natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Just as there is nothing to prevent existing instruments in the field of extradition from being made applicable in certain Member States between the date of adoption of the Framework Directive and 1 January 2004, nothing precludes a Member State from making applicable, after 1 January 2004, a convention which forms part of the extradition arrangements replaced by the European arrest warrant system, for situations in which that system does not apply.
Enako kot nič ne prepoveduje, da bi v nekaterih državah članicah med datumom sprejetja Okvirnega sklepa in 1. januarjem 2004 postali veljavni pravni akti, ki obstajajo na področju izročitve, tudi nič ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica po 1. januarju 2004 uveljavi Konvencijo, ki je del metode izročitve, ki jo je nadomestil sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje za položaje, v katerih ta sistem ne velja.
As the French and Spanish Governments and the Commission rightly submit, the purpose of indicating the date 1 January 2004 is essentially to draw the line between the scope of the extradition system provided for by the conventions and that of the European arrest warrant system laid down in the Framework Decision, with the latter system being applicable as a general rule to all requests made after 1 January 2004.
Kot so pravilno navedle francoska in �panska vlada ter Komisija, služi navedba datuma 1. januar 2004 predvsem temu, da se določi meja med področjem uporabe sistema izročitve, določenega v konvencijah, in sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje, izdelanega v Okvirnem sklepu, ki se na splo�no uporablja za vse zahteve, vložene po 1. januarju 2004.
Making conventions such as the 1996 Convention applicable does not interfere with the European arrest warrant system laid down by the Framework Decision, since, in accordance with Article 31(1) of the decision, such a convention can be used only where the European arrest warrant system does not apply.
Uporaba konvencij, kot je Konvencija iz leta 1996, ne ogroža sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje, določenega v Okvirnem sklepu, saj se v skladu z njegovim členom 31(1) taka konvencija lahko uporablja le, kadar se ne uporablja sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje.
As noted in paragraph 58 above, conventions in the field of extradition continue to be of relevance in cases covered by a statement made by a Member State pursuant to Article 32 of the Framework Decision, and also in other situations in which the European arrest warrant system is not applicable.
Kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 58 te sodbe, konvencije na področju izročitve ostanejo v veljavi za primere, ki jih pokriva izjava države članice, podana v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa, ter tudi v drugih položajih, kjer se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje ne uporablja.
Such a purpose is certainly not contrary to the objectives of the Framework Decision, since, as is apparent from recital 5 in the preamble, it aims by the introduction of a new simplified system of surrender of sentenced or suspected persons to remove the complexity and potential for delay inherent in the extradition procedures existing at the time of adoption of the Framework Decision.
Tak namen zagotovo ni v nasprotju s cilji Okvirnega sklepa, saj, kot izhaja iz njegove uvodne izjave, 5 uvedba novega poenostavljenega sistema predaje osumljenih ali obsojenih oseb omogoča, da se odpravijo zapleteni in zamudni postopki izročitve, ki obstajajo ob sprejetju Okvirnega sklepa.
The application between two Member States of the 1996 Convention is moreover consistent with the objectives of the Union.
Uporaba Konvencije iz leta 1996 med dvema državama članicama je poleg tega združljiva s cilji Unije.
It should be recalled that that convention is part of the Union acquis and that, by act of 27 September 1996, the Council recommended that it be adopted by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional rules.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je ta konvencija del pravnega reda Unije in da je z aktom z dne 27. septembra 1996 Svet priporočil, naj jo države članice sprejmejo v skladu s svojimi ustavnimi pravili.
Finally, as the Commission has pointed out, Article 32 of the Framework Decision expressly provides that a statement made by a Member State pursuant to that provision may be withdrawn at any time, which would, in the absence of more specific provisions, entail the immediate application of the European arrest warrant system even to acts prior to the date specified in the statement thus withdrawn.
Nazadnje, kot je opozorila Komisija, člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa izrecno določa, da lahko izjavo, ki jo je podala država članica v skladu s to določbo, ta kadarkoli umakne, kar naj bi povzročilo, če ne bi bilo tega pojasnila, takoj�njo uporabo sistema evropskega naloga za prijetje tudi za dejstva, nastala pred datumom, navedenim v tako umaknjeni izjavi.
Having regard to the power thus granted to withdraw a statement made in accordance with Article 32 of the Framework Decision, it cannot successfully be argued that a Member State which has made such a statement is not entitled to make the 1996 Convention applicable after 1 January 2004 so that that convention may cover inter alia situations in which the European arrest warrant system does not apply,
Ob upo�tevanju tako priznanega pooblastila, da se lahko v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa umakne podana izjava, ni mogoče uspe�no zatrjevati, da država članica, ki je podala tako izjavo, nima pravice uveljaviti Konvencije iz leta 1996 po 1. januarju 2004, da bi ta konvencija med drugim zajemala položaje, v katerih se sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje ne uporablja, medtem ko, kot je poudarila Komisija, ta
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA given that, as the Commission points out, that convention is an element of progress in the direction of the European arrest warrant with a view to facilitating extradition between Member States.
SANTESTEBAN GOICOECHEA konvencija pomeni napredek v smislu evropskega naloga za prijetje z namenom olaj�anja izročitev med državami članicami.
According to settled caselaw, procedural rules are generally held to apply to all proceedings pending at the time when they enter into force, whereas substantive rules are usually interpreted as not applying to situations existing before their entry into force (Dell’Orto, paragraph 48).
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se postopkovna pravila običajno uporabljajo za vse spore, ki potekajo, ko ta pravila začnejo veljati, drugače kot pri pravilih materialnega prava, ki se običajno razlagajo tako, da se načeloma ne nana�ajo na položaje, ki so nastali pred začetkom njihove veljavnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba Dell’Orto, točka 48).
Article 18(5) of the 1996 Convention provides that that convention is to apply to requests submitted after the date on which it is applied as between the requested Member State and the requesting Member State.
Člen 18(5) Konvencije iz leta 1996 določa, da se ta konvencija uporablja samo za zahteve, vložene po dnevu začetka njene uporabe med zapro�eno državo članico in državo članico prosilko.
Article 32 of the Framework Decision for its part provides that requests received after 1 January 2004 will be governed by the European arrest warrant rules.
Člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa določa, da bodo zahteve, ki jih države članice prejmejo pred 1. januarjem 2004, urejala pravila evropskega naloga za prijetje.
While in both cases the new rules apply not to pending requests but to those made after a specified date, they have in common that they apply to requests relating to acts prior to the date of application of the new rules.
Če se, v obeh primerih, nova pravila ne uporabljajo za tekoče zahteve, temveč za tiste, vložene po določenem datumu, se obakrat uporabljajo za zahteve, ki se nana�ajo na dejstva pred dnevom začetka uporabe nove ureditve.
In the light of those factors, the answer to the second question must be that Article 32 of the Framework Decision must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the 1996 Convention, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.
Ob upo�tevanju teh dejstev je treba na drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa razlagati tako, da v izvr�itveni državi članici ne nasprotuje uporabi Konvencije iz leta 1996, tudi če se je ta v tej državi članici začela uporabljati �ele po 1. januarju 2004.
Article 31 of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as referring only to the situation in which the European arrest warrant system is applicable, which is not the case where a request for extradition relates to acts committed before a date specified by a Member State in a statement made pursuant to Article 32 of that Framework Decision.
Člen 31 Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami je treba razlagati tako, da se nanaša le na primer, v katerem se uporablja sistem evropskega naloga za prijetje, to pa ni tako, kadar se zahteva za izročitev nanaša na dejstva, storjena pred datumom, ki ga je država članica navedla v izjavi, podani v skladu s členom 32 Okvirnega sklepa.
Article 32 of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as not precluding the application by an executing Member State of the Convention relating to extradition between the Member States of the European Union drawn up by Council Act of 27 September 1996 and signed on that date by all the Member States, even where that convention became applicable in that Member State only after 1 January 2004.
Člen 32 Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 je treba razlagati tako, da v izvršitveni državi članici ne nasprotuje uporabi Konvencije o izročitvi med državami članicami Evropske unije, pripravljene z aktom Sveta z dne 27. septembra 1996, ki so jo istega dne podpisale vse države članice, tudi če se je ta v tej državi članici začela uporabljati šele po 1. januarju 2004.
Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P
Združeni zadevi C-402/05 P in C-415/05 P
Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
Svetu Evropske unijein Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti
Opinion of Advocate General Poiares Maduro delivered on 16 January 2008 . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 16. januarja 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) 3 September 2008 . . . . . . . . .
Poiaresa Madura, predstavljeni 23. januarja 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P
Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Regulation imposing restrictive meas­ures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al­Qaeda network and the Taliban
Akti institucij – Izbira pravne podlage – Uredba o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani
Acts of the institutions — Choice of legal basis — Community measures concerning object­ives under the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations — Article 308 EC — Not permissible
Akti institucij – Izbira pravne podlage – Akti Skupnosti, ki se nanašajo na enega od ciljev, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe EU s področja zunanjih odnosov – Člen 308 ES – Nedopustnost
(Arts 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC; Art. 3 EU)
(členi 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES; člen 3 EU)
European Communities — Judicial review of the lawfulness of the acts of the institutions — Community measure giving effect to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council — Indirect review of the lawfulness of decisions of the Security Council — Unacceptable
Evropske skupnosti – Sodni nadzor nad zakonitostjo aktov institucij – Akt za izvajanje resolucij Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov – Posredni nadzor nad zakonitostjo odločb Varnostnega sveta – Izključitev
Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Taking into consideration the European Convention on Human Rights
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Temeljne pravice – Upoštevanje Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic
Public international law — Charter of the United Nations — Resolutions of the Security Council adopted under the Charter of the United Nations
Mednarodno javno pravo – Ustanovna listina Združenih narodov – Resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov
European Communities — Judicial review of the lawfulness of the acts of the institu­tions — Regulation imposing restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al­Qaeda network and the Taliban
Evropske skupnosti – Sodni nadzor nad zakonitostjo aktov institucij – Uredba o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani
Actions for annulment — Judgment annulling a measure — Effects — Limitation by the Court — Regulation imposing restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al­Qaeda network and the Taliban
Ničnostna tožba – Ničnostna sodba – Učinki – Omejitev, ki jo določi Sodišče – Uredba o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani
(Art. 231 EC)
(člen 231 ES)
of that provision, for, having regard to its actual wording, the subject of that provision is the adoption of potentially very diverse measures affecting economic relations with third countries which, therefore, by necessary inference, must not be limited to spheres falling within other material powers of the Community such as those in the domain of the common commercial policy or of the free movement of capital.
polni učinek, kajti ta določba, z vidika njenega besedila, predvideva sprejetje potencialno zelo različnih ukrepov, ki posegajo v gospodarske odnose s tretjimi državami in torej a priori ne smejo biti omejeni na področja, ki izhajajo iz drugih materialnih pristojnosti Skupnosti, kot so pristojnosti na področju skupne trgovinske politike Skupnosti ali prostega pretoka kapitala.
Moreover, that interpretation finds no support in the wording of Article 301 EC, which confers a material competence on the Community the scope of which is, in theory, autonomous in relation to that of other Community competences.
Ta razlaga sicer nima podpore v besedilu člena 301 ES, ker daje ta Skupnosti materialno pristojnost, katere obseg je načeloma neodvisen glede na druge pristojnosti Skupnosti.
To accept the interpretation of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC that it is enough for the restrictive measures laid down by Resolution 1390 (2002) of the United Nations Security Council and given effect by Regulation No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban to be directed at persons or entities present in a third country or associated with one in some other way, would give those provisions an excessively broad meaning and would fail to take any account at all of the requirement, imposed by their very wording, that the measures decided on the basis of those provisions must be taken against third countries.
Če se sprejme razlaga členov 60 ES in 301 ES, da zadostuje, da se zadevni omejevalni ukrepi, ki so določeni v Resoluciji 1390(2002) Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov in ki jih izvaja Uredba �t. 881/2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte, povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in talibani, nana�ajo na posameznike ali subjekte, ki so v tretji državi oziroma so z njo v drugačni zvezi, se tem določbam da pre�irok obseg in se sploh ne upo�teva zahteva, ki izhaja iz izrazov teh določb, da je treba ukrepe, določene na podlagi teh določb, sprejeti zoper tretje države.
Having regard to the purpose and subjectmatter of that regulation, it cannot be considered that the regulation relates specifically to international trade in that it is essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern trade, and it could not, therefore, be based on the powers of the Community in the sphere of the common commercial policy. A Community measure falls within the
Po eni strani bi razlaga člena 301 ES, v skladu s katero ta vzpostavlja postopkovni most med Skupnostjo in Evropsko unijo, tako da bi ga bilo treba razlagati tako �iroko kot zadevne pristojnosti Skupnosti, med njimi tiste, ki se nana�ajo na skupno trgovinsko politiko in prosti pretok kapitala, lahko dejansko zožila področje uporabe in posledično njegov
Interpreting Article 301 EC as building a procedural bridge between the Community and the European Union, so that it must be construed as broadly as the relevant Community competences, including those relating to the common commercial policy and the free movement of capital, threatens to reduce the ambit and, therefore, the practical effect
Po drugi strani, ob upo�tevanju cilja in vsebine te uredbe ni mogoče �teti, da se ta uredba posebej nana�a na mednarodno menjavo, ker bi bila v bistvu namenjena spodbujanju, olaj�anju ali urejanju trgovinske menjave in je ne bi mogli utemeljiti s pristojnostjo Skupnosti na področju skupne trgovinske politike. Akt Skupnosti dejansko spada v pristojnost na področju skupne trgovinske politike
The view that Article 308 EC allows, in the special context of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, the adoption of Community measures concerning not one of the objectives of the Community but one of the objectives under the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, including the common foreign and security policy (the CFSP), runs counter to the very wording of Article 308 EC.
Pojmovanje, da bi člen 308 ES v posebnem kontekstu členov 60 ES in 301 ES omogočal sprejetje aktov Skupnosti, ki se ne nana�ajo na enega od ciljev Skupnosti, temveč na enega od ciljev, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe EU s področja zunanjih odnosov, med katerimi je skupna zunanja in varnostna politika (SZVP), je v protislovju z besedilom člena 308 ES.
While it is correct to consider that a bridge has been constructed between the actions of the Community involving economic measures under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and the objectives of the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, including the CFSP, neither the wording of the provisions of the EC Treaty nor the structure of the latter provides any foundation for the view that that bridge extends to other provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular to Article 308 EC competence in the field of the common commercial policy provided for in Article 133 EC only if it relates specifically to international trade in that it is essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern trade and has direct and immediate effects on trade in the products concerned.
Če je pravilno �teti, da je bil vzpostavljen most med dejavnostmi Skupnosti, ki zajemajo gospodarske sankcije na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES, ter cilji Pogodbe EU na področju zunanjih odnosov, med katerimi je SZVP, pa niti besedilo določb Pogodbe ES niti njena struktura ne dajeta podlage za pojmovanje, da bi se ta most raztezal na druge določbe Pogodbe ES, zlasti na člen 308 ES.
Nor can that regulation be regarded as falling within the ambit of the provisions of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital and payments, in so far as it prohibits the transfer of economic resources to individuals in third countries.
Prav tako ni mogoče trditi, da ta uredba spada na področje uporabe določb Pogodbe ES v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala in plačil, ker prepoveduje prenos gospodarskih sredstev posameznikom v tretjih državah.
With regard, first of all, to Article 57(2) EC, the restrictive measures at issue do not fall within one of the categories of measures listed in that provision.
Najprej je treba glede člena 57(2) ES ugotoviti, da zadevni omejevalni ukrepi, ki jih določa izpodbijana uredba, ne spadajo v eno izmed kategorij ukrepov, ki so na�teti v tej določbi.
Next, so far as Article 60(1) EC is concerned, that provision cannot furnish the basis for the regulation in question either, for its ambit is determined by that of Article 301 EC.
Glede člena 60(1) ES je treba dalje navesti, da se s to določbo prav tako ne more utemeljiti zadevna uredba, ker je njeno področje uporabe določeno s členom 301 ES.
As regards, finally, Article 60(2) EC, this provision does not include any Community competence to that end, given that it does no more than enable the Member States to take, on certain exceptional grounds, unilateral measures against a third country with regard to capital movements and payments, subject to the power of the Council to require a Member State to amend or abolish such measures.
Glede člena 60(2) ES je treba nazadnje ugotoviti, da ta določba ne vključuje pristojnosti Skupnosti v ta namen, saj je omejena na to, da državam članicam v določenih izjemnih okoli�činah omogoča sprejetje enostranskih ukrepov proti tretji državi v zvezi s pretokom kapitala in plačili, s pridržkom pristojnosti Sveta, da državi članici naloži, da tak�ne ukrepe spremeni ali odpravi.
Recourse to Article 308 EC demands that the action envisaged should, on the one hand, relate to the ‘operation of the common market’ and, on the other, be intended to attain ‘one of the objectives of the Community’.
Sklicevanje na člen 308 ES bi zahtevalo, da se načrtovani ukrep nana�a na „delovanje skupnega trga“ in da stremi k uresničitvi „enega od ciljev Skupnosti“.
That latter concept, having regard to its clear and precise wording, cannot on any view be regarded as including the objectives of the CFSP.
Tega pojma z vidika jasnih in natančnih izrazov, ki ga sestavljajo, v nobenem primeru ne bi mogli razumeti, kot da vključuje cilje SZVP.
Article 308 EC is designed to fill the gap where no specific provisions of the Treaty confer on the Community institutions express or implied powers to act, if such powers appear none the less to be necessary to enable the Community to carry out its functions with a view to attaining one of the objectives laid down by the Treaty.
Soobstoj Unije in Skupnosti kot združenih, vendar različnih pravnih redov ter ustavna zgradba stebrov, ki so jih želeli avtorji veljavnih pogodb, poleg tega pomenita institucionalne preudarke, ki nasprotujejo raz�iritvi tega mostu na druge člene Pogodbe ES in ne na tiste, s katerimi ta vzpostavlja izrecno vez.
The coexistence of the Union and the Community as integrated but separate legal orders, and the constitutional architecture of the pillars, as intended by the framers of the Treaties now in force, constitute considerations of an institutional kind militating against any extension of that bridge to articles of the EC Treaty other than those with which it explicitly creates a link.
Namen člena 308 ES je dopolniti neobstoj pooblastil za ukrepanje, ki so jih posebne določbe Pogodbe izrecno ali implicitno podelile institucijam Skupnosti, če so tak�na pooblastila vendarle potrebna, da bi Skupnost lahko izvr�evala svoje naloge, da bi dosegla enega od ciljev, ki jih določa ta Pogodba.
In addition, Article 308 EC, being an integral part of an institutional system based on the principle of conferred powers, cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Community powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole and, in particular, by those defining the tasks and the activities of the Community.
Poleg tega člen 308 ES kot del institucionalnega reda, katerega podlaga je načelo dodeljenih pristojnosti, ne more služiti kot temelj za raz�iritev pristojnosti Skupnosti čez splo�ni okvir, ki izhaja iz celote določb te Pogodbe ES in zlasti iz določb, ki določajo naloge in ukrepanje Skupnosti.
Likewise, Article 3 EU, in particular its second paragraph, cannot supply a base for any widening of Community powers beyond the objects of the Community.
Prav tako člen 3 EU in zlasti njegov drugi odstavek ne moreta služiti kot podlaga za raz�iritev pristojnosti Skupnosti onstran ciljev Skupnosti.