natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Case C-173/03 Traghetti del Mediterraneo (judgment of 13 June 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court explained the rules applicable to liability of the Member States for
V zadevi Traghetti del Mediterraneo (sodba z dne 13. junija 2006, C-173/03, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče pojasnilo veljavna pravila glede odgovornosti držav članic za kršitev prava Skupnosti v posebnem primeru, ko je ta kršitev storjena pri opravljanju sodne funkcije.
Court of Justice
Razvoj in dejavnost
Proceedings infringement of Community law in the specic case where the infringement is committed in the exercise of judicial functions.
Zadeva Komisija proti Cresson (sodba z dne 11. julija 2006, C-432/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišču ponudila priložnost, da razjasni obveznosti članov Komisije v smislu člena 213 ES.
In particular, it was called upon to assess the compatibility with Community law of national legislation which, first, excludes all State liability for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law committed by a national court adjudicating at last instance, where that infringement is the result of an interpretation of provisions of law or of an assessment of the facts and evidence carried out by that court, and second, also limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court.
Razsodilo je, da je treba pojem„obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz njihovega položaja člana Komisije“ razumeti široko in da vsebuje poleg obveznosti ravnati pošteno in diskretno obveznost ravnati popolnoma neodvisno in v splošnem interesu Skupnosti. Ob neizpolnitvi obveznosti, ki dosega določeno stopnjo resnosti, je sankcija, ki je predvidena v Pogodbi, odstop po uradni dolžnosti ali odvzem pravice zadevne osebe do pokojnine ali namesto nje odobrenih ugodnosti.
Case C-432/04 Commission v Cresson (judgment of 11 July 2006, not yet published in the ECR) gave the Court the opportunity to clarify the obligations owed by Members of the Commission as referred to in Article 213 EC.
Sodišče je še menilo, da nemožnost, da se vloži pravno sredstvo zoper njegovo odločbo, glede na pravice članov Komisije do učinkovitega sodnega varstva nikakor ne pomeni nedelovanja, ki bi ga lahko oviralo pri izvrševanju svoje pristojnosti.
It held that the concept of‘obligations arising from their oce as a Member of the Commission’ must be construed broadly and encompasses, in addition to the obligations of integrity and discretion, the obligation to be completely independent and to act in the general interest of the Community.
Glede preučitve očitkov zoper obravnavano komisarko je Sodišče razsodilo, da lahko upošteva ugotovitve iz kazenskega postopka, vendar ni vezano s pravno kvalikacijo ugotovljenih dejstev, in da mora raziskati, ali očitana dejstva pomenijo neizpolnitev obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz položaja člana Komisije.
In the event of a breach of a certain degree of gravity, the penalty provided for by the Treaty is compulsory retirement or the deprivation of the Member’s right to a pension or other benets in its stead.
Na podlagi teh preudarkov in po natančni obravnavi dejstev iz spisa je Sodišče delno ugodilo tožbi in sklenilo, da je zadevna članica Komisije kršila obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz njenega položaja članice Komisije v smislu členov 213(2) ES in 126(2) AE.
A Member of the Commission whose term of oce has come to an end can be punished in respect of a breach which occurred during his term of oce but is discovered subsequently.
Vendar je na podlagi okoliščin v tem primeru odločilo, da je ugotovitev kršitve sama po sebi primerna sankcija in je É. Cresson oprostilo sankcije v obliki odvzema pravice do pokojnine ali namesto nje odobrenih ugodnosti.
Since compulsory retirement can no longer be ordered, the only penalty available to the Court is the deprivation of rights, which may be total or partial depending on the degree of gravity of the breach.
V zadevah Španija proti Združenemu kraljestvu (sodba z dne 12. septembra 2006, C-145/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) ter Eman in Sevinger (sodba z dne 12. septembra 2006, C-300/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) se je Sodišče izreklo o pravilih Pogodbe o državljanstvu Unije in o volitvah v Evropski parlament, posebej v zvezi z volilno pravico na teh volitvah in njenem uresničevanju.
However, the period for taking action is not unlimited, given the requirement of legal certainty and the right to be heard by virtue of which the person against whom an administrative procedure has been initiated by the Commission must be aorded the opportunity to make known his views.The Court also stated that that the fact that no appeal may be brought against the Court’s decision does not in any way constitute, in light of the right of Members of the Commission to eective judicial protection, a deciency which would preclude exercise of its jurisdiction.
V zadevi Španija proti Združenemu kraljestvu se je namreč Sodišče spraševalo o pristojnosti držav članic, da razširijo volilno pravico za volitve v Evropski parlament na osebe, ki niso državljani Evropske unije. V obravnavanem primeru je Kraljevina Španija izpodbijala zakon Združenega kraljestva Velika Britanija in Severna Irska, ki je glede Gibraltarja predvideval, da imajo državljani Commonwealtha, ki prebivajo na tem ozemlju in ki niso državljani Skupnosti, pravico voliti in biti voljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament.
So far as concerns the examination of the complaints levelled against the Commissioner proceeded against, the Court held that findings made in the course of criminal proceedings may be taken into account but the Court is not bound by the legal characterisation of the facts that is made and it is for the Court to investigate whether the conduct complained of constitutes a breach of the obligations arising from the oce of Member of the Commission.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče presodilo, da države članice ob spoštovanju prava Skupnosti določijo osebe, ki imajo pravico voliti in biti voljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament.
On the basis of these considerations and following a detailed examination of the facts placed before it, the Court partially upheld the action, reaching the conclusion that the Member of the Commission concerned had acted in breach of the obligations arising from her oce of Member of the Commission for the purposes of Articles 213(2) EC and 126(2) EA.
Menilo je, da členi 189 ES, 190 ES, 17 ES in 19 ES ne nasprotujejo temu, da države članice to pravico voliti in biti voljen priznajo določenim osebam, ki so tesno povezane z njimi in ki niso njihovi državljani ali državljani Unije, ki prebivajo na njihovem ozemlju. Še več, po mnenju Sodišča obstoja očitne zveze med državljanstvom in pravico voliti ni mogoče izpeljati iz določb Pogodbe, ki se nanašajo na sestavo Evropskega parlamenta in državljanstvo Unije.
However, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held that the finding of breach
Na koncu je Sodišče poudarilo, da iz členov Pogodbe, ki se nanašajo na državljanstvo Unije, ni mogoče izluščiti načela, da bi bili državljani Unije edini upravičenci glede na vse druge določbe Pogodbe, in sklenilo, da je izpodbijana zakonodaja Združenega kraljestva v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
In Case C-145/04 Spain v United Kingdom (judgment of 12 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) and Case C-300/04 Eman and Sevinger (judgment of 12 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR), the Court adjudicated on the Treaty rules relating to European citizenship and the election of representatives to the European Parliament, in particular with regard to the right to vote in such elections and the exercise of that right.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Eman in Sevinger se je Sodišče izreklo o razlagi členov 17 ES, 19(2) ES, 190 ES in 299(3) ES na podlagi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je Raad van State (Nizozemska) vložilo v okviru spora dveh nizozemskih državljanov s stalnim prebivališčem na Arubi, ki sta izpodbijala zavrnitev njune prošnje za vpis v volilni imenik za volitve članov Evropskega parlamenta 10. junija 2004 zaradi njunega stalnega prebivališča.
In Spain v United Kingdom, the Court was required to consider the power of the Member States to extend the right to vote in European Parliament elections to residents who are not citizens of the European Union.
Po mnenju Sodišča se osebe, ki imajo državljanstvo države članice in ki dejansko bivajo oziroma imajo stalno prebivališče na ozemlju, ki je del čezmorskih držav in ozemelj iz člena 299(3) ES, lahko sklicujejo na pravice, ki jih državljanom Unije priznava drugi del Pogodbe.
The Kingdom of Spain was contesting, in the case in point, a statute of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland which provides, in relation to Gibraltar, that Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar who are not Community nationals have the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.
Vendar so čezmorske države in ozemlja (ČDO) predmet posebne ureditve pridružitve, ki jo določa četrti del Pogodbe (členi od 182 ES do 188 ES), tako da se brez izrecnega napotila splošne določbe Pogodbe zanje ne uporabljajo in člena 189 ES in 190 ES v zvezi z Evropskim parlamentom se ne uporabljata za te države in ozemlja, zato države članice niso dolžne organizirati volitev v Evropski parlament.
The Court held that it is for the Member States to dene, in compliance with Community law, the persons entitled to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament.
Glede na zdajšnje stanje prava Skupnosti sicer nič ne nasprotuje temu, da države članice ob spoštovanju prava Skupnosti določijo pogoje za pravico voliti in biti voljen na volitvah v Evropski parlament, sklicujoč se na merilo dejanskega bivališča na ozemlju, na katerem so organizirane volitve.
Articles 189 EC, 190 EC, 17 EC and 19 EC do not preclude the Member States from granting that right to vote and to stand as a candidate to certain persons who have close links to them other than their own nationals or citizens of the Union resident in their territory.
Vendar načelo enakega obravnavanja nasprotuje izbranim merilom, ki povzročijo različno obravnavanje državljanov, ki so v primerljivih položajih, ne da bi bilo to različno obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno.
Nor, according to the Court, can a clear link between citizenship and the right to vote be deduced from the Treaty provisions relating to the composition of the European Parliament and to citizenship of the Union.
V zadevi i-21 Germany in Arcor (sodba z dne 19. septembra 2006, C-392/04 in C-422/04, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče dobilo možnost, da poišče ravnovesje med primarnostjo prava Skupnosti in pravno varnostjo glede usode nezakonitega upravnega akta, ker je z njim kršeno pravo Skupnosti.
Finally, observing that a principle cannot be derived from the Treaty’s articles relating to citizenship of the Union that its citizens are the only persons entitled under all the other provisions of the Treaty, the Court concluded that the contested United Kingdom legislation was consistent with Community law.
Sodišče je presodilo, da v skladu z načelom pravne varnosti upravni organ ni dolžan odpraviti upravne odločbe, ki je postala dokončna po izteku razumnih rokov za vložitev pravnih sredstev ali z izčrpanjem teh.
In Eman and Sevinger, the Court ruled on the interpretation of Articles 17 EC, 19(2) EC, 190 EC and 299(3) EC in response to a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands). The proceedings before the national court concerned two Netherlands nationals resident in Aruba who contested the rejection, on the basis of their place of residence, of their application for registration on the electoral roll for the election of Members of the European Parliament on 10 June 2004.
Vseeno je priznalo, da je to načelo lahko omejeno, če so izpolnjeni štirje pogoji: upravni organ je po nacionalnem pravu pristojen za odpravo te odločbe; sporna odločba je postala pravnomočna na podlagi sodbe nacionalnega sodišča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji; ta sodba ob upoštevanju sodne prakse Sodišča, ki je poznejša od te sodbe, temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila podana, ne da bi bilo Sodišču predloženo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje, in zainteresirani se je obrnil na upravni organ takoj po tem, ko se je seznanil z navedeno sodno prakso (glej sodbo z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heintz, C-453/00, Recueil, str. I-837). Poleg tega načelo enakovrednosti zahteva, naj se vsa pravila glede pravnih sredstev, skupaj z določenimi roki, uporabljajo brez razlikovanja za pravna sredstva, ki temeljijo na kršitvi prava Skupnosti, in tista, ki temeljijo na nespoštovanju nacionalnega prava. Če je upravni organ ob uporabi pravil nacionalnega prava dolžan odpraviti upravno odločbo, ki je postala dokončna, vendar je očitno nezdružljiva z nacionalnim pravom, mora enaka obveznost obstajati tudi, če je ta odločba očitno nezdružljiva s pravom Skupnosti. Nacionalno sodišče bo presodilo, ali ureditev, ki je očitno nezdružljiva s pravom Skupnosti, pomeni očitno nezakonitost v smislu zadevnega nacionalnega prava in bo, če je tako, izpeljalo vse posledice, ki iz tega izhajajo po nacionalnem pravu. V dveh zadevah se je zastavilo vprašanje o dopustnosti ničnostnih tožb. V zadevi Regione Siciliana proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 2. maja 2006, C-417/04 P, ZOdl., str.
However, the overseas countries and territories (OCTs) are subject to the special association arrangements set out in Part Four of the Treaty (Articles 182 EC to 188 EC) with the result that, failing express reference, the general provisions of the Treaty do not apply to them.
I-3881), v kateri je Regione Siciliana s pritožbo predlagala razveljavitev sklepa Sodišča prve stopnje, s katerim je to za nedopustno razglasilo tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe Komisije o ustavitvi izplačil finančne pomoči Evropskega sklada za regionalni razvoj, je Sodišče ponovno
Joined Cases C-392/04 and C-422/04 i-21 Germany and Arcor (judgment of 19 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) gave the Court the opportunity to strike a balance between the primacy of Community law and legal certainty with regard to the treatment to be accorded to an administrative act which is unlawful because it infringes Community law.
Razvoj in dejavnost preučevalo pojem „država članica“. Sodišče je opozorilo, da tožbe regionalne ali lokalne enote ni mogoče izenačiti s tožbo države članice, ker se pojem države članice v smislu člena 230 ES nanaša samo na vladne organe držav članic.
The Court stated that, in accordance with the principle of legal certainty, administrative bodies are not placed under an obligation to reopen an administrative decision which has become final upon expiry of the reasonable time limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies.
Vendar je presodilo, da sme na podlagi tega člena regionalna ali lokalna enota, če ima pravno osebnost na podlagi nacionalnega prava, vložiti tožbo zoper odločbe, ki so naslovljene nanjo, in zoper odločbe, ki jo neposredno in posamično zadevajo, čeprav so v obliki uredbe ali odločbe naslovljene na drugo osebo.
First, Case C-417/04 P Regione Siciliana v Commission [2006] ECR I-3881, which was an appeal in which the Regione Siciliana sought the setting aside of an order of the Court of First Instance that had declared its action for annulment of a Commission decision closing financial assistance from the European Regional Development Fund to be inadmissible, allowed the Court to give further consideration to the concept of a ‘Member State’.
Ni mogoče šteti, da regionalni organ, odgovoren za izvedbo projekta Evropskega sklada, neposredno zadeva odločba Komisije, ki je naslovljena na zadevno državo članico in se nanaša na ustavitev izplačil finančne pomoči tega sklada.
The Court recalled that an action by a local or regional entity cannot be treated in the same way as an action by a Member State, the term ‘Member State’within the meaning of Article 230 EC referring only to government authorities of the Member States.
V zadevi Reynolds Tobacco in drugi proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 12. septembra 2006, C-131/03 P, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.) je Sodišče preučevalo možnost, da razglasi za nične sklepe Komisije, da se vloži pravno sredstvo.
It stated, however, that, on the basis of that article, a local or regional entity may, to the extent that it has legal personality under national law, institute proceedings against a decision addressed to it or against a decision which, although in the form of a regulation or a decision addressed to another person, is of direct and individual concern to it.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da le ukrepi, ki povzročijo zavezujoče pravne učinke in lahko vplivajo na interese tožeče stranke tako, da značilno spremenijo njen pravni položaj, pomenijo akte ali odločbe, ki so lahko predmet ničnostne tožbe.
Nevertheless, a regional authority responsible for the execution of a project of the European Regional Development Fund cannot be regarded as directly concerned by a Commission decision addressed to the Member State in question relating to the closing of the financial assistance from that Fund.
Tako je sklep, da se zadeva predloži v odločanje sodišču, nujno dejanje, da se doseže zavezujoča sodna odločba, vendar kot tak dokončno ne določa obveznosti strank v sporu in sam torej ne spreminja spornega pravnega položaja.
Second, Case C-131/03 P Reynolds Tobacco and Others v Commission (judgment of 12 September 2006, not yet published in the ECR) caused the Court to examine whether decisions taken by the Commission to bring legal proceedings may be annulled.The Court stated that only measures the legal eects of which are binding on, and capable of aecting the interests of, the applicant by bringing about a distinct change in his legal position are acts or decisions which may be the subject of an action for annulment. Thus, a decision to
Upravičencem, ki vseeno menijo, da so zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja utrpeli škodo, kljub temu ni odvzet dostop do sodišča, ker imajo še vedno na voljo tožbo iz naslova nepogodbene odgovornosti, če je zadevno ravnanje tako, da povzroči odgovornost Skupnosti.
In Case C-344/04 International Air Transport Association and Others [2006] ECR I-403, the Court held, with regard to Article 234 EC, that the fact that the validity of a Community act is contested before a national court is not in itself sucient to warrant referral of a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
I-403) je Sodišče glede člena 234 ES presodilo, da izpodbijanje veljavnosti akta Skupnosti pred nacionalnim sodnim organom samo po sebi ni zadostna podlaga za to, da se Sodišču predloži vprašanje za predhodno odločanje.
A court against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law is required to stay proceedings and make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a Community act only where it considers that one or more arguments for invalidity of the act which have been put forward by the parties or otherwise raised by it of its own motion are well founded.
Le kadar sodni organ, zoper odločitve katerega je mogoče po nacionalnem pravu vložiti pravno sredstvo, presodi, da je eden ali več razlogov za neveljavnost akta Skupnosti, ki ga navajajo stranke, oziroma se nanj pazi po uradni dolžnosti, utemeljen, mora prekiniti odločanje in Sodišču v odločanje predložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe glede presoje veljavnosti.
Finally, in a whole series of cases the Court was faced with the problem of the choice of the legal basis for Community measures.
Na koncu se je Sodišče v celi vrsti zadev srečalo s problematiko izbire pravne podlage aktov Skupnosti.
Six cases merit specic attention.
Šest zadev zahteva posebno pozornost.
In each of these cases, the Court rearmed the main guiding principles which it has already laid down in its caselaw concerning dual legal basis.
V obeh zadevah je Sodišče ponovno potrdilo vodilna načela, ki jih je že izoblikovalo v sodni praksi glede dvojne pravne podlage.
Applying that case-law, the Court held in the first case that Decision 2003/106/EC should have been founded on Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC, in conjunction with the relevant provisions of Article 300 EC, and therefore had to be annulled since it was based solely on Article 175(1) EC, in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC. Similarly, in the second
Opozorilo je namreč, prvič, da mora izbira pravne podlage akta Skupnosti temeljiti na objektivnih elementih, ki jih je mogoče sodno preizkusiti, med katerimi sta zlasti cilj in vsebina akta, drugič, da mora, če se pri preizkusu akta Skupnosti izkaže, da ima ta dvojni cilj ali da ima dve sestavini, pri čemer je ena glavna ali prevladujoča, druga pa zgolj stranska, akt temeljiti na samo eni pravni podlagi, in sicer tisti, ki se zahteva
Council Decision 2003/106/EC of 19 December 2002 concerning the approval, on behalf of the European Community, of the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade (OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 27).
Sklep Sveta 2003/106/ES z dne 19. decembra 2002 o odobritvi Rotterdamske konvencije o postopku soglasja po predhodnem obveščanju za določene nevarne kemikalije in pesticide v mednarodni trgovini v imenu Skupnosti (UL L 63, str. 27).
Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 concerning the export and import of dangerous chemicals (OJ L 63, 6.3.2003, p. 1).
Uredba (ES) št. 304/2003 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 28. januarja 2003 o izvozu in uvozu nevarnih kemikalij (UL L 63, str. 1).
Proceedings case the Court held that Regulation (EC) No 304/2003 should have been founded on Articles 133 EC and 175(1) EC and therefore had to be annulled since it was based solely on Article 175(1) EC.
Ob uporabi te sodne prakse je Sodišče v prvi zadevi razsodilo, da bi moral Sklep 2003/106 temeljiti na členih 133 ES in 175(1) ES v povezavi z ustreznimi določbami člena 300 ES in da ga je bilo zato treba razglasiti za ničnega, ker je temeljil samo na členu 175(1) ES v povezavi s členom 300(2), prvi pododstavek, prvi stavek, in (3), prvi pododstavek, ES.
The other four cases have the common feature that they concern the conditions governing recourse to Article 95 EC as a legal basis.
Preostalim štirim zadevam je skupno to, da se nanašajo na pogoje uporabe člena 95 ES kot pravne podlage.
First of all, in Case C-436/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-3733, the Court recalled its caselaw which states that Article 95 EC empowers the Community legislature to adopt (i) measures to improve the conditions for the establishment and functioning of the internal market — and they must genuinely have that object, contributing to the elimination of obstacles to the economic freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, which include the freedom of establishment, and (ii) measures whose aim is to prevent the emergence of obstacles to trade resulting from heterogeneous development of national laws, provided that the emergence of such obstacles is likely and the measure in question is designed to prevent them.
Sodišče je v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (sodba z dne 2. maja 2006, C-436/03, ZOdl., str. I-3733) najprej opozorilo na svojo sodno prakso, v skladu s katero člen 95 ES zakonodajalca Skupnosti pooblašča, da sprejme ukrepe za izboljšanje pogojev za vzpostavitev in delovanje notranjega trga, pri čemer morajo ti ukrepi dejansko imeti ta cilj, da prispevajo k odstranjevanju ovir pri ekonomskih svoboščinah, za katere jamči Pogodba in med katerimi je svoboda ustanavljanja, oziroma ukrepe za preprečitev pojavljanja ovir pri trgovanju, ki izhajajo iz neenotnega razvoja nacionalnih zakonodaj, pri čemer mora biti pojav teh ovir kljub temu verjeten, cilj zadevnega ukrepa pa mora biti njihova preprečitev.
The Court accordingly held in the case in point that Article 95 EC could not constitute an appropriate legal basis for the adoption of Regulation (EC) No 1435/2003 6 and that it was correctly adopted on the basis of Article 308 EC.
Tako je v tej zadevi presodilo, da člen 95 ES ni mogel biti primerna pravna podlaga za sprejetje Uredbe št. 1435/20036in da je bila pravilno sprejeta na podlagi člena 308 ES.