natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(a) the period of time proposed by the Member concerned, … approved by the DSB; or, in the absence of such approval,
Razumno obdobje je: a) obdobje, ki ga predlaga določena članica […] odobri [ORS], ali kadar take odobritve ni, b) obdobje, o katerem so se sporazumele stranke v sporu […], ali če takega sporazuma ni, c) obdobje, ki ga določi zavezujoča arbitraža […]
Where there is disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings such dispute shall be decided through recourse to these dispute settlement procedures, including wherever possible resort to the original panel. …
Kadar ni soglasja glede obstoja ali skladnosti z zajetimi sporazumi v zvezi s sprejetimi ukrepi za izpolnjevanje priporočil in sklepov, se o takem sporu odloča s pomočjo teh postopkov re�evanja sporov, kadar koli je mogoče pa tudi s pomočjo prvotnega ugotovitvenega sveta. […]
The DSB shall keep under surveillance the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings. … Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB’s agenda until the issue is resolved….
[ORS] stalno nadzoruje izvajanje sprejetih priporočil ali sklepov. […] Če [ORS] ne odloči drugače, se vpra�anje o izvajanju priporočil ali sklepov uvrsti na dnevni red zasedanja [ORS] po �estih mesecih od dneva določitve razumnega obdobja v skladu z odstavkom 3 ter ostane na dnevnem redu [ORS], dokler ni re�eno. […]
Article 22 of the DSU, headed ‘Compensation and the Suspension of Concessions’, provides:
Člen 22 DPPRS, z naslovom „Kompenzacija in prekinitev koncesij“, določa:
However, neither compensation nor the suspension of concessions or other obligations is preferred to full implementation of a recommendation to bring a measure into conformity with the covered agreements.
Kompenzacija in prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti nimata prednosti pred doslednim izvajanjem priporočila za uskladitev ukrepa z zajetimi sporazumi.
Compensation is voluntary and, if granted, shall be consistent with the covered agreements.
Kompenzacija je prostovoljna in če se jo odobri, mora biti v skladu z zajetimi sporazumi.
If the Member concerned fails to bring the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement into compliance therewith or otherwise comply with the recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time determined pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 21, such Member shall, if so requested, and no later than the expiry of the reasonable period of time, enter into negotiations with any party having invoked the dispute settlement procedures, with a view to developing mutually
Če določeni članici ne uspe ukrepa, za katerega se ugotovi, da ni v skladu z zajetim sporazumom, uskladiti z njim, ali drugače ne spo�tuje priporočil ali sklepov v razumnem roku, določenem v skladu z odstavkom 3 člena 21, taka članica, če se to od nje zahteva, in najpozneje po izteku razumnega obdobja, začne pogajanja z vsako stranjo, ki je sprožila postopke za re�evanje spora, z namenom, da pripravi medsebojno sprejemljivo kompenzacijo. Če v 20 dneh po izteku razumnega obdobja ni dogovora
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P acceptable compensation. If no satisfactory compensation has been agreed within 20 days after the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time, any party having invoked the dispute settlement procedures may request authorisation from the DSB to suspend the application to the Member concerned of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P o zadovoljivi kompenzaciji, lahko vsaka stran, ki je sprožila postopke za re�evanje sporov, zahteva, da [ORS] določeni članici dovoli prekinitev uporabe koncesij ali drugih obveznosti po zajetih sporazumih.
(c) if that party considers that it is not practicable or effective to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to other sectors under the same agreement, and that the circumstances are serious enough, it may seek to suspend concessions or other obligations under another covered agreement;
Pri odločanju, katere koncesije ali druge obveznosti naj se prekinejo, tožeča stranka uporabi naslednja načela in postopke: a) splo�no načelo je, da naj tožeča stranka najprej posku�a prekiniti koncesije ali druge obveznosti v istem(-ih) sektorju(-ih), v katerih je ugotovitveni svet ali pritožbeni organ ugotovil kr�itev ali drugačno izničenje ali zmanj�evanje; b) če stranka meni, da prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti v istem(-ih) sektorju(-ih) ni izvedljiva ali učinkovita, lahko posku�a prekiniti koncesije ali druge obveznosti v drugih sektorjih po istem sporazumu; c) če stranka meni, da prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti v drugem(-ih) sektorju(-ih) po istem sporazumu ni izvedljiva ali učinkovita, ter da so okoli�čine dovolj resne, lahko posku�a prekiniti koncesije ali druge obveznosti po drugem zajetem sporazumu;
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI f) za namene tega odstavka izraz ‚sektor‘ pomeni: i) glede blaga vse vrste blaga;
The level of the suspension of concessions or other obligations authorised by the DSB shall be equivalent to the level of the nullification or impairment.
Raven prekinitve koncesij ali drugih obveznosti, ki jo dovoli [ORS], mora biti enakovredna ravni izničenja ali zmanj�evanja.
When the situation described in paragraph 2 occurs, the DSB, upon request, shall grant authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations within 30 days of the expiry of the reasonable period of time unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject the request.
Če nastane situacija, opisana v odstavku 2, bo [ORS] na zahtevo dal dovoljenje za prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti v 30 dneh od poteka razumnega obdobja, če se [ORS] s konsenzom ne odloči, da zahtevo zavrne.
However, if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 have not been followed where a complaining party has requested authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations …, the matter shall be referred to arbitration. … Concessions or other obligations shall not be suspended during the course of the arbitration.
Če pa določena članica nasprotuje predlagani ravni prekinitve ali trdi, da niso bila upo�tevana načela ali postopki, določeni v odstavku 3, ko je tožeča stranka zahtevala prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti […], se zadevo predloži v arbitražo. […] Med potekom arbitraže se koncesije ali druge obveznosti ne smejo prekiniti.
7. … The DSB shall … upon request, grant authorisation to suspend concessions or other obligations where the request is consistent with the decision of the arbitrator, unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject the request.
7. […] [ORS] na zahtevo odobri prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti, kadar je zahteva v skladu z odločbo razsodnika, če se [ORS] s konsenzom ne odloči, da zahtevo zavrne.
The suspension of concessions or other obligations shall be temporary and shall only be applied until such time as the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been removed, or the Member that must implement recommendations or rulings provides a solution to the nullification or impairment of benefits, or a mutually satisfactory solution is reached.
Prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti je začasna in se uporablja samo do ukinitve ukrepa, za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni v skladu z zajetim sporazumom, ali dokler članica, ki mora uresničiti priporočila ali sklepe, ne zagotovi re�itve glede izničenja ali zmanj�anja koristi, ali se ne doseže zadovoljiva re�itev za vse.
In accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 21, the DSB shall continue to keep under surveillance the implementation of adopted recommendations or rulings, including those cases where compensation has been provided or concessions or other obligations have been suspended but the recommendations to bring a measure into conformity with the covered agreements have not been implemented.
V skladu z odstavkom 6 člena 21 [ORS] �e naprej nadzoruje izvajanje sprejetih priporočil ali sklepov, vključno z zadevami, ko je bila dana kompenzacija ali so bile prekinjene koncesije ali druge obveznosti, niso pa bila uresničena priporočila za uskladitev ukrepa z zajetimi sporazumi.
The Community legislation on the common organisation of the market in bananas, and the related dispute within the WTO
Predpisi Skupnosti o skupni ureditvi trga za banane in s tem povezan spor znotraj STO
On 13 February 1993, the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas (OJ 1993 L 47, p.
Svet je 13. februarja 1993 sprejel Uredbo (EGS) �t. 404/93 o skupni ureditvi trga za banane (UL L 47, str.
1), Title IV of which was devoted to trade with third countries and contained preferential provisions for bananas originating in certain African, Caribbean and Pacific States (‘ACP States’) that were co-signatories to the Fourth ACP–EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989 (OJ 1991 L 229, p. 3).
1), v kateri so v naslovu IV – Trgovina s tretjimi državami – določene preferencialne določbe za banane iz določenih afri�kih, karibskih in pacifi�kih držav (v nadaljevanju: AKP), podpisnic Četrte Konvencije držav AKP in EGS, podpisane v Lomeju 15. decembra 1989 (UL 1991 L 229, str. 3).
Following complaints lodged in February 1996 by several WTO members, including the United States of America, the regime governing that trade became the subject of a dispute settlement procedure.
Zaradi pritožb, ki jih je februarja 1996 vložilo več članic STO, med njimi Združene države Amerike, je bila ta ureditev trgovine predmet postopka poravnave sporov.
In its report, the Appellate Body found that certain elements of that trading regime were incompatible with the obligations entered into by the Community under the WTO agreements and recommended that the DSB request the Community to bring the regime into conformity with those obligations.
Pritožbeni organ je v svojem poročilu ugotovil, da so nekateri elementi navedene ureditve trgovine nezdružljivi z obveznostmi, ki jih je prevzela Skupnost s sporazumi STO, in predlagal ORS, naj pozove Skupnost, naj uskladi to ureditev s temi obveznostmi.
This report was adopted by decision of the DSB on 25 September 1997 (‘the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997’).
ORS je to poročilo potrdil s sklepom z dne 25. septembra 1997 (v nadaljevanju: sklep ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997).
On 16 October 1997, the Community informed the DSB, in accordance with Article 21(3) of the DSU, that it would respect its international obligations.
Skupnost je 16. oktobra 1997 v skladu s členom 21(3) DPPRS obvestila ORS, da bo v celoti spo�tovala svoje mednarodne obveznosti.
Pursuant to Article 21(3)(c) of the DSU, the reasonable period of time within which the Community had to comply with its obligations was set by arbitral award as expiring on 1 January 1999.
Z arbitražno odločbo je bil na podlagi člena 21(3)(c) DPPRS za razumen rok določen 1. januar 1999, v katerem bi morala Skupnost izpolniti svoje obveznosti.
As is apparent from recital 2 in its preamble, Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 amending Regulation No 404/93 (OJ 1998 L 210, p.
Kot izhaja iz druge uvodne izjave Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1637/98 z dne 20. julija 1998 o spremembi Uredbe �t. 404/93 (UL L 210, str.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the Community (OJ 1998 L 293, p.
2362/98 z dne 28. oktobra 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za izvedbo Uredbe �t. 404/93 glede ureditve uvoza banan v Skupnost (UL L 293, str.
32) became applicable on 1 January 1999.
32) se uporablja od 1. januarja 1999.
Since the United States of America took the view that the new Community regime governing the import of bananas that had thereby been established preserved the unlawful elements of the previous regime, in breach of the WTO agreements and
Ker so Združene države Amerike menile, da nova skupnostna ureditev uvoza banan, ki je bila s tem uvedena, ohranja nezakonite elemente predhodne ureditve, ki ne spo�tuje sporazumov STO in sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, so
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997, on 14 January 1999 it requested the DSB, pursuant to Article 22(2) of the DSU, to authorise suspension of the application to the Community and its Member States of tariff concessions and related obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), in respect of trade amounting to USD 520 million.
14. januarja 1999 v skladu s členom 22(2) DPPRS zahtevale, naj ORS dovoli prekinitev uporabe tarifnih koncesij in povezanih obveznosti na podlagi Splo�nega sporazuma o carinah in trgovini (GATT) iz leta 1994 in Splo�nega sporazuma o trgovini s storitvami (GATS) za Skupnost in njene države članice, ki zna�a 520 milijonov USD trgovinske menjave.
As the Community objected to that amount and maintained that the principles and procedures laid down in Article 22(3) of the DSU had not been observed, the DSB decided, on 29 January 1999, to refer this matter to arbitration, on the basis of Article 22(6) of the DSU.
Ker je Skupnost nasprotovala temu znesku in trdila, da načela in postopki iz člena 22(3) DPPRS niso bili spo�tovani, je ORS 29. januarja 1999 odločil, da to vpra�anje na podlagi člena 22(6) DPPRS predloži v arbitražo.
By decision of 9 April 1999, the arbitrators found that several provisions of the new Community regime governing the import of bananas were contrary to provisions of the WTO agreements and set the level of nullification or impairment suffered by the United States of America at USD 191.4 million per year.
Z odločbo z dne 9. aprila 1999 so razsodniki presodili, da je več določb novega uvoznega režima SUT za banane v nasprotju z določbami sporazumov STO, in določili raven izničenja ali zmanj�anja koristi, ki so jo utrpele Združene države Amerike, na 191,4 milijona USD letno.
On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorised the United States of America to levy customs duty in respect of trade amounting to up to USD 191.4 million per year on imports originating in the Community.
ORS je 19. aprila 1999 Združenim državam Amerike dovolil, da na uvoz iz Skupnosti odmerijo carine do letnega zneska trgovinske menjave v vi�ini 191,4 milijona USD.
On the same day, the United States authorities imposed ad valorem import duty at a rate of 100% on various products.
Istega dne so organi Združenih držav Amerike uvedli uvozno carinsko dajatev ad valorem po carinski stopnji 100 % za različne proizvode.
These products, originating in Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden or the United Kingdom, included ‘lead-acid storage batteries other than of a kind used for starting piston engines or as the primary source of power for electric vehicles’ and ‘articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket …, with outer surface of sheeting of plastic, of reinforced or laminated plastics’.
Na tem seznamu proizvodov s poreklom iz Avstrije, Belgije, Finske, Francije, Nemčije, Grčije, Irske, Italije, Luksemburga, Portugalske, Španije, Švedske ali Združenega kraljestva so bili med drugim „svinčeno-kislinski akumulatorji, razen tistih, ki se uporabljajo za vžig batnih motorjev ali kot primarni vir energije za električna vozila“ ter „žepni artikli s plastično povr�ino oziroma s povr�ino, ojačano s plastiko“.
Recitals 1 to 6 in the preamble to Regulation No 216/2001 state:
Uvodne izjave od 1 do 6 Uredbe �t. 216/2001 določajo:
‘(1) There have been numerous close contacts with supplier countries and other interested parties to settle the disputes arising from the import regime established by Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 … and to take account of the conclusions of the [panel] set up under the dispute settlement system of the [WTO].
„(1) Z državami dobaviteljicami in drugimi zainteresiranimi stranmi je bilo opravljeno že veliko pogovorov, da bi se poravnali spori, izhajajoči iz uvoznega režima, ki ga uvaja Uredba (EGS) �t. 404/93 […], in da bi se upo�tevali sklepi posebne skupine, ustanovljene v skladu s postopkom poravnave sporov [STO].
(2) Analysis of all the options presented by the Commission suggests that establishment in the medium term of an import system founded on the application of a customs duty at an appropriate rate and application of a preferential tariff to imports from ACP [States] provides the best guarantees, firstly of achieving the objectives of the common organisation of the market as regards Community production and consumer demand, secondly of complying with the rules on international trade, and thirdly of preventing further disputes.
Analiza vseh možnosti, ki jih je predstavila Komisija, kaže na to, da uvedba srednjeročnega uvoznega sistema, ki temelji na uporabi carine ob ustrezni stopnji in uporabi preferencialne tarife za uvoz iz držav AKP, najučinkoviteje jamči, prvič, doseganje ciljev skupne ureditve trga v zvezi s proizvodnjo Skupnosti in povpra�evanjem potro�nikov, drugič, skladnost s pravili mednarodnega trgovanja, in tretjič, preprečevanje nadaljnjih sporov.
(3) However, such a system must be introduced upon completion of negotiations with the Community’s partners in accordance with WTO procedures, in particular Article XXVIII of the [GATT 1994]….
Tak sistem pa je treba uvesti ob zaključku pogajanj s partnerji Skupnosti v skladu s postopki STO, zlasti člena XXVIII [GATT iz leta 1994] […]
(4) Until the entry into force of that regime, the Community should be supplied under several tariff quotas open to imports from all origins and managed in line with the recommendations made by the [DSB]. …
Do začetka veljavnosti tega režima naj se Skupnost oskrbuje na podlagi več tarifnih kvot, ki so odprte za uvoz vseh porekel in ki se upravljajo v skladu s priporočili [ORS] […]
(5) In view of the contractual obligations towards the ACP [States] and the need to guarantee them proper conditions of competition, application to imports of bananas originating in those countries of a tariff preference of EUR 300 per tonne would allow the trade flows in question to be maintained.
Zaradi pogodbenih obveznosti do držav AKP in potrebe po zagotovitvi primernih pogojev konkurenčnosti bi uporaba tarifne preference 300 EUR na tono za uvoz banan s poreklom iz teh držav, omogočila ohranitev teh trgovinskih tokov.
This will entail in particular the application to such imports of zero duty under the … tariff quotas.
To bo povzročilo zlasti uporabo dajatve nič za tovrstni uvoz v okviru […] tarifnih kvot.
(6) The Commission should be authorised to open negotiations with supplier countries having a substantial interest in supplying the Community market to endeavour to achieve a negotiated allocation of the first two tariff quotas….’
Komisija bi morala biti poobla�čena, da začne pogajanja z državami dobavitel -jicami, ki kažejo večje zanimanje za oskrbo trga Skupnosti, da bi dosegli sporazumno dodelitev prvih dveh tarifnih kvot. […]“
On 11 April 2001, the United States of America and the Community concluded a memorandum of understanding identifying ‘the means by which the long-standing dispute over the EC’s banana import regime can be resolved’.
Združene države Amerike in Skupnost so 11. aprila 2001 sklenile dogovor, ki opredeljuje „sredstva, ki dopu�čajo dolgoročno re�evanje spora glede ureditve uvoza banan“ v Skupnosti.
That memorandum provided that the Community undertook to ‘introduce a tariff-only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006’.
Ta dogovor določa, da je Skupnost dolžna „[vzpostaviti] izključno [le] carinsko ureditev za uvoz banan najpozneje do 1. januarja 2006“.
The memorandum defined the measures which the Community undertook to take during the interim period expiring on 1 January 2006.
Ta dokument določa ukrepe, ki jih mora sprejeti Skupnost v vmesnem obdobju, ki poteče 1. januarja 2006.
In return, the United States of America undertook to suspend provisionally the imposition of the increased customs duty which it was authorised to levy on Community imports.
V zameno so se Združene države Amerike zavezale začasno prekiniti uvedbo dodatne carinske dajatve, katere odmera na skupnostni uvoz jim je bila dovoljena.
6), the United States of America suspended application of its increased customs duty.
6) prenehale uporabljati svojo dodatno carinsko dajatev.
From 1 July 2001, import duty on stationary batteries and articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket originating in the Community was reduced to its initial rate of 3.5% and 4.6% respectively.
Od 1. julija 2001 sta bili njihovi uvozni dajatvi na stacionarne akumulatorje in na žepne artikle s poreklom iz Skupnosti spu�čeni na prvotni stopnji 3,5 % in 4,6 %.
The actions brought before the Court of First Instance, the course of the proceedings before it and the judgments under appeal
Tožbi, vloženi pri Sodišču prve stopnje, postopek pred njim in izpodbijani sodbi
The business activities of FIAMM relate in particular to stationary batteries, and those of Fedon to spectacle cases and associated accessories falling within the category of articles of a kind normally carried in the pocket.
FIAMM opravlja dejavnost zlasti na področju stacionarnih akumulatorjev, Fedon pa na področju etuijev za očala in dodatnih proizvodov iz skupine žepnih predmetov.
Since FIAMM and Fedon considered the Community to be liable for the damage which they claimed to have suffered as a result of the fact that these products were among those subject to the increased customs duty imposed by the United States authorities between 19 April 1999 and 30 June 2001, they brought before the Court of First Instance actions for compensation, founded on Article 235 EC in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, against the Council and the Commission.
Ker sta FIAMM in Fedon �teli Skupnost za odgovorno za �kodo, ki naj bi jima nastala, ker so bili ti proizvodi med tistimi, za katere so organi Združenih držav Amerike od 19. aprila 1999 do 30. junija 2001 določili dodatne carinske dajatve, sta pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje proti Svetu in Komisiji vložili od�kodninski tožbi na podlagi določb člena 235 ES in člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES.
The principal claim advanced by FIAMM and Fedon was that the Community had incurred noncontractual liability by reason of the unlawful conduct of its institutions.
FIAMM in Fedon primarno navajata obstoj nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja njenih institucij.
As is apparent from paragraphs 69 and 92 to 95 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 63 and 85 to 88 of the Fedon judgment, they contended more specifically, as regards the unlawful conduct alleged, that the failure of the Council and the Commission to adopt amendments to the Community regime governing the import of bananas such as to bring it into conformity with the obligations entered into by the Community under the WTO agreements within the time-limit laid down by the DSB infringed the principle pacta sunt servanda, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, their rights to property and pursuit of an economic activity and, finally, the principle of proper administration.
Kot izhaja iz točk 69 in od 92 do 95 sodbe FIAMM ter iz točk 63 in od 85 do 88 sodbe Fedon, sta glede očitanega nezakonitega ravnanja natančneje navedli, da so bili, s tem ko Svet in Komisija nista sprejela sprememb skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan za njeno uskladitev z obveznostmi, ki jih je Skupnost prevzela na podlagi sporazumov STO, v roku, ki ga je določil ORS, kr�eni načelo pacta sunt servanda, načeli varstva legitimnega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti, njune lastninske pravice in pravice gospodarske pobude ter nazadnje načelo dobrega upravljanja.