natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It describes, first, how the institution evolved during that year, with the emphasis on the institutional changes affecting the Court and developments relating to its internal organisation and working methods (Section 1).
V kratkem pregledu razvoja institucije v tem letu je poudarek na institucionalnih spremembah, ki so vplivale na Sodišče, in na spremembah notranje organizacije in metod dela (oddelek 1).
It includes, second, an analysis of the statistics in relation to developments in the Court’s workload and the average duration of proceedings (Section 2).
Sledi analiza statistike, ki se nanaša na razvoj obsega dela institucije in na povprečnotrajanje postopkov (oddelek 2).
It presents finally, as each year, the main developments in the case-law, arranged by subject matter (Section 3).
Na koncu je tako kot vsako leto opisan poglaviten razvoj sodne prakse, razvrščene po področjih (oddelek 3).
The outstanding event for the Court of Justice in 2008 was the inauguration of the new buildings of the Court,‘the new Palais’, which consolidates and extends the existing buildings.
Leto 2008 je za Sodišče najbolj zaznamovala otvoritev nove sodne palače, ki združuje in razširja obstoječe zgradbe.
The new Palais is of an innovative architectural design and has been constructed in away that respects and builds on the structure of the original Palais.
Nova sodna palača, za katero je značilna inovativna arhitekturna zasnova, je bila zgrajena ob spoštovanju in ohranitvi obstoječe stavbe izvirne palače.
It is made up of the original Palais, remodelled so as to accommodate the courtrooms, the Anneau (‘Ring’in English), a two-storey building which is so called, despite its rectangular form, because it completely encircles the original Palais, and which houses the offices of the Members of the Court and staff working directly with them, two Towers intended for the translation service and the Gallery, along luminous passage by way of an architectural link connecting not only the original and new buildings with each other but also the institution’s various activities.
Sestavljajo jo stara sodna palača, prenovljena tako, da so zdaj v njej razpravne dvo- rane;„Obroč“, stavba v dveh nadstropjih, ki se kljub pravokotni obliki imenuje tako, ker popolnoma obkroža staro sodno palačo, in v kateri so pisarne članov Sodišča in njihovih neposrednih sodelavcev; stolpa, namenjena prevajalski službi, in Galerija, dolg osvetljen prehod, ki kot arhitekturno vmesni prostor ne povezuje samo stare in nove stavbe, ampak tudi različne dejavnosti institucije.
At the formal sitting for the inauguration of the new Palais, which took place on 4 December 2008 in the presence of Their Royal Highnesses the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, speeches were given by Ms Diana Wallis, Vice-President of the European Parliament, Ms Rachida Dati, Minister for Justice of the French Republic, Mr José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, and Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
Na slavnostni otvoritveni seji nove palače 4. decembra 2008 ob navzočnosti Njunih visokosti velikega vojvode in velike vojvodinje Luksemburga so govorili DianaWallis, podpredsednica Evropskega parlamenta, Rachida Dati, ministrica za pravosodje Francoske republike, José Manuel Barroso, predsednik Evropske komisije, in Jean-Claud Juncker, predsednik vlade Velikega vojvodstva Luksemburg.
With regard to the provisions governing the institution’s operation, the amendment of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice on 8 July 2008 involved the insertion of Title IVa, which contains the provisions designed to introduce the procedure, provided for in Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, for review of decisions of theCourtofFirstInstance on appeal.
Na ravni besedil, ki urejajo institucionalno delovanje, je bil s spremembo Poslovnika Sodišča 8. julija 2008 uveden naslov IVA, ki zajema določbe o postopku ponovnega preizkusa odločb Sodiščaprvestopnje , izdanih glede pritožbe, predvidenega v členu 62 Statuta Sodišča.
The most noteworthy element of these new provisions (Articles 123a to 123e) is the creation of a special chamber entrusted with the task of determining, upon a proposal of the First Advocate General, whether a decision of theCourtofFirstInstance should be reviewed.
Najbolj izrazit prispevek teh novih določb (členi od 123a do 123e) je ustanovitev posebnega senata, katerega naloga je, da na podlagi predloga prvega generalnega pravobranilca odloči, ali je treba znova preizkusiti odločbo Sodiščaprvestopnje .
This chamber is to be composed of the President of the Court of Justice and of four Presidents of five-judge chambers.
Ta senat sestavljajo predsednik Sodišča in štirje predsedniki senatov petih sodnikov.
The statistics concerning the Court of Justice’s judicial activity in 2008 reveal, first, a very significant reduction in the duration of preliminaryruling proceedings compared with preceding years and, second, a continuation of the upward trend in the volume of litigation.
Iz sodne statistike Sodišča za leto 2008 je razvidno, prvič, zelo izrazito skrajšanje trajanja postopkov predhodnega odločanja glede na prejšnja leta, in drugič, da se število sporov neprestano povečuje.
The Court completed 495 cases in 2008 (net figures, that is to say, taking account of the joinder of cases).
Sodišče je leta 2008 končalo 495 zadev (neto številka, upoštevajoč združitve).
Of those cases, 333 were dealt with by judgments and 161 gave rise to orders.
V 333 od teh je odločilo s sodbo, v 161 pa s sklepom.
The number of judgments delivered and orders made is lower than in the previous year (379 judgments and 172 orders). It should nevertheless be noted that the number of preliminaryruling cases completed in 2008 (238 cases in net figures, 301 cases in gross figures) is markedly higher than in 2007 (218 cases in net figures, 235 in gross figures).
Število razglašenih sodb in sklepov je manjše kot v prejšnjem letu (379 sodb in 172 sklepov), vendar je treba poudariti, da je bilo končanih postopkov predhodnega odločanja leta 2008 (238 zadevne to številka, 301 zadev bruto številka) opazno več kot v letu 2007 (218 zadevne to številka, 235 zadev bruto številka).
The Court had 592 new cases brought before it, a number which exceeds even the number in 2007, which had been the highest in the Court’s history (1). The number of cases pending at the end of 2008 did not, however, increase substantially (767 cases, gross figures) beyond the number at the end of 2007 (741 cases, gross figures).
Na Sodišče je prispelo 592 novih zadev, kar je še preseglo število zadev v letu 2007, ko jih je bilo največ v zgodovini Sodišča.1 Število nerešenih zadev ob koncu leta 2008 (767 zadev bruto) pa se kljub temu ni zelo povečalo v primerjavi z zaostankom ob koncu leta 2007 (741 zadev bruto).
The duration of proceedings in 2008 showed a considerable change.
Poleg tega je bil leta 2008 dosežen precejšen razvoj v zvezi s trajanjem postopkov.
In the case of referencesfora preliminaryruling , the average duration of proceedings was 16.8 months, as against 19.3 months in 2007 and 19.8 months in 2006.
Tako se je trajanje postopkov predhodnega odločanja v povprečju skrajšalo na 16,8 meseca, medtem ko so ti postopki leta 2007 trajali 19,3 meseca in leta 2006 19,8 meseca.
A comparative analysis covering the entire period for which the Court has reliable data shows that the average time taken to deal with referencesfora preliminaryruling reached its shortest in 2008.
Iz primerjalne analize je razvidno, da je bilo za celotno obdobje, za katero Sodišče razpolaga z zanesljivimi podatki, povprečno obravnavanje predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe najkrajše leta 2008.
The average time taken to deal with directactions and appeals was 16.9 months and 18.4 months respectively (18.2 months and 17.8 months in 2007).
Obravnavanje neposrednih tožb oziroma pritožb je povprečno trajalo 16,9 oziroma 18,4 meseca (18,2 oziroma 17,8 meseca leta 2007).
In addition to the reforms in working methods that have been initiated in recent years, the improvement in the institution’s efficiency in dealing with cases can also be explained by the wider use of the various procedural instruments at its disposal to expedite the handling of certain cases, in particular the urgent preliminaryruling procedure, priority treatment, the accelerated or expedited procedure, the simplified procedure and the possibility of giving judgment without an opinion of the Advocate General.
Izboljšanje učinkovitosti na še institucije pri obravnavanju zadev je mogoče razložiti z reformami delovnih metod, uvedenih v teh zadnjih letih, in z bolj razširjeno uporabo različnih procesnih instrumentov, ki jih ima na voljo za pospešitev postopka v nekaterih zadevah, predvsem nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja, prednostno obravnavanje zadeve, hitri postopek, skrajšani postopek in možnost odločanja brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca.
In 2008 use of the urgent preliminaryruling procedure was requested in six cases and the designated chamber considered that the conditions under Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure were met in three of them.
Leta 2008 je bil nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja predlagan v šestih zadevah in pristojni senat je ugotovil, da so bili pogoji, ki so določeni v členu 104b Poslovnika, izpolnjeni v treh od teh zadev.
These new provisions relating to the urgent preliminaryruling procedure enabled the Court in 2008 to complete those cases in an average period of 2.1 months.
Te nove določbe v zvezi z nujnim postopkom predhodnega odločanja so Sodišču da le možnost, da v letu 2008 konča te zadeve v povprečno 2,1 meseca.
Use of the expedited or accelerated procedure was requested eight times, but the conditions under the Rules of Procedure were met in only two cases, which were completed in an average period of 4.5 months.
Predlog za obravnavanje po hitrem postopku je bil vložen v osmih zadevah, vendar so bili pogoji, ki so določeni v Poslovniku, izpolnjeni le v dveh zadevah, ki sta bili končani v povprečno 4,5 meseca.
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.
Skladno s prakso, uvedeno leta 2004, predsednik Sodišča z obrazloženim sklepom ugodi ali zavrne predloge za odločanje po hitrem postopku.
Priority treatment, on the other hand, was granted in one case.
Prednostno pa je bila obravnavana ena zadeva.
Also, the Court continued to use the simplified procedure laid down in Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure to answer certain questions referred to it for a preliminaryruling .
Poleg tega je Sodišče še naprej odločalo po skrajšanempostopku iz člena 104(3) Poslovnika, da bi odgovorilo na nekatera vprašanja, ki jih je prejelo v postopkih predhodnega odločanja.
A total of 39 cases were brought to a close by orders made on the basis of that provision, double the number in 2007.
Na podlagi te določbe je bilo namreč s sklepi končanih 39 zadev, kar je dvakrat več v primerjavi z letom 2007.
With the exception of the 13 24 cases brought in 1979.
Razen 1324 zadev, vloženih leta 1979.
That exceptionally high figure can be explained by the huge flood of actions for annulment with the same subject matter that were brought.
Ta številka je nenavadno visoka zato, ker je bilo takrat vloženih izjemno veliko ničnostnih tožb z istim predmetom.
Finally, the Court made frequent use of the possibility offered 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.
Sodišče je pogosto uporabilo tudi možnost, ki jo ima na podlagi člena 20 Statuta, da odloči brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca, če zadeva ne načenja novega pravnega vprašanja.
About 41 % of the judgments delivered in 2008 were delivered without an opinion (compared with 43 % in 2007).
Leta 2007 je bilo tako brez sklepnih predlogov razglašenih okoli 41 % sodb (v primerjavi s 43 % leta 2007).
As regards the distribution of cases between the various formations of the Court, it may be noted that the GrandChamber dealt with approximately 14 %, chambers of five judges with 58 %, and chambers of three judges with slightly over 26% , of the cases brought to a closein 2008.
V zvezi s porazdelitvijo zadev različnim sestavam Sodišča naj navedemo, da je velikisenat odločil v okoli 14 % zadev, senatipetih sodnikov v 58 % zadev in senatitrehsodnikov v malo več kot 26 % zadev, končanih leta 2008.
Compared with the previous year, as light increase may be noted in the proportion of cases dealt with by the GrandChamber ( 11% in 2007) and by five-judge chambers (55 % in 2007), while the number of cases dealt with by three-judge chambers declined ( 33% in 2007).
V primerjavi z zadnjim letom ugotavljamo, da je delež zadev, ki so jih obravnavali velikisenat (11 % leta 2007) in senatipetih sodnikov (55 % leta 2007), rahlo narasel na račun zadev, ki so jih obravnavali senatitrehsodnikov (33 % leta 2006).
Part C of this chapter should be consulted for more detailed information regarding the statistics for the 2008 judicial year.
Drugi podrobnejši statistični podatki za sodno leto 2008 so zbrani v točki C tega poglavja.
As regards the fundamental principles underpinning Community integration, the principle of equality has, once again, featured largely in the case-law of the Court.
Med bistvenimi načeli, s katerimi je povezan ustroj Skupnosti, se je v sodni praksi Sodišča spet pogosto pojavljalo načelo enakega obravnavanja.
The three judgments highlighted below demonstrate the implications of this principle in different spheres.
Poudarek je na treh sodbah, v katerih je bilo ugotovljeno, da to načelo na različnih področjih ni bilo spoštovano.
In Case C-54/07 Feryn (judgment of 10 July 2008), the question arose whether the fact that an employer states publicly that it will not recruit employees of a certain ethnic or racial origin amounts to direct discrimination in respect of recruitment within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) of Council Directive 2000/43 (2).
V zadevi Feryn (sodba z dne 10. julija 2008, C-54/07) je bilo vprašanje, ali to, da je delodajalec javno izjavil, da ne bo zaposlil delavcev neke narodnosti oziroma rase, pomeni neposredno diskriminacijo pri zaposlovanju v smislu člena 2(2)(a) Direktive Sveta 2000/432.
The Court held that it does, such statements being likely strongly to dissuade certain candidates from submitting their candidature and, accordingly, to hinder their access to the labour market.
Sodišče je menilo, da je bilo tako, saj so te izjave takšne, da resno odvračajo nekatere prosilce, da bi predložili kandidaturo, in s tem ustvarjajo oviro za njihov dostop do trga dela.
The existence of such direct discrimination is not dependent on the identification of a complainant who claims to have been the victim of discrimination.
Za obstoj take neposredne diskriminacije se ne predpostavlja, da je mogoče določiti tožnika, ki bi zatrjeval, da je žrtev take diskriminacije.
The Court went on to rule on the issue of the proof of discrimination.
Sodišče je nato odločilo o vprašanju dokazovanja diskriminacije.
It held that the public statements at issue are sufficient for a presumption of the existence of a recruitment policy which is directly discriminatory within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/43.
Ugotovilo je, da zadevne javne izjave zadoščajo za domnevo, v smislu člena 8(1) Direktive 2000/43, o obstoju neposredno diskriminatorne zaposlovalne politike.
It is then for the employer to prove that therewas no breach of the principle of equal treatment, which it c and o by showing that the undertaking’s actual recruitment practice does not correspond to those statements.
Zato mora ta delodajalec dokazati, da ni bilo kršitve načela enakega obravnavanja, kar lahko stori z dokazovanjem, da se dejanska zaposlovalna politika podjetja ne sklada s temi izjavami.
It is for the national court to verify that the facts alleged are established and to assess the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in support of the employer’s contentions that it has not breached the principle of equal treatment.
Predložitveno sodišče pamora nato preveriti, ali so očitana dejstva dokazana, in presoditi, ali so dejstva, navedena v utemeljitev trditev tega delodajalca – da ni kršil načela enakega obravnavanja – zadostna.
Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).
Direktiva Sveta 2000/43/ES z dne 29. junija 2000 o izvajanju načela enakega obravnavanja oseb ne glede na raso ali narodnost (UL L 180, str. 22).
Equal treatment from the point of view of the prohibition of age discrimination formed the subject matter of Case C-427/06 Bartsch (judgment of 23 September 2008).
Enakost obravnavanja z vidika prepovedi diskriminacije, ki temelji na starosti, je bila predmet v zadevi Bartsch (sodba z dne 23. septembra 2008, C-427/06).
The Court held in that case that the application, which the courts of Member States must ensure, of the prohibition under Communitylaw of discrimination on the ground of age is not mandatory where the allegedly discriminatory treatment contains no connecting link with Communitylaw .
Sodišče je v njej razsodilo, da pravo Skupnosti ne vsebuje prepovedi vsakršne diskriminacije zaradi starosti, katere varstvo bi države članice morale zagotavljati, kadar domnevno diskriminatorno obravnavanje ni povezano s pravom Skupnosti.
No such link arises either from Article 13 EC, or, in the case of an occupational pension scheme excluding the right to a pension of a spouse more than 15 years younger than the deceased former employee, from Directive 2000/78 (3) before the time limit allowed to the Member State concerned for its transposition has expired.
Taka zveza s pravom Skupnosti ne izhaja iz člena 13 ES niti v primeru sistema poklicne pokojnine, ki od prejemanja pokojnine izključuje preživelega zakonca, ki je več kot petnajst let mlajši od umrlega delavca, iz Direktive Sveta 2000/783 pred iztekom roka za prenos, ki zavezuje zadevno državo članico.
In Case C-164/07 Wood (judgment of 5 June 2008), a question was referred to the Court for a preliminaryruling on the compatibility with Community law, in the light of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, of French legislation which has the effect of excluding from the grant of compensation awarded by the Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions (Guarantee Fund for the Victims of Acts of Terrorism and Other Crimes), on the sole ground of his nationality, a citizen of the European Community who is residing in France and is the father of a child having French nationality who died in consequence of a crime which was not committed on the territory of that State.
V zadevi Wood (sodba z dne 5. junija 2008, C-164/07) je bilo Sodišču predloženo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje o tem, ali je z vidika splošnega načela prepovedi diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo skladna francoska zakonodaja, ki je pripeljala do tega, da državljan Evropske skupnosti, ki je prebival v Franciji in je bilo če otroka s francoskim državljanstvom, ki je umrl zaradi kaznivega dejanja, ki ni bilo storjeno na ozemlju te države, zaradi državljanstva ni upravičen do odškodnine, ki jo izplačuje Fonds de garantie des victimes des actes de terrorisme et d’autres infractions.
The Court held that Communitylaw precludes such legislation.
Sodišče je razsodilo, da pravo Skupnosti nasprotujeta ki zakonodaji.
As regards the general principles of Communitylaw and observance of those principles by national authorities when implementing Community law, Case C-455/06 Heemskerk and Schaap (judgment of 25 November 2008), concerning export refunds and the protection of cattle during transport, allowed the Court to adjudicate on the national rule of reformatio in pejus.
Na ravni splošnih načel prava Skupnosti in tega, da jih morajo nacionalni organi upoštevati ob izvajanju tega prava, je treba omeniti zadevo Heemskerk in Schaap (sodba z dne 25. novembra 2008, C-455/06) o izvoznih nadomestilih ter zaščiti goveda med prevozom, ki je Sodišču omogočila, da se izreče o nacionalnem pravilu reformatio in pejus.
The Court decided that Communitylaw does not require national courts to apply, of their own motion, a provision of Communitylaw where such application would lead them to deny the principle, enshrined in the relevant national law, of the prohibition of reformatio in pejus.
Razsodilo je, da pravo Skupnosti nacionalnega sodišča ne zavezuje, da mora po uradni dolžnosti uporabiti določbo Skupnosti, če bi ga taka uporaba vodila do izključitve načela prepovedi reformatio in pejus, ki je zasidrano v upoštevnem nacionalnem pravu.
Such an obligation would not only be contrary to the principles of respect for the rights of the defence, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations, which underlie the prohibition, but would expose an individual who brought an action against an act adversely affecting him to the risk that such an action would place him in a less favourable position than he would have been in, had he not brought that action.
Taka obveznost namreč ne bi samo trčila ob načelo spoštovanja pravic do obrambe, načelo pravne varnosti in načelo zaupanja v pravo, ki so navedeni prepovedi podrejena, ampak bi tudi posameznika, ki bi vložil tožbo zoper akt, ki posega v njegov položaj, izpostavila tveganju, da se zaradi te tožbe znajde v manj ugodnem položaju, kot če tožbene bi vložil.
There area number of judgments of particular interest in relation to proceedings before the Community judicature.
Na področju sporov pred sodišči Skupnosti je posebno zanimivih več sodb.
One of these concerns the very jurisdiction of the Community judicature.
Ena od njih se nanaša na pristojnost sodišča Skupnosti.
In Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission (judgment of 3 September 2008), although the Court upheld the judgments of theCourtofFirstInstance under appeal (in Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Com-
V združenih zadevah Kadi in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji (sodba z dne 3. septembra 2008, C-402/05 P in C-415/05 P) je Sodišče, čeprav je potrdilo izpodbijani sodbi Sodiščaprvestopnje (sodbi z dne 21. septembra 2005, T-315/01, ZOdl., str. II-3649, in T-306/01, ZOdl., str.
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).
Direktiva Sveta 2000/78/ES z dne 27. novembra 2000 o splošnih okvirih enakega obravnavanja pri zaposlovanju in delu (UL L 303, str. 16).
According to the Court of Justice, the review of the validity of any Community measure in the light of fundamental rights must be considered to be the expression, in a community based on the rule of law, of a constitutional guarantee, stemming from the ECTreaty as an autonomous legal system, which cannot be prejudiced by an international agreement.
Sodišče uredbe. Pomnenju Sodišča je treba nadzor veljavnosti vseh aktov Skupnosti, ob upoštevanju temeljnih pravic v pravni skupnosti, šteti za izraz ustavnega jamstva, ki izhaja iz Pogodbe ES kot avtonomnega pravnega sistema, v katerega mednarodni sporazumne sme posegati.
The review of lawfulness ensured by the Community judicature applies to the Community act intended to give effect to the international agreement at issue, and not to the latter as such.
Nadzor zakonitosti, ki ga zagotovi sodišče Skupnosti, se nanaša na akt Skupnosti, katerega namen je izvajanje zadevnega mednarodnega sporazuma, ne pa na tega kot takega.