natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Most importantly, however, they contend that the regulation is necessary for the implementation of binding Security Council resolutions, and, accordingly, that the Community Courts should not assess its conformity with fundamental rights.
Bolj bistveno, zatrjujeta, da je uredba nujna za izvedbo zavezujočih resolucij Varnostnega sveta in da zato sodi�ča Skupnosti ne bi smela presojati njene skladnosti s temeljnimi pravicami.
Essentially they argue that, when the Security Council has spoken, the Court must remain silent.
V bistvu zatrjujeta, da ima Sodi�če, kadar Varnostni svet zavzame stali�če, dolžnost, da ne odloča.
3 — Imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).
3 – O posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al-Kaida in talibani, in razveljavitvi Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 467/2001 (UL 2002, L 139, str. 9).
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-415/05 P of the appellant was added to the list by the Sanctions Committee on 9 November 2001.
Sankcijski odbor je ime pritožnika dodal 9. novembra 2001.
8 — Concerning exceptions to the restrictive measures imposed by Common Position 2002/402/CFSP (OJ 2003 L 53, p. 62).
8 – O izjemah k omejevalnim ukrepom, določenim v Skupnih stali�čih 2002/402/SZVP (UL 2003, L 53, str. 62).
Council amended the contested regulation as regards exceptions to the freezing of funds and economic resources.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI izpodbijano uredbo spremenil glede izjem od zamrznitve sredstev in gospodarskih virov.
9 of First Instance decided to treat the case as an action for annulment of the contested regulation directed against the Council alone, supported by the Commission and the United Kingdom.
9 da bo to zadevo obravnavalo kot tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe, usmerjeno zgolj proti Svetu, ob podpori Komisije in Združenega kraljestva.
While the proceedings before the Court of First Instance were still pending, the Sanctions Committee decided to remove the persons known as ‘Abdi Abdulaziz Ali’ and ‘Abdirisak Aden’ from the list of persons to whom and groups and entities to which the freezing of funds and other economic resources must apply.
Sankcijski odbor je, medtem ko postopki pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje �e niso bili zaključeni, odločil, da izbri�e osebi, imenovani „Abdi Abdulaziz Ali“ in „Abdirisak Aden“ s seznama oseb ter skupin in subjektov, katerih sredstva in gospodarske vire je treba zamrzniti.
These names were subsequently removed from Annex I to the contested regulation.
Ti imeni sta bili zato izbrisani iz priloge I k izpodbijani uredbi.
Messrs Abdirisak Aden and Adbulaziz Ali informed the Court of First Instance that they wished to discontinue their action.
Abdirisak Aden in Adbulaziz Ali sta obvestila Sodi�če prve stopnje, da želita odstopiti od njunih tožb.
The names of those two applicants were accordingly removed from the register.
Imeni teh pritožnikov sta bili zato izbrisani iz registra.
The contested regulation, as amended, provides in Article 2 that ‘all funds and other financial resources belonging to, or owned or held by, a natural or legal person, group or entity designated by the Sanctions Committee and listed in Annex I shall be frozen’. Article 2a provides for certain exceptions, for instance as regards reasonable legal fees, on condition that the Sanctions Committee has been notified and has not objected.
V členu 2 izpodbijane uredbe, kot je bila spremenjena, je določeno, da se „[z]amrznejo […] vsa sredstva in gospodarski viri, ki pripadajo katerikoli fizični ali pravni osebi, subjektu ali organu, ki jih imenuje sankcijski odbor in so navedeni v Prilogi I.“ Člen 2a predpisuje določene izjeme, na primer v zvezi z razumno nagrado odvetnika in sodnimi stro�ki, če je bil sankcijski odbor o tem obve�čen in temu ni ugovarjal.
Following the repeal of Regulation No 467/2001, the Court
467/2001 razgla�ena za nično, odločilo,
By judgment of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Founda­tion v Council and Commission (‘the judgment under appeal’), 10the Court of First Instance upheld the contested regulation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s sodbo z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-306/01 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba) 10 izpodbi -jano uredbo potrdilo.
On 21 November 2005, the appellant and Mr Yusuf brought the present appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnik in A. Yusuf sta 21. novembra 2005 vložila obravnavano pritožbo zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
While the appeal proceedings before this Court were still pending, the Sanctions Committee decided to remove Mr Yusuf
Sankcijski odbor je, medtem ko pritožbe pred tem sodi�čem �e niso bile zaključene, odločil, da izbri�e A.
His name was subsequently removed from Annex I to the contested regulation.
II – Pravna podlaga izpodbijane uredbe
Apart from Al Barakaat International Foundation, the parties to the present appeal proceedings are the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom, as well as Spain, France and the Netherlands, as interveners in the appeal.
Al Barakaat International Foundation so stranke v obravnavani pritožbi Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo, ter Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika in Kraljevina Nizozemska, kot intervenientke v pritožbi.
11 The appellant argues that this finding is mistaken in law and maintains that the Community lacked competence altogether to adopt the contested regulation.
11 Pritožnik trdi, da ta ugotovitev pomeni napačno razlago prava, in zatrjuje, da Skupnost absolutno ni pristojna za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe.
Though relying on slightly different justifications, both the Council and the United Kingdom agree with the Court of First Instance that the contested regulation finds its legal basis in Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC.
Čeprav imata Svet in Združeno kraljestvo malo drugačne utemeljitve, se strinjata s Sodi�čem prve stopnje, da so podlaga izpodbijane uredbe členi 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES.
The Court of First Instance considered that the powers to impose economic and financial sanctions provided for by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, namely, the interruption or reduction of economic relations with one or more third countries, do not cover the interruption or
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da pristojnost naložiti gospodarske in finančne sankcije, določene s členoma 60 ES in 301 ES, in sicer prekinitve ali omejitve ekonomskih odnosov z eno ali več tretjimi državami, ne zajemajo prekinitve ali omejitve ekonomskih odnosov s posamezniki
The appellant raises three pleas in law in support of its application to have the judgment under appeal set aside.
Pritožnik v utemeljitev svojega predloga za razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe navaja tri pritožbene razloge.
Those pleas relate, firstly, to the legal basis of the contested regulation.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe.
The second plea is based on Article 249 EC and relates to the choice of an act in the form of a regulation, rather than a decision, as the legal instrument for the purpose of freezing the appellant’s assets.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog temelji na členu 249 ES in se nana�a na izbiro akta kot pravnega instrumenta zamrznitve sredstev pritožnika prej v obliki uredbe kot pa odločbe.
The third plea concerns the fundamental rights of the appellant.
Tretji pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na temeljne pravice pritožnika.
I shall turn, first, to the question of the legal basis.
Najprej bom obravnaval vpra�anje pravne podlage.
11 — Paragraphs 107 to 171 of the judgment under appeal.
11 – Točke od 107 do 171 izpodbijane sodbe.
reduction of economic relations with individuals within those countries, but only with their governing regimes.
v teh državah ampak le z vladami.
Article 301 EC authorises the Council to ‘interrupt or to reduce … economic relations with one or more third countries’ through unspecified ‘urgent measures’ that are necessary to carry out the Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (‘CFSP’).
Člen 301 ES Svet poobla�ča, da „prekine ali omeji […] gospodarske odnose z eno ali več tretjimi državami“ z neopredeljenimi „nujnimi ukrepi“, ki so potrebni za izvedbo skupne zunanje in varnostne politike Evropske unije (SZVP).
It therefore indicates the means for carrying out the objectives stated earlier; those means involve restricting the flow of funds into and out of the Community.
Tako določa načine za izvajanje zgoraj navedenih ciljev, torej omejitev pretoka sredstev v Skupnost in iz nje.
Beyond these two provisions, the EC Treaty does not regulate what shape the measures should take, or who should be the target or bear the burden of the measures.
Pogodba ES razen v teh dveh določbah ne predpisuje, kak�ne ukrepe je treba sprejeti ali na koga bi se morali nana�ati oziroma kdo bi moral nositi breme ukrepov.
The financial sanctions in the contested regulation meet that requirement: they are targeted predominantly at individuals and
Finančne sankcije v izpodbijani uredbi to zahtevo izpolnjujejo: v bistvu se nana�ajo na posameznike in subjekte v tretjih državah.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance’s restrictive reading of Article 301 EC deprives this provision of much of its practical use.
Poleg tega ozko razumevanje člena 301 ES s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje tej določbi odvzema velik del njene uporabne vrednosti.
As the Court of First Instance itself recognised, ‘the Union and its Community pillar are not to be prevented from adapting to [threats to international peace and security] by imposing economic and financial sanctions not only on third countries, but also on associated persons, groups, undertakings or entities developing international
Kot je ugotovilo samo Sodi�če prve stopnje, „Unija in njen steber Skupnosti naj ne bi bila ovirana, ne bolj kot mednarodna skupnost, pri prilagajanju tem novim grožnjam [za mednarodni mir in varnost], tako da se naložijo ekonomske in finančne sankcije ne le tretjim državam, ampak tudi osebam, skupinam, podjetjem ali subjektom,
It is for that reason that I shall not address the appellant’s second plea in law.
Drugega pritožbenega razloga zato ne bom obravnaval.
However, I believe that, where pleas are raised concerning alleged breaches of fundamental rights, it is preferable for the Court to make use of the possibility of reviewing those pleas as well, both for reasons of legal certainty and in order to prevent a possible breach of fundamental rights from subsisting in the Community legal order, albeit by virtue of a measure that merely has a different form or legal basis.
Vendar menim, da je v primeru pritožbenih razlogov v zvezi z zatrjevanimi kr�itvami temeljnih pravic bolj ustrezno, da Sodi�če uporabi tudi možnost nadzora teh pritožbenih razlogov, tako zaradi pravne varnosti kot zaradi preprečitve morebitne kr�itve temeljnih pravic v pravnem redu Skupnosti, čeprav na podlagi ukrepa, ki ima zgolj drugačno obliko ali pravno podlago.
I shall accordingly proceed to assess the appellant’s third plea in law.
Zato bom nadaljeval z oceno tretjega pritožbenega razloga pritožnika.
III — The jurisdiction of the Community Courts to determine whether the contested regulation breaches fundamental rights
III – Pristojnost sodišč Skupnosti, da določijo, ali se z izpodbijano uredbo kršijo temeljne pravice
Article 308 EC, like Article 60(1) EC, is strictly an enabling provision: it provides the means, but not the objective.
Člen 308 ES je enako kot člen 60(1) ES strogo določba, ki daje pooblastila: določa načine, ne pa ciljev.
Even though it refers to ‘objectives of the Community’, these objectives are exogenous to Article 308 EC; they cannot be introduced by Article 308 EC itself.
Čeprav se nana�a na „cilje Skupnosti“, so ti cilji zunaj člena 308 ES in ne morejo biti uvedeni s samim členom 308 ES.
Hence, if one excludes the interruption of economic relations with non-State actors from the realm of acceptable means to achieve the objectives permitted by Article 301 EC, one cannot use Article 308 EC to bring those means back in.
Zato, če prekinitev gospodarskih odnosov z nedržavnimi subjekti izključimo iz področja sprejemljivih načinov, ki jih za dosego ciljev dovoljuje člen 301 ES, člena 308 ES ni mogoče uporabiti zato, da bi se ti cilji ponovno uvedli.
In the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the appellant claimed that the contested regulation breached the right to a fair hearing, the right to respect for property,
Pritožnik je v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje zatrjeval, da so z izpodbijano uredbo kr�ene pravica do po�tenega sojenja, lastninska pravica in pravica do učinkovi-
12 — Paragraph 169 of the judgment under appeal.
12 – Točka 133 izpodbijane sodbe.
It observed that the Security Council resolutions at issue left no margin of discretion and, therefore, that it could not assess the contested regulation without engaging in such indirect review.
Ugotovilo je, da zadevne resolucije Varnostnega sveta niso pustile nobene diskrecije, in da zato izpodbijane uredbe ni moglo presoditi ne da bi opravilo tak posredni nadzor resolucije.
None the less, the Court of First Instance considered, thirdly, that it was empowered to review the Security Council resolutions at issue in order to assess their conformity with the protection of fundamental rights, in so far as those rights formed part of the principle of jus cogens.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, tretjič, da je bilo pristojno za nadzor zadevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta, da bi presodilo njihovo skladnost z varstvom temeljnih pravic, če so te pravice del načel jus cogens.
of these claims, the Court of First Instance examined the scope of its own jurisdiction to assess the conformity of the contested regulation with fundamental rights.
tega sodnega nadzora. 13Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje, preden je presodilo vsebino teh trditev, preizkusilo področje svoje pristojnosti, da oceni skladnost izpodbijane uredbe s temeljnimi pravicami.
The Court of First Instance essentially found that Community law recognises and accepts that, in keeping with Article 103 of the UN Charter, Security Council resolutions take precedence over the Treaty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v bistvu ugotovilo, da pravo Skupnosti priznava in sprejema, da v skladu s členom 103 Ustanovne listine ZN resolucije Varnostnega sveta ZN prevladajo nad Pogodbo ES.
15 Secondly, the Court of First Instance held that, in consequence, it had no authority to review, even indirectly, Security Council resolutions in order to assess their conformity with funda-
15Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da zato ni poobla�čeno nadzorovati, niti posredno, resolucij Varnostnega sveta, da bi ocenilo njihovo skladnost s temeljnimi pravicami, kot jih varuje pravni red Skupnosti.
13 — Paragraph 190 et seq. of the judgment under appeal.14 — In paragraphs 226 to 283 of the judgment under appeal.
13 – Točka 190 in naslednje izpodbijane sodbe.14 – V točkah od 226 do 283 izpodbijane sodbe.
By its third plea, the appellant argues that the Court of First Instance applied the wrong standard of review when assessing the alleged breaches of fundamental rights.
Pritožnik s tretjim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo napačno merilo nadzora, ko je presojalo zatrjevano kr�itev temeljnih pravic.
The appellant maintains that the application of the appropriate standard of review would have resulted, in particular, in a finding of a breach of the right to a fair hearing and of the right to effective judicial review.
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da če bi bilo uporabljeno ustrezno merilo nadzora, bi Sodi�če ugotovilo zlasti kr�itev pravice do po�tenega sojenja in pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
The appellant points out that the Court of First Instance did not take any view as to the conformity of the contested regulation with fundamental rights as they result from the general principles of Community law.
Pritožnik poudarja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni odločilo o skladnosti izpodbijane uredbe s temeljnimi pravicami, kot izhajajo iz splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti.
Instead, the Court of First Instance confined its analysis to the question whether the Security Council resolutions which the contested regulation seeks to implement were in conformity with principles of jus cogens.
Namesto tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje svojo presojo omejilo na vpra�anje, ali so bile resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ki jih izpodbijana uredba želi uveljaviti, v skladu z načeli jus cogens.
16 According to the appellant, there is no basis in Community law for restricting judicial control in respect of the contested regulation in this way.
16 Pritožnik meni, da v pravu Skupnosti ni podlage za tak omejen sodni nadzor izpodbijane uredbe.
16 — See paragraphs 286 to 346 of the judgment under appeal.
16 – Glej točke od 286 do 346 izpodbijane sodbe.
Essentially, the argument raised by the appellant is that the Court of First Instance embraced a mistaken view of its own judicial powers, because it mischaracterised the relationship between the international legal order and the Community legal order.
V bistvu pritožnik trdi, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni pravilno presodilo svoje pristojnosti, ker je napačno opredelilo odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom in pravnim redom Skupnosti. To privede do vpra�anja, kako je treba opisati odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom in pravnim redom Skupnosti.
19The Community Courts therefore carefully examine the obligations by which the Community is bound on the international stage and take judicial notice of those obligations. 20
19Sodi�ča Skupnosti zato previdno preučujejo obveznosti, ki jih ima Skupnost na mednarodnem prizori�ču, in za potrebe pravne presoje te obveznosti upo�tevajo. 20
There are cases in which the Court has barred an international agreement from having effect within the Community legal order on the ground that the agreement was concluded on the wrong legal basis.
Obstajajo zadeve, v katerih je Sodi�če preprečilo, da bi imel mednarodni sporazum učinek v pravnem redu Skupnosti, ker naj bi bil tak sporazum sprejet na napačni pravni podlagi. Sodi�če je nedavno to storilo v
The Court did so, recently, in
19 – Glej na primer sodbi z dne 4. decembra 1974 v zadevi Van Dyn, 41/74, Recueil, str. 1337, točka 22, in z dne 24. novembra 1992 v zadevi Poulsen in Diva Navigation, C-286/90, Recueil, str. I-6019, točke od 9 do 11.
17The Court held that the Treaty is not merely an agreement between States, but an agreement between the peoples of Europe.
17 Sodi�če je odločilo, da Pogodba ni le sporazum med državami članicami, ampak je sporazum med narodi Evrope.
In other words, the Treaty has created a municipal legal order of trans-national dimensions, of which it forms the ‘basic constitutional charter’. 18
Drugače rečeno, Pogodba je ustvarila pravni red Skupnosti z nadnacionalno razsežnostjo in predstavlja njegovo „temeljno ustanovno listino“. 18
19 — See, for instance, Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, paragraph 22, and Case C-286/90 Poulsen and Diva Naviga­tion [1992] ECR I-6019, paragraphs 9 to 11.
17 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 5. februarja 1963 v zadevi Van Gend en Loos, 26/62, Recueil, str. 1, točka 12.
17 — Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1, at p.
I-7001; z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi Dior in drugi, C-300/98, Recueil, str.
12.18 — Case 294/83 Les Verts [1986] ECR 1339, paragraph 23.
I-11307, točka 33; z dne 16. junija 1998 v zadevi Racke, C-162/96, Recueil, str.
21The Court’s approach is easy to understand once one realises that it would have ‘fundamental institutional implications for the Community and for the Member States’ 22 respect the obligations that are incumbent on the Community by virtue of international law, it seeks, first and foremost, to preserve the constitutional framework created by the Treaty.
21Pristop Sodi�ča je mogoče enostavno razu- meti, ko spoznamo, da bi bil „temeljnega institucionalnega pomena za Skupnost in države članice“, 22 če bi imel sporazum, ki je bil sprejet brez ustrezne pravne podlage – ali v skladu z napačnim postopkom odloča - nja –, učinke v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
25Thus, it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally in the Community legal order.
Na podobni skrbi temeljijo zadeve, v katerih je Sodi�če odločilo, da imajo države članice in institucije Skupnosti, ko sprejemajo zaveze na mednarodnem prizori�ču, dolžnost lojalnega sodelovanja.
The relationship between international law and the Community legal order is governed by the Community legal order itself, and international law can permeate that legal order only under the conditions set by the constitutional principles of the Community.
23Če je mednarodni spo�tovalo obveznosti, ki jih ima Skupnost na podlagi mednarodnega prava, prizadevalo varovati predvsem ustavni okvir, ki ga je vzpostavila Pogodba.
if an agreement that was adopted without a proper legal basis — or according to the wrong decision-making procedure — were to produce effects within the Community legal order.
25 Tako bi bilo napačno sklepati, da morajo sodi�ča Skupnosti, kadar Skupnost zavezujejo pravila mednarodnega prava, ta pravila spo�tovati s popolno privolitvijo in jih brezpogojno uporabiti v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
A similar concern underpins cases in which the Court has held that, when entering into commitments on the international stage, Member States and Community institutions are under a duty of loyal cooperation.
Odnos med mednarodnim pravom in pravnim redom Skupnosti ureja sam pravni red Skupnosti, in mednarodno pravo lahko pronica v ta pravni red le pod pogoji, ki jih določajo ustavna načela Skupnosti.
23If an international agreement is concluded in breach of that duty, it can be denied effect in the Community legal order.
sporazum sprejet v nasprotju s to dolžnostjo, je mogoče zanikati njegov učinek v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
For instance, in Germany v Council the Court annulled the Council decision concerning the conclusion of the WTO Agreement to the extent that it approved the Framework Agreement on Bananas.
Na primer v zadevi Nemčija proti Svetu je Sodi�če sklep v zvezi s sklenitvijo Sporazuma STO razglasilo za ničnega v delu, v katerem je bil z njim potrjen Okvirni sporazum o bananah.
All these cases have in common that, although the Court takes great care to
Vsem tem zadevam je skupno, da si je Sodi�če, čeprav je zelo pazilo, da je
21 — Joined Cases C-317/04 and C-318/04 [2006] ECR I-4721.
21 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 30. maja 2006 v združenih zadevah Parlament proti Svetu in Komisji, C-317/04 in C-318/04, ZOdl., str. I-4721.
See also Case C-327/91 France v Commission [1994] ECR-3641.
Glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 9. avgusta 1994 v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji, C-327/91, Recueil, str. I-3641.
It follows that the present appeal turns fundamentally on the following question: is there any basis in the Treaty for holding that the contested regulation is exempt from the constitutional constraints normally imposed by Community law, since it implements
Iz tega izhaja, da je obravnavana pritožba v bistvu povezana z naslednjim vpra�anjem: ali v Pogodbi obstaja podlaga za to, da bi lahko sklepali, da je izpodbijana uredba izvzeta iz ustavnih omejitev, ki so običajno določene v pravu Skupnosti, ker se z njo
23 — See, for instance, Ruling 1/78 of 14 November 1978 [1978] ECR 2151, paragraph 33; Opinion 2/91 [1993] ECR I-1061, paragraphs 36 to 38; and Case C-25/94 Commission v Council [1996] ECR I-1469, paragraphs 40 to 51.
I-1061, točke od 36 do 38, in sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 19. marca 1996 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu, C-25/94, Recueil, str. I-1469, točke od 40 do 51.
25 — See, for instance, Opinion 2/94, cited in footnote 22, paragraphs 30, 34 and 35.
25 – Glej na primer Mnenje 2/94, navedeno v opombi 22, točke 30, 34 in 35.
24 — Case C-122/95 [1998] ECR I-973.
24 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 10. marca 1998 v zadevi Zvezna republika Nemčija proti Svetu Evropske unije, C-122/95, Recueil, str. I-973.