natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In view of the considerations which follow, there would appear to be no real risk that is reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical of that interest being undermined.
Ob upo�tevanju ugotovitev, ki sledijo, ni pravega tveganja, ki bi bilo razumno predvidljivo in ne le hipotetično, za poseg v navedeni interes.
As regards the possibility of pressure being applied for the purpose of influencing the content of opinions issued by the Council’s legal service, it need merely be pointed out that even if the members of that legal service were subjected to improper pressure to that end, it would be that pressure, and not the possibility of the disclosure of legal opinions, which would compromise that institution’s interest in receiving frank, objective and comprehensive advice and it would clearly be incumbent on the Council to take the necessary measures to put a stop to it.
V zvezi z morebitnimi pritiski, ki bi se izvajali zaradi vplivanja na vsebino mnenj, ki jih podaja pravna služba Sveta, je treba poudariti, da tudi če se na člane te pravne službe izvajajo nelegitimni pritiski s tem namenom, bi ti pritiski, ne pa možnost razkritja pravnih mnenj, ogrožali interes te institucije, da prejme odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete, in bi seveda Svet moral sprejeti potrebne ukrepe, da bi se to končalo.
As regards the Commission’s argument that it could be difficult for an institution’s legal service which had initially expressed a negative opinion regarding a legislative act in the process of being adopted subsequently to defend the lawfulness of that act if its opinion had been published, it must be stated that such a general argument cannot justify an exception to the openness provided for by Regulation No 1049/2001.
V zvezi s trditvijo Komisije, da bi lahko bilo pravni službi institucije, ki je najprej podala negativno mnenje glede zakonodajnega akta v postopku sprejemanja, pozneje težavno zagovarjati zakonitost tega akta, če bi bilo to mnenje objavljeno, je treba ugotoviti, da tako splo�na trditev ne more utemeljiti izjeme od preglednosti, predvidene z Uredbo �t. 1049/2001.
In view of those considerations, there appears to be no real risk that is reasonably foreseeable and not purely hypothetical that disclosure of opinions of the Council’s legal service issued in the course of legislative procedures might undermine the protection of legal advice within the meaning of the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.
Ob upo�tevanju teh ugotovitev ni pravega tveganja, ki bi bilo razumno predvidljivo in ne le hipotetično, da bi lahko razkritje mnenj pravne službe Sveta, podanih v okviru zakonodajnih postopkov, oslabilo varstvo pravnih nasvetov v smislu člena 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001.
In any event, in so far as the interest in protecting the independence of the Council’s legal service could be undermined by that disclosure, that risk would have to be weighed up against the overriding public interests which underlie Regulation No 1049/2001.
V vsakem primeru, če bi to razkritje lahko poseglo v interes za varstvo neodvisnosti pravne službe Sveta, bi moralo biti to tveganje uravnoteženo z javnimi interesi, ki prevladajo in na katerih temelji Uredba �t. 1049/2001.
As was pointed out in paragraphs 45 to 47 of this judgment, such an overriding public interest is constituted by the fact that disclosure of documents containing the advice of an institution’s legal service on legal questions arising when legislative initiatives are being debated increases the transparency and openness of the legislative process and strengthens the democratic right of European citizens to scrutinize the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act, as referred to, in particular, in recitals 2 and 6 of the preamble to Regulation No 1049/2001.
Tak javni interes, ki prevlada, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točkah od 45 do 47 te sodbe, je dejstvo, da lahko razkritje dokumentov z mnenjem pravne službe institucije o pravnih vpra�anjih, ki se pojavijo med razpravo o zakonodajnih iniciativah, poveča preglednost in odprtost zakonodajnega postopka ter krepi demokratično pravico evropskih državljanov, da nadzirajo informacije, na katerih je temeljil zakonodajni akt, kot je navedeno zlasti v uvodnih izjavah 2 in 6 navedene uredbe.
It follows from the above considerations that Regulation No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s legal service relating to a legislative process.
Iz navedenih ugotovitev izhaja, da je v Uredbi �t. 1049/2001 načeloma določena obveznost razkritja mnenj pravne službe Sveta v zvezi z zakonodajnim postopkom.
That finding does not preclude a refusal, on account of the protection of legal advice, to disclose a specific legal opinion, given in the context of a legislative process, but being of a particularly sensitive nature or having a particularly wide scope that goes beyond the context of the legislative process in question.
Ta ugotovitev vseeno ne ovira tega, da bi se lahko na podlagi varstva pravnih nasvetov zavrnilo razkritje posebnega pravnega mnenja, izdanega v okviru zakonodajnega postopka, ki ima posebej občutljivo vsebino ali je njegov obseg posebej �irok, tako da presega zadevni zakonodajni okvir.
In that context, it must also be borne in mind that, under Article 4(7) of Regulation No 1049/2001, an exception can only apply for the period during which protection is justified on the basis of the content of the document.
V tem okviru je treba poleg tega opozoriti, da na podlagi člena 4(7) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001 izjema velja le za obdobje, ko je varstvo utemeljeno z vsebino dokumenta.
Having regard to all those considerations, it is apparent that the Court of First Instance erred in holding, in paragraphs 77 to 80 of the judgment under appeal, that the contested decision could comply with the obligation to give reasons and be justified by reference to a general need for confidentiality which applies to legal advice relating to legislative questions.
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih ugotovitev je očitno, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno menilo v točkah od 77 do 80 izpodbijane sodbe, da se je lahko sporna odločba zakonito obrazložila in utemeljila s splo�no potrebo po zaupnosti v zvezi s pravnimi mnenji o zakonodajnih vpra�anjih.
It follows that the second and third parts of this plea are well founded.
Iz tega sledi, da sta druga in tretja točka obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga utemeljeni.
In those circumstances, the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it relates to the refusal of access to the legal opinion in question and orders Mr Turco and the Council each to pay half of the costs.
V teh okoli�činah je treba razveljaviti izpodbijano sodbo v delu, ki se nana�a na zavrnitev dostopa do spornega pravnega mnenja, in v delu, v katerem se M. Turcu in Svetu naloži vsakemu plačilo polovice stro�kov.
The third plea
Tretji pritožbeni razlog
It is apparent from the considerations relating to the second plea that the third plea is also well founded.
Iz ugotovitev v zvezi z drugim pritožbenim razlogom izhaja, da je tretji pritožbeni razlog tudi utemeljen, kar prav tako utemeljuje razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe v delu, ki se nana�a na zavrnitev dostopa do spornega pravnega mnenja, in v delu, v katerem se M.
This also justifies the setting aside of the judgment under appeal in so far as it relates to the refusal of access to the legal opinion in question and orders Mr Turco and the Council each to pay half of the costs.
Turcu in Svetu naloži vsakemu plačilo polovice stro�kov.
As has been held in paragraphs 44 to 47 and paragraph 67 of this judgment, the Court of First Instance misinterpreted Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 in deciding that the overriding public interest capable of justifying the disclosure of a document, must, as a rule, be distinct from the principles which underlie that regulation.
Glede na presojo v točkah od 44 do 47 in 67 te sodbe je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno razlagalo člen 4(2) Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, s tem da je odločilo, da se mora javni interes, ki prevlada in ki lahko utemelji razkritje dokumenta, praviloma razlikovati od načel, na katerih temelji ta uredba.
It is clear that the provisions of a legislative act must be applied in the light of the principles underlying it.
Jasno je namreč, da je treba določbe zakonodajnega akta razlagati ob upo�tevanju načel, na katerih temelji.
The first, fourth and fifth pleas
Prvi, četrti in peti pritožbeni razlog
The consequences of the partial setting aside of the judgment under appeal
Posledice delne razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the Court quashes the decision of the Court of First Instance, it may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
V skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča lahko to v primeru razveljavitve odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje.
That is the case here.
V tej zadevi je tako.
The contested decision was adopted on the basis of a twofold error as regards, first, the existence of a general need for confidentiality as regards legal advice relating to legislative processes that is protected by the second indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, and, secondly, the view that the principles underlying that regulation cannot be regarded as an ‘overriding public interest’ within the meaning of Article 4(2) of that regulation.
Sporna odločba je bila sprejeta na podlagi dvojne napake, in sicer glede obstoja splo�ne potrebe po zaupnosti glede pravnih mnenj v zvezi z zakonodajnimi postopki, ki so varovana s členom 4(2), druga alinea, Uredbe �t. 1049/2001, in glede mnenja, da se načela, na katerih temelji navedena uredba, ne morejo obravnavati kot „javni interes, ki prevlada“ v smislu člena 4(2) te uredbe.
Consequently, the contested decision must be annulled.
Sporno odločbo je torej treba razglasiti za nično.
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is well founded and the Court of Justice itself gives final judgment in the case, the
Če je pritožba utemeljena in če Sodi�če samo dokončno odloči o sporu, odloči na podlagi člena 122, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča tudi o stro�kih. V členu 69(2)
Court is to make a decision as to costs. Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those Rules, provides in its second paragraph that the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
ŠVEDSKA IN TURCO PROTI SVETU tega poslovnika, ki se uporabi v pritožbenem postopku na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, je določeno, da se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
The first subparagraph of Article 69(4) provides that the Member States and the institutions which intervene in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
V členu 69(4), prvi pododstavek, tega poslovnika je določeno, da države članice in institucije, ki se kot intervenienti udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
Since the appeals have been successful, the Council must be ordered to pay the costs relating to the appeal incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden and by Mr Turco, as applied for in their pleadings.
Ker je bilo pritožbama ugodeno, je treba Svetu naložiti plačilo stro�kov, povezanih z njima, ki sta jih priglasila Kraljevina Švedska in M. Turco, v skladu z njunimi predlogi.
The Council and the other parties to the appeal are to bear their own costs relating to the proceedings on appeal.
Svet in druge stranke v pritožbenem postopku nosijo svoje stro�ke, povezane s postopkom.
The Council is to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.
Svet nosi svoje stro�ke, povezane s postopkom na prvi stopnji.
Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-84/03 Turco v Council in so far as it relates to the decision of the Council of the European Union of 19 December 2002 refusing Mr Turco access to opinion No 9077/02 of the Council’s legal service concerning a proposal for a Council directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Turco proti Svetu (T-84/03) se razveljavi v delu, ki se nanaša na odločbo Sveta Evropske unije z dne 19. decembra 2002, s katero je bil M. Turcu zavrnjen dostop do mnenja pravne službe Sveta št. 9077/02 o predlogu direktive Sveta o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za
2008 — JOINED CASES C-39/05 P AND C-52/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-39/05 P IN C-52/05 P azil v državah članicah, in v delu, v katerem se M.
Member States and orders Mr Turco and the Council each to pay half of the costs;
Turcu in Svetu naloži vsakemu plačilo polovice stroškov.
Annuls the decision of the Council of the European Union of 19 December 2002 refusing Mr Turco access to opinion No 9077/02 of the Council’s legal service;
Odločba Sveta Evropske unije z dne 19. decembra 2002, s katero je bil M. Turcu zavrnjen dostop do mnenja pravne službe Sveta št. 9077/02, se razglasi za nično.
Orders the Council of the European Union to pay the costs incurred by the Kingdom of Sweden in the appeal proceedings and those incurred by Mr Turco in the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance which resulted in that judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities;
Svetu Evropske unije se naloži plačilo stroškov, ki jih je priglasila Kraljevina Švedska v okviru pritožbenega postopka, in stroškov, ki jih je priglasil M. Turco v okviru navedenega postopka in postopka na prvi stopnji, v katerem je bila izrečena navedena sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti.
Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Finland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs relating to the appeal;
Kraljevina Danska, Kraljevina Nizozemska, Republika Finska, Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska, Svet Evropske unije in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti nosijo svoje stroške, povezane s pritožbama.
Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings at first instance.
Svet Evropske unije nosi svoje stroške, povezane s postopkom na prvi stopnji.
Joined Cases C-341/06 P and C-342/06 P
Združeni zadevi C-341/06 P in C-342/06 P
(Appeal — Proper conduct of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Judgment of the Court of First Instance — Quashed — Referral back to the Court of First Instance — Second judgment of the Court of First Instance — Composition of the Chamber hearing the case — State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary — Subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Transfer of the express delivery business to that subsidiary — Concept of ‘State aid’ — Commission decision — Assistance and transfer not constituting State aid — Statement of reasons)
„Pritožba – Zakonitost postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje – Razveljavitev – Novo odločanje – Druga sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje – Sestava senata – Državne pomoči – Po�tni sektor – Javno podjetje, poobla�čeno za izvajanje storitev splo�nega gospodarskega pomena – Logistična in komercialna podpora hčerinski družbi – Hčerinska družba, ki nima monopolnega položaja – Prenos dejavnosti hitre po�te na to hčerinsko družbo – Pojem ‚državne pomoči‘ – Odločba Komisije – Pomoč in prenos, ki nista državni pomoči – Obrazložitev“
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 6 December 2007 . . . .
Sharpston, predstavljeni 6. decembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Observance ensured by the Court — Account to be taken of the European Convention on Human Rights — Right of every person to fair hearing
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Temeljne pravice – Spoštovanje, ki ga zagotavlja Sodišče – Upoštevanje Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic – Pravica vsakogar do poštenega sojenja
(Art. 6(2) EU)
(člen 6(2) EU)
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-341/06 P AND C-342/06 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-341/06 P IN C-342/06 P
(Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 40, fourth para.)
(Statut Sodišča, člen 40, četrti odstavek)
Acts of the institutions — Statement of reasons — Obligation — Scope — Decision on the nature in terms of State aid of the provision by a parent company operating in a reserved market of logistical and commercial assistance to a subsidiary which does not operate in a reserved market
Akti institucij – Obrazložitev – Obveznost – Obseg – Odločba, da so storitve v zvezi z logistično in komercialno podporo, ki jo matična družba, ki posluje na pridržanem trgu, daje hčerinski družbi, ki ne deluje na takem trgu, državna pomoč
(EC Treaty, Art. 92 (now, after amendment, Art. 87 EC) and Arts 93 and 190 (now Arts 88 EC and 253 EC))
(Pogodba ES, člen 92 (po spremembi postal člen 87 ES) in člena 93 in 190 (postala člena 88 ES in 253 ES))
State aid — Meaning — Transfer to a private-law subsidiary not operating in a reserved market of the client base of a service established by its parent company which does operate in a reserved market
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Pojem – Prenos strank službe, ki jo je ustanovila matična družba, ki posluje na pridržanem trgu, na hčerinsko družbo zasebnega prava, ki ne deluje v pridržanemu sektorju
(EC Treaty, Art. 92(1) (now, after amendment, Art. 87(1) EC))
(Pogodba ES, člen 92(1) (po spremembi postal člen 87(1) ES))
State aid — Meaning — Logistical and commercial assistance provided by an undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest to its subsidiary
Pomoči, ki jih dodelijo države – Pojem – Logistična in komercialna podpora družbe, ki izvaja storitev splošnega gospodarskega pomena, njeni hčerinski družbi
The fact that the same Judge in two successive formations in respect of the same case was entrusted with the duties of Judge-Rapporteur is, by itself, ir -relevant to the assessment of compliance with the requirement of impartiality, since those duties are performed in a collegiate formation of the Court.
Dejstvo, da so bile sodniku, prisotnemu v dveh zaporednih sestavah, ki sta odločali o isti zadevi, zaupane naloge sodnika poročevalca, samo po sebi ne vpliva na presojo v zvezi s spo�tovanjem zahteve po nepristranskosti, ker se navedene naloge izvajajo v kolegijski sestavi.
The right to a fair trial, which derives inter alia from Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, constitutes a fundamental right which the European Union respects as a general principle under Article 6(2) EU and means that everyone must be en -titled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Pravica do po�tenega sojenja, kot izhaja zlasti iz člena 6(1) Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic, je temeljna pravica, ki jo Evropska unija spo�tuje kot splo�no načelo na podlagi člena 6(2) EU in pomeni, da ima vsakdo pravico, da ga pravično in javno ter v razumnem roku zasli�i neodvisno in nepristransko z zakonom ustanovljeno sodi�če.
Moreover, there are two aspects to the requirement of impartiality.
Poleg tega glede zahteve po nepristranskosti obstajata dva vidika.
First, the members of the court themselves must be subjectively impartial, that is, none of its members must show bias or personal prejudice, there being a presumption of personal impartiality in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Na eni strani mora biti sodi�če subjektivno nepristransko, noben njegov član torej ne sme biti pristranski in ne sme imeti osebnih predsodkov, pri čemer se osebna nepristranskost domneva, dokler se ne dokaže nasprotno.
Second, the court must be objectively impartial, that is to say, it must offer guarantees sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect.
Na drugi strani mora biti sodi�če objektivno nepristransko, ponujati mora primerno jamstvo, da se v zvezi s tem izključi vsak upravičen dvom.
In that regard, the fact that the same Judge sits in two Chambers hearing and determining the same
Glede tega okoli�čina, da isti sodnik sodeluje v dveh sestavah, ki sta
In the context of an appeal, a ground of appeal alleging an irregularity in the composition of the Court of First Instance must be regarded as involving a matter of public policy which must be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion.
V okviru pritožbe je pritožbeni razlog nezakonitosti sestave Sodi�ča prve stopnje treba �teti za pritožbeni razlog javnega reda, ki ga mora sodi�če Skupnosti preveriti po uradni dolžnosti.
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS case in succession, cannot, by itself, give rise to doubt as to the impartiality of the court in the absence of any other objective evidence.
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEX IN DRUGIM zaporedoma obravnavali in odločali o isti zadevi, sama po sebi, če ne obstaja noben drug objektivni dokaz, ne more povzročati dvoma o nepristranskosti sodi�ča.
(see paras 44, 45, 48, 53, 54, 56)
(Glej točke 44, 45, 48, 53, 54 in 56.)
An intervener has no standing to raise a plea of inadmissibility not set out in the form of order sought by the defendant.
Intervenientka ne more uveljavljati ugovora nedopustnosti tožbe, ki ni bil naveden v predlogih tožene stranke.
The fact that a Commission decision is one of the first dealing with the complex issue, in connection with State aid, of calculating the costs of the assistance provided by a parent company operating in a reserved market to its subsidiary which is not operating in such a market does not by itself justify a statement of reasons necessarily going into the detail of the calculation of those costs if the Commission takes the view that the complainant’s grounds in that regard are misconceived in terms of the principles on which they are based.
Dejstvo, da je odločba Komisije ena od prvih, ki obravnava zapleteno vpra�anje na področju državnih pomoči v zvezi z izračunom stro�kov podpore, ki jo daje matična družba, ki posluje na pridržanem trgu, hčerinski družbi, ki ne deluje na takem trgu, samo po sebi ne utemeljuje obrazložitve, v kateri bi morale biti navedene podrobnosti glede izračuna teh stro�kov, če je Komisija ocenila, da so bili razlogi pritožnice v zvezi s tem zmotni glede na načela, na katerih temeljijo.
Assuming that that approach by the Commission is itself incorrect, that fact could be relevant to the substance of the contested decision but not to its validity in procedural terms.
Če bi domnevali, da je ta način Komisije napačen, bi ta okoli�čina lahko vplivala na utemeljenost sporne odločbe, ne pa na njeno zakonitost s postopkovnega vidika.
The necessary correlation between the grounds relied on by the complainant and the statement of reasons for the Commission’s decision cannot mean that the Commission is obliged to reject each of the arguments put forward in support of those grounds.
Zaradi potrebne soodvisnosti med razlogi, ki jih je navedla pritožnica, in obrazložitvijo odločbe Komisije ni mogoče zahtevati, da je Komisija zavezana zavrniti vsako trditev, navedeno v podporo tem razlogom.
It is sufficient if it sets out the facts and the legal considerations of fundamental importance in the context of the decision.
Zadostuje navedba dejstev in pravnih ugotovitev, ki so bistveni v strukturi odločbe.