natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In my view, however, it is not a question of seeking the best legal solution but of identifying the one that will be the most appropriate in the context of, and for the needs of, the Community legal system.
Po mojem mnenju ne gre za to, da bi poiskali najbolj�o sodno re�itev, temveč da bi odkrili tisto, ki se bo pokazala za najprimernej�o glede na okoli�čine in potrebe pravnega reda Skupnosti.
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION occurred only in German law. Hence, the fact that only Spanish and French law provide for the public authorities to incur liability by reason of a lawful legislative act cannot prevent such liability being recognised in Community law.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI zlasti z zahtevo po dovolj resni kr�itvi pravnega pravila, ki varuje posameznike 61, da bi javnega organa zaradi dopustnega zakonodajnega akta, ne more biti ovira za njegovo priznanje v pravu Skupnosti.
Community liability, linked in particular to the need for a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law protecting individuals, 61in order to give the victims of particularly serious damage suffered as a result of the conduct of the Community institutions the possibility of obtaining compensation.
se žrtvam posebej hude �kode, ki so jo utrpele zaradi ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, dalo možnost, da dobijo povračilo. Prilagoditev take re�itve nedvomno pojasnjuje, da Sodi�če nikoli ni zanikalo možnosti, da jo določi.
62Moreover, although this legal solution is to be found only in some national legal systems, the concern it expresses and the protection it provides for legal interests are also taken into account in other legal systems, even if, as we shall see, 63 different legal mechanisms are employed.
62Poleg tega, čeprav se taka pravna re�itev najde le v nekaterih nacionalnih pravnih redih, pa sta njena izražena skrb in varovanje pravnih interesov, ki jih zagotavlja, upo�tevani tudi v drugih pravnih redih, čeprav, kot bomo videli 63, z drugačnimi pravnimi mehanizmi.
The decisive question is whether such a solution would best meet the specific needs of the Community legal system.
Odločujoče je vpra�anje, ali bi taka re�itev najbolj zadovoljila posebne potrebe pravnega reda Skupnosti.
That does not mean that the principle of public authorities’ liability for a lawful legislative act should be enshrined in the Community legal order inasmuch as it would appear to be the best legal solution, and as such must be adopted in the Community legal order.
To pa ne pomeni, da bi moralo biti načelo odgovornosti javnega organa zaradi dopustnega zakonodajnega akta določeno v pravnem redu Skupnosti takoj, ko se pokaže za najbolj�o pravno re�itev, ki bi morala biti kot taka sprejeta v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
Its enshrinement in Community law can only be the result of a comparison of the mechanisms adopted in this respect by the different national legal systems in order to identify the solution best suited to the particular requirements of the Community legal order. 60
Njegova določitev v pravu Skupnosti bi morala biti le rezultat primerjave izrekov, ki so bili na tem področju izbrani v različnih nacionalnih pravnih redih z namenom odkriti re�itev, ki je najbolj prilagojena zahtevam pravnega reda Skupnosti. 60
In the particular context of the cases in point, this solution appears to be even more appropriate.
V posebnih okoli�činah obravnavanih primerov je ta re�itev videti �e bolj prilagojena.
Unable to rely on WTO rules, individuals who have reason to complain of conduct of Community institutions contrary to the WTO agreements cannot, as we have seen, plead the unlawfulness of that conduct.
Zaradi nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO se namreč pravni upravičenci, ki naj bi se pritožili na ravnanje institucij Skupnosti, ki je v nasprotju s sporazumi STO, kot smo videli, ne morejo sklicevati na njegovo nezakonitost.
They are consequently denied access both to
Tako možnost vložitve ničnostne tožbe kot možnost predložitve
61 — See Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291, paragraphs 41 and 42.
61 – Glej sodbo z dne 4. julija 2000 v zadevi Bergaderm in Goupil proti Komisiji, (C-352/98 P, Recueil, str. I-5291, točki 41 in 42).
In my view, that is indeed the case.
Zdi se mi, da je tako v tem primeru.
Establishing a principle of no-fault Community liability would make it possible, in the interests of justice, to offset the severity of the conditions for the incurring of fault-based
Določitev načela objektive odgovornosti Skupnosti bi v skrbi za pravičnost omogočila kompenzacijo strogosti pogojev za nastanek krivdne odgovornosti Skupnosti, povezane
60 — For an illustration of this method with regard to the right to strike, which aims to compare a solution accepted in national law with the particular requirements of the Community legal order, see my Opinion in Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation and Finnish Seamen’s Union [2007] ECR I-10779, point 60.
60 – Za ponazoritev te metode v zvezi s pravico do stavke, katere namen je soočiti re�itev, dobljeno iz nacionalnih pravnih redov, z zahtevami, ki so značilne za pravni red Skupnosti glej moje sklepne predloge v zadevi International Transport Workers’ Federation et Finnish Seamen’s Union (sodba z dne 11. decembra 2007, C-438/05, ZOdl., str. I-10779, točka 60).
63 — See below, at point 63 of this Opinion.
63 – Glej točko 63 teh sklepnih predlogov.
It would no longer be for trading partners to choose in their discretion, through the retaliatory measures they adopt, which category of Community economic operators must bear the cost of that freedom; it would be for the Community to decide whether that cost must be borne solely by the undertakings affected by such measures or distributed over society in general.
Ne bi bili več trgovski partnerji tisti, ki bi se s sprejetjem povračilnih ukrepov diskrecijsko odločali, katero kategorijo gospodarskih subjektov naj obremenjuje stro�ek te svobode, ampak bi bila Skupnost tista, ki bi odločala, ali naj ta stro�ek nosijo le podjetja, prizadeta s povračilnimi ukrepi, ali pa naj bo razdeljen na celotno družbo.
an action for annulment and to a reference for a preliminary ruling as to validity or an action for damages on grounds of fault.
vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, s katerim se presoja veljavnost ali možnost vložitve od�kodninske tožbe, ki temelji na krivdi, ni na razpolago.
In the absence of the enshrinement of the principle of no-fault Community liability, even those who, as a result of the unlawful conduct, have suffered particularly serious damage would be deprived of all judicial protection.
Če ni določitve načela objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti, bi bili celo tisti, ki so zaradi te nezakonitosti utrpeli posebej hudo �kodo, prikraj�ani za vsako pravno varstvo.
In this connection, it will be noted that enshrinement by the French Conseil d’État (Council of State) of no-fault liability for legislation is often presented as compensation for the inability of French administrative courts to act as an arbiter of law by exercising a review of constitutionality.
V istem vrstnem redu idej se opazi, da je določitev objektivne odgovornosti zaradi zakonov s strani francoskega Conseil d’État pogosto predstavljena kot nadomestilo za to, da se francosko upravno sodi�če pri opravljanju presoje ustavnosti ne more razglasiti za sodnika za zakone.
For the reasons I have just indicated, the cases in point therefore in my view offer an opportunity or even impose a duty to take the caselaw of the Court a step further.
Zaradi razlogov, ki sem jih ravnokar navedel, se mi zdi, da obravnavane zadeve ponujajo priložnost oziroma celo nalagajo, da se v sodni praksi Sodi�ča naredi dodaten korak.
Enshrining in Community law a principle of no-fault Community liability would advance the caselaw from potential to settled, from the era of uncertainties to that of solutions. 64
Z določitvijo načela objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti gre za to, da ta sodna praksa preskoči iz faze morebitnega v fazo določenega, iz negotovega časa v čas re�itev. 64
In addition, the acceptance of a principle of no-fault liability would meet the requirements of good governance.
Poleg tega bi sprejetje načela objektivne odgovornosti služilo tudi zahtevam dobrega upravljanja.
It would force the political authorities, if they envisage retaining Community legislation despite expiry of the reasonable period of time granted for compliance with a DSB decision that has found it to be incompatible with the WTO rules, to assess better the costs that could ensue for citizens of the Union and to set them against the advantages that would accrue to the economic sector or sectors concerned if the Community legislation were retained.
Zavezovalo bi politično oblast, kadar bi nameravala ohraniti ureditev Skupnosti kljub poteku razumnega roka, ki je določen za uskladitev s sklepom ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena za nezdružljivo s pravili STO, da bolje presodi stro�ke, ki bi zaradi tega nastali in bi bremenili državljane Unije, in da jih uravnovesi s prednostmi za zadevni gospodarski sektor ali sektorje za ohranitev skupnostne ureditve.
This would not reduce the discretion of the institutions in the WTO context but ensure that that discretion was exercised advisedly.
V tem primeru ne bi pri�lo do zmanj�anja diskrecijske pravice institucij v okviru STO, temveč do zagotovitve preudarnega izvr�evanja te diskrecijske pravice.
The establishment of a principle of no-fault Community liability could take its inspiration from the notion of the equality of citizens in bearing public burdens on which French administrative law has based liability for legislation.
Določitev načela objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti bi lahko dobila navdih pri ideji enakosti državljanov pred javnimi organi, na kateri je francosko upravno pravo utemeljilo odgovornost zaradi zakonov.
The reasoning may be summarised as follows: as all public activity is assumed to benefit society as a whole, it is
Utemeljitev se lahko na kratko predstavi na naslednji način: za vsako javno dejavnost se �teje, da ima od nje koristi celotna skupnost,
171; see especially pp. 204 to 208.
171, glej zlasti strani od 204 do 208.
Lastly, recognition of a principle of no-fault liability would leave it to the Community legal system to allocate within
Nazadnje, priznanje načela objektivne odgovornosti bi vodilo do tega, da bi pustilo pravnemu redu Skupnosti obvladovanje
The field of application of no-fault Community liability normal that citizens must bear the resulting burdens without compensation, but if, in the general interest, the public authorities cause particularly serious damage to certain individuals and to them alone, the result is a burden that does not normally fall on them and which must give rise to compensation; the compensation, borne by society via taxation, restores the equality that has been upset.
Področje uporabe objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti zato je normalno, da morajo državljani brez nadomestila nositi bremena, ki iz nje izhajajo; vendar če v splo�nem interesu javni organi povzročijo posebno hudo �kodo nekaterim posameznikom, ki to �kodo trpijo sami, pa iz tega izhaja breme, ki jim običajno ni naloženo in ki privede do od�kodnine; ta od�kodnina, ki jo nosi skupnost zaradi davka, pa ponovno vzpostavlja kr�eno enakost.
As regards the field of application of such a principle of no-fault liability, the Commission, in particular, complains that after recognising that such liability can apply only ‘in specific fields’, 66the Court of First Instance did not feel bound to name the fields involved.
Glede področja uporabe takega načela objektivne odgovornosti Komisija med drugim očita Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da potem ko je priznalo, da lahko deluje le „na posebnih področjih“ 66, ni menilo, da mora pojasniti, za katera področja gre.
However, that was not necessary for resolving the cases in point.
Vendar to ni bilo potrebno za re�itev obravnavanih zadev.
It was sufficient for the Court of First Instance to satisfy itself that no-fault liability could apply in those cases — as it found by implication since it verified that the conditions for its application were met.
Zadostovalo mu je, da se je prepričalo, da se lahko objektivna odgovornost uporablja v teh zadevah, kot je implicitno – saj je preverilo, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za njeno veljavo – priznalo.
But this is the point with which both the Commission and the Council take issue too.
To pa je prav tisto, kar mu Komisija in Svet očitata.
The following observations must therefore be made in this regard.
Zato je treba v zvezi s tem podati sledeče stali�če.
This idea is not very far removed from the ‘Sonderopfertheorie’ of German law, according to which individuals who, by reason of lawful public action, suffer a ‘special sacrifice’, that is to say damage equivalent to expropriation, must be granted reparation.
Ta ideja ni daleč od „Sonderopfertheorie“ nem�kega prava, po kateri morajo posamezniki, ki zaradi dopustnega javnega posredovanja utrpijo „posebno žrtev“, to je �kodo, ki je enaka razlastitvi, dobiti povračilo.
Presented in this manner, no-fault Community liability could also be based on property rights, which are protected in the Community legal system as a general principle of law in accordance with the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
Tako predstavljena bi lahko krivdna odgovornost Skupnosti temeljila na lastninski pravici, ki je v skladu s skupnimi ustavnimi tradicijami držav članic varovana v pravnem redu Skupnosti kot splo�no pravno načelo.
It would express the idea that even lawful action by the Community’s legislative body cannot have an effect equivalent to expropriation without compensation being granted. 65
Prenesla bi idejo, da ne more biti kr�itve, ki je enakovredna razlastitvi, ki izhaja iz posredovanja – čeprav dopustnega – zakonodajnih organov Skupnosti, brez od�kodnine. 65
First, contrary to the picture which both the Commission and the Council seek to present, it is not so much a principle of liability for a lawful act that the Court of First Instance established, rightly in my view, in the contested judgments.
Na prvem mestu, v nasprotju s tem, kar želita predstaviti Komisija in Svet, ne gre toliko za načelo odgovornosti zaradi dopustnega akta, ki ga je – po mojem mnenju pravilno – določilo Sodi�če v izpodbijanih sodbah.
It is, more broadly, absolute liability, even in the absence of fault.
Gre, �ir�e, za objektivno odgovornost, celo brez krivde. Drugače povedano, odgovornost je nastala neodvisno od zahteve po krivdi v izvoru �kode, katere obstoj mora dokazati tožeča stranka.
Liability can even extend to acts that are unlawful but do not constitute a sufficiently serious infringement.
Pokriva lahko celo primer nezakonitih aktov, ki pa ne bi pomenili dovolj resne kr�itve.
65 — For an early example of such an insight, see the Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn in Biovilac v EEC; see especially p. 4091.
65 – Glej za tako intuicijo sklepne predloge generalnega pravo -branilca sira Gordona Slynna v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Biovilac proti EGS, zlasti str. 4091.
Moreover, this idea appears, in some way or another, in most of the legal systems (see Amaral, M.L., Responsabilidade do Estado e dever de indemnizar do legis­lador, Coimbra Editora, 1998, p. 474 et seq.).
V preostalem najdemo tako idejo na tak ali drugačen način v večini pravnih redov (glej Amaral, M. L., Responsabilidade do Estado e dever de indemnizar do legislador, Coimbra Editora, 1998, str.
66 — See the FIAMM judgment, paragraph 159, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 152.
66 – Sodbi Fiamm (točka 159) in Fedon (točka 152).
Secondly, in contrast to the Council, I do not see why this regime of absolute liability could not also be applied to failures to legislate.
Na drugem mestu, za razliko od Sveta ne vidim, zakaj se ta sistem objektivne odgovornosti ne bi mogel uporabljati tudi v primerih zakonodajne opustitve.
The parallel established by the Council with the failure to act referred to in Article 232 EC is irrelevant, as it is a question of no-fault liability.
Vzporednica z opustitvijo iz člena 232 ES, ki jo je Svet dokazal, je brez pomena, ko gre za objektivno odgovornost.
In any event, it is not a failure to take legislative action that is at issue in the present cases.
V vsakem primeru se v obravnavanih zadevah ne obravnava neobstoj zakonodajne dejavnosti.
Both the Council and the Commission took several initiatives within the reasonable period of time allowed (modification of the Community regime for banana imports, negotiations), which moreover are mentioned by the Council itself in its written pleadings, but those initiatives proved unable to ensure correct implementation of the DSB decision.
Tako Svet kot Komisija sta v določenem razumnem roku sprejela več iniciativ (prilagoditev skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan, pogajanja), ki jih je Svet sam poudaril v svoji vlogi, vendar so se te iniciative izkazale za neprimerne, da bi zagotovile pravilno izvedbo sklepa ORS.
Lastly, in the particular context of compliance with the WTO agreements which is pertinent to the cases in point, only citizens of the Union might rely on this system of no-fault liability to claim compensation for especially serious damage allegedly caused to them, in the general interest, by the Community institutions.
Na zadnjem mestu, v posebnih okoli�činah spo�tovanja sporazumov STO, ki se obravnavajo v teh zadevah, se lahko le državljani Unije sklicujejo na ta sistem objektivne odgovornosti zaradi zahtevanja povračila posebno težke �kode, ki naj bi jim jo v splo�nem interesu povzročile institucije Skupnosti.
The political authorities cannot be required, nor can it be open to them, for the purposes of exercising their freedom of action within the context of the WTO, to assess as well the costs of their decisions for operators from third countries.
Ne bi bilo namreč niti iztožljivo od političnih organov niti mogoče zanje, da bi za izvajanje svobode ravnanja v okviru STO ocenili tudi stro�ke opravljenih izbir za subjekte iz tretjih držav.
Within the framework of the Community powers exercised by the institutions in the field of external trade policy, the concept of a ‘rupture’ in the equal distribution of public burdens can therefore be conceivable only between citizens of the Union.
V okoli�činah pristojnosti Skupnosti, ki jih izvajajo institucije na področju zunanje trgovske politike, bi se torej ideja o kr�itvi enakosti pred javnimi organi lahko pojmovala le med državljani Unije.
It cannot therefore be validly argued, as the Council submits, that the recognition of no-fault liability in the context of the application of WTO law would disregard the principle of reciprocity, since the Community’s main trading partners do not have such liability.
Ni mogoče torej po zgledu Sveta uspe�no zatrjevati, da bi priznanje objektivne odgovornosti v okoli�činah uporabe prava STO kr�ilo načelo vzajemnosti, če glavni trgovski partnerji Skupnosti take odgovornosti ne poznajo.
Stated, justified and circumscribed in this way, the function of the principle of no-fault Community liability is clear.
Namen objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti je tako postavljen, utemeljen in omejen videti jasen.
There is no question of compelling the Community institutions to comply with WTO rules by
Nikakor ne gre za to, da bi prisilili institucije Skupnosti k uskladitvi s pravili STO, s tem da bi omejili njihovo
67 — See Case T-113/96 Dubois et Fils v Council and Commission [1998] ECR II-125, paragraphs 40 to 48.
67 – Glej sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 29. januarja 1998 v zadevi Dubois in Fils proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-113/96, Recueil, str. II-125, točke od 40 do 48).
Thirdly, there is no valid reason for limiting no-fault Community liability to cases where the damage stems from a non-legisla-tive act, as the Commission maintains.
Na tretjem mestu, kakor navaja Komisija, ni nobenega utemeljenega razloga, da bi omejevali objektivno odgovornost Skupnosti samo na primere, v katerih bi bil razlog za �kodo nezakonodajni akt.
Under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, the Community is under an obligation to make good ‘any damage caused by its institutions’, without distinguishing their activities according to whether they are administrative or legislative.
V členu 288, drugi odstavek, ES je določena obveznost Skupnosti, da nadomesti „�kodo, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije“, ne glede na to, ali je njihova dejavnost upravna ali zakonodajna.
Moreover, in the cases in point the modification of the Community regime for importing bananas that was held to be inadequate was the result both of a Council parent regulation and a Commission implementing regulation.
V preostalem, v obravnavanem primeru je bila prilagoditev skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan, ki je bila presojena za nezadostno, opravljena z osnovno uredbo Sveta in z izvedbeno uredbo Komisije.
Finally and incidentally, such a limitation is, in my view, inappropriate, given the insufficient distinction between legislative and administrative acts in Community law as it currently stands.
Nazadnje in kot dodatno se mi zdi podobna omejitev neustrezna, upo�tevajoč nezadostno razlikovanje zakonodajnih aktov in upravnih aktov v sedanjem stanju prava Skupnosti.
In the final analysis, only damage resulting from the application
Na koncu, �koda, ki je nastala zaradi uporabe
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION restricting their political freedom.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI politično svobodo.
It is only a question of ensuring that the costs resulting from the political choices they make do not affect the equality of citizens of the Union in shouldering public burdens.
Gre le za zagotovitev, da stro�ki, ki izvirajo iz političnih izbir, ne vplivajo na enakost državljanov Unije pred javnimi organi.
the rules on the burden of proof. However, the Court of First Instance was fully entitled to find that the defendants did not dispute that the applicants had suffered actual damage to their businesses as a result of the rise in the prices of their products caused by the increased customs duty, and that they merely maintained that the applicants had been incapable of mitigating the effects by adopting appropriate measures.
ugotovilo, da tožene stranke ne izpodbijajo resničnosti trgovske �kode, ki sta jo tožeči stranki utrpeli zaradi podražitve njunih proizvodov zaradi dodatnih carinskih dajatev, vendar da mu očitajo le, da je ni moglo ublažiti s primernimi ukrepi.
Moreover, it used the statistics produced by the Commission, which reveal a fall in the total volume of imports of batteries and spectacle cases into the United States during the period in which the increased rate of duty was applied, in finding that the reality of the damage was proven. 68
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je opiralo na statistike, ki jih je predložila Komisija, ki razkrivajo popoln padec obsega uvoza akumulatorjev in etuiev za očala v Združenih državah v obdobju uporabe te dodatne dajatve, da bi ugotovilo resničnost dokazane �kode. 68
The predisposition of the Council and the Commission against enshrining the principle of no-fault Community liability is understandable.
Preprečevanja Sveta in Komisije, da bi se določilo načelo objektivne odgovornosti Komisije, so razumljiva.
Legislative and administrative activities should not be exposed, through the establishment of an overgenerous liability mechanism, to a risk that could impede the very exercise of those activities.
Zaradi ureditve mehanizma preveč radodarne odgovornosti ne bi bilo treba izvajanja zakonodajne in izvr�ilne dejavnosti obteževati z grožnjo, ki bi lahko preprečila samo izvajanje te dejavnosti.
Legitimate though it be, this concern cannot obstruct the recognition of a principle of no-fault Community liability.
Vendar ta skrb, naj bo �e tako legitimna, ne more ovirati priznanja načela objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti.
Both the account taken of it and the way in which it is set against the concern for the balanced apportionment of public burdens must be reflected in the scope set for that liability and the conditions laid down for it to apply.
Njeno upo�tevanje in tehtanje s skrbjo po uravnoteženem povračilu javnih organov se morata odražati na danem obsegu in pogojih, določenih za to odgovornost.