natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nor can an immunity from jurisdiction for the contested regulation with regard to the review of its compatibility with fundamental rights, arising from the alleged absolute primacy of the resolutions of the Security Council to which that measure is designed to give effect, find any basis in the place that obligations under the Charter of the United Nations would occupy in the hierarchy of norms within the Community legal order if those obligations were to be classified in that hierarchy.
Sodna imuniteta izpodbijane uredbe, kar zadeva nadzor njene združljivosti s temeljnimi pravicami, ki bi izvirala iz domnevne absolutne primarnosti resolucij Varnostnega sveta Združenih narodov, ki jih ta uredba namerava izvajati, se tudi ne more utemeljiti z mestom, ki bi ga v hierarhiji norm znotraj pravnega reda Skupnosti zasedale obveznosti – ki izhajajo iz Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov – če bi bile razvr�čene v to hierarhijo.
Article 300(7) EC provides that agreements concluded under the conditions set out in that article are to be binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States.
Na podlagi člena 300(7) ES so namreč sporazumi, sklenjeni v skladu s pogoji iz tega člena, za institucije in države članice zavezujoči.
Thus, by virtue of that provision, supposing it to be applicable to the Charter of the United Nations, the latter would have primacy over acts of secondary Community law (see, to that effect, Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others [2008] ECR I-4057, paragraph 42 and caselaw cited).
Zato na podlagi te določbe, če bi se uporabila za Ustanovno listino Združenih narodov, bi slednja imela prednost pred akti sekundarne zakonodaje (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 3. junija 2008 v zadevi Intertanko in drugi, C-308/06, ZOdl., str. I-4057, točka 42 in navedena sodna praksa).
That interpretation is supported by Article 300(6) EC, which provides that an international agreement may not enter into force if the Court has delivered an adverse opinion on its compatibility with the EC Treaty, unless the latter has previously been amended.
Ta razlaga je potrjena s členom 300(6) ES, v skladu s katerim mednarodni sporazum ne more začeti veljati, če je Sodi�če podalo odklonilno mnenje glede njegove združljivosti s Pogodbo ES, razen če leta ni bila predhodno spremenjena.
It has however been maintained before the Court, in particular at the hearing, that the Community judicature ought, like the European Court of Human Rights, which in several recent decisions has declined jurisdiction to review the compatibility of certain measures taken in the implementing of resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from reviewing the lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental freedoms, because that regulation is also intended to give effect to such resolutions.
Vendar pa je bilo pred Sodi�čem poudarjeno, zlasti med obravnavo, da bi se morala sodi�ča Skupnosti – po zgledu Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice, ki se je v več nedavnih odločbah opredelilo za nepristojno za nadzor skladnosti določenih aktov, ki so bili sprejeti v okviru izvajanja resolucij Varnostnega sveta, sprejetih na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov – vzdržati nadzora zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe z vidika temeljnih pravic, ker je namen te uredbe prav tako izvajanje teh resolucij.
In this respect, it is to be found that, as the European Court of Human Rights itself has noted, there exists a fundamental difference between the nature of the measures concerned by those decisions, with regard to which that court declined jurisdiction to carry out a review of consistency with the ECHR, and the nature of other measures with regard to which its jurisdiction would seem to be unquestionable (see Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway of 2 May 2007, not yet published in the Reports of Judgments and Decisions, §151).
V tej zvezi je treba ugotoviti, kot je poleg tega navedlo Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice, da obstaja temeljna razlika med akti, na katere se nana�ajo te odločbe in glede katerih se je to sodi�če izreklo za nepristojno za izvajanje nadzora njihove skladnosti z EKČP, ter drugimi akti, za katere njegova pristojnost ni izpodbitna (glej odločbo Behrami in Behrami proti Franciji ter Saramati proti Franciji, Nemčiji in Norve�ki z dne 2. maja 2007, �e neobjavljeno v Recueil des arrêts et décisions, točka 151).
While, in certain cases before it the European Court of Human Rights has declined jurisdiction ratione personae, those cases involved actions directly attributable to the United Nations as an organisation of universal jurisdiction fulfilling its imperative collective security objective, in particular actions of a subsidiary organ of the UN
Tako se je Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice v določenih zadevah, v katerih je odločalo, izreklo za nepristojno ratione personae, te zadeve pa so se nana�ale na ukrepe, ki se neposredno pripisujejo OZN kot organizaciji s poslanstvom v svetovnem merilu, ki uresničuje nujni cilj kolektivne varnosti – zlasti ukrepe pomožnega organa
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION created under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations or actions falling within the exercise of powers lawfully delegated by the Security Council pursuant to that chapter, and not actions ascribable to the respondent States before that court, those actions not, moreover, having taken place in the territory of those States and not resulting from any decision of the authorities of those States.
OZN, ustanovljenega v okviru VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, oziroma ukrepe v okviru izvajanja pristojnosti, ki jih je Varnostni svet na podlagi tega poglavja veljavno prenesel –, in ne na ukrepe, ki se pripisujejo državam, toženim pred navedenim sodi�čem, ker se ukrepi niso izvr�ili na ozemlju teh držav in niso izhajali iz odločitve njihovih organov.
By contrast, in paragraph 151 of Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway, the European Court of Human Rights stated that in the case leading to its judgment in Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, concerning a seizure measure carried out by the authorities of the respondent State on its territory following a decision by one of its ministers, it had recognised its competence, notably ratione personae, vis-à-vis the respondent State, despite the fact that the source of the contested measure was a Community regulation taken, in its turn, pursuant to a resolution of the Security Council.
Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice pa je nasprotno v točki 151 zgoraj navedene odločbe Behrami in Behrami proti Franciji ter Saramati proti Franciji, Nemčiji in Norve�ki navedlo, da je v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 30. junija 2005, Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) proti Irski (Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2005-VI), ki se nana�a na zaseg, ki so ga opravili organi tožene države na njenem nacionalnem ozemlju po sprejetju odločitve ministra te države, glede na toženo državo pripoznalo svojo pristojnost, zlasti ratione personae, čeprav je bil zadevni ukrep sprejet na podlagi uredbe Skupnosti, ki je bila sprejeta zaradi resolucije Varnostnega sveta.
In the instant case it must be declared that the contested regulation cannot be considered to be an act directly attributable to the United Nations as an action of one of its subsidiary organs created under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations or an action falling within the exercise of powers lawfully delegated by the Security Council pursuant to that chapter.
V tem primeru je treba ugotoviti, da se izpodbijane uredbe ne more �teti za akt, ki se ga neposredno pripisuje OZN, kot ukrep enega od njenih pomožnih organov, ustanovljenega v okviru VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, oziroma kot ukrep v okviru izvajanja pristojnosti, ki jih je Varnostni svet na podlagi tega poglavja veljavno prenesel.
In addition and in any event, the question of the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the lawfulness of the contested regulation has arisen in fundamentally different circumstances.
Poleg tega se vpra�anje pristojnosti Sodi�ča glede veljavnosti sporne uredbe vsekakor postavlja v povsem drugačnem okviru.
As noted above in paragraphs 281 to 284, the review by the Court of the validity of any Community measure in the light of fundamental rights must be considered to be the expression, in a community based on the rule of law, of a constitutional
Kot je bilo že navedeno v točkah od 281 do 284 te sodbe je treba nadzor Sodi�ča glede veljavnosti vseh aktov Skupnosti, ob upo�tevanju temeljnih pravic v pravni skupnosti,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P guarantee stemming from the EC Treaty as an autonomous legal system which is not to be prejudiced by an international agreement.
�teti namreč za izraz ustavnega jamstva, ki izhaja iz Pogodbe ES kot avtonomnega pravnega sistema, v katerega mednarodni sporazum ne more posegati.
The question of the Court’s jurisdiction arises in the context of the internal and autonomous legal order of the Community, within whose ambit the contested regulation falls and in which the Court has jurisdiction to review the validity of Community measures in the light of fundamental rights.
Vpra�anje pristojnosti Sodi�ča se dejansko postavlja v okviru notranjega in avtonomnega pravnega reda Skupnosti, iz katerega izhaja izpodbijana uredba in v katerem je Sodi�če pristojno za nadzor veljavnosti aktov Skupnosti glede na temeljne pravice.
It has in addition been maintained that, having regard to the deference required of the Community institutions vis-à-vis the institutions of the United Nations, the Court must forgo the exercise of any review of the lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of fundamental rights, even if such review were possible, given that, under the system of sanctions set up by the United Nations, having particular regard to the re-examination procedure which has recently been significantly improved by various resolutions of the Security Council, fundamental rights are adequately protected.
Poleg tega je bilo poudarjeno, da bi moralo Sodi�če glede na spo�tovanje, ki se institucijam Skupnosti nalaga glede na institucije OZN, opustiti izvr�evanje nadzora zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe glede na temeljne pravice, tudi če bi bil tak nadzor mogoč, saj so temeljne pravice v okviru sistema sankcij – ki ga je uvedla OZN, zlasti ob upo�tevanju postopka ponovnega preizkusa, kot je bil pred kratkim bistveno izbolj�an z več resolucijami Varnostnega sveta – dovolj za�čitene.
According to the Commission, so long as under that system of sanctions the individuals or entities concerned have an acceptable opportunity to be heard through a mechanism of administrative review forming part of the United Nations legal system, the Court must not intervene in any way whatsoever.
Po mnenju Komisije, dokler imajo zadevni posamezniki ali subjekti v tem sistemu sankcij sprejemljivo možnost do izjave, zahvaljujoč mehanizmu upravnega nadzora, ki je vključen v pravno ureditev OZN, Sodi�če na noben način ne bi smelo posredovati.
In this connection it may be observed, first of all, that if in fact, as a result of the Security Council’s adoption of various resolutions, amendments have been made to the system of restrictive measures set up by the United Nations with regard both to entry in the summary list and to removal from it [see, in particular, Resolutions 1730 (2006) of 19 December 2006, and 1735 (2006) of 22 December 2006], those amendments were made after the contested regulation had been adopted so that, in principle, they cannot be taken into consideration in these appeals.
V tej zvezi je treba najprej navesti, da če je bil sistem omejevalnih ukrepov, ki ga je uvedla OZN, potem ko je Varnostni svet sprejel več resolucij, dejansko spremenjen glede vpisa na konsolidirani seznam in glede njegovega izbrisa (glej zlasti resoluciji 1730(2006) z dne 19. decembra 2006 in 1735(2006) z dne 22. decembra 2006), so te spremembe nastale po sprejetju izpodbijane uredbe, tako da se jih v okviru teh pritožb ne upo�teva.
In any event, the existence, within that United Nations system, of the re-examination procedure before the Sanctions Committee, even having regard to the amendments recently made to it, cannot give rise to generalised immunity from jurisdiction within the internal legal order of the Community.
Kakor koli, v okviru te ureditve OZN obstoj postopka ponovnega preizkusa pred sankcijskim odborom, tudi ob upo�tevanju njegovih nedavnih sprememb, ne more povzročiti splo�ne sodne imunitete v okviru notranjega pravnega reda Skupnosti.
Indeed, such immunity, constituting a significant derogation from the scheme of judicial protection of fundamental rights laid down by the EC Treaty, appears unjustified, for clearly that re-examination procedure does not offer the guarantees of judicial protection.
Tak�na imuniteta, ki bi pomenila pomembno izjemo od ureditve sodnega varstva temeljnih pravic, določenih v Pogodbi ES, namreč ne bi bila upravičena, ker ta postopek ponovnega preizkusa očitno ne daje jamstev sodnega varstva.
In that regard, although it is now open to any person or entity to approach the Sanctions Committee directly, submitting a request to be removed from the summary list at what is called the ‘focal’ point, the fact remains that the procedure before that Committee is still in essence diplomatic and intergovernmental, the persons or entities concerned having no real opportunity of asserting their rights and that committee taking its decisions by consensus, each of its members having a right of veto.
Čeprav se lahko od sedaj vsi posamezniki ali subjekti neposredno obrnejo na sankcijski odbor, s tem da vložijo svoj predlog za izbris iz konsolidiranega seznama v „informacijski“ točki, je treba v tej zvezi ugotoviti, da je postopek pred tem odborom v bistvu �e vedno diplomatski in meddržaven, ker zadevni posamezniki ali subjekti nimajo dejanske možnosti za obrambo svojih pravic in ker ta odbor sprejema odločitve soglasno, pri čemer ima vsak izmed članov pravico veta.
The Guidelines of the Sanctions Committee, as last amended on 12 February 2007, make it plain that an applicant submitting a request for removal from the list may in no way assert his rights himself during the procedure before the Sanctions Committee or be represented for that purpose, the Government of his State of residence or of citizenship alone having the right to submit observations on that request.
Iz smernic sankcijskega odbora, kot so bile nazadnje spremenjene 12. februarja 2007, v tej zvezi izhaja, da pritožnik, ki je vložil predlog za izbris, nikakor ne more sam uveljavljati svojih pravic med postopkom pred sankcijskem odborom niti ne more biti v ta namen zastopan, ker ima samo vlada države, v kateri prebiva oziroma katere državljan je, možnost, da lahko posreduje stali�ča o tej vlogi.
Moreover, those Guidelines do not require the Sanctions Committee to communicate to the applicant the reasons and evidence justifying his appearance in the summary list or to give him access, even restricted, to that information.
Poleg tega te smernice sankcijskemu odboru ne nalagajo, naj pritožnika obvesti o razlogih in dokazih, ki utemeljujejo njegovo uvrstitev na konsolidirani seznam, niti naj se mu omogoči dostop, pa čeprav samo omejen, do teh podatkov.
Last, if that Committee rejects the request for removal from the list, it is under no obligation to give reasons.
Nazadnje, pri zavrnitvi predloga za izbris s strani tega odbora, tega ne zavezuje nobena dolžnost obrazložitve.
It follows from the foregoing that the Community judicature must, in accordance with the powers conferred on it by the EC Treaty, ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Community acts in the light of the fundamental rights forming an integral part of the general principles of Community law, including review of Community measures which, like the contested regulation, are designed to give effect to the resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da morajo sodi�ča Skupnosti – v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi na podlagi Pogodbe ES – zagotoviti načeloma popoln nadzor zakonitosti vseh aktov Skupnosti, glede na temeljne pravice, ki so del splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, vključno z akti Skupnosti, katerih namen je, tako kot v primeru izpodbijane uredbe, izvajanje resolucij Varnostnega sveta, sprejetih na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
The Court of First Instance erred in law, therefore, when it held, in paragraphs 212 to 231 of Kadi and 263 to 282 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, that it followed from the principles governing the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the Community legal order that the contested regulation, since it is designed to give effect to a resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations affording no latitude in that respect, must enjoy immunity from jurisdiction so far as concerns its internal lawfulness save with regard to its compatibility with the norms of jus cogens.
Zato Sodi�če prve stopnje ni pravilno uporabilo prava, ko je v točkah od 212 do 231 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točkah od 263 do 282 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat presodilo, da iz načel, ki urejajo odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in pravnim redom Skupnosti, izhaja, da mora biti izpodbijana uredba, ker je njen namen izvajanje resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, ki v zvezi s tem ne dopu�ča nobene diskrecije, deležna sodne imunitete glede notranje zakonitosti, razen glede združljivosti s pravili, ki spadajo v ius cogens.
The appellants’ grounds of appeal are therefore well founded on that point, with the result that the judgments under appeal must be set aside in this respect.
Pritožbeni razlogi pritožnikov so torej glede tega utemeljeni, tako da je treba izpodbijani sodbi v zvezi s tem razveljaviti.
It follows that there is no longer any need to examine the heads of claim directed against that part of the judgments under appeal relating to review of the contested regulation in the light of the rules of international law falling within the ambit of jus cogens and that it is, therefore, no longer necessary to examine the United Kingdom’s cross-appeal on this point either.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da ni več treba preučiti očitkov zoper del izpodbijanih sodb, v zvezi z nadzorom izpodbijane uredbe glede na mednarodno pravo, ki izhaja iz ius cogens, zato v zvezi s tem ni več treba preučiti nasprotne pritožbe Združenega kraljestva.
Furthermore, given that in the latter part of the judgments under appeal, relating to the specific fundamental rights invoked by the appellants, the Court of First Instance confined itself to examining the lawfulness of the contested regulation in the light of those rules alone, when it was its duty to carry out an examination, in principle a full
Poleg tega, ker se je Sodi�če prve stopnje v naslednjem delu izpodbijanih sodb, v zvezi s posebnimi temeljnimi pravicami, omejilo na preizkus zakonitosti z vidika samo teh
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION examination, in the light of the fundamental rights forming part of the general principles of Community law, the latter part of those judgments must also be set aside.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI pravil, medtem ko je bila njegova naloga, da izvede načeloma ves preizkus, ki izhaja iz splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, je prav tako treba razveljaviti naslednji del teh sodb.
Concerning the actions before the Court of First Instance
Tožbi pri Sodišču prve stopnje
As provided in the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the latter, when it quashes the decision of the Court of First Instance, may give final judgment in the matter where the state of proceedings so permits.
V skladu s členom 61(1), drugi stavek, Statuta Sodi�ča lahko to pri razveljavitvi odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje samo dokončno odloči o zadevi, če to dovoljuje stanje postopka.
In the circumstances, the Court considers that the actions for annulment of the contested regulation brought by the appellants are ready for judgment and that it is necessary to give final judgment in them.
V tem primeru Sodi�če meni, da stanje postopka dovoljuje, da lahko samo dokončno odloči o tožbah za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe, ki sta ju vložila pritožnika.
In this regard, in the light of the actual circumstances surrounding the inclusion of the appellants’ names in the list of persons and entities covered by the restrictive measures contained in Annex I to the contested regulation, it must be held that the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, and the right to effective judicial review of those rights, were patently not respected.
V tej zvezi in z vidika konkretnih okoli�čin, ki so pripomogle k vključitvi imen pritožnikov na seznam posameznikov in subjektov – na katere se nana�ajo omejevalni ukrepi –, ki je vsebovan v Prilogi I k izpodbijani uredbi, je treba presoditi, da pravice obrambe, zlasti pravica do izjave in pravica do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora, očitno niso bile spo�tovane.
According to settled caselaw, the principle of effective judicial protection is a general principle of Community law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, which has been enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR, this principle having furthermore been reaffirmed by Article 47 of the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice (OJ 2000 C 364, p.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, ki izhaja iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic ter je potrjeno v členih 6 in 13 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin, prav tako pa v členu 47 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, razgla�ene 7. decembra 2000 v Nici (UL C 364, str.
1) (see, to this effect, Case C-432/05 Unibet [2007] ECR I-2271, paragraph 37).
1; v tem smislu glej zlasti sodbo z dne 13. marca 2007 v zadevi Unibet, C-432/05, ZOdl., str. I-2271, točka 37).
Observance of that obligation to communicate the grounds is necessary both to enable the persons to whom restrictive measures are addressed to defend their rights in the best possible conditions and to decide, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in their applying to the Community judicature (see, to that effect, Heylens and Others, paragraph 15), and to put the latter fully in a position in which it may carry out the review of the lawfulness of the Community measure in question which is its duty under the EC Treaty.
Spo�tovanje obveznosti, da se sporoči navedene razloge, je namreč nujno, zato da se naslovnikom omejevalnih ukrepov omogoči obramba njihovih pravic v kar najbolj�ih okoli�činah in da se odločijo ob popolnem poznavanju razlogov, ali je smiselno, da se obrnejo na sodi�če Skupnosti (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Heylens in drugi, točka 15), ter zato da se sodi�ču Skupnosti popolnoma omogoči nadzor nad zakonitostjo zadevnega akta Skupnosti, kot je za to pristojen na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
So far as concerns the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard, with regard to restrictive measures such as those imposed by the contested regulation, the Community authorities cannot be required to communicate those grounds before the name of a person or entity is entered in that list for the first time.
Glede pravic obrambe, zlasti pa pravice do izjave, se od organov Skupnosti glede omejevalnih ukrepov, kakr�ni so tisti, ki jih določa izpodbijana uredba, ne zahteva, da sporočijo te razloge pred prvo vključitvijo posameznika ali subjekta na ta seznam.