natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The proceedings stem from a dispute between the European Community and the United States regarding the Community regime governing the import of bananas established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas.
Vzrok zadeve je spor med Evropsko skupnostjo in Združenimi državami o skupnostni ureditvi uvoza banan, ki jo je uvedla Uredba Sveta (EGS) �t. 404/93 z dne 13. februarja 1993 o skupni ureditvi trga banan 4.
4In response to complaints lodged by several WTO members, including the United States, on 25 September 1997 the DSB found that that regime for trade with third countries was incompatible with the WTO agreements inasmuch as it included preferential provisions benefiting bananas from the ACP States, and recommended that the Community bring it into conformity with its obligations before the expiry of a reasonable period, set as ending on 1 January 1999.
Na podlagi tožb, ki so jih vložile �tevilne članice STO, med katerimi so bile tudi Združene države, je ORS 25. septembra 1997 ugotovil, da ta ureditev trgovine s tretjimi državami v delu, v katerem vključuje preferencialne določbe za banane, ki izvirajo iz držav AKP, ni združljiva s sporazumi STO, in predlagal Skupnosti, naj jih uskladi pred potekom razumnega roka, in sicer do 1. januarja 1999.
After negotiations with all the parties involved, the Community adopted amendments to the new common organisation of the market in bananas by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 of 29 January 2001 (OJ 2001 L 31, p. 2).
Po pogajanjih z vsemi zadevnimi strankami je Skupnost z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 216/2001 z dne 29. januarja 2001 sprejela spremembe nove skupne ureditve trga banan.
Then, on 11 April 2001, it concluded with the United States a memorandum of understanding identifying the means of resolving the dispute between them.
Nato je 11. aprila 2001 z Združenimi državami sklenila dogovor, ki opredeljuje posebna sredstva za re�evanje spora z njimi.
Against that background, by Regulation (EC) No 896/2001 of 7 May 2001 (OJ 2001 L 126, p.
S tem namenom je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti z Uredbo (ES) �t.
6), the Commission of the European Communities set out the detailed rules for applying the new Community regime for importing bananas that had been introduced by Regulation No 216/2001.
896/2001 z dne 7. maja 2001 določila podrobna pravila za izvedbo nove skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan, ki je bila uvedena z Uredbo �t. 216/2001.
The United States thereupon suspended application of the increased customs duty with effect from 30 June 2001.
Združene države so tedaj prenehale uporabljati dodatno carinsko dajatev z učinkom od 30. junija 2001.
For that purpose, the institutions amended the regime for trade in bananas with third countries with effect from 1 January 1999 by means of Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 of 20 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 210, p.
V ta namen so institucije z začetkom veljavnosti od 1. januarja 1999 spremenile ureditev trgovine z bananami s tretjimi državami z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t.
28), supplemented by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of 28 October 1998 (OJ 1998 L 293, p. 32).
1637/98 z dne 20. julija 1998, dopolnjeno z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t.
As it considered that this new regime for the import of bananas retained the unlawful features of the preceding regime, on 19 April
Ker so Združene države menile, da so v novi ureditvi uvoza banan ohranjeni nezakoniti elementi predhodne ureditve, so 19. aprila 1999 od ORS dobile dovoljenje, da
By applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 23 March 2000 and 18 June 2001 respectively, FIAMM and Fedon requested, on the basis of Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, compensation for the damage resulting from the increase in import duty levied on their products by the United States
Družbi FIAMM in FEDOM sta s tožbama, vloženima v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje 23. marca 2000 in 18. junija 2001, na podlagi členov 235 ES in 288, drugi odstavek, ES predlagali povračilo �kode, ki naj bi nastala zaradi povi�anja uvoznih dajatev, ki so jih od 19. aprila 1999 do 30. junija 2001 uvedli ameri�ki organi na njihove proizvode,
B — The contested judgments rely on those agreements when contesting the validity of Community legislation if the DSB has declared that both that legislation and the subsequent legislation adopted by the Community in order to comply with the WTO rules in question are incompatible with those rules’.
B – Izpodbijani sodbi veljavnost skupnostne ureditve, če je ORS odločil, da je tako ta ureditev kot tudi tista, ki jo je Skupnost sprejela naknadno zaradi uskladitve z zadevnimi pravili STO, z njimi nezdružljiva“.
5It pointed out in this regard that according to settled caselaw the WTO agreements are not in principle, given their nature and structure, among the rules in the light of which the Community courts review the legality of action by the Community institutions and deduced that in principle the Community cannot incur noncontractual liability by reason of any infringement of the WTO rules.
5V zvezi s tem je opozorilo na ustaljeno sodno prakso, v skladu s katero sporazumi STO načeloma – upo�tevaje njihovo naravo in sistematiko – ne spadajo med pravila, glede katerih sodi�če Skupnosti nadzira zakonitost ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, in iz tega je izpeljalo, da morebitna kr�itev pravil STO načeloma ne more povzročiti nastanka nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti.
The defendant institutions can be accused of unlawful conduct of this kind in only two exceptional cases.
Taka nezakonitost se lahko toženim institucijam izjemoma očita le v dveh primerih.
These were not applicable in the case in point, however: notwithstanding a finding of incompatibility made by the DSB, the WTO rules did not, either because of particular obligations which the Community intended to implement or because of an express reference to specific provisions of the WTO agreements, amount to rules of law by reference to which the legality of the institutions’ conduct could be assessed.
Vendar pa v tem primeru ni �lo za to: ne glede na to, da je ORS ugotovil nezdružljivost, pravila STO v obravnavanem primeru bodisi zaradi posebnih obveznosti, ki naj bi jih Skupnost sku�ala izvr�iti, bodisi zaradi izrecnega napotila na točno opredeljene določbe niso pomenila norm, glede katerih je bilo mogoče presojati zakonitost ravnanja institucij.
In support of their claims for damages, the applicants essentially argued that the Community institutions had acted unlawfully.
Tožeči stranki sta svoja od�kodninska zahtevka utemeljevali z nezakonitim ravnanjem organov Skupnosti.
They maintained that the failure of the Council of the European Union and the Commission to bring the Community regime for importing bananas into conformity with the Community’s obligations under the WTO agreements within the period of 15 months allowed by the DSB, when the DSB had found that regime to be incompatible with the WTO rules, constituted unlawful conduct such as to give rise to noncontractual liability of the Community.
Navajali sta, da dejstvo, da Svet Evropske unije in Komisija v obdobju petnajstih mesecev, ki ga je določil ORS, nista uskladila skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan z obveznostmi, ki jih ima Skupnost na podlagi sporazumov STO – ob tem da je ORS ugotovil nezdružljivost te ureditve s pravili STO – pomeni neza -konitost, ki lahko privede do nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti.
They stated that even if the WTO agreements were not to be considered to produce direct effects, a determination which would preclude proof of unlawful conduct, the DSB decision finding against the Community should be recognised as having such an effect.
Pojasnili sta, da čeprav sporazumi STO ne bi smeli �teti za take, ki ustvarjajo neposredni učinek, kar bi oviralo dokazovanje te nezakonitosti, pa naj bi to veljalo za sklepe ORS, s katerimi je bila Skupnost obsojena.
First, the Community did not intend to implement a specific obligation assumed in the context of the WTO 6in undertaking, after the adoption of the DSB decision of 25 September 1997, to comply with the WTO rules.
Na prvem mestu namreč Skupnost ni nameravala izpolniti določene obveznosti, ki jo je prevzela v okviru STO 6, pri čemer se je po sprejetju sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 zavezala, da bo spo�tovala pravila STO.
That is so, according to the Court of First Instance, because the dispute settlement understanding (the ‘DSU’) does
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje je tako zato, ker iz mehanizma za re�evanje sporov (v nadaljevanju: MRS) ne izhaja posebna
5 — The FIAMM judgment, paragraph 108, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 101.
5 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Fiamm (točka 108) in Fedon (točka 101).
In reply, the Court of First Instance observed at the outset that examination of the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions required prior resolution of the question whether the WTO rules could be invoked, in other words ‘whether the WTO agreements give rise, for persons subject to Community law, to the right to
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v odgovor opozorilo, da preizkus zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti predpostavlja, da je vnaprej re�eno vpra�anje možnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO, to pomeni „vpra�anje, ali sporazumi STO dajejo posameznikom v Skupnosti pravico, da se nanje sklicujejo v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION regime governing banana imports expressly mentions specific provisions of the WTO agreements, and can therefore not be regarded as making express reference to them and hence as conferring on individuals rights which they can invoke. 7
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI naslednjih sprememb ne vključuje izrecnega sklicevanja na natančno opredeljene določbe sporazumov STO in zato ni mogoče �teti, da nanje izrecno napotuje in da zato daje pravnim upravičencem pravico, da se nanjo sklicujejo. 7
The Court of First Instance concluded that the applicants were not entitled to argue, for the purposes of their claim for compensation, that the conduct of which the Council and the Commission were accused was contrary to WTO rules.
Sodi�če prve stopnje iz tega sklepa, da tožeči stranki v svojih od�kodninskih tožbah ne moreta zatrjevati, da je ravnanje, očitano Svetu in Komisiji, v nasprotju s pravili STO.
Since it could not be proved that their conduct was unlawful, one of the three cumulative conditions of noncontractual liability of the Community for unlawful conduct was not met.
Ker nezakonitost tega ravnanja ni izkazana, eden izmed treh pogojev za nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti za nezakonito ravnanje njenih organov ni izpolnjen.
not impose a specific obligation on the WTO member to comply with the DSB decision within a set period.
obveznost članice STO, da se v določenem roku uskladi s sklepom ORS.
By offering the WTO member involved several methods of implementing a decision of the DSB finding a measure incompatible with WTO rules, the DSU in any event accords considerable importance to negotiation between WTO members which are parties to a dispute, even after expiry of the period granted to bring the measure declared to be incompatible into conformity with the WTO rules.
MRS, s tem da vpleteni članici STO nudi več načinov za izvr�itev sklepa ORS, s katerim je ugotovljena nezdružljivost ukrepa s pravili STO, v vsakem primeru ohrani pomembnost pogajanj med članicami STO, strankami v sporu, tudi po izteku roka, določenega za uskladitev ukrepa, ki je razgla�en za nezdružljivega, s pravili STO.
It follows that review by the Community courts of the legality of the conduct of the defendant institutions by reference to WTO rules would have the effect of weakening the position of the Community’s legislative and executive organs in the search for a negotiated solution to the dispute; in addition, to require the Community courts to refrain from applying Community rules which are shown to be incompatible with the WTO agreements would deprive those organs of the possibility of a negotiated solution.
Iz tega sledi, da bi bila lahko posledica nadzora sodi�ča Skupnosti nad zakonitostjo ravnanja toženih institucij ob upo�tevanju pravil STO poslab�anje položaja zakonodajnih in izvr�ilnih organov Skupnosti pri iskanju re�itve spora, ki se jo doseže s pogajanji; poleg tega pa bi se tem organom, s tem da bi se jim naložilo, da ne uporabljajo pravil Skupnosti v primeru dokazane nasprotnosti, odvzelo možnost za re�itev, ki se jo doseže s pogajanji.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance noted that, in making successive amendments to the Community regime governing the import of bananas, the Council and the Commission did not in fact intend to implement a specific obligation arising from the WTO rules in the light of which the DSB had found that regime to be incompatible with those rules; they sought to reconcile the Community’s commitments both under the WTO and to the other signatories to the Fourth Lomé Convention, whilst also safeguarding the objectives of the common organisation of the market (COM) in bananas (‘the COM for bananas’).
Sicer pa, kot poudarja Sodi�če prve stopnje, z naslednjimi spremembami skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan Svet in Komisija v bistvu nista nameravala izpolniti določene obveznosti, ki izhaja iz pravil STO, ob upo�tevanju katerih je ORS ugotovil nezdružljivost te ureditve; sku�ala sta istočasno uskladiti spo�tovanje obveznosti, prevzetih v okviru STO, in obveznosti, prevzetih do drugih podpisnic Četrte konvencije iz Lomeja, vendar tudi ohraniti cilje skupne ureditve trga (SUT) v sektorju za banane (v nadaljevanju: SUT za banane).
Ultimately, it was a negotiated settlement with the United States that made it possible to end the dispute.
Končno je to re�itev, dosežena s pogajanji z Združenimi državami, ki je omogočila končanje spora.
In the alternative, the applicants claimed that the conditions for the incurring of noncontractual liability by the Community for damage caused by its institutions even in the absence of unlawful action by them were in any event met, namely the conditions requiring that actual damage has been suffered, that a causal link exists between that damage and the conduct of the institutions and that the damage is unusual and special in nature.
Podredno sta tožeči stranki navedli, da so pogoji za uveljavljanje nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti za �kodo, ki jo s svojim ravnanjem – čeprav ni nezakonito – povzročijo njeni organi, v vsakem primeru izpolnjeni, in sicer dejanski nastanek �kode, vzročna zveza med �kodo in ravnanjem institucij Skupnosti ter neobičajna in posebna narava �kode.
The Court of First Instance agreed that ‘[w]here … it has not been established that conduct attributed to the Community institutions is unlawful, that does not mean that undertakings which, as a category of economic operators, are required to bear a disproportionate part of the burden resulting from a restriction of access to export markets
Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da „kadar nezakonitost ravnanja, ki se ga […] pripisuje institucijama Skupnosti, ni ugotovljena, to ne pomeni, da podjetja – kot kategorija gospodarskih subjektov, ki nosi nesorazmerni del bremena, izhajajočega iz omejitve dostopa na izvozne trge – v nobenem primeru ne morejo dobiti nadomestila na podlagi nepogod-
7 — Within the meaning of Case 70/87 Fediol v Commission [1989] ECR 1781.
7 – V smislu sodne prakse zadeve Fediol proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 22. junija 1989 v zadevi 70/87, Recueil, str. 1781).
Secondly, none of the successive amendments to the Community legislation on the
Na drugem mestu zakonodaja Skupnosti o ureditvi uvoza banan v nobeni od
The conduct of the defendant institutions therefore necessarily led to adoption of the retaliatory measure by the United States authorities in compliance with the procedures established by the DSU and accepted by the Community, so that their conduct had to be regarded as the immediate cause of the damage suffered by the applicants following the increase in customs duty by the United States.
Iz tega sledi, da je ravnanje toženih institucij nujno pripeljalo do sprejetja povračilnega ukrepa ameri�ke uprave ob upo�tevanju postopkov, ki so določeni z MRS in ki jih je Skupnost sprejela. To ravnanje je torej treba �teti za odločilni vzrok za �kodo, ki sta jo utrpeli tožeči stranki zaradi uvedbe ameri�ke dodatne carinske dajatve.
can in no circumstances obtain compensation by virtue of the Community’s noncontractual liability’.
bene odgovornosti Skupnosti“.
8It also recognised that, as a general principle common to the laws of the Member States, the Community can incur noncontractual liability, even in the absence of unlawful action by its institutions, if the conditions indicated by the applicants are met, because ‘[n]ational laws on noncontractual liability allow individuals, albeit to varying degrees, in specific fields and in accordance with differing rules, to obtain compensation in legal proceedings for certain kinds of damage, even in the absence of unlawful action by the perpetrator of the damage’. 9
8Poleg tega priznava obstoj nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti kot skupnega splo�nega načela za pravice držav članic, kadar ni nezakonitosti ravnanja njenih organov, za katere nastanek morajo biti izpolnjeni pogoji, ki sta jih navedli tožeči stranki, saj, kot opaža, „nacionalne pravne ureditve nepogodbene odgovornosti posameznikom, čeprav v različnih obsegih, na posebnih področjih in na različne načine, dopu�čajo, da v sodnem postopku prejmejo od�kodnino za nekatere vrste �kode tudi takrat, kadar nezakonito ravnanje povzročitelja �kode ni podano“. 9
In verifying that these conditions were met in the case in point, the Court of First Instance held that it was proven that the damage alleged by the applicants was actual and certain.
Ob preučevanju izpolnjenosti pogojev v obravnavanem primeru je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je pogoj, ki se nana�a na resničnost in gotovost �kode, ki jo zatrjujeta tožeči stranki, izpolnjen.
It also found that there was a sufficiently direct causal link between the conduct of the Community institutions and the damage.
Poudarja tudi dovolj neposredno povezavo vzrokov in učinkov med ravnanjem institucij Skupnosti in �kodo.
It was admittedly true that the United States was simply authorised by the DSB to adopt retaliatory measures, and both the drawing-up of the list of products affected and the setting of the rate of increase in import duties were matters falling within its discretion.
Seveda je ORS Združenim državam dovolil le sprejetje povračilnih ukrepov, sestavitev seznama obdavčenih proizvodov in določitev stopnje povečanja uvoznih dajatev pa sta bili njihova diskrecijska izbira.
It was none the less the case that, were it not for the prior finding by the DSB that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with WTO rules, the United States would not have been able to seek or obtain such authorisation from the DSB.
Ostaja dejstvo, da če ORS ne bi predhodno ugotovil nezdružljivosti skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan s pravili STO, Združene države ne bi mogle niti zaprositi niti dobiti takega dovoljenja.
It was on the basis of the amount of damage suffered by the United States economy as a result of the continued operation of the Community
ORS je glede na znesek �kode, ki jo je ameri�ko gospodarstvo utrpelo zaradi ohranitve v veljavi skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan, za katero je bilo razsojeno, da je nezdružljiva s pravili STO, določil vrednost trgovinske menjave, do katere je bilo ameri�ki
9 — The FIAMM judgment, paragraph 159, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 152.
8 – Sodbi Fiamm (točka 157) in Fedon (točka 150).9 – Sodbi Fiamm (točka 159) in Fedon (točka 152).
It remained for the applicants to prove that the damage they had suffered was unusual and special.
Tožeči stranki sta torej morali dokazati �e neobičajno in posebno naravo utrpljene �kode.
First, they claimed in this regard to be victims of discrimination vis-à-vis other European exporters whose products did not appear on the list drawn up by the United States authorities and even, in the case of FIAMM, of discrimination in relation to the other undertakings penalised by the increased customs duty, since it bore, by itself, 6% of the total sum of the retaliatory measures.
V ta namen sta zatrjevali, da sta bili žrtvi diskriminacije glede na druga evropska izvozna podjetja, katerih proizvodi niso bili na seznamu ameri�kih organov, družba FIAMM naj bi bila diskriminirana celo glede na druga podjetja, ki jim je bila naložena dodatna carinska dajatev, saj je sama nosila 6 % celotnega zneska povračilnih ukrepov.
Nor could the interest in retaining the rules of the COM for bananas be considered to be an objective of public interest whose importance would justify such adverse consequences.
Interesa ohranitve pravil SUT za banane ni mogoče �teti za cilj splo�nega interesa, katerega pomembnost upravičuje take negativne posledice.
Lastly, they added that the possibility of increased rates of duty introduced by nonmember States as a result of a dispute that has arisen in an entirely different sector to the one in which they operate cannot be regarded as a normal risk for an undertaking.
Na koncu sta dodali, da morebitne dodatne dajatve, ki jih tretje države uvajajo zaradi spora, ki je nastal na področju, ki je popolnoma drugačno od njunega področja dejavnosti, ne morejo �teti za običajno tveganje za gospodarski subjekt.
However, the Court of First Instance refused to acknowledge that the damage suffered by the applicants was unusual since it did not exceed the limits of the economic risks inherent in their export operations.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo priznanje neobičajne narave �kode, ki sta jo utrpeli tožeči stranki, ker ni presegla meja gospodarskega tveganja, ki so značilne za njuno izvozno dejavnost.
The suspension of tariff concessions, which is a measure provided for by the WTO agreements, cannot be regarded as
Prekinitev tarifnih koncesij, ki je ukrep, predviden s sporazumi STO, namreč ne presega običajnega tveganja v mednarodni trgovini ob sedanjem stanju njene ureditve.
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI ga je mogoče uporabiti v primeru diskriminatornega neizvr�evanja zakonodajne pristojnosti, in priznalo neposredno vzročno zvezo med ravnanjem institucij in �kodo.
beyond the normal hazards of international trade as currently organised.
se odločijo tržiti svoje proizvode na trgu ene izmed članic STO.
Hence, any right to compensation based on no-fault liability in the absence of unlawful conduct had to be ruled out in the case in point.
Vsakr�no pravico do od�kodnine zaradi objektivne odgovornosti je zato treba v obravnavanem primeru izključiti.
In examining whether these various pleas in law are well founded, I shall first investigate whether and on what conditions a DSB decision finding Community legislation to be incompatible with WTO law may be relied upon in an action seeking to establish noncontractual liability of the Community based on the unlawful conduct of its institutions.
Preizkus utemeljenosti teh različnih pritožbenih razlogov me bo najprej pripeljal do preučitve, ali in pod katerimi pogoji se je mogoče sklicevati na sklep ORS, s katerim je ugotovljena nezdružljivost ureditve Skupnosti s pravom STO, v okviru tožbe zaradi nepogodbene obveznosti Skupnosti, ki temelji na nezakonitosti ravnanja njenih institucij.
I shall then consider the principle of, and conditions for, no-fault liability on the part of the Community.
Nato me bo napeljal na preučitev načela in pogojev za objektivno odgovornost Skupnosti.
Finally, I shall assess whether the length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance was reasonable.
Na zadnje pa me bo privedel do presoje razumnosti trajanja zadevnega postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
A — Entitlement to rely on a DSB decision in support of an action to establish non­contractual Community liability for fault
A – Nemožnost sklicevanja na sklep ORS v utemeljitev tožbe zaradi nepogodbene krivdne odgovornosti Skupnosti
It is against these two decisions, the FIAMM judgment and the Fedon judgment delivered on 14 December 2005, that FIAMM and Fedon respectively have appealed to the Court of Justice.
Družbi FIAM in FEDON sta pri Sodi�ču vložili pritožbo zoper sodbi Fiamm in Fedon, izdani 14. decembra 2005.