natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Joined Cases T-405/07 and T-406/07 CFCMCEE v OHIM (P@YWEB CARD and PAYWEB CARD) (judgment of 20 May 2009 under appeal), the Court added that general reasoning must none the less enable it carry out its review.
Poleg tega lahko odločba o zavrnitvi dostopa do dokumentov institucije temelji zgolj na izjemah, določenih v členu¥4 Uredbe št.¥1049/2001, tako da zadevna institucija take zavrnitve ne more uveljavljati s sklicevanjem na zavezo do udeležencev srečanja, kadar te zaveze ni mogoče upravičiti z eno od teh izjem.
Moreover, where a decision o¥ers no reason whatsoever as to why OHIM took the view that certain goods formed a homogenous group, it is not permitted to advance supplementary reasons in the course of the proceedings.
Vendar Komisija ni pojasnila, zakaj naj bi identikacija strokovnjakov posegala v njihovo zasebnost ali kršila Uredbo št.¥45/2001, in ni pravno zadostno opredelila dovolj predvidljivega tveganja, da jih bo razkritje njihovega mnenja izpostavilo neupravičenim zunanjim pritiskom, ki bi posegali v njihovo integriteto, in še manj, da
Fourth, in Case T-189/07 Frosch Touristik v OHIM — DSR touristik (FLUGBÖRSE) (judgment of 3 June 2009, under appeal), the Court stated that only the date of ¤ling of the application for registration, and not that of registration, is relevant to the examination that OHIM must carry out during invalidity proceedings in which it is alleged that a Community trade mark does not ful¤l the conditions of Article 7 of Regulation No 40/94. That approach avoids a situation in which the probability of the mark losing its registrability increases with the length of the registration procedure.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 5.¥maja¥1998 v zadevi Združeno kraljestvo proti Komisiji (C-180/96, Recueil, str.¥I-2265, točka¥99) in sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 11.¥septembra¥2002 v zadevi Pzer Animal Health proti Svetu (T-¥13/99, Recueil, str.¥II-3305, točka¥139).
Fifth, in Case T-277/06 Omnicare v OHIM — Astellas Pharma (OMNICARE) (judgment of 7 May 2009), Case T-410/07 Jurado Hermanos v OHIM (JURADO) (judgment of 12 May 2009), Case T-136/08 Aurelia Finance v OHIM (AURELIA) (judgment of 13 May 2009) and Joined Cases T-20/08 and T-21/08 Evets v OHIM (DANELECTRO and QWIK TUNE) (judgment of 23 September 2009, under appeal), the Court adjudicated on the scope of application of Article 78 of Regulation No 40/94 relating to restitutio in integrum, according to which the applicant for or proprietor of a mark or any other party
Uredba (ES) št.¥45/2001 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 18.¥decembra¥2000 o varstvu posameznikov pri obdelavi osebnih podatkov v institucijah in organih Skupnosti in o prostem pretoku takih podatkov (UL¥2001, L¥8, str.¥1).
General Court to proceedings before OHIM who has not observed a time limit may, under certain conditions, have his rights re-established.
Splošno sodišče bi lahko izpustitev imen strokovnjakov in njihovega porekla v vsakem primeru odpravila vsakršno morebitno tovrstno tveganje.
In particular, in the ¤rst and fourth judgments mentioned above, the Court stated that that provision is applicable to the time limit for challenging a decision before the Board of Appeal, but not to the time limit for bringing the application for restitutio in integrum itself.
Poleg tega Splošno sodišče poudarja, da če je zakonodajalec določil posebno izjemo od pravice do dostopa do dokumentov institucij v zvezi s pravnimi mnenji, tega ni storil tudi za druga mnenja, zlasti ne za znanstvena, kakršna so tista, izražena v spornih vpisih.
In addition, in the second judgment, it clari¤ed the concept of a party to the proceedings while, in the third, it established that, if the proprietor of a mark delegates administrative tasks relating to the renewal of the mark to a company specialised in that ¤eld, it must ensure that the latter o¥ers the assurance necessary to enable it to be assumed that those tasks will be carried out properly.
Ker v skladu s sodno prakso ni mogoče šteti, da obstaja splošna potreba po zaupnosti mnenj pravne službe Sveta o zakonodajnih vprašanjih32, je treba enako načelo uporabiti tudi za sporna mnenja, za katera zakonodajalec Skupnosti ni predvidel posebne izjeme in za katera še naprej veljajo splošna pravila glede pravice javnosti do dostopa do dokumentov.
In particular, where that company installs a computerised renewal reminder system, it must provide for a mechanism for detecting and correcting possible errors.
Iz tega je razvidno, da morajo biti znanstvena mnenja, ki jih institucija zbere za pripravo zakonodajnega besedila, načeloma razkrita, tudi če lahko zbujajo polemike ali osebe, ki so jih oblikovale, odvrnejo od sodelovanja v postopku odločanja te institucije.
Lastly, as regards a revocation decision adopted by a department of OHIM in order to rectify an error a¥ecting the costs section of a decision previously adopted by that department, the Court stated, in Case T-419/07 Okalux v OHIM — Messe Düsseldorf (OKATECH) (judgment of 1 July 2009), that, since that revocation could be only partial, the period for bringing proceedings had to be calculated by reference to the ¤rst decision.
Tveganje – na katero se sklicuje Komisija – da bi javna razprava zaradi razkritja mnenj strokovnjakov te odvrnila od nadaljnje udeležbe v njenem postopku odločanja, je neločljivo povezano s pravilom, ki priznava načelo dostopa do dokumentov, ki vsebujejo mnenja za notranjo rabo kot del razprav in predhodnih posvetovanj.
Here, the Commission had found in the contested decisions that the NAPs of the Republic of Poland and the Republic of Estonia were incompatible with certain criteria laid down by Directive 2003/87, while indicating that no objections would be raised against those NAPs provided that certain amendments were made.
V skladu s sodno prakso je odškodninska tožba, določena v členu¥235¥ES, samostojna tožba in ni mogoče sklepati o nedopustnosti take tožbe, kadar je vložena zoper akt o nedopustnosti ničnostne tožbe, vložene zoper ta akt.
The Member States concerned contended before the Court that, by setting a ceiling for greenhouse gas allowances above which their NAPs would be rejected and by substituting, in this context, its method of analysis for that adopted by the relevant Member State, the Commission had infringed the distribution of competence provided for by Directive 2003/87. The Court upheld those claims and annulled the contested decisions.
Prizadevanje posameznikov za vzpostavitev odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitosti zakonodajnega akta tako ni nedopustno zgolj zato, ker jih ta akt ne zadeva neposredno in posamično.33
The Court observed that the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is of primary importance in the context of the ¤ght against global warming, which represents one of the greatest social, economic and environmental threats which the world currently faces.
Splošno sodišče je v sklepu z dne 30.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi Ivanov proti Komisiji (T-166/08, še neobjavljena, v pritožbenem postopku) natančno določilo meje samostojnosti ničnostne in odškodninske tožbe, tako da je navedlo, da zaradi neodvisnost teh pravnih sredstev pravnemu subjektu, ki je zamudil rok za vložitev tožbe iz člena¥230, peti odstavek, ES, ni mogoče dovoliti, da bi se izognil prekluziji, ko želi z odškodninsko tožbo pridobiti ugodnost, ki bi jo lahko pridobil, če bi pravočasno vložil ničnostno tožbo.
Pursuit of that objective nevertheless cannot justify maintaining in force a decision rejecting a NAP if that measure was adopted in breach of the competences allocated by Directive 2003/87 to the Member States and the Commission respectively.
Prekluzija predloga za ugotovitev ničnosti, ki je javnopravne narave, zato povzroči prekluzijo odškodninskega zahtevka, ki je tesno povezan s predlogom za ugotovitev ničnosti.
The Court pointed out that, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, Directive 2003/87 is binding upon the Member States to which it is addressed as to the result to be achieved, but leaves them freedom of action as to the choice of the forms and methods appropriate for that purpose.
Odškodninsko tožbo je treba tako razglasiti za nedopustno, če je njen resnični namen razveljavitev posamične odločbe, ki je postala dokončna in katere učinek, če bi ji bilo ugodeno, bi bil ukinitev pravnih učinkov te odločbe.
The Commission has the burden, when exercising its supervisory power, of proving that
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v sodbi z dne 18.¥decembra¥2009 v zadevi Arizmendi in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-440/03, še neobjavljena) potrdilo nov razvoj sodne prakse glede vprašanja
) European Parliament and Council Directive 2003/87/EC of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for green- house gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L°275, p.°32).
Glej v tem smislu sodbo Sodišča z dne 2.¥decembra¥1971 v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt proti Svetu (5/71, Recueil, str.¥975) in sodbo Splošnega sodišča z dne 24.¥oktobra¥2000 v zadevi Fresh Marine proti Komisiji (T-¥178/98, Recueil, str.¥II-3331).
Proceedings the instruments used by a Member State in that respect are contrary to Community law.
Dejavnost dopustnosti tožbe za povrnitev škode, domnevno nastale, ker je Komisija državi članici poslala obrazloženo mnenje, v katerem ugotavlja, da ta država ni izpolnila svojih obveznosti na podlagi veljavnih predpisov Skupnosti.
It is only by applying those principles that it is possible to ensure compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, according to which, in areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community is to take action only if and in so far as the objectives pursued cannot be suciently achieved by the Member States.
V obravnavanem primeru je Francoska republika zaradi tega obrazloženega mnenja namreč odpravila zakoniti monopol tolmačev in ladijskih agentov, ki so sestavljali zbor s hibridnim statusom, v katerem sta združena status javnega uslužbenca z¥monopolom nad nekaterimi transakcijami in status trgovca.
The Court also explained that the Commission is entitled to make criticisms concerning the incompatibilities found and to formulate proposals designed to allow the Member State to modify its NAP in a manner which would make it compatible with the criteria.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso odškodninska tožba, ki temelji na okoliščini, da Komisija ni začela postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena¥226¥ES, ni dopustna.
However, the Court found that, by specifying a speci¤c quantity of allowances and by rejecting the NAPs of the Member States concerned in so far as the total quantity of allowances proposed exceeded that threshold, the Commission had exceeded the limits of the power of review conferred upon it by Directive 2003/87, since it is for Member States alone to set that quantity.
Če namreč Komisiji ni bilo treba začeti postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti na podlagi člena¥226¥ES, njena odločitev, da takega postopka ne bo začela, nikakor ne more pomeniti nezakonitosti, tako da to ne more biti podlaga za nastanek nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti.34 Komisija je menila, da je to rešitev po analogiji mogoče uporabiti za primere, v katerih se ni vzdržala začetka postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ampak je, nasprotno, izdala obrazloženo mnenje, ki je uvodna faza postopka zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti pred Sodiščem.
Likewise, while the Commission may draw up its own ecological and economic model in order to verify whether the NAPs of the various Member States are compatible with the criteria laid down by Directive 2003/87, an exercise in which it has a wide discretion, it cannot, on the other hand, claim to set aside the data in a NAP so as to replace them with data obtained from its own assessment method, as otherwise it would be acknowledged as having a veritable power of uniformisation which that directive does not confer upon it.
Splošno sodišče zavrača to razlogovanje tako, da opozarja, da je odškodninska tožba samostojna tožba, ki ima v sistemu pravnih sredstev posebno vlogo, ker je njen namen povračilo škode, ki je nastala zaradi akta ali nezakonitega ravnanja, ki se očita instituciji.
The Court also observed that, when drawing up its NAP, the Member State is obliged to make choices concerning the policies to be adopted, the method to be used and the data to be taken into account in order to predict the expected evolution of emissions, while the Commission’s review of those choices is limited to verifying whether the data and parameters upon which the choices are founded are credible and sucient.
Torej je načeloma mogoče vložiti odškodninsko tožbo zoper kateri koli akt institucije – neodvisno od vprašanja, ali je ta akt mogoče izpodbijati z ničnostno tožbo – tudi če je bil sprejet med izvajanjem diskrecijske pravice, saj ta diskrecijska pravica ne pomeni, da zadevni instituciji zato ni treba delovati v skladu s¥pravnimi pravili višje veljave, na primer Pogodbo in splošnimi načeli prava Skupnosti ter upoštevno sekundarno zakonodajo.
The Court therefore held that, by substituting its method of analysis for that used by the Member States concerned, instead of merely checking that their NAPs were compatible with the criteria laid down by Directive 2003/87, in the light, where appropriate, of the data resulting from its own method, the Commission exceeded the powers conferred upon it by that directive.
Čeprav torej drži, da lahko Komisija na podlagi pristojnosti, ki so ji podeljene s členom¥226¥ES, prosto presoja, ali je na državo članico primerno nasloviti obrazloženo mnenje, ni mogoče izključiti možnosti, da lahko posamezna oseba v povsem izjemnih okoliščinah dokaže, da je tako obrazloženo mnenje nezakonito in je povzročilo dovolj resno kršitev pravnega pravila, da ji je bila povzročena škoda.
Common foreign and security policy
Splošno sodišče tako ugotavlja, da je tožba dopustna.
Combating of terrorism
Dovolj resna kršitev pravnega pravila, ki posameznikom podeljuje pravice
In Case T-341/07 Sison v Council (judgment of 30 September 2009) the Court, ¤rst, recalled the principles resulting from the judgments in Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Coun-
Za ugotovitev nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti se zahteva, da tožeča stranka dokaže dovolj resno kršitev pravnega pravila, katerega cilj je podeliti pravice posameznikom.35
) that concern the obligation to state reasons for decisions to freeze funds of persons linked to terrorist activities. Both the statement of reasons for an initial decision to freeze funds and the statement of reasons for subsequent decisions must refer not only to the
Sklep Sodišča z dne 23.¥maja¥1990 v zadevi Asia Motor France proti Komisiji (C-72/90, Recueil, str.¥I-2181, točke od 13 do 15) ter sklepa Splošnega sodišča z dne 3.¥julija¥1997 v zadevi Smanor in drugi proti Komisiji (T-201/96, Recueil, str.¥II-1081, točki¥30 in 31) in z dne 14.¥januarja¥2004 v zadevi Makedoniko Metro in Michaniki proti Komisiji (T-202/02, Recueil, str.¥II-181, točki¥43 in 44).
(24) Case T-228/02 [2006] ECR°II-4665.(25) Judgment of 11 July 2007 in Case T-47/03, not published.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 4.¥julija¥2000 v zadevi Bergaderm in Goupil proti Komisiji (C-352/98¥P, Recueil, str.¥I-5291, točki¥42 in 43).
General Court legal conditions of application of Regulation No 2580/2001 (26), in particular the existence of a national decision taken by a competent authority, but also to the actual and speci¤c reasons why the Council considers that the person concerned must be made the subject of a measure freezing funds.
Poleg tega je Splošno sodišče v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Arizmendi in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji ugotovilo, da med postopkom zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti Komisija lahko da le mnenje o tem, ali je država članica kršila pravo Skupnosti, saj je navsezadnje le Sodišče pristojno za ugotovitev, da država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti, ki so ji naložene s pravom Skupnosti.
Also, the broad discretion enjoyed by the Council with regard to the matters to be taken into consideration for the purpose of adopting or of maintaining in force a measure freezing funds extends to the evaluation of the threat that may be presented by an organisation having in the past committed acts of terrorism, notwithstanding the suspension of its terrorist activities for a certain period.
Ker v navedenem mnenju Komisija zavzame le stališče o tem, ali država članica ni izpolnila obveznosti, ki so ji naložene s pravom Skupnosti, sprejetje zadevnega mnenja ne more povzročiti dovolj resne kršitve pravnega pravila, katerega cilj je podeliti pravice posameznikom.
In those circumstances the Council cannot be required to state with greater precision in what way freezing the funds of the person concerned may in concrete terms contribute to the ¤ght against terrorism or to produce evidence to show that that person might use his funds to commit or facilitate acts of terrorism in the future.
Zato tudi to, da je Komisija v¥obrazloženem mnenju sprejela napačno stališče o obsegu prava Skupnosti, ne more pomeniti dovolj resne kršitve, na podlagi katere bi bilo mogoče ugotoviti odgovornost Skupnosti.
That requirement is not satis¤ed by a decision of a national judicial authority ruling only incidentally and indirectly on the possible involvement of the person concerned in such activity, in relation to a dispute concerning, for example, rights and duties of a civil nature.
Leta 2009 je bilo zoper odločbe Sodišča za uslužbence vloženih 31 pritožb, Splošno sodišče (pritožbeni senat) pa je končalo 31 zadev. Dve od njih si zaslužita posebno pozornost.
The Court also explained that the Council, when contemplating adopting or maintaining, after review, a fund-freezing measure pursuant to Regulation No 2580/2001, on the basis of a national decision for the‘instigation of investigations or prosecution’for an act of terrorism, may not disregard subsequent developments arising out of those investigations or that prosecution.
Prvič, Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 8.¥septembra¥2009 v zadevi ETF proti Landgren (T-404/06¥P, še neobjavljena) potrdilo novo stališče Sodišča za uslužbence, da mora biti vsaka odločba o prenehanju veljavnosti pogodbe o zaposlitvi za nedoločen čas obrazložena v skladu z¥razlogovanjem na podlagi zahtev Kadrovskih predpisov ter neločljive vezi med obveznostjo obrazložitve in zakonitim izvrševanjem pristojnosti nadzora sodišča.
It may thus happen that police or security enquiries are closed without giving rise to any judicial consequences, because it proved impossible to gather sucient evidence, or that measures of investigation ordered by the investigating judge do not lead to proceedings going to judgment for the same reasons.
Drugič, Splošno sodišče je v sodbi z dne 5.¥oktobra¥2009 v zadevi Komisija proti Roodhuijzen (T-58/08¥P, še neobjavljena) ugotovilo, da pogoji, ki jih člen¥72(1) Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti določa za razširitev skupnega sistema zdravstvenega zavarovanja na zakonca uradnika, ne zahtevajo, da mora biti zunajzakonska skupnost, ki povezuje uradnika in njegovega partnerja, izenačena z zakonsko zvezo.
Similarly, a decision to prosecute may end in the abandoning of the prosecution or in acquittal in the criminal proceedings. It would be unacceptable for the Council not to take account of such matters, which form part of the body of information having to be taken into account in order to assess the situation.
Za obstoj zunajzakonske skupnosti je namreč potrebna le zveza med dvema osebama, in da ti osebi predložita dokument, ki ga država članica prizna kot pravni dokument, ki potrjuje njun status zunajzakonskih partnerjev, ne da bi bilo treba preverjati, ali so učinki skupnosti, ki jo je sklenil zadevni uradnik, podobni učinkom, ki jih ima zakonska zveza.
Combating of nuclear proliferation
Predlogi za izdajo začasne odredbe
) Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on speci¤c restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).
Zadeva, v kateri je bil izdan ta sklep, je bila del vrste zadev, v katerih je predsednik v letih 2007 in 2008 zavrnil šest predlogov za odlog izvršitve odločb, s katerimi je bilo prepovedano trženje nekaterih substanc, ker ni bila izkazana nujnost, saj domnevna škoda ni bila niti nepopravljiva
The origin of the regime at issue is to be found in a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, given e¥ect by Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 (27) which provides for the freezing of the funds of the persons, entities or bodies designated by the Security Council and the freezing of the funds of entities owned or controlled by entities which have been identi¤ed as being engaged in, directly associated with or providing support for nuclear proliferation.
Čeprav je sodnik za izdajo začasne odredbe v sedmem sklepu, ki je bil izdan v zadevi United Phosphorus, priznal neposredno nevarnost resne in nepopravljive škode, je to storil zaradi posebnih okoliščin zadeve, in sicer zaradi večmesečne hude krize svetovnega gospodarstva, ki je vplivala na vrednost in likvidnost številnih podjetij.
On the basis of this regulation, an Iranian bank and its wholly-owned United Kingdom subsidiary were the subject of decisions freezing funds, having regard to their alleged role as a facilitator for the sensitive activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in connection with numerous purchases of sensitive materials for Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes and in supplying ¤nancial services.
Skupina, ki ji je pripadala tožeča stranka, je tako izgubila velik del svoje vrednosti, iz česar je razvidna resnost domnevne škode.
While the Court relied in these judgments upon the principles already set out in the case-law relating to the freezing of funds with regard to the combating of terrorism, it also introduced certain speci¤c reasoning.
Čeprav je sodnik za izdajo začasne odredbe priznal, da že sama možnost vložitve odškodninske tožbe zadostuje za dokaz, da je nančna škoda načeloma popravljiva, je dodal, da mu ni treba„mehansko in togo uporabiti“ upoštevnih pogojev, temveč mora glede na okoliščine primera ugotoviti, kako je treba preveriti nujnost.
Finally, the case-law makes it clear that the right to property and the right to carry on economic activity are not absolute rights and that their exercise may be subject to restrictions justi¤ed by objectives of public interest pursued by the Community.
Sodnik za izdajo začasne odredbe meni, da bi bilo nerazumno dopustiti prepoved trženja proizvoda, katerega trženje bo morda dovoljeno zgolj nekaj mesecev pozneje.
According to the caselaw, the importance of the aims pursued by the legislation at issue is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators (29).
Poleg tega je bilo iz več dejavnikov razvidno, da je vrnitev tožeče stranke na zadevni trg na videz težavna, ker v ključnem trenutku verjetno ne bo imela na voljo vira preskrbe s tem proizvodom.
The Court noted that the freedom to carry on economic activity and the right to property of the banks concerned were to a considerable extent restricted by the freezing of their funds, since they could not dispose of their funds located in the Community or held by Community nationals, except under speci¤c authorisations, and their branches in the Community could not enter into new transactions with their customers.
To ugotovitev z vidika ravnotežja med interesi potrjujeta ugotovitev, da je upravni postopek nekoliko počasen, iz česar je razvidno, da Komisija ne vidi nobenega posebnega razloga, zakaj bi bilo treba zadevni proizvod čim hitreje umakniti s trga, in okoliščina, da izpodbijana odločba določa trinajstmesečni rok za porabo obstoječih zalog, iz česar je razvidno, da uporaba proizvoda ne more povzročiti resnih tveganj za javno zdravje.
None the less, the Court considered that, given the prime importance of the preservation of international peace and security, the diculties caused were not disproportionate to the ends sought.
Potrjen je bil obstoj fumus boni juris, ker so bila v tožbi v glavni stvari prima facie postavljena zapletena, občutljiva in zelo tehnična vprašanja, ki morajo biti predmet poglobljene presoje, ki je ni mogoče opraviti v postopku za izdajo začasne odredbe, temveč jih je treba obravnavati v glavnem postopku.