natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It follows that the present appeal turns fundamentally on the following question: is there any basis in the Treaty for holding that the contested regulation is exempt from the constitutional constraints normally imposed by Community law, since it implements a sanctions regime imposed by Security Council resolutions?
Iz tega izhaja, da je obravnavana pritožba v bistvu povezana z naslednjim vpra�anjem: ali v Pogodbi obstaja podlaga za to, da bi lahko sklepali, da je izpodbijana uredba izvzeta iz ustavnih omejitev, ki so običajno določene v pravu Skupnosti, ker se z njo izvaja ureditev sankcij, ki jo nalagajo resolucije Varnostnega sveta?
Or, to put it differently: does the Community legal order accord supra-constitutional status to measures that are necessary for the implementation of resolutions adopted by the Security Council?
Oziroma z drugimi besedami: ali pravni red Skupnosti daje ukrepom, potrebnim za izvr�itev resolucij Varnostnega sveta, nadustavni pomen?
Nevertheless, the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom claim that the judgment in Bosphorus does not provide the authority the appellant seeks to ascribe to it.
Vendar so Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo trdili, da na podlagi sodbe Bosphorus ni mogoče sklepati na pristojnost, ki jo želi Sodi�ču pripisati pritožnik.
They argue that the judgment is silent on the matter of the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction, because, at any rate, the regulation did not infringe fundamental rights.
Zatrjujejo, da v sodbi področje pristojnosti Sodi�ča ni določeno, ker z Uredbo nikakor niso bile kr�ene temeljne pravice.
I do not consider this argument very persuasive.
Menim, da ta trditev ni prepričljiva.
True, while the Advocate General dismissed the idea in passing, the Court did not explicitly address whether the fact that the
Res je, da je generalni pravobranilec idejo ovrgel, Sodi�če pa ni izrecno odločilo, ali zaradi dejstva, da se z uredbo izvaja resolucija Varnostnega sveta, nima pristojnosti sodnega nadzora. Vendar menim,
The appellant argues that the answer to that question can be inferred from the ruling
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da je na to vpra�anje mogoče odgovoriti na podlagi sodbe
26 — Cited in footnote 16.27 — Bosphorus, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 26.
26 – Navedena v opombi 16.27 – Sodba Bosphorus, navedena v opombi 16, točka 26.
28 — The impounding of the aircraft of Bosphorus Airways took place in accordance with Security Council Resolution 820(1993).
28 – Zaseg zrakoplovov Bosphorus Airways je bil izveden v skladu z Resolucijo Varnostnega sveta 820(1993).
The UN Sanctions Committee had decided that a failure on the part of the authorities to impound the aircraft would amount to a breach of the resolution.
Sankcijski odbor ZN je odločil, da naj bi bila, ker organi niso zasegli zrakoplovov, Resolucija kr�ena.
25 — See, for instance, Opinion 2/94, cited in footnote 22, paragraphs 30, 34 and 35.
25 – Glej npr. Mnenje 2/94, navedeno v opombi 22, točke 30, 34 in 35.
None the less, I would suppose that, instead of deliberately leaving the matter undecided, the Court accepted as self-evident what the Advocate General had felt useful to spell out, namely that ‘respect for fundamental rights is … a condition of the lawfulness of Community acts’. 29
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI da je Sodi�če – namesto da o vpra�anju ne bi odločilo – to, kar je generalni pravobranilec ocenil za koristno, sprejelo za očitno, in sicer, da je „spo�tovanje temeljnih pravic […] pogoj za zakonitost aktov Skupnosti“.
Article 307 EC.
29 člena 307 ES.
The first paragraph of that article provides: ‘The rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 or, for acceding States, before the date of their accession, between one or more Member States on the one hand, and one or more third countries on the other, shall not be affected by the provisions of this Treaty.’
Prvi odstavek tega člena določa: „[d]oločbe te pogodbe ne vplivajo na pravice in obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz sporazumov med eno ali več državami članicami na eni strani ter eno ali več tretjimi državami na drugi strani, sklenjenih pred 1. januarjem 1958 ali za države, ki pristopajo, pred datumom njihovega pristopa“.
In the view of the United Kingdom, that provision, read in conjunction with Article 10 EC, would impose on the Community an obligation not to impair Member State compliance with Security Council resolutions.
Združeno kraljestvo meni, da naj bi ta določba skupaj s členom 10 ES Skupnosti nalagala obveznost, da ne sme ogrožati spo�tovanja resolucij Varnostnega sveta s strani držav članic.
In consequence, the Court should abstain from judicial review of the contested regulation.
Zato naj Sodi�če ne bi izvajalo sodnega nadzora izpodbijane uredbe.
I shall state at the outset that I am not convinced by that argument, but it is nevertheless worth looking into the matter in some detail, particularly since Article 307 EC figured prominently in the reasoning of the Court of First Instance. 30
Na začetku moram navesti, da se mi ta trditev ne zdi prepričljiva, vendar jo je koristno bolj podrobno preučiti zlasti zato, ker je bil člen 307 ES vidno naveden v razlogovanju Sodi�ča prve stopnje. 30
In any event, even if one were to accept the suggestion that the Court sidestepped the problem of its jurisdiction in Bosphorus, the fact remains that the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom fail to identify any basis in the Treaty from which it could logically follow that measures taken for the implementation of Security Council resolutions have supra-constitutional status and are hence accorded immunity from judicial review.
V vsakem primeru, čeprav bi bilo mogoče sprejeti predlog, da je Sodi�če v sodbi Bosphorus ob�lo problem pristojnosti, ostaja dejstvo, da Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo niso opredelili nobene podlage v Pogodbi, iz katere bi lahko logično izhajalo, da imajo ukrepi, sprejeti za izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta, nadustavni položaj in so zato upravičeni do imunitete pred izvajanjem sodnega nadzora.
The United Kingdom suggests that such immunity from review can be derived from
Združeno kraljestvo zatrjuje, da lahko taka imuniteta pred nadzorom izhaja iz
At first sight, it may not be entirely clear how Member States would be prevented from fulfilling their obligations under the United Nations Charter if the Court were to annul the contested regulation.
Na prvi pogled morda ni povsem jasno, kako bi bilo mogoče državam članicam preprečiti, da izpolnijo svoje obveznosti na podlagi Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, če bi Sodi�če izpodbijano uredbo razglasilo za nično.
Indeed, in the absence of a Community measure, it would in principle be open to the Member States to take their own implementing measures, since they are allowed, under the Treaty, to adopt measures which, though affecting the functioning of the common market, may be necessary for the maintenance of inter-
Države članice lahko namreč, kadar ukrep Skupnosti ne obstaja, sprejmejo svoje izvedbene ukrepe, ker lahko v skladu s Pogodbo sprejemajo akte, ki so, čeprav vplivajo na delovanje skupnega trga, nujni za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in
29 — Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Bosphorus, cited in footnote 16, paragraph 53.
29 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi Bosphorus, navedeni v opombi 16, točka 53.
See also paragraph 34 of Opinion 2/94, cited in footnote 22.
Glej tudi točko 34 Mnenja 2/94, navedenega v opombi 22.
30 — Paragraphs 185 to 191 and 196 of the judgment under appeal.
30 – Točke od 185 do 191 ter 196 izpodbijane sodbe.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-402/05 P
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-402/05 P varnosti.
the powers retained by the Member States in the field of security policy must be exercised in a manner consistent with Community law.
31Vendar morajo države članice svoje pristojnosti na področju varno- stne politike izvajati ob spo�tovanju prava Skupnosti.
32 In the light of the Court’s ruling in ERT, 33 it may be assumed that, to the extent that their actions come within the scope of Community law, Member States are subject to the same Community rules for the protection of fundamental rights as the Community institutions themselves.
32Z vidika sodbe ERT, 33ki jo je sprejelo Sodi�če, je mogoče sklepati, da za države članice, če njihovo delovanje spada na področje prava Skupnosti, veljajo enaka pravila za varstvo temeljnih pravic, kot veljajo za same institucije Skupnosti.
On that assumption, if the Court were to annul the contested regulation on the ground that it infringed Community rules for the protection of fundamental rights, then, by implication, Member States could not possibly adopt the same measures without — in so far as those measures came within the scope of Community law — acting in breach of fundamental rights as protected by the Court.
Ob tej predpostavki, če bi Sodi�če izpodbijano uredbo razglasilo za nično, ker se z njo kr�ijo pravila Skupnosti za varstvo temeljnih pravic, bi to pomenilo, da države članice ne bi mogle sprejeti enakih ukrepov, ne da bi – če bi ti ukrepi spadali na področje prava Skup -nosti – delovale v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravicami, kot jih varuje Sodi�če.
Thus, the argument based on Article 307 EC is of indirect relevance only.
Trditev v zvezi s členom 307 ES se zato upo�teva le posredno.
for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law’.
svobo�čin ter pravne države“.
I see no basis for such an interpretation of Article 307 EC.
Za tako razlago člena 307 ES ne najdem podlage.
Moreover, it would be irreconcilable with Article 49 EU, which renders accession to the Union conditional on respect for the principles set out in Article 6(1) EU.
Še več, bila bi nezdružljiva s členom 49 EU, ki pristop k Uniji pogojuje s spo�tovanjem načel, določenih v členu 6(1) EU.
Furthermore, it would potentially enable national authorities to use the Community to circumvent fundamental rights which are guaranteed in their national legal orders even in respect of acts implementing international obligations.
Poleg tega bi to lahko nacionalnim organom omogočilo, da bi uporabili Skupnost, da bi ob�li temeljne pravice, ki so zagotovljene v njihovih nacionalnih pravnih redih, tudi za akte za prenos mednarodnih obveznosti.
34This would plainly run counter to firmly established caselaw of this Court, according to which the Community guarantees a complete system of judicial protection in which fundamental rights are safeguarded in consonance with the constitutional traditions of the Member States.
34 To bi bilo popolnoma v nasprotju z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, v skladu s katero Skupnost zagotavlja popoln sistem sodnega varstva, v katerem se temeljne pravice varujejo v skladu z ustavnimi tradicijami držav članic.
As the Court stated in Les Verts, ‘the European Community is a community based on the rule of law inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid a review of the question whether the measures adopted by them are in conformity with the basic
Kot je Sodi�če odločilo v sodbi Les Verts, je „Evropska skupnost pravna skupnost, ker se njene države članice in njene institucije ne morejo izmakniti nadzoru skladnosti njihovih aktov z ustavno listino,
The crucial problem with the argument raised by the United Kingdom, however, is that it presents Article 307 EC as the source of a possible derogation from Article 6(1) EU, according to which ‘the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect
Vendar je odločilni problem trditve Združenega kraljestva, da člen 307 ES predstavlja kot vir mogočega odstopanja od člena 6(1) EU, v skladu s katerim „Unija temelji na načelih svobode, demokracije, spo�tovanja človekovih pravic in temeljnih
31 — Articles 297 EC and 60(2) EC.
31 – Člena 297 ES in 60(2) ES.
See also: Case C-70/94 Werner [1995] ECR I-3189; Case C-83/94 Leifer and Others [1995] ECR I-3231; and the Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-120/94 Commission v Greece [1996] ECR I-1513.
Glej tudi sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 17. oktobra 1995 v zadevi Werner (C-70/94, Recueil, str. I-3189) in z dne 17. oktobra 1995 v zadevi Leifer in drugi (C-83/94, Recueil, str.
32 — Case C-124/95 Centro­Com [1997] ECR I-81, paragraph 25.
32 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 14. januarja 1997 v zadevi Centro-Com (C-124/95, Recueil, str. I-81, točka 25).
34 — In certain legal systems, it seems very unlikely that national measures for the implementation of Security Council resolutions would enjoy immunity from judicial review (which incidentally shows that a decision by this Court to exclude measures such as the contested regulation from judicial review might create difficulties for the reception of Community law in some national legal orders).
34 – V določenih pravnih sistemih se zdi zelo malo verjetno, da bi imeli nacionalni ukrepi za izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta imuniteto pred sodnim nadzorom (kar naključno kaže na to, da bi lahko odločitev Sodi�ča, da izvzame ukrepe, kot je izpodbijana uredba, iz sodnega nadzora, povzročila težave za sprejetje prava Skupnosti v nekaterih nacionalnih pravnih redih).
See, for instance, the following sources. Germany: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Order of 14 October 2004 (Görgülü) 2 BvR 1481/04, reported in NJW 2004, p. 3407-3412. The Czech Republic: Ústavní soud, 15 April 2003 (I. ÚS 752/02); Ústavní soud, 21 February 2007 (I. ÚS 604/04). Italy: Corte Costituzionale, 19 March 2001, No 73.
Glej npr. vire v nadaljevanju. Nemčija: Bundesverfassungsgericht, Sklep z dne 14. oktobra 2004 (Görgülü) 2 BvR 1481/04, objavljen v NJW 2004, str. 3407-3412. Če�ka republika: Ústavní soud, 15. april 2003 (I. ÚS 752/02); Ústavní soud, 21. februar 2007 (I. ÚS 604/04). Italija: Corte Costituzionale, 19. marec 2001, �t. 73.
Hungary: 4/1997 (I. 22.) AB határozat. Poland: Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (zbiór urzędowy), 27 April 2005, P 1/05, pkt 5.5, Seria A, 2005 Nr 4, poz. 42; and Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (zbiór urzędowy), 2 July 2007, K 41/05, Seria A, 2007 Nr 7, poz. 72.
Madžarska: 4/1997 (I. 22.) AB határozat. Poljska: Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (zbiór urzędowy), 27. april 2005, P 1/05, pkt 5.5, Seria A, 2005 �t. 4, poz. 42; in Orzecznictwo Trybunału Konstytucyjnego (zbiór urzędowy), 2. julij 2007, K 41/05, Seria A, 2007 �t. 7, poz. 72.
33 — Case C-260/89 [1991] ECR I-2925.
33 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 18. junija 1991 v zadevi Elliniki Radiophonia Tiléorassi AE in drugi (C-260/89, Recueil, str. I-2925).
35More straightforwardly, in Schmidberger, the Court reaffirmed that ‘measures which are incompatible with the observance of human rights … are not acceptable in the Community’.
38Države članice, kot članice v sodbi Schmidberger potrdilo, da „ukrepi, ki niso združljivi s spo�tovanjem človekovih pravic […] v Skupnosti niso sprejemljivi“. 36
36In short, the United Kingdom’s reading of Article 307 EC would break away from the very principles on which the Union is founded, while there is nothing in the Treaty to suggest that Article 307 EC has a special status — let alone a special status of that magnitude — in the constitutional framework of the Community.
Skratka, z razlago člena 307 ES, ki jo je podalo Združeno kraljestvo, bi bila kr�ena načela, na katerih Unija temelji, s tem da nikjer v Pogodbi ni predlagano, naj ima člen 307 ES poseben položaj – niti ni določen obseg tega posebnega položaja – v ustavnem okviru Skupnosti.
38As Members of the United Nations, the Member States, and particularly — in the context of the present case — those belonging to the Security Council, have to act in such a way as to prevent, as far as possible, the adoption of decisions by organs of the United Nations that are liable to enter into conflict with the core principles of the Community legal order.
Združenih narodov, in zlasti – v smislu obravnavane zadeve – tiste, ki so članice Varnostnega sveta, morajo delovati tako, da kolikor je le mogoče preprečijo, da bi organi Združenih narodov sprejeli sklepe, ki bi bili lahko v nasprotju s temeljnimi cilji pravnega reda Skupnosti.
The Member States themselves, therefore, carry a responsibility to minimise the risk of conflicts between the Community legal order and international law.
Države članice zato same nosijo odgovornost, da kar najbolj zmanj�ajo tveganje neskladij med pravnim redom Skupnosti in mednarodnim pravom.
Besides, the obligations under Article 307 EC and the related duty of loyal cooperation flow in both directions: they apply to the Community as well as to the Member States.
Poleg tega obveznosti na podlagi člena 307 ES in z njimi povezana dolžnost lojalnega sodelovanja obstajajo za obe kategoriji: uporabljajo se za Skupnost in za države članice.
37 The second paragraph of Article 307 EC provides that ‘the Member State or States concerned shall take all appropriate steps to eliminate … incompatibilities’ between their prior treaty obligations and their obligations under Community law.
37 Drugi odstavek člena 307 ES določa, da „država članica ali države članice, ki jih to zadeva, ustrezno ukrepajo, da bi odpravile […] nezdružljivost“.
To this end, Member States shall ‘assist each other … and shall, where appropriate adopt a common attitude’.
V ta namen si države članice „pomagajo, in kadar je primerno, sprejmejo skupno stali�če“.
If Article 307 EC cannot render the contested regulation exempt from judicial review, are there perhaps any other rules of Community law that can?
Če izpodbijana uredba ne more biti izvzeta iz sodnega nadzora na podlagi člena 307 ES, ali je lahko na podlagi drugih pravil prava Skupnosti?
The Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom argue that, as a matter of general principle, it is not for the Court to cast doubt on Community measures that implement resolutions which the Security Council has considered necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo zatrjujejo, na splo�no, da ni v pristojnosti Sodi�ča, da izrazi dvom o ukrepih Skupnosti za izvedbo resolucij, ki jih je Varnostni svet �tel kot nujne za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti.
In this connection, the
Komisija v zvezi s tem navaja pojem „političnih
35 — Les Verts, cited in footnote 18, paragraph 23.
35 – Sodba Les Verts, navedena zgoraj v opombi 18, točka 23.
36 — Case C-112/00 paragraph 73.
I-935, točka 59).
37 — For a recent example of a case concerning the obligations of Member States under Article 307 EC, see Case C-203/03 Commission v Austria [2005] ECR I-935, paragraph 59.
38 – Glej, podobno, v zvezi z zahtevo enotnosti zastopa - nja Skupnosti na mednarodni ravni, Mnenje 1/94 z dne 15. novembra 1994 (Recueil, str.
38 — See, in a similar vein, on the requirement of unity in the international representation of the Community, Opinion 1/94 [1994] ECR I-5267, paragraphs 106 to 109, and Commission v Council, cited in footnote 23, paragraphs 40 to 51.
I-5267, točke od 106 do 109) in sodbo Komisija proti Svetu, navedeno zgoraj v opombi 23, točke od 40 do 51.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — CASE C-402/05 P
POIARESA MADURA – ZADEVA C-402/05 P vpra�anj“.
Commission evokes the notion of ‘political questions’.
39Skratka, trditi je mogoče, da Komisija, Svet in Združeno kraljestvo zatrjujejo, da posebni sporni predmet obravnavane zadeve ni primeren za sodni nadzor.
39In brief, one could say that the
Zatrjujejo, da je Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice (v nadaljevanju: ESČP) podobnega mnenja.
Commission, the Council and the United Kingdom contend that the specific subjectmatter at issue in the present case does not lend itself to judicial review. They claim that the European Court of Human Rights takes a similar position.
Kot je sodnik Murphy pravilno navedel v ločenem mnenju v sodbi Korematsu, ki jo je sprejelo United States Supreme Court: „[ta] trditev mora biti, tako kot druge trditve v neskladju z zatrjevanimi ustavnimi pravicami posameznika, predložena v sodni postopek, v katerem se opredeli njen smisel in uskladi njeno neskladje z drugimi interesi.
and with the protection of which the courts are entrusted.
Vpra�anji, kje so dopustne meje [diskrecije], in ali so bile te v določenem primeru prekoračene, sta sodni vpra�anji“. 40
The implication that the present case concerns a ‘political question’, in respect of which even the most humble degree of judicial interference would be inappropriate, is, in my view, untenable.
Menim, da namigovanje, da se obravnavana zadeva nana�a na „politično vpra�anje“, v zvezi s katerim bi bila tudi najmanj�a stopnja sodnega posega neprimerna, ni dokazano.
The claim that a measure is necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security cannot operate so as to silence the general principles of Community law and deprive individuals of their fundamental rights.
Trditev, da je ukrep nujen za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti, ne more izničiti splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti in posameznikom odvzeti njihovih temeljnih pravic.
This does not detract from the importance of the interest in maintaining international peace and security; it simply means that it remains the duty of the courts to assess the lawfulness of measures that may conflict with other interests that are equally of great importance
To ne zmanj�a pomena interesa ohraniti mednarodni mir in varnost, pomeni le, da ostaja dolžnost sodi�č, da ocenijo zakonitost ukrepov, ki bi lahko bili nezdružljivi z drugimi interesi, ki so prav tako velikega pomena in ki jih morajo sodi�ča varovati.
Certainly, extraordinary circumstances may justify restrictions on individual freedom that would be unacceptable under normal conditions.
Gotovo je, da izredne okoli�čine lahko utemeljijo omejitve osebnih svobo�čin, ki bi bile v običajnih razmerah nesprejemljive.
However, that should not induce us to say that ‘there are cases in which a veil should be drawn for a while over liberty, as it was customary to cover the statues of the gods’.
Vendar zaradi tega ne moremo navesti, da „obstajajo primeri, v katerih je treba za določen čas prekriti svobodo, kot je bil običaj prekriti kipe bogov“.
41 Nor does it mean, as the United Kingdom submits, that judicial review in those cases should be only ‘of the most marginal kind’.
41Niti ne pomeni, kot trdi Združeno kraljestvo, da bi moral biti sodni nadzor v teh primerih „zgolj obroben“.
On the contrary, when the risks to public security are believed to be
Nasprotno, kadar se zdi tveganje za javno varnost izjemno veliko, je pritisk, da se sprejmejo ukrepi, s katerimi se ne spo�tujejo osebne pravice, zlasti v primeru
40 — United States Supreme Court, Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 233-234 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting) (internal quotation marks omitted).
40 – United States Supreme Court, Korematsu proti Združenim državam, 323 U.S. 214, 233-234 (1944) (Murphy, J., ločeno mnenje) (notranji narekovaji so izpu�čeni).
The precise meaning of this notion within the Community context is far from clear.
Podrobna opredelitev tega pojma v Skupnosti nikakor ni jasna.
The Commission did not dwell upon the argument, which it raised at the hearing, but the suggestion appears to be that the Court should abstain from exercising judicial review, since there are no judicial criteria by which the matters presently under consideration may be measured.
Komisija trditve, ki jo je podala na obravnavi, ni raz�irila, vendar naj bi bilo predlagano, naj se Sodi�če vzdrži izvajanja sodnega nadzora, ker ni pravnih meril, v skladu s katerimi bi bilo mogoče presoditi sporna vpra�anja.
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION its own jurisdiction in that way.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI omejilo na tak način.
42 Moreover, even if it were to do so, I do not think that extraordinarily high, the pressure is particularly strong to take measures that disregard individual rights, especially in respect of individuals who have little or no access to the political process.
posameznikov, katerih dostop do političnega procesa odločanja je majhen ali ga ni, posebej močan.
Therefore, in those instances, the courts should fulfil their duty to uphold the rule of law with increased vigilance.
Tako bi morala v teh okoli�činah sodi�ča izpolniti dolžnost spo�tovanja pravne države s posebno pazljivostjo.