natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This amendment concerns Article 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure which lays down the procedure for electing the President and the Presidents of the Chambers.
Nanaša se na člen 7(3) tega poslovnika, ki določa način izvolitve predsednika in predsednikov senatov.
The previous version of Article 7(3) provided for two ballots.
Ta določba je v prejšnji različici določala dva kroga glasovanja.
If, in the second round, judges obtained an equal number of votes, the oldest of them was deemed elected.
Ob enakem številu glasov v drugem krogu je bil izvoljen starejši sodnik.
The new version provides that, if no judge obtains the votes of more than half the judges composing the Court, further ballots are to be held until that majority is attained.
Nova različica navedene določbe določa, da če noben sodnik ne dobi več kot polovice glasov sodnikov Sodišča, se izvede toliko krogov glasovanja, da se ta večina doseže.
The constant upward trend in the number of references for a preliminary ruling submitted to the Court should also be noted.
Vendar je treba poudariti, da je bilo predlogov za sprejetje predhodnih odločb, vloženih to leto, največ doslej (302 zadevi).
) Furthermore, Article 6(2) TEU provides that‘the Union shall accede to the European Convention for the Protec- tion of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Poleg tega člen 6(2) PEU določa, da„Unija pristopi k Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin.
Such accession shall not a¥ect the Union’s competences as de¤ned in theTreaties’. Protocol No 8 states that the accession agreement is to specify, in particular,‘the speci¤c arrangements for the Union’s possible participation in the control bodies of the European Convention the mechanisms necessary to ensure that proceedings by non-Member States and individual applications are correctly addressed to Member States and/or the Union as appropriate’.
Ta pristop ne spreminja pristojnosti Unije, opredeljene v Pogodbah.“ Protokol št. 8 določa, da mora sporazum o pristopu zlasti določiti „posebne ureditve za možnost sodelovanja Unije v nadzornih telesih Evropske konvencije [in] potrebne mehanizme za zagotavljanje, da so postopki s strani držav nečlanic in posamezne tožbe naslovljeni ustrezno bodisi zoper države članice in/ali Unijo“.
This accession‘shall not a¥ect the competences of the Union or the powers of its institutions’.
Ta pristop „ne vpliva na pristojnosti Unije in njenih institucij“.
The Court completed 543 cases in 2009 (net ¤gures, that is to say, taking account of the joinder of cases), a very appreciable increase compared with the previous year (495 cases completed in 2008).
Povprečno obravnavanje neposrednih tožb in pritožb pa je bilo 17,1 oziroma 15,4 meseca (16,9 in 18,4 meseca leta 2008).
Of those cases, 377 were dealt with by judgments and 165 gave rise to orders. The number of judgments delivered in 2009 is among the highest in the Court’s history.
Učinkovitost Sodišča pri obravnavanju zadev se je izboljšala zaradi reform delovnih metod, uvedenih v zadnjih letih, in tudi zaradi bolj razširjene uporabe različnih procesnih instrumentov, ki jih ima na voljo za pospešitev postopka v nekaterih zadevah (nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja, prednostno obravnavanje zadeve, hitri postopek, poenostavljeni postopek in možnost odločanja brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca).
The Court had 561 new cases brought before it (without account being taken of the joinder of cases on the ground of similarity), representing a slight decrease compared with 2008 (592 new cases).
Nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja je bil predlagan v treh zadevah, pristojni senat pa je ugotovil, da so bili pogoji iz člena 104b Poslovnika izpolnjeni v dveh.
It should, however, be pointed out that the number of references for a preliminary ruling submitted in 2009 is the highest ever reached (302 cases).
Ti zadevi sta se v povprečju končali v 2,5 meseca.
So far as concerns the duration of proceedings, the statistics are very positive.
Predlog za obravnavanje po hitrem postopku je bil vložen v petih zadevah, vendar pogoji iz Poslovnika niso bili izpolnjeni v nobeni.
In the case of references for a preliminary ruling, the average duration amounted to 17.1 months, that is to say a duration practically identical to that in 2008 (16.8 months).
V skladu s prakso, uvedeno leta 2004, predsednik Sodišča z obrazloženim sklepom ugodi predlogom za obravnavanje po hitrem postopku ali jih zavrne.
The average time taken to deal with direct actions and appeals was 17.1 months and 15.4 months respectively (16.9 months and 18.4 months in 2008).
Prednostno pa je bilo obravnavanih osem zadev.
In addition to the reforms in its working methods that have been undertaken in recent years, the improvement in the Court’s eciency in dealing with cases is also due to the increased use of the various procedural instruments at its disposal to expedite the handling of certain cases (the urgent preliminary ruling procedure, priority treatment, the accelerated or expedited procedure, the simpli¤ed procedure and the possibility of giving judgment without an opinion of the Advocate General).
Poleg tega je Sodišče pogosto odločalo po poenostavljenem postopku iz člena 104(3) Poslovnika, da bi odgovorilo na nekatera vprašanja, ki jih je prejelo v postopkih predhodnega odločanja. Na podlagi te določbe je bilo namreč s sklepom končanih 22 zadev.
In 2009, use of the urgent preliminary ruling procedure was requested in three cases and the designated chamber considered that the conditions under Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure were met in two of them.
Končno, Sodišče je pogosteje uporabilo možnost, ki jo ima na podlagi člena 20 Statuta, da odloči brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca, če zadeva ne načenja novega pravnega vprašanja.
Those cases were completed in an average period of 2.5 months.
Leta 2009 je bilo tako brez sklepnih predlogov razglašenih okoli 52 % sodb (v primerjavi z 41 % leta 2008).
Use of the expedited or accelerated procedure was requested ¤ve times, but the conditions under the Rules of Procedure were not met in any of those cases.
V zvezi s porazdelitvijo zadev različnim sestavam Sodišča naj navedem, da je veliki senat odločil v¥okoli 8 % zadev, senati petih sodnikov v 57 % zadev in senati treh sodnikov v približno 34 % zadev, končanih s sodbo leta 2009.
Following a practice established in 2004, requests for the use of the expedited or accelerated procedure are granted or refused by reasoned order of the President of the Court.
V primerjavi s prejšnjim letom je mogoče ugotoviti zmanjšanje deleža zadev, ki jih je obravnaval veliki senat (14 % leta 2008), in povečanje deleža zadev, ki so jih obravnavali senati treh sodnikov (26 % leta 2008).
Priority treatment, on the other hand, was granted in eight cases.
Glede zadev, končanih s sklepom, želim navesti, da so 84 % teh zadev obravnavali senati treh sodnikov, 10 % senati petih sodnikov, v 6 % zadev pa je sklep sprejel predsednik.
Also, the Court regularly used the simpli¤ed procedure laid down in Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure to answer certain questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling.
Drugi podrobnejši statistični podatki za sodno leto 2009 so zbrani v točki C tega poročila.
Finally, the Court made more frequent use of the possibility o¥ered by Article 20 of its Statute of determining cases without an opinion of the Advocate General where they do not raise any new point of law.
V ponavljajočih se sporih o pravni podlagi v okviru prvega stebra je bilo izdanih več sodb, ki jih je treba navesti.
About 52% of the judgments delivered in 2009 were delivered without an opinion (compared with 41% in 2008).
Sodišče je v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (sodba z dne 3. septembra 2009, C-166/07) presodilo, da morajo prispevki Skupnosti v Mednarodni sklad za Irsko temeljiti na dvojni pravni podlagi, in sicer na členih 159 ES in 308 ES.
As regards the distribution of cases between the various formations of the Court, it may be noted that the Grand Chamber dealt with roughly 8%, chambers of ¤ve judges with 57%, and chambers of three judges with approximately 34%, of the cases brought to a close by a judgment in 2009.
Sodišče je na začetku spomnilo, da mora v okviru sistema pristojnosti Skupnosti izbira pravne podlage akta temeljiti na objektivnih elementih, ki jih je mogoče sodno preizkusiti ter med katerimi sta zlasti cilj in vsebina zadevnega akta.
Compared with the previous year, a decrease may be noted in the proportion of cases dealt with by the Grand Chamber (14% in 2008), while the proportion of cases dealt with by three-judge chambers increased (26% in 2008).
Uporaba člena 308 ES za pravno podlago akta je upravičena le, če nobena druga določba Pogodbe institucijam Skupnosti ne daje potrebne pristojnosti za sprejetje zadevnega akta.
As regards cases completed by orders involving a judicial determination, 84% of such cases were entrusted to three-judge chambers and 10% to ¤ve-judge chambers, while orders made by the President account for 6% of such cases.
Poleg tega sklicevanje na to določbo zahteva, da se predvideno ukrepanje nanaša na„delovanje skupnega trga“.
Part C of this chapter should be consulted for more detailed information regarding the statistics for the 2009 judicial year.
Vendar Skupnost niti na podlagi pravil glede sodelovanja med Skupnostjo in Skladom niti na podlagi pogojev in načinov plačila nančnega prispevka Skupnosti ne more preprečiti, da Sklad tega prispevka ne bi uporabil za dejavnosti, ki kljub spoštovanju ciljev Sporazuma o Mednarodnem skladu za Irsko presegajo področje uporabe politike Skupnosti o ekonomski in socialni koheziji ali ki se vsaj ne izvajajo na podlagi meril, ki jih Skupnost uporablja v okviru te politike.
The recurring issue of the appropriate legal basis within the ¤rst pillar has given rise to a number of judgments worthy of mention.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je lahko torej upravičeno menil, da je paleta dejavnosti, nancirana prek te uredbe, presegla področje uporabe politike Skupnosti o¥ekonomski in socialni koheziji.
In Case C-166/07 Parliament v Council (judgment of 3°September 2009) the Court held that Community contributions to the International Fund for Ireland must have a dual legal basis, namely Articles 159°EC and 308°EC.
Toda člen 159 ES zajema zgolj avtonomne dejavnosti Skupnosti, ki se opravljajo na podlagi zakonodajnega okvira Skupnosti in katerih vsebina ne presega področja uporabe politike Skupnosti o ekonomski in socialni koheziji.
The e¥ect of using that dual basis is that the Community legislature is obliged to reconcile di¥erent legislative procedures in the adoption of a single measure.
Zato člen 159, tretji odstavek, ES sam po sebi Skupnosti v okoliščinah iz Uredbe št. 1968/2006 ne daje potrebne pristojnosti za sledenje ciljem politike Skupnosti o ekonomski in socialni koheziji prek nančnih prispevkov.
The Court began by observing that, in the context of the organisation of the powers of the Community, the choice of the legal basis for a measure must rest on objective factors which are amenable to judicial review, including, in particular, the aim and the content of the measure.
Vendar je cilj Uredbe št. 1968/2006 podpora dejavnostim mednarodne organizacije, ki sta jo ustanovili državi članici in katere namen je krepitev ekonomske in socialne kohezije.
Article 308°EC may be used as the legal basis for a measure only where no other provision of the Treaty gives the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt it.
Kot izhaja iz členov 2 ES in 3(1)(k) ES, je krepitev ekonomske in socialne kohezije zunaj naslova XVII Pogodbe cilj Skupnosti.
In addition, recourse to that provision demands that the action envisaged should relate to the‘operation of the common market’.
Poleg tega spada cilj navedene uredbe v okvir skupnega trga, ker naj bi vodil do gospodarskega napredka na manj razvitih območjih obeh držav članic in torej do boljšega delovanja skupnega trga.
However, neither the arrangements governing cooperation between the Community and the fund nor the conditions and method of payment in respect of the Community’s ¤nancial contribution allow the Community to prevent the use by the fund of that contribution to cover actions which, while complying with the objectives of the Agreement concerning the International Fund for Ireland, extend beyond the scope of the Community’s policy on economic and social cohesion or, at least, are not managed in accordance with the criteria applied by the Community within the framework of that policy. The Community legislature was therefore entitled to take the view that the range of activities ¤nanced by that regulation would extend beyond the scope of the Community’s policy on economic and social cohesion.
Sodišče je na podlagi tega sklepalo, da bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti – ker Uredba št. 1968/2006 sledi ciljem iz členov 2 ES in 3(1)(k) ES ter naslova XVII Pogodbe, pri čemer pa na podlagi tega naslova samega Skupnost nima pristojnosti za njihovo uresničitev – moral člena 159, tretji odstavek, ES in 308 ES uporabiti skupaj ob spoštovanju zakonodajnih postopkov, ki sta v njiju predvidena, in sicer postopka iz člena 251 ES, imenovanega„soodločanje“, ter postopka soglasnega odločanja v okviru Sveta.
Article 159°EC covers only independent action by the Community carried out in accordance with the Community regulatory framework, the content of which does not extend beyond the scope of the Community’s policy on economic and social cohesion.
Še vedno v zvezi z določitvijo ustrezne pravne podlage v okviru prvega stebra je treba navesti zadevo Komisija proti Parlamentu in Svetu (sodba z dne 8. septembra 2009, C-411/06), v kateri je Sodišče odločalo v sporu glede pravne podlage za Uredbo (ES) št. 1013/2006 o pošiljkah odpadkov3.
Consequently, the third paragraph of Article 159°EC does not by itself confer on the Community the necessary power to pursue the objectives of the Community’s policy on economic and social cohesion by means of a ¤nancial contribution under the conditions provided for by Regulation No°1968/2006.
V tej sodbi je presodilo, da bi ta akt moral temeljiti le na členu 175(1) ES, ne pa na členih 133 ES in 175(1) ES, ker je imel le stranske učinke na skupno trgovinsko politiko.
Nevertheless, the purpose of Regulation No°1968/2006 is to support the actions of an international organisation established by two Member States, the objective of which is to strengthen economic and social cohesion.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodišča mora akt temeljiti na več ustreznih pravnih podlagah le izjemoma, če ima hkrati več ciljev ali delov, ki so neločljivo povezani, in če nobeden od teh ni drugotnega in posrednega pomena glede na druge.
As follows from Articles 2°EC and 3(1)(k)°EC, the strengthening of economic and social cohesion constitutes, outside of Title XVII of the Treaty, an objective of the Community.
V obravnavani zadevi je Komisija menila, da je bila izbira dvojne pravne podlage nujna, ker navedena uredba zajema dva neločljiva dela, pri čemer eden spada v skupno trgovinsko politiko in drugi v varstvo okolja, in za nobenega ni mogoče šteti, da je drugotnega ali posrednega pomena glede na drugega.
Furthermore, the objective of that regulation falls within the framework of the common market, since it seeks to bring about economic improvements in disadvantaged areas of two Member States and thus relates to the functioning of the common market.
Sodišče se s Komisijo ni strinjalo in je menilo, da je iz analize izpodbijane uredbe razvidno, da je tako glede cilja kot vsebine njen glavni namen varstvo zdravja ljudi in okolja pred morebitnimi
Court of Justice
Ta sklep potrjuje analiza zakonodajnega okvira, v katerega spada ta uredba.
The Court concluded from this that, as Regulation No°1968/2006 pursues objectives set out in Articles 2°EC and 3(1)(k)°EC and in Title XVII of the Treaty, without that title by itself conferring on the Community the power to realise those objectives, the Community legislature ought to have had recourse to both the third paragraph of Article 159°EC and Article 308°EC while complying with the legislative procedures laid down therein, that is to say, both the ‘co-decision’ procedure referred to in Article 251°EC and the requirement that the Council act unanimously.
Široka razlaga pojma skupne trgovinske politike ne more omajati trditve, da je Uredba št. 1013/2006 instrument, ki v¥glavnem spada v politiko varstva okolja. Tako lahko akt Skupnosti spada na to področje, čeprav je mogoče z ukrepi, ki so določeni v navedenem aktu, vplivati na trgovino.
In relation to the same issue of the determination of the appropriate legal basis within the ¤rst pillar, in Case C-411/06 Commission v Parliament and Council (judgment of 8 September 2009) the Court determined a dispute concerning the legal basis of Regulation (EC) No°1013/2006 on shipments of waste (3).
Akt Skupnosti namreč spada v izključno pristojnost na področju skupne trgovinske politike iz člena 133 Pogodbe, le če se posebej nanaša na mednarodno trgovino, tako da je v bistvenem namenjen spodbujanju, olajševanju ali urejanju mednarodne trgovine in ima neposredne in takojšne učinke na trgovino z¥zadevnimi proizvodi. V obravnavani zadevi očitno ne gre za tak primer.
It held that that measure had to be based solely on Article 175(1)°EC and not on Articles 133°EC and 175(1)°EC since it had only a secondary e¥ect on the common commercial policy.
Cilj Uredbe št. 1013/2006 namreč ni opredeliti značilnosti, ki jih morajo imeti odpadki za prosti pretok na notranjem trgu ali v¥okviru trgovine s tretjimi državami, ampak dati na razpolago usklajen sistem postopkov, s¥katerimi je mogoče omejiti pretok odpadkov, da bi se zagotovilo varstvo okolja.
Following the traditional case-law of the Court, it is only exceptionally — if an act simultaneously pursues a number of objectives or has several components that are indissociably linked, without one being secondary and indirect in relation to the other — that such an act has to be founded on the various corresponding legal bases.
V zvezi s spori o tem, katera pravna podlaga iz katerega stebra je pravilna, je treba navesti zadevo Irska proti Parlamentu in Svetu (sodba z dne 10. februarja 2009, C-301/06).
In the present case, the Commission was of the opinion that a dual legal basis was called for because the regulation comprised two indissociable components, one relating to the common commercial policy and the other to protection of the environment, neither of which could be regarded as secondary or indirect as compared with the other.
Sodišče je v¥tej zadevi presodilo, da bi bilo treba Direktivo 2006/24/ES o hrambi podatkov, pridobljenih ali obdelanih v zvezi z zagotavljanjem javno dostopnih elektronskih komunikacijskih storitev ali javnih komunikacijskih omrežij4 sprejeti na podlagi Pogodbe ES, saj gre predvsem za delovanje notranjega trga.
The Court disagreed, taking the view that it is evident from the analysis of the contested regulation that, both by its objective and content, it is aimed primarily at protecting human health and the environment against the potentially adverse e¥ects of crossborder shipments of waste.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti lahko namreč uporabi člen 95 ES zlasti ob razlikah med nacionalnimi ureditvami, če lahko take razlike ovirajo izvajanje temeljnih svoboščin ali izkrivljajo konkurenco in tako neposredno vplivajo na delovanje notranjega trga.
More speci¤cally, in so far as the prior written noti¤cation and consent procedure clearly pursues an environmental protection purpose in the ¤eld of shipments of waste between the Member States and, consequently, was correctly based on Article 175(1)°EC, it would not be coherent to consider that that same procedure, when it applies to shipments of waste between Member States and third countries with the same environmental protection objective, is in the nature of an instrument of common commercial policy and must, on that ground, be based on Article 133°EC.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da so bile razlike med nacionalnimi predpisi, sprejetimi glede hrambe podatkov o elektronskih komunikacijah, take, da so neposredno vplivale na delovanje notranjega trga, in da je bilo predvidljivo, da se bo ta vpliv še povečal.
That conclusion is corroborated by an analysis of the legislative context of the contested regulation.
V takem položaju je bilo upravičeno, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti s sprejetjem usklajenih pravil sledil cilju zaščite dobrega delovanja notranjega trga.
A broad interpretation of the concept of common commercial policy is not such as to call into question the ¤nding that Regulation No°1013/2006 is an instrument falling principally under environmental protection policy.
Poleg tega je Sodišče poudarilo, da je ista direktiva spremenila določbe direktive o varstvu zasebnosti na področju elektronskih komunikacij, ki je temeljila na členu 95 ES.
A Community act may fall within that area even when the measures provided for by it are liable to a¥ect trade.
V teh okoliščinah navedena direktiva v delu, v katerem spreminja obstoječo direktivo, ki je del pravnega reda Skupnosti, ne more temeljiti na določbi Pogodbe EU, ne da bi bil kršen člen 47 EU.
A Community act falls within the exclusive competence in the ¤eld of the common commercial policy provided for in Article 133°EC only if it relates speci¤cally to international trade in that it is essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern trade and has direct and immediate e¥ects on trade in the products concerned.
Nazadnje je Sodišče ugotovilo, da Direktiva 2006/24 ureja postopke, ki so neodvisni od izvajanja vsakega morebitnega ukrepa v okviru policijskega in pravosodnega sodelovanja v kazenskih zadevah. S to direktivo niso usklajeni niti dostop pristojnih nacionalnih organov kazenskega pregona do podatkov niti uporaba in izmenjava teh podatkov med temi organi.
That was clearly not the situation in the present case.
Ti primeri, ki načeloma spadajo na področje, ki ga ureja naslov VI Pogodbe EU, so bili izključeni iz določb te direktive.
The aim of Regulation No°1013/2006 is not to de¤ne those characteristics of waste which will enable it to circulate freely within the internal market or as part of commercial trade with third countries, but to provide a harmonised set of procedures whereby movements of waste can be limited in order to secure protection of the environment.
Iz tega izhaja, da se vsebina Direktive 2006/24 v bistvu nanaša na dejavnosti ponudnikov storitev v zadevnem sektorju notranjega trga, s tem da mednje ne sodijo državne dejavnosti iz naslova VI Pogodbe EU.
An inter-pillar dispute about legal basis was, in turn, the subject of Case C-301/06 Ireland v Parliament and Council (judgment of 10 February 2009), in which the Court held that Directive 2006/24/EC on the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of
Glede na to vsebino je treba ugotoviti, da se navedena direktiva nanaša predvsem na delovanje notranjega trga.
) Regulation (EC) No°1013/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006°(OJ 2006 L°190, p. ° 1).
Direktiva 2006/24/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 15. marca 2006, ki spreminja Direktivo 2002/58/ES (UL L 105, str. 54).
4) publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks ( had to be adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty in so far as what is predominantly at issue is the functioning of the internal market.
V zadevi Heinrich (sodba z dne 10. marca 2009, C-345/06) je Sodišče poudarilo obseg nujne objave pravnih aktov ter tako potrdilo pomembnost načela pravne varnosti kot splošnega načela prava Skupnosti.
The Community legislature may have recourse to Article 95°EC in particular where disparities exist between national rules which are such as to obstruct the fundamental freedoms or to create distortions of competition and thus have a direct e¥ect on the functioning of the internal market.
Potniku so zavrnili vkrcanje na letalo na letališču Dunaj Schwechat, ker so bili v njegovi ročni prtljagi predmeti, ki se na podlagi uredb Skupnosti štejejo za prepovedane.