natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Relying on a later judgment of the Court of Justice rejecting the view taken by the Netherlands courts (Case C-151/93 Voogd Vleesimport- en export [1994] ECR I-4915), the exporter sought payment of the refunds it had been refused, and the court in which it brought proceedings against the administrative authorities’ fresh refusal of its request referred a question in the above terms to the Court of Justice.
Potem ko je Sodišče opredelilo dejstva v konkretnem primeru, je razsodilo, da je upravni organ, ki odloča o tovrstni zadevi, ob uporabi načela sodelovanja iz člena 10 ES, dolžan v takih okoliščinah dokončno upravno odločbo v zadevi v glavni stvari ponovno presoditi, zato da bi lahko upoštevalo razlago upoštevne določbe, ki jo je Sodišče podalo v vmesnem času.
The Court began by recalling that, in view of the obligation on all the authorities of the Member States to ensure observance of Community law, and also of the retroactive effect inherent in interpretative judgments, a rule of Community law which has been interpreted on the occasion of a reference for a preliminary ruling must be applied by all State bodies within the sphere of their competence, even to legal relationships which arose or were formed before the Court gave its ruling on the request for interpretation.
V zadevi Komisija proti Francoski republiki (sodba z dne 7. oktobra 2004, C-239/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) se je Francija spoprijela z očitkom, da ni sprejela „ustreznih ukrepov za preprečevanje, zmanjšanje in boj proti množičnemu in trajnemu onesnaževanju vodnega območja de Berre“ (točka 88).
With regard to compliance with that obligation notwithstanding the fact that the national administrative decision has become final before the application for that decision to be reviewed in the light of a preliminary ruling by the Court, account must be taken, said the Court, of the demands of the principle of legal certainty, which is one of the general principles of Community law.
Komisija je zaradi hudega onesnaževanja vodnega dela tega območja, ki ga povzroča predvsem elektrarna s hidroelektričnimi odpadki, na Sodišču vložila tožbo zaradi kršitve Barcelonske konvencije z dne 16. februarja 1976 in Atenskega protokola z dne 17. maja 1980 o varstvu Sredozemskega morja pred onesnaževanjem.
Having summarised the facts of the case in that way, the Court held that, in such circumstances, the administrative body concerned hearing such a request is, in accordance with the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, under an
3719), navaja, da „imajo mešani sporazumi, ki jih sklenejo Skupnosti in njene države članice s tretjimi državami, ko gre za določbe, ki so v pristojnosti Skupnosti, v pravnem redu Skupnosti enak status kot izključno skupnostni sporazumi.
The Court then addressed the substance of the case.
Potem je Sodišče nadaljevalo analizo temelja.
After analysing the wording of the agreements in question, it observed that ‘it is therefore a particularly rigorous obligation that is owed by the Contracting Parties’, namely an obligation to ‘strictly limit’ pollution from land-based sources in the area by ‘appropriate measures’ (paragraph 50).
Po analizi besedila zadevnih sporazumov je opozorilo, da gre za „posebej strogo obveznost pogodbenih strank“, in sicer morajo na območju s „primernimi ukrepi“ onesnaževanje teluričnega izvora „strogo omejiti“ (točka 50).
The existence of other sources of pollution, such as industrialisation of the marsh’s shores and the rapid increase in the population of the nearby communes, was not capable of calling into question the existence of land-based pollution attributable to the operation of the power station.
Obstoj drugih virov onesnaževanja, kot sta industrializacija obal vodnega območja oziroma demografski razmah občin, ne more omajati obstoja onesnaženja teluričnega izvora, ki ga gre pripisati dejavnosti elektrarne.
The Court then had to examine the appropriateness of the actions of the French public authorities from the point of view of their Community obligation to reduce pollution from land-based sources.
Od tod je moralo Sodišče presoditi le še primernost delovanja francoskih javnih oblasti v zvezi z njihovo obveznostjo zmanjšanja teluričnega onesnaževanja, ki jo imajo do Skupnosti.
In this context, the Court found that the quantities of fresh water and alluvia discharged by the hydroelectric power station were indeed excessive, despite the measures taken by the public authorities to reduce them.
V tem okviru Sodišče ugotavlja, da je količina vode in blata, ki odtekata iz elektrarne, prevelika, in to kljub sprejetju ukrepov javnih oblasti za njeno zmanjšanje.
Moreover, the harmful effect of such discharges is well known, and that circumstance in itself attested the inadequacy of the measures taken by the public authorities.
Ob tem je neprijetni vpliv navedenega odtekanja dobro znan in že ta okoliščina kaže na nezadostnost ukrepov, ki so jih sprejele javne oblasti.
The Court therefore considered, following that detailed analysis, that the actions of the public authorities were not appropriate, and consequently held that France had failed to fulfil its obligations.
Sodišče je torej na podlagi predmetne analize okoliščin štelo, da dejavnost javnih oblasti ni bila primerna, in ugotovilo, da Francija ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti.
Case C-60/02 X [2004] ECR I-651 raised the question of the imposition by national courts of penalties for breach of Community law.
V zadevi X (sodba z dne 7. januarja 2004, C-60/02, Recueil, str. I-651) se je pojavila težava sankcioniranja kršitev prava Skupnosti s strani nacionalnega sodišča.
In November 2000 Rolex, a company
Novembra 2000 je družba Rolex, imetnica več znamk ročnih ur, v Avstriji zahtevala sodno preiskavo zoper X po odkritju določenega števila ponarejenih ročnih ur, ki so jih neznanci nameravali prenesti iz Italije na Poljsko, kar je kršitev pravice iz znamke.
Rolex asked for the goods to be seized and destroyed following that investigation.
Rolex je zahteval zaplembo ponarejenih ročnih ur in njihovo uničenje po zaključku postopka.
In July 2001 Tommy Hilfiger, Gucci and Gap likewise requested the opening of judicial investigations concerning imitation goods from China intended to be transported to Slovakia.
Dne 20. julija 2001 so družbe Tommy Hilfiger, Gucci in Gap prav tako zahtevale uvedbo sodne preiskave o posnemanju originalov iz Kitajske, namenjenih na Slovaško.
The Austrian court was faced with the following problem: the opening of a judicial investigation under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the conduct complained of is an offence.
Avstrijsko sodišče, ki je o zadevi odločalo, se je soočilo z naslednjo težavo: za začetek sodne preiskave je potrebno, da očitano ravnanje pomeni kaznivo ravnanje.
However, the court said, under the national law on the protection of trade marks only the import and export of counterfeit goods, and not their mere transit across the national territory, constitute offences.
Po mnenju avstrijskega sodišča nacionalni zakon o varstvu znamk prepoveduje samo uvoz in izvoz ponarejenega proizvoda, pri tem pa izključuje sam promet čez nacionalno ozemlje.
The court therefore put a question to the Court of Justice on the compatibility of that law with Regulation No 3295/94, 1which in its view covers also mere transit.
Navedeno sodišče je na Sodišče naslovilo tudi vprašanje o skladnosti predmetnega zakona z Uredbo št. 3295/941, ki po njegovem mnenju zajema tudi promet.
The Court first confirmed that view: the regulation applies also to goods in transit from one nonmember country to another which are temporarily detained in a Member State by the customs authorities of that State.
Sodišče uvodoma potrdi navedeno tezo: Uredba velja tudi za blago v tranzitu med dvema tretjima državama, ki ga carinski organi države članice v tej državi članici začasno zadržijo.
It further stated that the interpretation of the scope of the regulation does not depend on the type of national proceedings (civil, criminal or administrative) in which that interpretation is relied on.
Poleg tega pojasnjuje, da razlaga njegove uporabljivosti ni odvisna od narave nacionalnega postopka (civilnega, kazenskega ali upravnega), v katerem se je stranka na tako razlago sklicevala.
The Court then noted that there was no unanimity as to the interpretation to be given to the Austrian law on trade marks.
V preostalem Sodišče ugotavlja, da možna razlaga avstrijskega zakona o varstvu znamk ni enotna.
The Austrian Government and the claimant companies contested the view taken by the national court; in their opinion, mere transit is indeed an offence under Austrian law.
Avstrijska vlada in tožeče stranke pravzaprav izpodbijajo razlago, ki jo je sprejelo predložitveno sodišče: zanje avstrijski zakon prepoveduje tudi promet blaga.
That, said the Court, concerned the interpretation of national law, which is a matter for the national court, not the Court of Justice.
Leto se nanaša na razlago nacionalnega prava, kar ni naloga Sodišča, pač pa nacionalnega sodišča.
That principle finds its limits in the general principles of law. In particular, since Regulation No 3295/94 empowers Member States to adopt penalties for the conduct it prohibits, the Court’s case-law on directives must be extended to it, according to which directives cannot, of themselves and independently of a national law adopted by a Member State for their implementation, have the effect of determining or aggravating the liability in criminal law of persons who act in contravention of their provisions.
Če bi moralo leto ugotoviti, da nacionalne določbe v nasprotju z Uredbo dejansko ne sankcionirajo zgolj prometa, bi moralo svoje nacionalno pravo razlagati v mejah, ki jih postavlja pravo Skupnosti, tako da bi doseglo rezultat, ki ga predpisuje norma Skupnosti, in bi moralo ob uporabi le-te za ponarejeno blago v tranzitu čez nacionalno ozemlje uporabiti civilne sankcije, določene v nacionalnem
Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down measures concerning the entry into the Community and the export and re-export from the Community of goods infringing certain intellectual property rights (OJ 1994 L 341, p.
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 3295/94 o ukrepih za prepoved sprostitve ponarejenega in piratskega blaga v prosti promet, izvoz, ponoven izvoz ali za uvedbo odložnega postopka z dne 22. decembra 1994 (UL 1994, L 341, str.
8), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 (OJ 1999 L 27, p. 1).
8), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 241/1999 z dne 25. januarja 1999 (UL 1999, L 27, str. 1).
Page 18
I-5763) je Korkein oikeus postavil predhodno vprašanje o razlagi člena 18 ES.
That question arose in proceedings between Mr Pusa, a Finnish national in receipt of an invalidity pension in Finland, and Osuuspankkien Keskinäinen Vakuutusyhtiö concerning calculation of the amount in which that company should be authorised to carry out an attachment on the pension Mr Pusa received in Finland, for the purpose of recovering a debt owed by him.
Puso, finskimdržavljanom, upravičenim do invalidske pokojnine na Finskem, in njegovo Vzajemno zadružno banko o določitvi višine zneska, do katerega bi bila ta upravičena zarubiti pokojnino, ki jo je prva stranka prejemala na Finskem, da bi dosegla poplačilo dolga.
The Finnish law on enforcement provides that part of remuneration is excluded from attachment, that part being calculated from the amount which remains after compulsory deduction at source of income tax in Finland.
Finski zakon o izvršbi pravzaprav določa, da določenega dela osebnih prejemkov ni mogoče zarubiti, ta delež pa se izračuna na podlagi vsote, ki ostane po odtegljaju pri viru iz naslova davka na Finskem.
The problem in this case lay in the fact that the person concerned, who was resident in Spain, was subject to income tax there and thus, in accordance with the provisions of a double taxation agreement, not subject to any deduction at source in Finland.
Težava je v tem primeru nastala zato, ker je g. Pusa prebival v Španiji, kjer je bil tudi obdavčen, in skladno z določbami Konvencije o izogibanju dvojnega obdavčenja na Finskem ni prišlo do odtegljajev pri viru.
The part of his pension subject to attachment was therefore calculated on the basis of the – necessarily higher – gross amount of the pension, which would not have been the case if he had continued to reside in Finland.
Zarubljivi del pokojnine je bil torej izračunan na podlagi bruto zneska, ki je bil nujno višji in ki ne bi bil izračunan tako, če bi g. Pusa še naprej prebival na Finskem.
The Finnish Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice essentially whether such a situation is compatible in particular with the freedom of movement and residence guaranteed to citizens of the European Union by the EC Treaty.
Vrhovno sodišče Finske se je na Sodišče obrnilo z vprašanjem o skladnosti opisanega položaja predvsem s svobodo gibanja, ki ga Pogodba ES zagotavlja državljanom Evropske unije.
Recalling that Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States and that a citizen of the Union must be granted in all Member States the same treatment in law as that accorded to the nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, the Court considered, first, that if the Finnish law on enforcement if the law on enforcement must be interpreted to mean that it does not in any way allow the tax paid by the person concerned in Spain to be taken into account, that difference of treatment will certainly and inevitably result in his being placed at a disadvantage by virtue of exercising his right to move and reside freely in the Member States, as guaranteed under Article 18 EC.
Če naj status državljana Unije postane temeljni status državljanov držav članic in če naj se državljanu Unije v vseh državah članicah zagotovi enako pravno obravnavanje, kot so ga deležni državljani teh držav članic v enakem položaju, je Sodišče po eni strani menilo, da je v primeru, če je treba finskizakonoizvršbi razlagati tako, da nikakor ne dopušča upoštevanja davka, ki ga je stranka plačala v Španiji, nedvomna in neizogibna posledica različnega obravnavanja v tem, da je slednji v slabšem položaju zaradi dejstva, da je uporabil svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in nastanitve v državah članicah, ki mu ga zagotavlja člen 18 ES.
The Court stated, second, that to preclude all consideration of the tax payable in the Member State of residence, when such tax has become payable and to that extent affects the actual means available to the debtor, cannot be justified in the light of the legitimate objectives pursued by such a law of preserving the creditor’s right to recover the debt due to him and preserving the debtor’s right to a minimum subsistence income.
Po drugi strani je Sodišče menilo, da popolno neupoštevanje dolgovanega davka v državi članici prebivališča, če je postal izterljiv in ustrezno vpliva na dejansko raven sredstev, s katerimi razpolaga dolžnik, ne more biti upravičeno z legitimnimi cilji, kot sta varstvo pravic upnikov, da izterjajo svojo terjatev, in varstvo pravice dolžnika do prejemkov, ki so nujni za preživljanje, določenih s takim zakonom.
However, the Court considered that ‘on the other hand, Community law does not preclude such national legislation if it provides for tax to be taken into account, where taking the tax into account is made subject to the condition that the debtor prove that he has in fact paid or is required to pay within a given period a specified amount as income tax in the Member State where he resides’.
Sodišče je zato v odgovoru na vprašanje, ki ga je postavilo Vrhovno sodišče Finske, presodilo, da „pravo Skupnosti načeloma nasprotuje zakonodaji države članice, po kateri se zarubljivi delež pokojnine, ki se dolžniku redno izplačuje v tej državi, določi tako, da
Page 19
Dejavnost
Proceedings the right of the debtor concerned to have tax taken into account is clear from that legislation; secondly, the detailed rules for taking tax into account are such as to guarantee to the interested party the right to obtain an annual adjustment of the attachable portion of his pension to the same extent as if such a tax had been deducted at source in the Member State which enacted that legislation; and, thirdly, those detailed rules do not have the effect of making it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise that right’ (paragraph 48).
Sodišče se od navedene pokojnine odšteje pri viru odtegnjeni davek na dohodek, plačljiv v tej državi članici, medtem ko se davek, ki ga mora prejemnik te pokojnine naknadno plačati v državi članici, kjer prebiva, ne upošteva pri izračunu zarubljivega deleža predmetne pokojnine“ (točka 48). Sodišče kljub temu meni, da „nasprotno, pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje taki nacionalni zakonodaji, ki omogoča tako presojo, tudi če za to določa pogoj, da mora dolžnik dokazati, da je dejansko plačal, oziroma da mora v določenem roku plačati določeno vsoto iz naslova davka na dohodek v državi članici, kjer prebiva“.
In Case C-200/02 Zhu and Chen (judgment of 19 October 2004, not yet published in the ECR) Mr and Mrs Chen, Chinese nationals and parents of a first child born in China, wished to have a second child but came up against the birth control policy – the ‘one child policy’ – of the People’s Republic of China.
V zadevi Zhu in Chen (sodba z dne 19. oktobra 2004, C-200/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) sta zakonca Chen, kitajska državljana in starša enega otroka, rojenega na Kitajskem, v želji po drugem otroku zadela ob politiko omejevanja rojstev, tako imenovano „politiko enega otroka“, ki jo izvaja Ljudska republika Kitajska.
They therefore decided that Mrs Chen would give birth abroad.
Zaradi navedenega sta se odločila, da bo soproga rodila v tujini.
Their second child was thus born in September 2000 in Belfast, Northern Ireland.
Tako se je drugi otrok para rodil v Severni Irski, v Belfastu, septembra 2000.
The choice of the place of birth was no accident: Irish law allows any person born in the island of Ireland, even outside the political boundaries of Ireland (Éire), to acquire Irish nationality.
Izbira navedenega kraja je bila povezana z irskim pravom, ki vsaki osebi, rojeni na otoku Irska (torej tudi zunaj političnih meja Irske republike), omogoča pridobitev irskega državljanstva. Otrok je to državljanstvo dobil.
Because, however, she did not meet the requirements laid down by the relevant United Kingdom legislation, she did not acquire United Kingdom nationality.
Nasprotno pa zato, ker ni izpolnil pogojev, ki jih določa britanska zakonodaja, ni dobil britanskega državljanstva. Po rojstvu se je ga.
After the birth, Mrs Chen moved to Cardiff, Wales, with her child, and applied there for a long-term residence permit for herself and her child, which was refused.
Chen s svojim otrokom nastanila v Cardiffu, v Walesu, in tam vložila dvojno vlogo za trajno prebivanje, ki je bila zavrnjena.
The appellate authority referred a question to the Court on the lawfulness of that refusal, pointing out that the mother and child provide for their needs, they do not rely on public funds, there is no realistic possibility of their becoming so reliant, and they are insured against ill health.
Organ, ki je odločal o pritožbi, se je na Sodišče obrnil z vprašanjem o legitimnosti te zavrnitve, pri tem pa je poudaril, da mati in otrok lahko zadovoljujeta svoje potrebe, da nista odvisna od javnih skladov – in da po razumni verjetnosti to ne bosta postala – in imata navsezadnje tudi zdravstveno zavarovanje.
The circumstance that the facts of the case concerned a young child gave the Court an occasion to state a preliminary point.
Okoliščina, da se je konkretna zadeva nanašala na otroka nizke starosti, je Sodišču omogočila prvi vmesni sklep.
It said that the capacity to be the holder of rights guaranteed by the EC Treaty and by secondary law on the free movement of persons does not require that the person concerned has attained the age prescribed for the acquisition of legal capacity to exercise those rights personally.
To, da je nekdo lahko nosilec pravic, zagotovljenih s pogodbo in sekundarnim pravom na področju prostega gibanja oseb, po mnenju Sodišča ni pogojeno s starostjo, ki jo mora oseba dopolniti, preden lahko pridobi poslovno sposobnost, ki mu omogoča samostojno uveljavljanje pravic.
Moreover, the enjoyment of those rights cannot be made conditional on the attainment of a minimum age.
Poleg tega samo uživanje navedenih pravic ne more biti pogojeno z najnižjo starostjo.
As regards the child’s right of residence, the Court recalled that Article 18 EC has direct effect.
Glede otrokove pravice do prebivanja se Sodišče sklicuje na neposredni učinek člena 18 ES.
Purely as a national of a Member State, and therefore a citizen of the Union, she can rely on the right of residence laid down by that provision.
Zgolj zato, ker je državljan ene države članice, in torej državljan Unije, ima pravico do prebivanja, zagotovljeno z navedeno določbo.
Regard must be had, however, to the limitations and conditions to which that right is subject, in particular Article 1(1) of Directive 90/364, 2which allows Member States to require that the persons concerned have sickness insurance and sufficient resources.
Kljub temu je treba upoštevati omejitve in pogoje za priznanje te pravice, predvsem člen 1(1) Direktive 90/3642, ki državam članicam omogoča, da od prizadetih strank zahtevajo zadostna sredstva in zdravstveno zavarovanje.
The Court found that that was so in the present case.
Sodišče ugotavlja, da je bilo tako tudi v tem primeru.
It further stated that the fact that the sufficient resources of the child were provided by her mother and she had none herself was immaterial: a requirement as the origin of the resources cannot be added to the requirement of sufficient resources.
Poleg tega pojasnjuje, da okoliščina, da otroku zadostna sredstva zagotavlja mati in da otrok sam le-teh nima, ni upoštevna; Sodišče pravi, da pogoju zadostnih sredstev ne moremo dodati zahteve po njihovem izvoru.
Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26).
Direktiva Sveta 90/364/EGS z dne 28. junija 1990 o pravici do prebivanja (UL 1990, L 180, str. 26).
Page 20
Sodišče
As regards the mother’s right of residence, the Court observed that Directive 90/364 recognises a right of residence for ‘dependent’ relatives in the ascending line of the holder of the right of residence, which assumes that material support for the family member is provided by the holder of the right of residence.
Glede pravice matere do prebivanja Sodišče poudarja, da Direktiva 90/364 priznava pravico do prebivanja prednikom imetnika pravice, ki jih ta „vzdržuje“, kar predpostavlja, da družinskega člana materialno vzdržuje imetnik pravice do prebivanja.
In the present case, said the Court, the position was exactly the opposite.
Sodišče pravi, da gre v konkretnem primeru za obratni položaj. Ge.
On the other hand, where a child is granted a right of residence by Article 18 EC and Directive 90/364, the parent who is the carer of the child cannot be refused the right to reside with the child in the host Member State, as otherwise the child’s right of residence would be deprived of any useful effect.
Vendar takrat, ko ima otrok pravico do prebivanja na podlagi člena 18 ES in na podlagi Direktive 90/364, roditelju, ki zanj skrbi, ni mogoče odreči pravice, da prebiva z njim v državi članici gostiteljici, ne da bi s tem pravica do prebivanja, ki jo ima otrok, izgubila polni učinek.