natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In its judgment of 11 September 2007 in Case C-431/05 Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, the Court, asked by the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice whether it has jurisdiction to interpret Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPs Agreement) (3), answered in the armative, stating that, since the TRIPs Agreement was concluded by the Community and its Member States by virtue of joint competence, the Court has jurisdiction to dene the obligations which the Community thereby assumed and, for that purpose, to interpret the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement.
V zadevi Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos (sodba z dne 11. septembra 2007, C-431/05) je Sodišče na vprašanje portugalskega vrhovnega sodišča, ali je Sodišče pristojno za razlago člena 33 Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (Sporazum TRIPs)3, odgovorilo pritrdilno in navedlo, da je zato, ker so ta sporazum sklenile Skupnost in njene države članice na podlagi deljene pristojnosti, Sodišče pristojno za določitev obveznosti, ki jih je Evropska skupnost tako prevzela, in v ta namen za razlago določb zadevnega sporazuma.
The matter of the sharing of competence between the Community and its Member States calls for a uniform reply at Community level that the Court alone is capable of supplying.
Vprašanje o delitvi pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami zahteva enoten odgovor na ravni Skupnosti, ki ga lahko poda le Sodišče.
In relation more specically to the case in point, the Court held that there is some Community interest in considering it as having jurisdiction to interpret Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement — which relates to the minimum term of patent protection — in order to ascertain whether it is contrary to Community law for that provision to be given direct eect.
V tej zadevi je Sodišče presodilo, da obstaja nedvomen interes Skupnosti za to, da se Sodišče šteje za pristojno za razlago člena 33 SporazumaTRIPs o minimalnem trajanju patentnega varstva, da bi ugotovilo, ali pravo Skupnosti nasprotuje priznanju neposrednega učinka tej določbi.
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, constituting Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation, signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 and approved by Council Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-1994) (OJ 1994 L 336, p. 1).
V skladu s sodno prakso Dzodzi4 ali Leur-Bloem in novejšo Poseidon Chartering je Sodišče v zadevi Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (sodba z dne 11. decembra 2007, C-280/06) ponovno ugotovilo, da je, če so bila v posameznem primeru Sodišču predložena vprašanja za predhodno odločanje, v katerih so se pravila Skupnosti, glede katerih se je prosilo za razlago, uporabljala le na podlagi napotila notranjega prava, torej kadar nacionalna zakonodaja za primere, ki so povsem notranjega značaja, sprejme enake rešitve, kot jih določa pravo Skupnosti, zagotovo v interesu Skupnosti, da se zaradi izogibanja prihodnjim razhajajočim se razlagam določbe ali pojmi iz prava Skupnosti razlagajo enako, ne glede na okoliščine, v katerih se uporabljajo, in sicer glede na sodbe Sodišča, sprejete na podlagi predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe. Na podlagi tega je Sodišče sprejelo razlago, za katero ga je prosilo nacionalno sodišče.
Case C-28/95 [1997] ECR I-4161.
Sodba z dne 17. julija 1997, C-28/95, Recueil, str. I-4161.
Case C-3/04 [2006] ECR I-2505.
Sodba z dne 16. marca 2006, C-3/04, ZOdl., str. I-2505.
C-280/06 Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, that, in the particular case where it adjudicates on references for a preliminary ruling in which the rules of Community law whose interpretation is requested are applicable only because of a reference made to them by national law, that is to say where, in regulating purely internal situations, domestic legislation provides the same solutions as those adopted in Community law, it is clearly in the Community interest that, in order to avoid future dierences of interpretation, provisions or concepts taken from Community law should be interpreted uniformly irrespective of the circumstances in which they are to apply, by means of judgments of the Court given on references for a preliminary ruling. The Court consequently supplied the interpretation sought by the national court.
O zelo drugačnem vprašanju je Sodišče v sodbi z dne 28. junija 2007 (Internationaler Hilfsfonds proti Komisiji, C-331/05 P) presodilo tako, da plačila stroškov postopkov pred evropskim varuhom človekovih pravic, ki jih ni mogoče povrniti, ker ne spadajo med povračljive stroške7, ni mogoče naložiti zadevni instituciji iz naslova nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti, ker ni vzročne zveze med škodo in zadevnim nepravilnim aktom, saj so stroški nastali po prosti izbiri zadevnih oseb.
The Court also held, in its judgment of 27 September 2007 in Case C-351/04 IkeaWholesale, that, given their nature and structure, the WTO (WorldTrade Organisation) agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions.
Predmet sporov je bila tudi pravica dostopa javnosti do dokumentov institucij. Sodišče se je moralo v zadevi Sison proti Svetu (sodba z dne 1. februarja 2007, C-266/05 P, ZOdl., str.
It is only where the Community has intended to implement a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO, or where the Community measure refers expressly to the precise provisions of the WTO agreements, that it is for the Court to review the legality of the Community measure in question in the light of the WTO rules.
I-1233) izreči o večkratni, tudi delni zavrnitvi prošnje tožeče stranke, ki je zahtevala, prvič, dostop do dokumentov, na podlagi katerih jo je Svet uvrstil na seznam oseb, katerih sredstva in nančno premoženje se zamrznejo v skladu z Uredbo št. 2580/20018, in jo na tem seznamu ohranil, in drugič, navedbo imen držav, ki so v zvezi s tem predložile določene dokumente.
In a very dierent eld, the Court held, by judgment of 28 June 2007 in Case C-331/05 P Internationaler Hilfsfonds v Commission, that costs relating to proceedings before the European Ombudsman, which do not qualify as recoverable costs (7), also cannot be payable by the institution concerned on the basis of non-contractual liability of the Community, given that there is no causal link between the loss and the wrongful act in question as such costs are incurred at the free choice of the persons concerned.
Sodišče je spomnilo na to, da ima na področjih, na katerih mora zakonodajalec Skupnosti sprejeti odločitve, ki so politične, gospodarske in socialne, pri katerih mora opraviti zahtevno presojo, le omejen nadzor nad zakonitostjo.
The public’s right of access to documents of the institutions also gave rise to litigation. In Case C-266/05 P Sison v Council [2007] ECR I-1233, the Court was called upon to adjudicate on several decisions refusing even partial access to a person who requested (i) access to the documents that had led the Council to include and maintain him on the list of persons whose funds and financial assets were to be frozen pursuant to Regulation No 2580/2001 (8) and (ii) disclosure of the identity of the States which had provided certain documents in that connection.
Na podlagi navedenega je Sodišče presodilo, da je predmet Uredbe št. 1049/20019podelitev pravice javnosti do dostopa do dokumentov institucij na splošno, in ne določitev pravil za varstvo posebnega interesa, ki bi ga ta ali ona oseba lahko imela za dostop do enega od njih, in da glede izjem od pravice do dostopa, utemeljenih z nekaterimi javnimi in zasebnimi interesi, posebnega interesa pritožnika za prejetje dokumentov ne more upoštevati institucija, ki se je dolžna izreči o vprašanju, ali bi razkritje teh dokumentov javnosti škodilo interesom, ki jih je želel zakonodajalec Skupnosti zavarovati, in ki mora v takem primeru zahtevani dostop zavrniti.
The Court recalled that the judicial review conducted by it is necessarily limited in the case of an area which involves political, economic and social choices on the part of the Community legislature, and in which the latter is called upon to undertake complex assessments.
Sodišče je nato opozorilo na to, da tudi če bi pritožnik imel pravico do tega, da se ga takoj in podrobno seznani z bistvom in vzroki obtožbe, ki ga bremeni, ker je bil vključen na sporni seznam, in bi ta pravica vsebovala dostop do dokumentov Sveta, take pravice ni mogoče izvajati posebej z uporabo mehanizmov za dostop javnosti do dokumentov institucij.
That said, it held that the purpose of Regulation No 1049/2001 (9) is to give the general public a right of access to documents of the institutions and not to lay down rules designed
Glede dokumentov, katerih vsebina je izjemno občutljiva, je Sodišče menilo, da je organ, ki jih je ustvaril, upravičen zahtevati tajnost o samem obstoju takega dokumenta in ima tudi pravico nasprotovati razkritju njegovega imena, če bi prišlo do razkritja navedenega dokumenta, česar ni mogoče šteti za nesorazmerno, ker lahko prosilcu, ki prejme tako
See Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Glej člen 91(b) Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specic restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2580/2001 z dne 27. decembra 2001 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte zaradi boja proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str. 70).
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
The Court then observed that, even assuming that the appellant had a right to be informed in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him, which led to his inclusion on the list at issue, and even if that right entailed access to documents held by the Council, such a right could not be exercised by having recourse to the mechanisms for public access to documents of the institutions.
Na področju razmerij med pravom Skupnosti in nacionalnim pravom držav članic je Sodišče podalo nekaj opredelitev v zvezi s primarnostjo prava Skupnosti in njegovim neposrednim učinkom.
In respect of documents whose content is extremely sensitive, the Court held that the originating authority is entitled to require secrecy as regards even the existence of a sensitive document and also has the power to prevent disclosure of its own identity in the event that the existence of that document should become known, a conclusion which cannot be considered disproportionate on the ground that it may give rise, for an applicant refused access, to additional diculty, or indeed practical impossibility, in identifying the State of origin of that document.
V zadevi Lucchini (sodba z dne 18. julija 2007, C-119/05) je Sodišče na podlagi načel iz sodne prakse Simmenthal11 presodilo, da pravo Skupnosti nasprotuje uporabi določbe italijanskega prava, ki uzakonja načelo pravnomočnosti, če njena uporaba onemogoča vračilo državne pomoči, dodelitev katere pomeni kršitev prava Skupnosti in katere nezdružljivost s skupnim trgom je bila ugotovljena z dokončno odločbo Komisije.
With regard to citizens’ access not to documents but to the rule of law, the Court was required in its judgment of 11 December 2007 in Case C-161/06 Skoma Lux to decide on the eect of Article 58 of the 2004 Act of Accession (10).
V zadevi Carp (sodba z dne 7. junija 2007, C-80/06) je Sodišče obravnavalo vprašanje neposrednega horizontalnega učinka odločb.
Asked by a Czech court whether that Article 58 allows the provisions of a Community regulation which has not been published in the Ocial Journal of the European Union in the language of a Member State, although that language is an ocial language of the Union, to be enforced against individuals in that State, the Court held that that lack of publication renders the obligations contained in Community legislation unenforceable against individuals in that State, even though those persons could have learned of the legislation by other means.
Ugotovilo je, da je Odločba 1999/93 o postopku za potrjevanje skladnosti gradbenih proizvodov v skladu s členom 20(2) Direktive Sveta 89/10612 splošni akt, ki določa vrste postopkov potrjevanja skladnosti in Evropski odbor za standardizacijo/Evropski odbor za standardizacijo v elektrotehniki (CEN/Cenelec) pooblašča, da določi vsebino upoštevnih harmoniziranih standardov, ki jih bodo morali nato prenesti standardizacijski organi vsake od držav članic, in je torej zavezujoča le za države članice, ki so njene edine naslovnice.
In so deciding, the Court was interpreting Community law and not assessing its validity.
Zato se posameznik nanje ne more sklicevati v sporu z drugim posameznikom v okviru postopka o pogodbeni odgovornosti.
33).Article 58 of the Act provides that:‘The texts of the acts of the institutions, and of the European Central Bank, adopted before accession and drawn up by the Council, the Commission or the European Central Bank in the Czech, Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovenian languages shall, from the date of accession, be authentic under the same conditions as the texts drawn up in the present 11 languages. They shall be published in the Ocial Journal of the European Union if the texts in the present languages were so published.’
Odločba Komisije 1999/93/ES z dne 25. januarja 1999 o postopku za potrjevanje skladnosti gradbenih proizvodov v skladu s členom 20(2) Direktive Sveta 89/106/EGS v zvezi z vrati, okni, naoknicami, roloji, vhodnimi vrati in ustreznim stavbnim okovjem (UL L 29, str. 51).
Court of Justice
Stališče, ki ga morajo zavzeti nacionalna sodišča glede mednarodnih sporazumov, je bilo opredeljeno v dveh sodbah.
In its judgment of 18 July 2007 in Case C-119/05 Lucchini, the Court, applying the principles laid down in a line of cases starting with Simmenthal (11), found that Community law precludes the application of a provision of Italian law which seeks to lay down the principle of res judicata in so far as the application of that provision prevents the recovery of State aid which was granted in breach of Community law and which has been found to be incompatible with the common market in a decision of the Commission that has become nal.
V zadevi Tum in Dari (sodba z dne 20. septembra 2007, C-16/05) se je Sodišče moralo izreči o vsebini klavzule„standstill“ iz člena 41(1) Dodatnega protokola k sporazumu o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija13, ki določa, da pogodbenici medsebojno ne smeta uvajati nobenih novih omejitev na področju svobode ustanavljanja in svobode opravljanja storitev od dneva začetka veljavnosti tega protokola. V obravnavani zadevi sta hotela turška državljana v Združenem kraljestvu Velika Britanija in Severna Irska ustanoviti podjetje.
In its judgment of 7 June 2007 in Case C-80/06 Carp, the Court had to address the question of the horizontal direct eect of decisions.
Po mnenju Sodišča ima ta nedvoumna določba neposredni učinek in ni materialnopravna določba, ki onemogoča uporabo materialnega prava o vstopu na ozemlje države članice tako, da ga nadomesti, ampak kot kvaziprocesnopravna določba, ki ratione temporis določa, glede na katere določbe ureditve države članice o priseljevanju je treba presojati položaj turškega državljana, ki želi uveljaviti svobodo ustanavljanja.
Consequently, an individual cannot rely on the decision in the context of legal proceedings against another individual concerning contractual liability.
Glede tega na podlagi okoliščine, da taka klavzula od takrat, ko začne veljati, tem državam nalaga obveznost opustitve, posledica česar je, da na tem področju v določeni meri omejuje njihov manevrski prostor, ni mogoče ugotoviti, da bi to vplivalo na njihovo suverenost na področju politike priseljevanja.
Two judgments provided explanation regarding the approach to be adopted by national courts when faced with international agreements concluded by the Community.
Sodišče je nato to določbo razlagalo tako, da od začetka veljavnosti tega protokola zadevni državi članici prepoveduje uvedbo novih omejitev izvajanja svobode ustanavljanja, skupaj s tistimi, ki se nanašajo na materialnopravne in/ali procesnopravne pogoje na področju prvega sprejema turških državljanov na nacionalno ozemlje te države, ki želijo v njej opravljati poklicno dejavnost kot samozaposlene osebe.
In its judgment of 20 September 2007 in Case C-16/05 Tum and Dari, the Court was required to rule on the eect of the ‘standstill’ clause contained in Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement (13), under which the contracting parties are prohibited from introducing any new restrictions on the freedom of establishment from the date of entry into force of that protocol.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos je portugalsko vrhovno sodišče zastavilo Sodišču vprašanje, ali morajo nacionalna sodišča v sporih, ki potekajo pred njimi, uporabiti člen 33 Sporazuma o trgovinskih vidikih pravic intelektualne lastnine (Sporazum TRIPs) glede minimalnega trajanja patentnega varstva po uradni dolžnosti ali samo na predlog strank.
In the Court’s view, this unequivocal provision has direct eect, and it does not operate in the same way as a substantive rule, rendering inapplicable the relevant substantive law concerning entry into the territory of a Member State that it replaces, but as a quasiprocedural rule, stipulating, ratione temporis, which are the provisions of a Member State’s immigration legislation that must be referred to for the purposes of assessing the position of a Turkish national who wishes to exercise freedom of establishment.
Sodišče je najprej spomnilo na to, da je pristojno za razlago določb navedenega sporazuma, nato pa presodilo, da je treba v okviru tega razlikovati med področji, ki jih Skupnost še ni normativno uredila, in tistimi, ki jih je že.
Accordingly, the ‘standstill’ clause does not call into question the competence, as a matter of principle, of the Member States to conduct their national immigration policy.
Glede prvih, ki zato še spadajo v pristojnost držav članic, je ugotovilo, da varstvo intelektualne lastnine in ukrepi, ki jih v ta namen sprejmejo sodni organi, ne spadajo v pravo Skupnosti, slednje pa niti ne zahteva niti ne izključuje tega, da pravni red države članice posameznikom prizna pravico, da se neposredno sklicujejo na določbo Sporazuma TRIPs, ali da naloži sodišču, naj to določbo uporabi po uradni dolžnosti.
The mere fact that, as from its entry into force, such a clause imposes on those States a duty not to act which has the eect of limiting, to some extent, their room for manoevre on such matters does not mean that the very substance of their sovereign competence in respect of aliens should be regarded as having been undermined.
Glede drugih pa je Sodišče potrdilo, da se zanje uporablja pravo Skupnosti, kar pomeni obveznost, da se SporazumTRIPs kar v največji meri razlaga enotno, vendar pa zadevni določbi tega sporazuma ni mogoče pripisati neposrednega učinka.
The Court then interpreted the provision in question as prohibiting the introduction, as from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol to the EEC–Turkey Association Agreement with regard to the Member State concerned, of any new restrictions on the exercise of freedom of establishment, including those relating to the substantive and/or procedural conditions governing the first admission into the territory of that State, of Turkish nationals intending to establish themselves in business there on their own account.
Sodišče je v tej zadevi ugotovilo, da Skupnost še ni izvrševala svojih pristojnosti na področju patentov, na katero spada člen 33 Sporazuma TRIPs, ali da to izvrševanje na notranji ravni doslej ni bilo dovolj pomembno, da bi glede na sedanje stanje to področje spadalo v pravo Skupnosti. Ugotovilo je, da pravo Skupnosti zdaj ne nasprotuje temu, da nacionalno sodišče pod pogoji, določenimi z nacionalnim pravom, neposredno uporabi člen 33 tega Sporazuma.
In Merck Genéricos-Produtos Farmacêuticos, the Court was asked by the Portuguese Supreme Court of Justice whether national courts must, on their own initiative or at the request of one of the parties, apply Article 33 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPs Agreement) — which relates to the minimum term of patent protection — in proceedings pending before them.
Na koncu je treba omeniti tri sodbe v zvezi z učinkovitim sodnim varstvom pravic na podlagi prava Skupnosti, ki mora biti omogočeno posameznikom.
After observing that it has jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of the TRIPs Agreement, the Court stated that, in this context, it is necessary to distinguish between fields in which the Community has not yet legislated and those in which it already has.
V zadevi Unibet (sodba z dne 13. marca 2007, C-432/05, ZOdl., str.
As regards the former elds, which still fall within the competence of the Member States, the Court held that the protection of intellectual property rights and measures taken for that purpose by the judicial authorities do not fall within the scope of Community law, so that Community law neither requires nor forbids the legal order of a Member State to accord to individuals the right to rely directly on a rule laid down in the TRIPs Agreement or to oblige the courts to apply that rule of their own motion.
I-2271) je Sodišče najprej spomnilo na to, da gre za splošno načelo prava Skupnosti, nato pa kot po navadi poudarilo, da če ni ureditve Skupnosti, vsaka država članica v skladu z obveznostjo sodelovanja določi pristojna sodišča in postopkovna pravila za pravna sredstva, ki zagotavljajo varovanje pravic, ki jih posameznikom daje pravo Skupnosti.
In the case of the latter elds, on the other hand, Community law applies, which means that it is necessary, as far as may be possible, to supply an interpretation in keeping with the TRIPs Agreement, although no direct eect may be given to the provision of that agreement at issue.
O tej postopkovni avtonomiji, ki jo opredeljujeta načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti, bi bilo mogoče podvomiti, le če bi iz ureditve zadevnega nacionalnega pravnega reda izhajalo, da ni nobenega pravnega sredstva, ki bi lahko, čeprav posredno, zagotovilo spoštovanje pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
In the case in point, the Court found that the Community has not yet exercised its powers in the sphere of patents, within which Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement falls, or that, at the very least, at internal level, that exercise has not to date been of sucient importance to lead to the conclusion that, as matters now stand, that sphere falls within the scope of Community law.
Na podlagi navedenega je Sodišče opozorilo na to, da načelo učinkovitega sodnega varstva pravic, ki jih imajo posamezniki na podlagi prava Skupnosti, ne zahteva, da mora notranji pravni red predvideti samostojno tožbo, primarno, za preizkus skladnosti nacionalnih določb s pravom Skupnosti, če druga učinkovita pravna sredstva, ki niso manj ugodna od tistih, ki veljajo za podobne nacionalne tožbe, omogočajo predhodno presojo te skladnosti, kar pa je naloga nacionalnega sodišča.
It drew the conclusion that it is not currently contrary to Community law for Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement to be directly applied by a national court subject to the conditions provided for by national law.
V danem primeru to pomeni, da če je posameznik prisiljen v upravni ali kazenski postopek oziroma v sankcije, ki bi lahko izhajale iz tega, to kot edino pravno sredstvo za izpodbijanje skladnosti spornih nacionalnih določb s pravom Skupnosti ne zadostuje za zagotovitev učinkovitega pravnega varstva.