natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, the same circumstances that may justify exceptional restrictions on fundamental rights also require the courts to ascertain carefully whether those restrictions go beyond what is necessary.
Enake okoli�čine, ki lahko utemeljijo izjemne omejitve temeljnih pravic, tako tudi zahtevajo, da sodi�ča pazljivo preverijo, ali te omejitve presegajo tisto, kar je potrebno.
As I shall discuss below, the Court must verify whether the claim that extraordinarily high security risks exist is substantiated and it must ensure that the measures adopted strike a proper balance between the nature of the security risk and the extent to which these measures encroach upon the fundamental rights of individuals.
Kot bom obravnaval v nadaljevanju, mora Sodi�če preizkusiti, ali je trditev, da obstaja zelo veliko tveganje za varnost, utemeljena in mora zagotoviti, da sprejeti ukrepi zagotavljajo ustrezno ravnovesje med naravo tveganja za varnost in obsegom, v katerem ti ukrepi posegajo v temeljne pravice posameznikov.
According to the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights relinquishes its powers of review when a contested measure is necessary in order to implement a Security Council resolution.
Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo menijo, da se ESČP odpove svoji pristojnosti za nadzor, kadar je izpodbijan ukrep nujen za izvedbo resolucije Varnostnega sveta.
Yet, I seriously doubt that the European Court of Human Rights limits
Vendar močno dvomim, da bi ESČP svojo pristojnost
42 — The European Court of Human Rights has held that ‘the Contracting States may not, in the name of the struggle against … terrorism, adopt whatever measures they deem appropriate’ (Klass and Others, judgment of 6 September 1978, Series A no. 28, § 49).
42 – ESČP je odločilo, da „države pogodbenice zaradi boja proti […] terorizmu ne morejo sprejeti kakr�nihkoli ukrepov, ki bi jih ocenile za ustrezne“ (sodba z dne 6. septembra 1978 v zadevi Klass in drugi proti Nemčiji, Series A, �t.
Moreover, in its judgment in Bosphorus Airways, the same Court discussed the issue of its jurisdiction at length, without even hinting at the possibility that it might not be able to exercise review because the impugned measures implemented a resolution of the Security Council (Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98).
Poleg tega je isto sodi�če v sodbi Bosphorus Airways dolgo obravnavalo vpra�anje svoje pristojnosti, ne da bi se sploh dotaknilo možnosti, da morebiti ne bi moglo izvesti nadzora, ker se s sprejetimi ukrepi izvaja resolucija Varnostnega sveta (zadeva Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) proti Irski [GC], �t. 45036/98).
Therefore, the judgment in Bosphorus Airways seems to bolster the argument in favour of judicial review.
Zdi se, da sodba Bosphorus Airways torej utemeljuje trditev v prid sodnega nadzora.
Still, according to the Council, the Commission and the United Kingdom, it would follow from the admissibility decision in Behrami that measures that are necessary for the implementation of Security Council resolutions automatically fall outside the ambit of the Convention (Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (dec.)
Vendar naj bi po mnenju Sveta, Komisije in Združenega kraljestva iz odločbe o dopustnosti iz sodbe Behrami izhajalo, da ukrepi, ki so nujni za izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta avtomatično ne spadajo na področje Konvencije (sodba z dne 2. maja 2007 v zadevi Behrami in Behrami proti Franciji ter Saramati proti Franciji, Nemčiji in Norve�ki (dec.) [GC], �t. 71412/01 in �t.
6974/05, and of 28 August 2007 in Gajic v. Germany (dec.), no. 31446/02).
6974/05, in v sodbi z dne 28. avgusta 2007 v zadevi Gajic proti Nemčiji (dec.), �t. 31446/02).
However, that seems to be an overly expansive reading of the Court’s decision.
Vendar se tu zdi, da gre za preveč raz�irjeno branje odločbe ESČP.
The Behrami case concerned an alleged infringement of fundamental rights by a security force deployed in Kosovo which operated under the auspices of the United Nations.
Sodba Behrami se je nana�ala na zatrjevano kr�itev človekovih pravic s strani varnostnih sil, ki so bile razporejene na Kosovu in so delovale pod okriljem Združenih narodov.
The respondent States had contributed troops to this security force.
Tožene države so prispevale vojake v te varnostne sile.
Yet, the European Court of Human Rights declined jurisdiction ratione personae mainly because the ultimate authority and control over the security mission remained with the Security Council and, therefore, the impugned actions and inactions were attributable to the United Nations and not to the respondent States (see §§ 121 and 133 to 135 of the decision).
Vendar je ESČP svojo pristojnost ratione personae zanikalo predvsem zato, ker sta končna pristojnost in nadzor nad varnostnimi misijami ostala Varnostnemu svetu, in so bila zato izpodbijana delovanja in nedelovanja pripisana Združenim narodom in ne toženim državam (glej točke 121 in od 133 do 135 odločbe).
Indeed, in this respect the Court carefully distinguished the case from Bosphorus Airways (see, in particular, § 151 of the decision).
Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem skrbno ločilo to sodbo od sodbe Bosphorus Airways (glej zlasti točko 151 odločbe).
Thus, the position of the European Court of Human Rights seems to be that, where, pursuant to the rules of public international law, the impugned acts are attributable to the United Nations, the court has no jurisdiction ratione personae, since the United Nations are not a contracting party to the Convention.
Tako se zdi, da je stali�če ESČP, da kadar se izpodbijani akti v skladu s pravili mednarodnega javnega prava pripisujejo Združenim narodom, sodi�če ni pristojno ratione personae, ker Združeni narodi niso stranka pogodbenica h Konvenciji.
By contrast, when the authorities of a contracting State have taken procedural steps to implement a Security Council resolution in the domestic legal order, the measures thus taken are attributable to that State and therefore amenable to judicial review under the Convention (see also §§ 27 to 29 of the admissibility decision of 16 October 2007 in Beric and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina).
Nasprotno, kadar so organi države pogodbenice v nacionalnem pravnem redu sprejeli postopkovne ukrepe za izvedbo resolucije Varnostnega sveta, se tako sprejeti ukrepi pripisujejo tej državi pogodbenici in so tako na podlagi Konvencije predmet sodnega nadzora (glej tudi točke od 27 do 29 odločbe o dopustnosti z dne 16. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Bric in drugi proti Bosni in Hercegovini).
the Commission and the United Kingdom attempt to draw a parallel precisely where the analogy between the two Courts ends.
�ajo tako najti vzporednico ravno tam, kjer se podobnost med sodi�čema preneha.
It is certainly correct to say that, in ensuring the observance of fundamental rights within the Community, the Court of Justice draws inspiration from the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights.
Gotovo je, da Sodi�če pri zagotavljanju spo�tovanja temeljnih pravic v Skupnosti črpa navdih iz sodne prakse ESČP.
43None the less, there remain important differences between the two courts.
43 Vendar obstajajo pomembne razlike med sodi�čema.
The task of the European Court of Human Rights is to ensure the observance of the commitments entered into by the Contracting States under the Convention.
Naloga ESČP je nadzorovati spo�tovanje obveznosti, ki so jih države pogodbenice sprejele na podlagi Konvencije.
Although the purpose of the Convention is the maintenance and further realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the individual, it is designed to operate primarily as an interstate agreement which creates obligations between the Contracting Parties at the international level.
Čeprav je namen Konvencije ohranitev in nadaljnje uresničevanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin posameznika, je namenjena predvsem temu, da bi se uporabljala kot meddržavni sporazum, ki med državami pogodbenicami ustvarja obveznosti na mednarodni ravni. 44To je ponazorjeno z medvladnim mehanizmom izvr�evanja.
45The EC Treaty, by contrast, has founded an autonomous legal order, within which States as well as individuals have immediate rights and obligations.
45S Pogodbo ES je nasprotno vzpostavljen avtonomni pravni red, v katerem imajo države članice in posamezniki neposredne pravice in obveznosti.
The duty of the Court of Justice is to act as the constitutional court of the municipal legal order that is the Community.
Dolžnost Sodi�ča je delovati kot ustavno sodi�če notranjega pravnega reda, ki je Skupnost.
The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice are therefore unique as regards their jurisdiction ratione personae and as regards the relationship of their legal system with public international law.
ESČP in Sodi�če se torej razlikujeta glede na njuno pristojnost ratione personae in glede na odnos med njunima pravnima sistemoma in mednarodnim javnim pravom. Svet, Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo posku-
43 — See, for instance, Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen [2004] ECR I-9609, paragraph 33.
43 – Glej npr. sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Omega Spielhallen (C-36/02, ZOdl., str. I-9609, točka 33).
44 — See the Preamble to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as Article 19 ECHR and Article 46(1) ECHR.
44 – Glej Preambulo Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin ter člena 19 EKČP in 46(1) EKČP.
46 — See paragraph 39 of the Report of 16 August 2006 of the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (A/61/267): ‘Given that the effect of inclusion [on the list] is the freezing of assets, the right to contest inclusion is a necessity.
46 – Glej točko 39 poročila z dne 16. avgusta 2006 posebnega poročevalca ZN o spodbujanju in varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin pri preprečevanju terorizma (A/61/267): „Ker je posledica vključitve [na seznam] zamrznitev sredstev, je pravica do izpodbijanja vključitve nujna.
At the international level, these procedures do not at present exist.
Na mednarodni ravni ti postopki sedaj ne obstajajo.
They are present, in some instances, at the national level.
Vendar obstajajo na določenih stopnjah na nacionalni ravni.
The Special Rapporteur is of the view that if there is no proper or adequate international review available, national review procedures — even for international lists — are necessary.
Posebni poročevalec meni, da so, kadar ni ustreznega ali primernega mednarodnega nadzora, nacionalni postopki nadzora – tudi za mednarodni seznam –nujni.
These should be available in the States that apply the sanctions’.
Ti bi morali biti na voljo v državah članicah, kjer se sankcije izvr�ijo“.
45 — See Article 46(2) ECHR.
45 – Glej člen 46(2) EKČP.
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION of the Community legal order is therefore misconceived.
KADI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI meje pravnega reda Skupnosti, je torej napačna.
challenge cannot be entirely unexpected on the Security Council’s part, given that it was expressly contemplated by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team of the Sanctions Committee. 47
tožbe naj namreč ne bi bila popolnoma nepričakovana za Varnostni svet, saj je to možnost izrecno predvidela skupina za analitično podporo in spremljanje sankcij sankcijskega odbora. 47
I accordingly conclude that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the contested regulation in the light of fundamental rights that are part of the general principles of Community law.
Tako ugotavljam, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je odločilo, da ni pristojno za nadzor izpodbijane uredbe glede temeljnih pravic, ki so del splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, napačno uporabilo pravo.
In consequence, the Court should consider the appellant’s second plea well founded and set aside the judgment under appeal.
Sodi�če bi moralo zato drugi pritožbeni razlog pritožnika �teti za utemeljenega in izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti.
IV — The alleged breaches of fundamental rights
IV – Zatrjevana kršitev temeljnih pravic
Moreover, the legal effects of a ruling by this Court remain confined to the municipal legal order of the Community.
Poleg tega ostajajo pravni učinki sodbe Sodi�ča omejeni na notranji pravni red Skupnosti.
To the extent that such a ruling would prevent the Community and its Member States from implementing Security Council resolutions, the legal consequences within the international legal order remain to be determined by the rules of public international law.
Če bi taka sodba Skupnosti in njenim državam članicam preprečila izvedbo resolucij Varnostnega sveta, bi pravne učinke v mednarodnem pravnem redu �e vedno opredelilo mednarodno javno pravo.
While it is true that the restrictions which the general principles of Community law impose on the actions of the institutions may inconvenience the Community and its Member States in their dealings on the international stage, the application of these principles by the Court of Justice is without prejudice to the application of international rules on State responsibility or to the rule enunciated in Article 103 of the UN Charter.
Čeprav je res, da so omejitve, ki jih splo�na načela prava Skupnosti nalagajo za ukrepe institucij, lahko neugodne za Skupnost in njene države članice pri njihovih pogajanjih na mednarodnem prizori�ču, Sodi�če te ukrepe uporablja brez �kode za uporabo mednarodnih pravil o odgovornosti države ali pravila, določenega v členu 103 Ustanovne listine ZN.
The Council’s contention that, by reviewing the contested regulation, the Court would assume jurisdiction beyond the perimeters
Trditev Sveta, da naj bi Sodi�če z nadzorom izpodbijane uredbe izvajalo pristojnost, ki presega
Instead of referring the matter back to the Court of First Instance, I suggest that the Court make use of the possibility of giving final judgment in this case.
Sodi�ču predlagam, naj, namesto da bi zadevo vrnilo v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, v tej zadevi uporabi možnost, da samo dokončno odloči o njej.
48 For reasons of expediency, I think it would be appropriate, in this regard, to concentrate on the principal aspect of the case, namely the issue whether the contested regulation infringes the appellant’s fundamental rights.
48Zaradi smotrnosti menim, da bi se bilo v zvezi s tem primerno osredotočiti na bistveni vidik zadeve, in sicer vpra�anje, ali so z izpodbijano uredbo kr�ene pritožnikove temeljne pravice.
47 — See, in particular, the Second Report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team (S/2005/83), in which it is noted, in paragraph 54, that ‘the way entities or individuals are added to the terrorist list maintained by the Council and the absence of review or appeal for those listed raise serious accountability issues and possibly violate fundamental rights, norms and conventions’ and, in paragraph 58, that ‘revisions to the process could help to reduce the possibility of one or more potentially negative court decisions’.
47 – Glej zlasti drugo poročilo skupine za analitično podporo in spremljanje sankcij (S/2005/83), v katerem je v točki 54 navedeno, da „način, kako so subjekti ali posamezniki dodani na seznam teroristov, ki ga vodi Svet, in dejstvo, da navedeni nimajo na voljo sredstev nadzora ali pritožbe, povzročata resne probleme odgovornosti in možno kr�itev pravil in konvencij o temeljnih pravicah“ in v točki 58, da „bi lahko nadzori postopka prispevali k zmanj�anju domnevno negativnih odločb sodi�ča“.
In that connection, the Report specifically mentions the European Court of Justice.
V poročilu je v zvezi s tem posebej navedeno ESČP.
See also Annex I to the Sixth Report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team (S/2007/132) for an overview of legal challenges to aspects of the sanctions programme.
Glej tudi prilogo k �estemu poročilu skupine za analitično podporo in spremljanje sankcij (S/2007/132) v zvezi s pregledom sodnega varstva zoper ureditev sankcij.
The appellant alleges several breaches of his fundamental rights and, on those grounds, seeks the annulment of the contested regulation in so far as it concerns him.
Pritožnik zatrjuje več kr�itev njegovih temeljnih pravic in na tej podlagi predlaga razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe v delu, ki se nana�a nanj.
The respondents — in particular the Commission and the United Kingdom — argue that, to the extent that the contested regulation may interfere with the appellant’s fundamental rights, this is justified for reasons relating to the suppression of international terrorism.
Tožene stranke – zlasti Komisija in Združeno kraljestvo – trdijo, da je v obsegu, v katerem izpodbijana uredba ovira temeljne pravice pritožnika, to utemeljeno iz razlogov, povezanih s preprečevanjem mednarodnega terorizma.
In this connection, they also argue that the Court should not apply normal standards of review, but instead should — in the light of the international security interests at stake — apply less stringent criteria for the protection of fundamental rights.
V zvezi s tem zatrjujejo tudi, da Sodi�če ne bi smelo uporabiti običajnih standardov nadzora ampak bi namesto tega moralo – ob upo�tevanju zadevnih interesov mednarodne varnosti – uporabiti manj stroga merila za varstvo temeljnih pravic.
I disagree with the respondents.
Ne strinjam se s toženimi strankami.
They advocate a type of judicial review that at heart is very similar to the approach taken by the Court of First Instance under the heading of jus cogens.
Zagovarjajo vrsto sodnega nadzora, ki je v bistvu zelo podoben pristopu Sodi�ča prve stopnje, povezanem z jus cogens.
In a sense, their argument is yet another expression of the belief that the present case concerns a ‘political question’ and that the Court, unlike the political institutions, is not in a position to deal adequately with such questions.
V določenem smislu je njihova trditev �e en izraz prepričanja, da se obravnavana zadeva nana�a na „politično vpra�anje“ in da Sodi�če, nasprotno kot politične institucije, ni v položaju, da bi lahko ustrezno obravnavalo taka vpra�anja.
The reason would be that the matters at issue are of international significance and any intervention of the Court might upset globally-coordinated efforts to combat terrorism.
Razlog naj bi bil, da je sporno vpra�anje mednarodnega pomena in da lahko vsak poseg Sodi�ča �koduje globalno usklajenim prizadevanjem za boj proti terorizmu.
The argument is also closely connected with the view that courts are ill equipped to determine which measures are appropriate to prevent international terrorism.
Trditev je zelo tesno povezana z mnenjem, da so vsa sodi�ča slabo usposobljena, da bi opredelila, kateri ukrepi so ustrezni za preprečevanje mednarodnega terorizma.
The Security Council, in contrast, presumably has the expertise to make that determination. For these reasons,
Varnostni svet ima nasprotno nedvomno strokovno
Thus, the Court should be mindful of the international context in which it operates and conscious of its limitations.
Sodi�če bi moralo biti torej pozorno na mednarodno okolje, v katerem deluje, in na njegove meje.
It should be aware of the impact its rulings may have outside the confines of the Community.
Zavedati bi se moralo vpliva, ki ga lahko imajo njegove sodbe zunaj meja Skupnosti.
In an increasingly interdependent world, different legal orders will have to endeavour to accommodate each other’s jurisdictional claims.
Različni pravni redi si bodo morali v vse bolj medsebojno odvisnem svetu prizadevati prilagoditi se pravnim sredstvom, ki obstajajo v drugih pravnih redih.
As a result, the Court cannot always assert a monopoly on determining how certain fundamental interests ought to be reconciled.
Iz tega izhaja, da Sodi�če ne more vedno uveljavljati monopola pri opredeljevanju načina usklajevanja določenih temeljnih interesov.
It must, where possible, recognise the authority of institutions, such as the Security Council, that are established under a different legal order than its own and that are sometimes better placed to weigh those fundamental interests.
Kadar je mogoče, mora priznati pristojnost organom institucij, kot je Varnostni svet, ki so ustanovljene na podlagi različnega pravnega reda, kot je njegov, in ki so včasih bolj primerne za tehtanje teh temeljnih interesov.
However, the Court cannot, in deference to the views of those institutions, turn its back on the fundamental values that lie at the basis of the Community legal order and which it has the duty to protect.
Vendar Sodi�če, v nasprotju z mnenji teh institucij, ne more prezreti temeljnih vrednot, na katerih temelji pravni red Skupnosti in ki jih ima dolžnost varovati.
Respect for other institutions is meaningful only if it can be built on a shared understanding of these values and on a mutual commitment to protect them.
Spo�tovanje do drugih institucij je smiselno le, če temelji na skupnem razumevanju teh vrednot in na medsebojni zavezi, da se bodo spo�tovale.
Consequently, in situations
Zato je v primerih, ko so temeljne vrednote Skupnosti ogrožene, od
KADI v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION where the Community’s fundamental values are in the balance, the Court may be required to reassess, and possibly annul, measures adopted by the Community institutions, even when those measures reflect the wishes of the Security Council.
Sodi�ča mogoče zahtevati, naj ponovno oceni in morebiti razglasi za nične ukrepe, ki so jih sprejele institucije Skupnosti, in to tudi kadar ti ukrepi odražajo namene Varnostnega sveta.
‘It is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws … Every struggle of the state — against terrorism or any other enemy — is conducted according to rules and law.
„Zakone potrebujemo predvsem takrat, kadar grmijo topovi […]. Vsak boj države – zoper terorizem ali kateregakoli drugega sovražnika – se izvaja v skladu s pravili in pravom.
There is always law which the state must comply with.
Vedno obstaja pravo, ki ga mora država spo�tovati.
There are no “black holes”. … The reason at the foundation of this approach is not only the pragmatic consequence of the political and normative reality.
Ni ‚črnih lukenj‘. […] Razlog za utemeljitev tega pristopa ni le praktična posledica politične in normativne resničnosti.
Its roots lie much deeper.
Njegove korenine segajo veliko globlje.
It is an expression of the difference between a democratic state fighting for its life and the fighting of terrorists rising up against it.
Je izraz razlike med demokratično državo, ki se bojuje za svoj obstoj, in bojem teroristov, ki ji nasprotujejo. Država se bojuje v imenu prava in v imenu spo�tovanja prava.
The terrorists fight against the law, while violating it.
Vojna zoper terorizem je tudi vojna prava proti tistim, ki mu nasprotujejo“. 49
There is no reason, therefore, for the Court to depart, in the present case, from its usual interpretation of the fundamental rights that have been invoked by the appellant.
Torej ni razloga, da bi Sodi�če v obravnavani zadevi odstopalo od običajne razlage temeljnih pravic, na katere se sklicuje pritožnik.
The only novel question is whether the concrete needs raised by the prevention of international terrorism justify restrictions on the fundamental rights of the appellant that would otherwise not be acceptable.
Edino novo vpra�anje je, ali dejanske potrebe preprečevanja mednarodnega terorizma utemeljujejo omejitve temeljnih pravic pritožnika, ki drugače ne bi bile sprejemljive.
This does not entail a different conception of those fundamental rights and the applicable standard of review.
To ne pomeni drugačnega koncepta teh temeljnih pravic in uporabe veljavnega standarda nadzora.
It simply means that the weight to be given to the different interests
Pomeni le, da je teža različnih interesov, ki jih je treba pri uporabi
49 — Supreme Court of Israel, HCJ 769/02 [2006] The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel et. al. v. The Govern­ment of Israel et. al., paragraphs 61 and 62 (internal quotation marks omitted).
49 – Vrhovno sodi�če v Izraelu, HCJ 769/02 [2006], javni odbor zoper mučenje v Izraelu in drugi proti vladi Izraela in drugim, točki 61 in 62 (notranji narekovaji so izpu�čeni).