te sodbe, je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je v točki 62 izpodbijane sodbe odločilo, da odločba pritožnikov ni zadevala posamično, ker do dne izdaje sporne odločbe niso začeli graditi plovil, določenih v Prilogi II k tej
2008 — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P that, at the date of the contested decision, they had not had the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision built, so that at the date of that decision they were not owners of the vessels.
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P odločbi, tako da na ta dan niso bili lastniki.
In fact, since they had submitted individual requests for an increase in safety tonnage in respect of the vessels referred to in Annex II, it is sufficient to note that that is a circumstance capable, in accordance with the caselaw referred to in paragraph 36 of this judgment, of differentiating them from all other persons and of distinguishing them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by that decision.
Ker so pritožniki predložili posamične zahteve za povečanje varne tonaže v zvezi s plovili, določenimi v navedeni Prilogi II, zadostuje poudariti, da je bila to okoli�čina, zaradi katere jih je mogoče v skladu s sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 36 obravnavane sodbe, opredeliti glede na vse druge osebe in jih razlikovati posamično enako kot naslovnike navedene odločbe.
It follows that the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it declared inadmissible the applications brought before the Court of First Instance by the three appellants in this case.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti v delu, v katerem so bile tožbe, ki so jih na Sodi�če prve stopnje vložili pritožniki v obravnavanih pritožbah, razgla�ene za nedopustne.
Under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the appeal is well founded, the Court is to quash the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Če je pritožba utemeljena, Sodi�če v skladu s členom 61 Statuta Sodi�ča razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
It may then itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
Tedaj lahko samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
In the present case, since the state of the proceedings is such as to permit final judgment in the matter, it falls to the Court to give final judgment on the appellants’ applications for annulment of the contested decision.
Ker v obravnavani zadevi stanje postopka to dovoljuje, Sodi�če dokončno odloči o predlogih pritožnikov v zvezi z razglasitvijo ničnosti sporne odločbe.
An examination of the procedural documents produced before the Court of First Instance shows that, once the admissibility of the appellants’ actions before that Court is accepted, there is nothing to differentiate them from the 19 other applicants whose actions were declared admissible.
Iz preizkusa vlog, predloženih Sodi�ču prve stopnje, izhaja, da ko so tožbe, ki so jih pred navedenim sodi�čem vložili pritožniki, sprejete kot dopustne, zadnjenavedenih ni mogoče razlikovati od drugih 19 tožečih strank, katerih tožbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje razglasilo za dopustne.
All the actions related to the same subjectmatter and all the applicants, represented by the same lawyers, relied on the same pleas in law.
V vseh tožbah z enakim predmetom so bili namreč navedeni enaki tožbeni razlogi in vse tožeče stranke, ki so jih zastopali isti odvetniki, so navajale enake tožbene razloge.
As regards the plea in law by which the applicants alleged before the Court of First Instance a lack of competence on the part of the Commission, inasmuch as the latter had, in Article 1(2) of the contested decision, applied a criterion not provided for in the applicable Community provisions, it must be held, on the same grounds as those set out in paragraphs 100 to 134 of the judgment under appeal, particularly in paragraphs 105 and 108 to 110, that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 imposes no limit as regards the age of a vessel eligible for an increase in capacity on safety grounds, and that the concept of improvements referred to in that provision refers to improvements to the national fleet, instead of to a particular vessel.
V zvezi s tožbenim razlogom neobstoja pristojnosti Komisije, ki so ga pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje navedle tožeče stranke, ker je ta v členu 1(2) sporne odločbe uporabila merilo, ki ga veljavne določbe Skupnosti ne predvidevajo, je treba ugotoviti, da iz enakih razlogov, kot so navedeni v točkah od 100 do 134 izpodbijane sodbe, zlasti v točki 105 in točkah od 108 do 110 te sodbe, člen 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 ne predpisuje nobene omejitve glede starosti plovila v zvezi z upravičenostjo do povečanja zmogljivosti na področju varnosti in da se pojem izbolj�av iz te določbe ne nana�a na izbolj�ave, izvedene na točno določenem plovilu, ampak na nacionalno floto.
It is not necessary therefore, in order to attain the objective pursued by that decision of conserving the fishing stocks in Community waters, that new vessels be excluded from the regime laid down by that provision.
Za zagotovitev cilja ohranjanje staležev rib v vodah Skupnosti, ki ga zasleduje ta odločba, ni potrebno, da so nova plovila izključena iz ureditve, ki je predvidena v navedeni določbi.
In those circumstances, it must be held that, by adopting in the contested decision criteria which are not provided for in the applicable legislation, the Commission exceeded its powers.
V teh okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, da je Komisija s tem, da je v sporni odločbi sprejela merila, ki jih veljavni predpisi v obravnavani zadevi ne predvidevajo, prekoračila svoje pristojnosti.
That plea must therefore be upheld and, without there being any need to examine the other pleas relied upon by the appellants, the contested decision must be annulled in so far as it applies to the vessels of the appellants.
Zato je treba ta pritožbeni razlog sprejeti in sporno odločbo, ne da bi bilo treba preizkusiti druge navedene pritožbene razloge pritožnikov, razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem se uporablja za plovila pritožnikov.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) Poslovnika, ki velja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi čle -na 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the appellants have applied in their pleadings for the Commission to be ordered to pay their costs of both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeals, and the Commission has been unsuccessful, the Commission must be ordered to pay the costs.
Ker so pritožniki predlagali, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, ki so nastali v postopku na prvi stopnji in v tem pritožbenem postopku, in ker ta s svojimi predlogi ni uspela, ji je treba naložiti plačilo navedenih stro�kov.
Case C-404/06
Zadeva C-404/06
(Consumer protection — Directive 1999/44/EC — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Right of the seller, where goods not in conformity are replaced, to require the consumer to pay compensation for the use of those goods — No charge for the use of the goods not in conformity)
„Varstvo potro�nikov – Direktiva 1999/44/ES – Prodaja potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezane garancije – Pravica prodajalca, da ob zamenjavi blaga, ki ni v skladu s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva plačilo nadomestila za uporabo tega blaga – Brezplačna uporaba blaga z napako“
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 April 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trstenjak, predstavljeni 15. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — CASE C-404/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-404/06
Approximation of laws — Sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees — Directive 1999/44
Približevanje zakonodaj – Prodaja potrošniškega blaga in z njim povezane garancije – Direktiva 1999/44
(European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/44, Art. 3)
(Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 1999/44, člen 3)
In that context, the uncertainty as to whether the national court — following an answer given by the Court of Justice to a question referred for a preliminary ruling relating to interpretation of a directive — may, in compliance with the principles laid down by the Court, interpret national law in the light of that answer cannot affect the Court’s obligation to rule on that question.
V okviru postopka, določenega v čle -nu 234 ES, ki temelji na jasni ločitvi nalog med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, je le nacionalno sodi�če, ki odloča o sporu in ki mora prevzeti odgovornost za sodno odločitev, pristojno, da glede na posebnosti zadeve presodi potrebo po izdaji predhodne odločbe, da bi lahko izdalo sodbo, kot tudi ustreznost vpra�anj, ki jih predloži Sodi�ču.
Any other approach would be incompatible with the very aim of the powers given to the Court by Article 234 EC, which are intended, in essence, to ensure the uniform application of Community law by the national courts.
Ker se predloženo vpra�anje nana�a na razlago prava Skupnosti, je Sodi�če v načelu dolžno odločati.
In proceedings under Article 234 EC, which are based on a clear separation of functions between the national courts and the Court of Justice, any assessment of the facts in the case is a matter for the national court before which the dispute has been brought and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, and which must determine, in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court.
V tem okviru negotovost glede tega, ali nacionalno sodi�če na podlagi odgovora Sodi�ča na vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v zvezi z razlago Direktive lahko v skladu z načeli, ki jih je oblikovalo Sodi�če, razlaga nacionalno pravo glede na ta odgovor, ne sme vplivati na obveznost Sodi�ča, da odloča o tem vpra�anju.
Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling.
Vsaka drugačna re�itev bi bila namreč v nasprotju z namenom pristojnosti, ki so Sodi�ču priznane v členu 234 ES in katerih bistveni cilj je zagotavljati, da nacionalna sodi�ča enotno uporabljajo pravo Skupnosti.
Article 3 of Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees is to be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a seller who has sold consumer goods which are not in conformity may require the consumer
Člen 3 Direktive 1999/44 o nekaterih vidikih prodaje potro�ni�kega blaga in z njim povezanih garancij je treba razlagati tako, da nasprotuje nacionalni zakonodaji, ki prodajalcu omogoča, da v
The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal mater- ial necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it.
Sprejetje predhodne odločbe o vpra�anju, ki ga postavi nacionalno sodi�če, je mogoče zavrniti le, kadar je očitno, da zahtevana razlaga prava Skupnosti nima nikakr�ne zveze z dejanskim stanjem ali predmetom spora o glavni stvari, kadar gre za hipotetičen problem oziroma kadar Sodi�če nima na voljo potrebnih dejanskih in pravnih elementov, da bi lahko koristno odgovorilo na postavljena vpra�anja.
QUELLE to pay compensation for the use of those defective goods until their replacement with new goods.
QUELLE primeru, ko je prodal blago, ki ni v skladu s pogodbo, od potro�nika zahteva nadomestilo za uporabo tega blaga do njegove zamenjave z novim blagom.
might dissuade them from asserting their rights in the absence of such protection.
napako, je varstvo potro�nika pred morebitnimi finančnimi stro�ki, ki bi ga odvrnili od uveljavljanja svojih pravic, če takega varstva ne bi bilo.
The certain nature of the ‘free of charge’ aspect, which was intentional on the part of the Community legislature, means that the seller cannot make any financial claim in connection with the performance of its obligation to bring into conformity the goods to which the contract relates.
Ta zagotovitev neodplačnosti, ki jo je želel doseči zakonodajalec Skupnosti, preprečuje kakr�no koli finančno zahtevo prodajalca v okviru izvr�itve svoje obveznosti uskladitve blaga s pogodbo.
Furthermore, the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation to bring goods into conformity is consistent with the purpose of the Directive which is to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
Ta razlaga je tudi v skladu z namenom Direktive, ki je glede na njeno prvo uvodno izjavo prispevati k doseganju visoke ravni varstva potro�nikov.
It follows from the wording of the Direct- ive, as well as from the related travaux préparatoires, that the Community legislature intended to make the ‘free of charge’ aspect of the seller’s obligation to bring goods into conformity an essential element of the protection afforded to consumers by the Directive.
Iz besedila in upo�tevnih pripravljalnih besedil Direktive namreč izhaja, da je bil namen zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da je neodplačna uskladitev prodajalca blaga s pogodbo bistvena sestavina varstva, ki ga potro�niku daje ta direktiva.
The ‘free of charge’ requirement attaching to the seller’s obligation to bring the goods into conformity, whether by repair or replacement, is intended to protect consumers from the risk of financial burdens which
Namen te obveznosti prodajalca, da neodplačno uskladi blago s pogodbo, pa naj bo v obliki popravila ali zamenjave blaga z
(see paras 33, 34, 36, 43, operative part)
(Glej točke 33, 34, 36, 43 in izrek.)
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-404/06
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI V. – ZADEVA C-404/06
I — Introduction of defective goods and requiring it to repay the amount paid in the present case by way of compensation for use.
Bundesverband zahteva opustitev zahtevkov za plačilo nadomestila za uporabo blaga z napako in vrnitev plačanega nadomestila.