natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The fact that the measures at issue are intended to suppress international terrorism should not inhibit the Court from fulfilling its duty to preserve the rule of law.
Dejstvo, da je namen zadevnih ukrepov preprečevanje mednarodnega terorizma, Sodi�ča ne bi smelo ovirati pri izpolnjevanju njegove dolžnosti ohraniti pravno državo.
In doing so, rather than trespassing into the domain of politics, the Court is reaffirming the limits that the law imposes on certain political decisions.
Pri tem Sodi�če, raje kot da bi svojo dolžnost preneslo na področje politike, potrjuje meje, ki jih pravo nalaga za določene politične odločitve.
This is never an easy task, and, indeed, it is a great challenge for a court to apply wisdom in matters relating to the threat of terrorism.
To ni nikoli enostavna naloga in za Sodi�če je res velik izziv, da v zadevah v zvezi z grožnjo terorizma ravna modro.
Yet, the same holds true for the political institutions.
Vendar za politične institucije velja enako.
Especially in matters of public security, the political process is liable to become overly responsive to immediate popular concerns, leading the authorities to allay the anxieties of the many at the expense of the rights of a few.
Zlasti na področju javne varnosti lahko politika postane preveč dovzetna za trenutno zaskrbljenost javnosti, tako da oblasti pomirijo zaskrbljenost večine v �kodo pravic manj�ine.
This is precisely when courts ought to get involved, in order to ensure that the political neces sities of today do not become the legal realities of tomorrow.
Ravno tukaj bi morala sodi�ča posredovati, da bi zagotovila, da dana�nje politične potrebe ne postanejo jutri�nja pravna resničnost.
Their responsibility is to guarantee that what may be politically expedient at a particular moment also complies with the rule of law without which, in the long run, no democratic society can truly prosper.
Njihova odgovornost je zagotoviti, da je tisto, kar je morebiti smotrno v določenem trenutku, tudi v skladu s pravno državo, brez katere dolgoročno nobena demokratična družba ne more resnično napredovati.
In the words of Aharon Barak, the former President on the Supreme Court of Israel:
Aharon Baral, nekdanji predsednik vrhovnega sodi�ča v Izraelu, je dejal:
Procedural safeguards are necessary precisely to ensure that that is indeed the case.
Postopkovna jamstva so nujna ravno za zagotovitev, da gre dejansko za to.
In the absence of those safeguards, the freezing of someone’s assets for an indefinite period of time infringes the right to property.
Kadar taki za�čitni ukrepi ne obstajajo, pomeni zamrznitev sredstev določene osebe za nedoločeno obdobje kr�itev lastninske pravice.
which are always to be balanced in the application of the fundamental rights at issue may be different as a consequence of the specific needs arising from the prevention of international terrorism.
zadevnih temeljnih pravic vedno tehtati, različna zaradi posledic posebnih potreb, nastalih zaradi preprečevanja mednarodnega terorizma.
But this is to be assessed in a normal exercise of judicial review by this Court.
Vendar je treba to presoditi v okviru običajnega sodnega nadzora, ki ga izvaja Sodi�če.
The present circumstances may result in a different balance being struck among the values involved in the protection of fundamental rights but the standard of protection afforded by them ought not to change.
Obstoječe okoli�čine lahko povzročijo različno ravnovesje med vrednotami, povezanimi z varstvom temeljnih pravic, vendar se dano merilo varstva ne sme spremeniti.
The appellant contends that, regarding the sanctions taken against him, no such safeguards are in place.
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da ob upo�tevanju sankcij, sprejetih zoper njega, taki za�čitni ukrepi ne obstajajo.
He maintains that he has not been given any opportunity of being heard on the facts and circumstances alleged and on the evidence adduced against him.
Trdi, da ni imel nobene možnosti biti zasli�an v zvezi z zatrjevanimi dejstvi in okoli�činami ter z dokazi, navedenimi zoper njega.
He claims that he would have been in a better position if criminal charges had been brought against him, since then at least he would have enjoyed the protection afforded by a criminal trial.
Zatrjuje, da bi bil v bolj�em položaju, če bi bila proti njemu vložena kazenska ovadba, saj bi imel tako zagotovljeno varstvo v okviru kazenskega postopka.
In this context, he seeks to rely on the right to be heard by the administrative authorities, as well as on the right to effective judicial review by an independent tribunal.
V tem smislu se sklicuje na pravico biti zasli�an s strani upravnih organov, kot tudi na pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora neodvisnega sodi�ča.
The problem facing the appellant is that all of his financial interests within the Community have been frozen for several years, without limit of time and in conditions where there appear to be no adequate means for him to challenge the assertion that he is guilty of wrongdoing.
Težava pritožnika je, da so bila vsa njegova finančna sredstva v Skupnosti zamrznjena za več let, ne da bi bil določen časovni rok, in v pogojih, v katerih nima na voljo ustreznega pravnega sredstva za izpodbijanje trditve, da je kriv za nedopustno ravnanje.
He has invoked the right to property, the right to be heard, and the right to effective judicial review.
Navedel je lastninsko pravico, pravico do zasli�anja in pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora.
In the context of this case, these rights are closely connected.
V okviru obravnavane zadeve so te pravice tesno povezane.
Clearly, the indefinite freezing of someone’s assets constitutes a far-reaching interference with the peaceful enjoyment of property.
Zamrznitev sredstev za nedoločeno obdobje očitno pomeni značilno motenje mirnega uživanja lastnine.
The consequences for the person concerned are potentially devastating, even where arrangements are made for basic needs and expenses.
Posledice za zadevno osebo so lahko morebiti uničujoče, tudi kadar so sklenjeni sporazumi za osnovne potrebe in stro�ke.
Of course, this explains why the measure has such a strong coercive effect and why ‘smart sanctions’ of this type might be considered a suitable or even necessary means to prevent terrorist acts.
To seveda pojasnjuje, zakaj ima ukrep tako močan prisilni učinek in zakaj je mogoče „pametne ukrepe“ take vrste �teti za ustrezne ali celo nujne za preprečevanje terorističnih dejanj.
However, it also underscores the need for procedural safeguards which require the authorities to justify such measures and demonstrate their proportionality, not merely in the abstract, but in the concrete circumstances of the given case.
Vendar se poudarja tudi potreba po postopkovnih jamstvih, v skladu s katerimi se zahteva, da organi take ukrepe utemeljijo in dokažejo njihovo sorazmernost, ne le na abstrakten način ampak v dejanskih okoli�činah določene zadeve.
The Commission rightly points out that the prevention of international terrorism
Komisija pravilno poudarja, da lahko preprečevanje mednarodnega terorizma utemelji omejitve lastninske pravice.
Both the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review constitute fundamental rights that form part of the general principles of Community law.
Pravica do zasli�anja in pravica do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora spadata med temeljne pravice, ki so del splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti.
According to settled caselaw, ‘observance of the right
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je „spo�tovanje pravice do obrambe
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION are justified. They maintain that any effort on the part of the Community or its Member States to provide administrative or judicial procedures for challenging the lawfulness of the sanctions imposed by the contested regulation would contravene the underlying Security Council resolutions and therefore jeopardise the fight against international terrorism.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI bilo vsako prizadevanje s strani Skupnosti ali njenih držav članic, da bi zagotovile upravne ali sodne postopke za izpodbijanje zakonitosti sankcij, ki so naložene z izpodbijano uredbo, v nasprotju z osnovnimi resolucijami Varnostnega sveta in bi zato ogrožalo boj zoper mednarodni terorizem.
In consonance with that view, they have not made any submissions that would enable this Court to exercise review in respect of the specific situation of the appellant.
V skladu z njihovim mnenjem niso podale nobenih stali�č, ki bi Sodi�ču omogočila izvedbo nadzora v zvezi s posebnim položajem pritožnika.
to be heard is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question … That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views’.
v vseh postopkih, ki se uvedejo zoper osebo in ki lahko vodijo do akta, s katerim se posega v njen položaj, temeljno načelo prava Skupnosti in mora biti zagotovljeno tudi, če ni nobenih posebnih pravil. […] To načelo zahteva, da se naslovnike odločb, ki znatno posegajo v njihove interese, postavi v položaj, v katerem lahko učinkovito izrazijo stali�ča.“ 50Sodi�če je v zvezi s pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora razsodilo, da je „Evropska skupnost […] namreč pravna skupnost, v kateri so institucije podvržene nadzoru skladnosti njihovih aktov s Pogodbo ES in splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, katerih del so temeljne pravice.
50As to the right to effective judicial review, the Court has held: ‘The European Community is … a community based on the rule of law in which its institutions are subject to judicial review of the compatibility of their acts with the Treaty and with the general principles of law which include fundamental rights. … Individuals are therefore entitled to effective judicial protection of the rights they derive from the Community legal order, and the right to such protection is one of the general principles of law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States’. 51
Zato morajo imeti posamezniki možnost učinkovitega sodnega varstva pravic, ki jih imajo po pravnem redu Skupnosti, pri čemer je pravica do takega varstva del splo�nih pravnih načel, ki izhajajo iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic.“ 51
The respondents argue, however, that in so far as there have been restrictions on the right to be heard and the right to effect ive judicial review, these restrictions
Vendar tožene stranke trdijo, da kolikor obstajajo omejitve pravice do zasli�anja in pravice do učinkovitega pravnega nadzora, so te omejitve utemeljene. Zatrjujejo, da bi
50 — Case C-32/95 P Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 21.
50 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 24. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Lisrestal in drugi (C-32/95 P, Recueil, str.
See also Article 41(2) of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
I-5373, točka 21). Glej tudi člen 41(2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije.
I shall not dwell too much upon the alleged breach of the right to be heard.
Zatrjevane kr�itve pravice do zasli�anja ne bom bolj podrobno obravnaval.
Suffice it to say that, although certain restrictions on that right may be envisaged for public security reasons, in the present case the Community institutions have not afforded any opportunity to the appellant to make known his views on whether the sanctions against him are justified and whether they should be kept in force.
Zadostuje, da navedem, da čeprav je mogoče predvideti določene omejitve te pravice iz razlogov javne varnosti, v obravnavani zadevi institucije Skupnosti pritožniku niso dale nobene možnosti, da bi predložil stali�ča v zvezi s tem, ali so sankcije proti njemu utemeljene in ali bi jih bilo treba ohraniti.
The existence of a de-listing procedure at the level of the United Nations offers no consolation in that regard.
Obstoj postopka izbrisa na ravni Združenih narodov ne daje nobene utehe v zvezi s tem.
That procedure allows petitioners to submit a request to the Sanctions Committee
Ta postopek predlagateljem omogoča, da sankcijskemu odboru ali svoji vladi predložijo predlog
The right to effective judicial protection holds a prominent place in the firmament of fundamental rights.
Pravica do učinkovitega sodnega varstva ima pomembno mesto med temeljnimi pravicami.
While certain limitations on that right might be permitted if there are other compelling interests, it is unacceptable in a democratic society to impair the very essence of that right.
Čeprav bi bile v primeru drugih prepričljivih interesov določene omejitve te pravice dovoljene, v demokratični družbi ni sprejemljivo �kodovati samemu bistvu te pravice.
As the European Court of Human Right held in Klass and Others, ‘the rule of law implies, inter alia, that an interference by the executive authorities with an individual’s rights should be subject to an effective control which should normally be assured by the judiciary, at least in the last resort, judicial control offering the best guarantees of independence, impartiality and a proper procedure’.
Kot je ESČP odločilo v sodbi Klass in drugi, „pravna država med drugim pomeni, da bi moralo biti poseganje izvr�ilnih organov v pravice posameznika predmet učinkovitega nadzora, ki ga mora običajno zagotoviti sodstvo, vsaj na zadnji stopnji, ker omogoča najbolj�a zagotovila za neodvisnost, nepristranskost in pravilnost postopka“.
53 purely a matter of intergovernmental consultation.
53 za izbris s seznama. 52Vendar je obravnavanje tega predloga le predmet medvladnega posvetovanja.
There is no obligation on the Sanctions Committee actually to take the views of the petitioner into account.
Varnostnemu sveta namreč ni treba upo�tevati mnenja predlagateljev.
Moreover, the de-listing procedure does not provide even minimal access to the information on which the decision was based to include the petitioner in the list.
Poleg tega postopek izbrisa s seznama ne zagotavlja niti minimalnega dostopa do informacij, na podlagi katerih je bila sprejeta odločitev o vključitvi predlagatelja na seznam.
In fact, access to such information is denied regardless of any substantiated claim as to the need to protect its confidentiality.
Dostop do takih informacij je namreč zavrnjen ne da bi se upo�teval kakr�enkoli utemeljen predlog, kot je potreba po zaupnosti.
One of the crucial reasons for which the right to be heard must be respected is to enable the parties concerned to defend their rights effectively, particularly in legal proceedings which might be brought after the administrative control procedure has come to a close.
Eden od temeljnih razlogov, zaradi katerih je treba pravico do zasli�anja spo�tovati, je zadevnim strankam omogočiti učinkovito obrambo svojih pravic, zlasti v pravnih postopkih, ki jih je mogoče sprožiti po koncu postopka upravnega nadzora.
In that sense, respect for the right to be heard is directly relevant to ensuring the right to effective judicial review.
V tem smislu je spo�tovanje pravice do zasli�anja neposredno upo�tevno pri zagotavljanju pravice do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora.
Procedural safeguards at the administrative level can never remove the need for subsequent judicial review.
Postopkovna jamstva na upravni ravni ne morejo nikoli nadomestiti potrebe po naknadnem sodnem nadzoru.
Yet, the absence of such administrative safeguards has significant adverse affects on the appellant’s right to effective judicial protection.
Vendar neobstoj takih upravnih za�čitnih ukrepov zelo neugodno vpliva na učinke pritožnikove pravice do učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
The appellant has been listed for several years in Annex I to the contested regulation and still the Community institutions refuse to grant him an opportunity to dispute the grounds for his continued inclusion on the list.
Ime pritožnika je bilo več let vpisano na seznamu v prilogi I k izpodbijani uredbi, vendar mu institucije Skupnosti �e vedno zavračajo možnost izpodbijanja razlogov, zaradi katerih je njegovo ime �e vpisano na seznamu.
They have, in effect, levelled extremely serious allegations against him and have, on that basis, subjected him to severe sanctions.
Zoper njega so namreč podale zelo resne obtožbe in so mu zaradi tega naložile stroge sankcije.
Yet, they entirely reject the notion of an independent tribunal assessing the fairness of these allegations and the reasonableness of these sanctions.
Vendar popolnoma zavračajo možnost, da bi lahko neodvisna sodi�ča ocenila zakonitost teh obtožb in primernost teh sankcij.
As a result of this denial, there is a real possibility that the sanctions taken against the appellant within the Community may be disproportionate or even misdirected, and might nevertheless remain in place indefinitely.
Kot rezultat tega zanikanja obstaja dejanska možnost, da so sankcije, sprejete v zvezi s pritožnikom v Skupnosti, nesorazmerne ali celo napačne, in bi lahko tako veljale nedoločen čas.
The Court has no way
Sodi�če nima
52 — The de-listing procedure has undergone several changes since the original adoption of the measures against the appellant.
52 – Postopek izbrisa je bil od sprejetja ukrepov zoper pritožnika večkrat spremenjen.
Under the initial regime, the person concerned could only submit requests for de-listing to their State of citizenship or of residence.
V skladu s prvotnim postopkom je zadevna oseba predlog za izbris lahko predložila le državi članici, katere državljan je oziroma v kateri prebiva.
Under the current procedure, petitioners seeking to submit a request for de-listing can do so either through a United Nations ‘focal point or through their State of residence or citizenship.
Na podlagi obstoječega postopka predlagatelji predlagajo izbris pri Združenih narodih z uporabo „informacijske točke“ ali pri državi članici, v kateri prebivajo oziroma katere državljani so.
However, the fundamentally intergovernmental nature of the de-listing process has not changed.
Vendar se temeljna medvladna narava postopka izbrisa ni spremenila.
See Security Council Resolution 1730(2006) of 19 December 2006 and the Sanction Committee’s Guidelines for the Conduct of its Work, available at http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.shtml.
Glej Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta 1730(2006) z dne 19. decembra 2006 in smernice sankcijskega odbora za ravnanje pri delu, dostopne na spletni strani http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.shtml.
53 — ECtHR, Klass and Others, cited in footnote 42, § 55.
53 – ESČP, Klass in drugi, navedena v opombi 42, točka 55.
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION of knowing whether that is the case in reality, but the mere existence of that possibility is anathema in a society that respects the rule of law.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI nobenih sredstev, da bi izvedelo, ali je to dejansko res, vendar sam obstoj te možnosti pomeni izključitev v družbi, ki spo�tuje pravno državo.
In those circumstances, it must be held that the right to judicial review by an independent tribunal has not been secured at the level of the United Nations.
Ob upo�tevanju teh okoli�čin je treba ugotoviti, da pravica do sodnega nadzora neodvisnega sodi�ča ni bila zagotovljena na ravni Združenih narodov.
As a consequence, the Community institutions cannot dispense with proper judicial review proceedings when implementing the Security Council resolutions in question within the Community legal order.
Institucije Skupnosti se zato ne morejo izogniti ustreznim postopkom sodnega nadzora, ko izvajajo sporne resolucije Varnostnega sveta v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
Had there been a genuine and effective mechanism of judicial control by an independent tribunal at the level of the United Nations, then this might have released the Community from the obligation to provide for judicial control of implementing measures that apply within the Community legal order.
Če bi obstajal resnični mehanizem učinkovitega sodnega nadzora neodvisnega sodi�ča v okviru Združenih narodov, potem bi lahko to Skupnost osvobodilo obveznosti zagotovitve sodnega nadzora izvedbenih ukrepov, ki se uporabljajo v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
However, no such mechanism currently exists.
Vendar tak mehanizem sedaj ne obstaja.
As the Commission and the Council themselves have stressed in their pleadings, the decision whether or not to remove a person from the United Nations sanctions list remains within the full
Kot sta Komisija in Svet sama poudarila v stali�čih, odločitev, ali se ime osebe izbri�e s seznama Združenih narodov, ostaja v popolni diskreciji Varnostnega
It follows that the appellant’s claim that the contested regulation infringes the right to be heard, the right to judicial review, and the right to property is well founded.
Iz tega sledi, da je pritožnikova trditev, da so z izpodbijano uredbo kr�ene pravica do zasli�anja, pravica do sodnega nadzora in lastninska pravica, utemeljena.
The Court should annul the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the appellant.
Sodi�če bi moralo izpodbijano uredbo, v delu, ki se nana�a nanj, razglasiti za nično.
Al Barakaat International Foundation (‘the appellant’) is established at Spånga (Sweden).
Al Barakaat International Foundation (v nadaljevanju: pritožnik) ima sedež v Spångi (Švedska).
On 12 November 2001, the appellant was included in the list in Annex I to Regulation No 467/2001 as an entity suspected of supporting terrorism.
Pritožnik je bil 12. novembra 2001 dodan na seznam v prilogi I k Uredbi �t.
2As a consequence, the appellant’s funds and other financial resources in the Community were to be frozen.
467/2001 kot subjekt, za katerega se sumi, da podpira terorizem. 2 Pritožnikova sredstva in drugi finančni viri v Skupnosti so bili zato zamrznjeni.
On 27 May 2002, that regulation was repealed and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 (‘the contested regulation’).
Ta uredba je bila spremenjena in nadome�čena 27. maja 2002 z Uredbo (ES) �t. 881/2002 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana uredba).
3However, the appellant continued to be listed — in Annex I to the contested regulation — as an entity suspected of supporting terrorism whose funds were to be frozen.
3Vendar je ime pritožnika ostalo �e naprej na seznamu – v prilogi I k izpodbijani uredbi – subjektov, za katere se sumi, da podpirajo terorizem in katerih sredstva je treba zamrzniti.
The appellant in the present proceedings has been designated by the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council as an entity suspected of supporting terrorism, of which the funds and other financial resources are to be frozen.
Sankcijski odbor Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov je pritožnika označil za subjekt, za katerega se sumi, da podpira terorizem in katerega sredstva in druge finančne vire je treba zamrzniti.
Before the Court of First Instance, the appellant challenged the lawfulness of the regulation by which the Council has implemented the freezing order in the Community.
Pritožnik je pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje izpodbijal zakonitost uredbe, s katero je Svet izvedel sklep o zamrznitvi v Skupnosti.
The appellant argued — unsuccessfully — that the Community lacked competence to adopt that regulation, that the regulation was adopted in contravention of Article 249 EC, and, moreover, that the regulation breached the appellant’s fundamental rights.
Pritožnik je neuspe�no zatrjeval, da Skupnost ni pristojna za sprejetje te uredbe, da je bil z uredbo kr�en člen 249 ES in da so bile poleg tega z uredbo kr�ene njegove temeljne pravice.
On what are essentially the same grounds, the appellant now asks the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnik na podlagi v bistvu enakih pritožbenih razlogov sedaj Sodi�ču predlaga, naj sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje razveljavi.
The Council and the Commission disagree with the appellant on all three counts.
Svet in Komisija pritožniku nasprotujeta glede vseh treh pritožbenih razlogov.