natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
48 According to the judgment in GE Betz v OHIM – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE), cited above, the answer is that it may.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi GE Betz proti UUNT – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE) je odgovor pritrdilen.
The Court accepted that OHIM could endorse the applicant’s claim for annulment of the decision of the Board of
Nato se je postavilo tudi vprašanje o dopustnosti tožbe na razveljavitev, poleg spodbijane odločbe tudi odločbe oddelka za ugovore.
Article 133(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Člen 133(2) Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje.
Moreover, the question also arose as to the admissibility of a claim for annulment of, in addition to the contested decision, the decision of the Opposition Division.
V zvezi s to problematiko glej tudi sodbo Sodišča z dne 12. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Vedial proti UUNT, C-106/03 P, še neobjavljena v Recueil.
With respect to this issue, see also the judgment of 12 October 2004 in Case C-106/03 P Vedial v OHIM, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodišče prve stopnje je UUNT „pri tem preizkusu omejen na predlagani ukrep in na dejstva, dokaze in navedbe, ki so jih podale stranke“ – je bil določen v zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Ruiz-Picasso in drugi proti UUNT – DaimlerChrysler (PICARO)50
With respect to the inadmissibility before the Court of a document which was not produced during a procedure before OHIM relating to the relative grounds for refusal of registration and of which OHIM was therefore not required to take account of its own motion, see Samar v OHIM – Grotto (GAS STATION), cited above.
V tej sodbi je Sodiče prve stopnje spomnilo, kot je navedlo že v svoji sodbi z dne 23. septembra 2003 v zadevi Henkel proti UUNT – LHS (UK) (KLEENCARE) (T-308/01, Recueil, str.
Proceedings known, that is, which are likely to be known by anyone or which may be learned from generally accessible sources.
II-3253), da bi naj odbor za pritožbe, ki odloča o tožbi zoper odločbo o ustavitvi postopka z ugovorom, ob uporabi zgoraj navedenega člena 74 utemeljil svojo odločbo samo na razlogih zavrnitve, na katere se je sklicevala stranka, in na odgovarjajočih dejstvih in dokazih, ki jih je predstavila ta stranka.
In that respect, it explained that the object of Article 74(1) in fine is to relieve OHIM of the task of investigating the facts itself in the context of proceedings between parties. That object is not compromised if OHIM takes well-known facts into account.
V tej točki je pojasnilo, da je ratio legis člena 74(1)(na koncu) ta, da bi se uprava razbremenila naloge, da mora v okviru postopkov inter partes sama raziskati dejstva, in da ta cilj ni dosežen, če mora UUNT upoštevati splošno znana dejstva.
Finally, as a fourth point, it may be noted that the Court offered some important clarifications with regard to the language requirements of the opposition procedure in GE Betz v OHIM – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE).
Na koncu je treba pod četrto temo navesti, da je Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi GE Betz proti UUNT – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE) prispevalo pomembne ugotovitve v zvezi z jezikovnimi zahtevami postopka z ugovorom.
Operational continuity of the departments of OHIM
Funkcionalna kontinuiteta med oddelki UUNT
It is appropriate to apply the case-law established in the ex parte cases 51 according to which there is continuity in terms of function between the examiner and the Board of Appeal to the relationship between the Opposition Division of OHIM ruling at first instance and the Boards of Appeal.
Namen sodne prakse v zadevah ex parte51, v skladu s katero obstaja funkcionalna kontinuiteta med preizkuševalcem in odborom za pritožbe, je, da se uporabi tudi v razmerjih med oddelkom za ugovore UUNT, ki odloča na prvi stopnji, in odbori za pritožbe.
Relying expressly on the approach adopted in Henkel v OHIM – LHS (UK) (KLEENCARE), cited above (commented on in the Annual Report 2003), the Court held in its judgment of 10 November 2004 in Kaul v OHIM – Bayer (ARCOL) that the Board of Appeal had erred in refusing to take account of the evidence intended to demonstrate that the earlier mark was highly distinctive, on the ground that that evidence had not been produced before the Opposition Division.
Z izrecnim sklicevanjem na rešitev iz zgoraj navedene sodbe z dne 23. septembra 2003 v zadevi Henkel proti UUNT – LHS (UK) (KLEENCARE) (pojasnjena v Letnem poročilu za leto 2003) je Sodišče prve stopnje v sodbi z dne 10. novembra 2004 v zadevi Kaul proti UUNT – Bayer (ARCOL) dejansko sodilo, da je odbor za pritožbe zagrešil napako, ker ni upošteval elementov, katerih namen je vzpostaviti visoko stopnjo razlikovanja starejše znamke, ker teh elementov ni proizvedel oddelek za ugovore.
In light of the principle of operational continuity of the departments of OHIM, the Board of Appeal is bound to base its decision on all the factual and legal evidence that the party concerned has submitted either during the proceedings before the division ruling at first instance or, subject to compliance with the prescribed time-limits, 52 during the appeal proceedings.
Glede na načelo kontinuitete funkcij med oddelki UUNT bi moral odbor za pritožbe utemeljiti svojo odločbo na vseh dejanskih in pravnih elementih, ki so jih zadevne stranke navedle v postopku pred oddelkom, ki je odločal na prvi stopnji in pod pogojem spoštovanja predpisanih rokov52v postopku s pritožbo.
Regulation No 1049/2001, 54 adopted pursuant to Article 255 EC, defines the principles, conditions and limits governing the right of access by the public to European Parliament,
O nedopustnosti dokumenta v postopku pred Sodiščem prve stopnje, kadar ta dokument ni bil predložen v postopku o relativnih razlogih za zavrnitev registracije pred UUNT in ga ta ni bil dolžan upoštevati po uradni dolžnosti, glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo v zadevi Samar proti UUNT – Grotto (GAS STATION).
Case T-163/98 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (BABY-DRY) [1999] ECR II-2383, which was not set aside on that point in Case C-383/99 P Procter & Gamble v OHIM (BABY-DRY) [2001] ECR I-6251, and Case T-63/01 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (soap bar shape) [2002] ECR II-5255. 52
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT (BABY-DRY), T-163/98, Recueil, str. II-2383, ki je sodba Sodišča z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT (BABY-DRY), C-383/99 P, Recueil, str. I-6251, v tej točki ni razveljavila, in sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 2002 v zadevi Procter & Gamble proti UUNT (Oblika mila), T-63/01, Recueil, str. II-5255. 52
That is to say, subject to compliance with Article 74(2) of Regulation No 40/94, which provides: ‘The Office may disregard facts or evidence which are not submitted in due time by the parties concerned’.
Kar pomeni pod pogojem spoštovanja člena 74 (2) Uredbe št. 40/94, ki določa: „Urad lahko spregleda dejstva, na katera se stranke niso sklicevale, ali dokaze, ki jih zadevne stranke niso predložile v ustreznem času“.
Although the position taken on the issue was less clear, the operational continuity of the departments of OHIM was referred to in other inter partes cases, namely in the judgments of 30 June 2004 in GE Betz v OHIM – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE) and of 8 July 2004 in MFE Marienfelde v OHIM – Vétoquinol (HIPOVITON).
Čeprav mnenje o tem vprašanju ni bilo tako jasno, je bilo nadaljevanje funkcij obravnavano tudi v okviru drugih zadev inter partes, in sicer v zgoraj navedenih sodbah z dne 30. junija 2004 v zadevi GE Betz proti UUNT – Atofina Chemicals (BIOMATE) in z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi MFE Marienfelde proti UUNT – Vétoquinol (HIPOVITON).
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 (ES) št. 1049/2001 Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
Thus, contrary to what the applicant argued, with the support of three Member States, where a request is made by a Member State under that provision, the institution is obliged not to disclose the document in question.
Uredbe št. 1049/2001, ki predvideva, da institucije zavrnejo dostop do dokumenta, kadar bi razkritje oslabilo varstvo zlasti sodnih postopkov in pravnih mnenj, razen če ne prevlada višji javni interes za razkritje zadržanega dokumenta.
In Turco v Council, the issue was the Council’s refusal to disclose to the applicant an opinion of the Council’s legal service on a proposal for a Council Directive laying down minimum standards for the reception of applicants for asylum in Member States.
Sodišče prve stopnje potrjuje mnenje Sveta, ki je v tej zadevi podprl Združeno kraljestvo in Komisijo.
The Council had relied on Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001, which provides that the institutions are to refuse access to a document where disclosure would undermine the protection of, inter alia, court proceedings and legal advice unless there is an overriding public interest in disclosure.
Sodilo je proti trditvam tožeče stranke, da je treba besede „pravnih mnenj“ razumeti v tem smislu, da varstvo javnega interesa lahko nasprotuje razkritju vsebine dokumentov, ki jih je izdala pravna služba Sveta v okviru sodnih postopkov, pa tudi v druge namene.
The Court of First Instance held in favour of the Council, which was supported in those proceedings by the United Kingdom and the Commission.
Sodišče prve stopnje s sklicevanjem na sodbo z dne 7. decembra 1999 v zadevi Interporc proti Komisiji (T-92/98, Recueil, str.
Proceedings but also for any other purpose. It pointed out, citing the judgment in Case T-92/98 Interporc v Commission [1999] ECR II-3521 (see the Annual Report 1999), that legal advice drawn up in the context of court proceedings was already covered by the exception relating to the protection of such proceedings.
II-3521; glej Letno poročilo za leto 1999) meni, da so pravna mnenja, izdana v okviru sodnih postopkov, že zajeta v izjemi o varstvu teh postopkov.
As exceptions to the right of access to the institutions’ documents under Regulation No 1049/2001 must be interpreted and applied strictly, the Court of First Instance held that the fact that the document in question is a legal opinion cannot, of itself, justify application of the exception relied upon.
Glede na to, da je pravne izjeme od pravice dostopa do dokumentov institucij iz Uredbe št. 1049/2001 treba razlagati in uporabljati strogo, Sodišče prve stopnje meni, da okoliščina, da je zadevni dokument pravno mnenje, naj ne bi sama po sebi upravičila uporabe navedene izjeme.
However, since, first, the Council made no error of assessment in considering that the disclosure of such advice could give rise to lingering doubts as to the lawfulness of the legislative act in question and there was, therefore, an interest in the protection of that opinion and, second, the applicant has not cited any matter of public interest liable to justify the disclosure of such a document, the Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.
Glede na to, da Svet ni zagrešil nobene napake pri presoji, da bi razkritje zahtevanega pravnega mnenja dopustilo dvom o zakonitosti zadevnega zakonodajnega akta, da bi naj torej obstajal interes varstva tega mnenja na eni strani, in s tem, da se tožeča stranka ni sklicevala na noben višji javni interes, ki bi lahko upravičil razkritje takega dokumenta, na drugi strani, je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo o zavrnitvi tožbe v celoti.
Community staff cases
Javna uprava Skupnosti
The hundred or so decisions giving rulings in disputes between officials and staff of the institutions of the Community, on the one hand, and those institutions, on the other, tackle many different legal situations, and since this section is necessarily a summary, it can give an account of only some of them.
Okrog sto odločitev v sporih med uradniki in uslužbenci institucij Skupnosti na eni strani in istimi institucijami na drugi strani zajema veliko raznolikost pravnih položajev, ki pa se bodo zaradi nujno sintetične narave tega besedila obravnavali le delno.
In brief, those actions sought to contest the legality of:
Besedilo se bo torej omejilo na navedbe, da se je s tožbami ugovarjala zakonitost:
– decisions not to promote (judgments of 21 January 2004 in Case T-97/02 Mavridis v Commission, of 2 March 2004 in Case T-197/02 Caravelis v Parliament, of 17 March 2004 in Case T-175/02 Lebedef v Commission and Case T-4/03 Lebedef v Commission, of 10 June 2004 in Case T-330/03 Liakoura v Council and of 28 September 2004 in Case T-216/03 Tenreiro v Commission, none yet published in the ECR);
– odločb o zavrnitvi napredovanja (sodbe z dne 21. januarja 2004 v zadevi Mavridis proti Komisiji, T-97/02; z dne 2. marca 2004 v zadevi Caravelis proti Parlamentu, T-197/02; z dne 17. marca 2004 v zadevi Lebedef proti Komisiji, T-175/02, in Lebedef proti Komisiji, T-4/03; z dne 10. junija 2004 v zadevi Liakoura proti Svetu, T-330/03, in z dne 28. septembra 2004 v zadevi Tenreiro proti Komisiji, T-216/03, še neobjavljene v Recueil);
– decisions taken in the course of appointment procedures (judgments of 21 January 2004 in Case T-328/01 Robinson v Parliament, of 2 March 2004 in Case T-234/02 Michael v Commission, of 23 March 2004 in Case T-310/02 Theodorakis v Conseil and of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission, none yet published in the ECR).
– odločb, sprejetih v postopkih imenovanja (sodbe z dne 21. januarja 2004 v zadevi Robinson proti Parlamentu, T-328/01; z dne 2. marca 2004 v zadevi Michael proti Komisij, T-234/02; z dne 23. marca 2004 v zadevi Theodorakis proti Svetu, T-310/02, in z dne 31. marca 2004 v zadevi Girardot proti Komisiji, T-10/02, še neobjavljene v Recueil).
In this connection it must also be noted that the judgment of 9 November 2004 in Case T-116/03 Montalto v Council, not yet published in the ECR, annuls the decision of the Council of 23 May 2002 appointing an additional Chairman of a Board of Appeal, also President of the Appeals Department of the OHIM;
O tej temi je treba navesti, da je sodba z dne 9. novembra 2004 v zadevi Montalto proti Svetu (T-116/03, še neobjavljena v Recueil) razglasila ničnost odločbe Sveta z dne 23. maja 2002 o imenovanju dodatnega predsednika enega odbora za pritožbe, hkrati predsednika oddelka za ugovore UUNT;
– decisions no longer to engage conference interpreters over the age of 65 (judgments of 10 June 2004 in Joined Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 Alvarez Moreno v Commission (under appeal, Case C-373/04 P), in Case T-275/01 Alvarez Moreno v Parliament and in Case T-276/01 Garroni v Parliament, none yet published in the ECR);
– odločb o tem, da se pogodbe o delu ne sklepajo več s tolmači, ki so dopolnili 65 let (sodbe z dne 10. junija 2004 v zadevi Alvarez Moreno proti Komisiji, T-153/01 in T-323/01; pritožba (zadeva C-373/04 P), Alvarez Moreno proti Parlamentu, T-275/01, in Garroni proti Parlamentu, T-276/01, še neobjavljene v Recueil);
Court of First Instance such that the applicant was excluded (judgment of 9 November 2004 in Joined Cases T-285/02 and T-395/02 Vega Rodríguez v Commission, not yet published in the ECR), or refusing to include the applicant on a reserve list (judgments of 28 April 2004 in Case T-277/02 Pascall v Council and of 10 November 2004 in Case T-165/03 Vonier v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR);
– odločb Komisij natečaja, ki kandidatom niso dovolile opravljati preizkusov (sodbe z dne 20. januarja 2004 v zadavi Briganti proti Komisiji, T-195/02; z dne 19. februarja 2004 v zadevi Konstantopoulou proti Sodišču, T-19/03; z dne 25. marca 2004 v zadevi Petrich proti Komisiji, T-145/02; z dne 21. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Schumann proti Komisiji, T-49/03; z dne 26. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Falcone proti Komisiji, T-207/02, in z dne 28. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Lutz Herrera proti Komisiji, T-219/02 in T-337/02, še neobjavljene v Recueil), dodeljujoč izključitvene ocene (sodba z dne 9. novembra 2004 v zadevi Vega Rodríguez proti Komisiji, T-285/02 in T-395/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil) ali o nevpisu tožeče stranke na čakalni seznam (sodbi z dne 28. aprila 2004 v zadevi Pascall proti Svetu, T-277/02, in z dne 10. novembra 2004 v zadevi Vonier proti Komisiji, T-165/03, še neobjavljeni v Recueil);
– decisions taken in the course of disciplinary procedures (judgment of 16 December 2004 in Joined Cases T-120/01 and T-300/01 De Nicola v EIB, not yet published in the ECR), or imposing disciplinary sanctions (judgments of 16 March 2004 in Case T-11/03 Afari v European Central Bank, of 1 April 2004 in Case T-198/02 N v Commission, and of 10 June 2004 in Case T-307/01 Eveillard v Commission and in Case T-307/01 François v Commission, none yet published in the ECR).
– odločb, sprejetih v okviru disciplinskih postopkov (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2004 v zadevi De Nicola proti EIB, T-120/01 in T-300/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil) ali odločb o izreku disciplinskih sankcij (sodbe z dne 16. marca 2004 v zadevi Afari proti Evropski centralni banki, T-11/03; z dne 1. aprila 2004 v zadevi N proti Komisiji, T-198/02, in z dne 10. junija 2004 v zadevi Eveillard proti Komisiji in François proti Komisiji, T-307/01, še neobjavljene v Recueil);
Other judgments rule on claims for compensation for the damage suffered as a result of delay in drawing up staff reports (judgments of 6 July 2004 in Case T-281/01 Huygens v Commission and of 30 September 2004 in Case T-16/03 Ferrer de Moncada v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR), or as a result of an occupational disease of an official (judgments of 3 March 2004 in Case T-48/01 Vainker and Vainker v Parliament and of 14 October 2004 in Case T-256/02 I v Court of Justice and in Case T-389/02 Sandini v Court of Justice, none yet published in the ECR).
Druge sodbe o zahtevah za plačilo odškodnine za škodo, utrpelo zaradi zamude v postopku ocenjevanja (sodbi z dne 6. julija 2004 v zadevi Huygens proti Komisiji, T-281/01, in z dne 30. septembra 2004 v zadevi Ferrer de Moncada proti Komisiji, T-16/03, še neobjavljeni v Recueil) ali zaradi poklicne bolezni uradnika (sodbe z dne 3. marca 2004 v zadevi Vainker in Vainker proti Parlamentu, T-48/01, in z dne 14. oktobra 2004 v zadevi I proti Sodišču, T-256/02, in Sandini proti Sodišču, T-389/02, še neobjavljene v Recueil).
Also of interest are the judgments of 5 October 2004 in Case T-45/01 Sanders and Others v Commission and in Case T-144/02 Eagle v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR, which order the defendant institution to pay damages for the loss sustained by the applicants as a result of the fact that they were not recruited as temporary servants of the Communities during the time they worked at the Joint European Tours (JET) Joint Undertaking.
Omeniti je treba tudi sodbi z dne 5. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Sanders in drugi proti Komisiji (T-45/01) in Eagle proti Komisiji (T-144/02) (še neobjavljeni v Recueil), ki sta obtoženim institucijam naložili plačilo premoženjske škode, ki so jo utrpele tožeče stranke, ker med izvajanjem dejavnosti v skupnem podjetju Joint European Torus (JET) niso bile zaposlene kot začasni uslužbenci Skupnosti.
Actions for damages 55
Odškodninski spori55
For the Community to incur non-contractual liability for an unlawful act, three conditions must be fulfilled: the conduct alleged against the Community institutions must be unlawful, there must be actual damage and there must be a causal link between that conduct and that damage.
Nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti za nezakoniti akt je podrejena obstoju treh pogojev, in sicer nezakonitega vedenja institucij Skupnosti, dejansko nastale škode in vzročne zveze med vedenjem in škodo.
The concurrence of those three conditions allowing the non-contractual liability of the Community to be incurred was regarded as established by the Court in its interlocutory judgment of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Štelo se je, da so bili ti trije pogoji za obstoj odgovornosti izpolnjeni v zadevi, posledica katere je bila začasna sodba z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Cantina sociale di Dolianova in drugi proti Komisiji (T-166/98, še neobjavljena v Recueil).
As one or more of those conditions were not met in the other actions for damages, the Court of First Instance dismissed all the other actions brought under Article 288 EC.
Ker v drugih odškodninskih zahtevkih eden ali več pogojev ni bilo izpolnjenih, je Sodišče prve stopnje vse druge tožbe, vložene na podlagi člena 288 ES, zavrnilo.
As regards the condition that the conduct alleged against the Community institutions should be unlawful, it was recalled in the judgment of 10 February 2004 in Joined Cases T-64/01 and T-65/01 Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and in Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission, cited above, that the case-law requires that a sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals 55
Glede na pogoj nezakonitega vedenja institucij Skupnosti je bilo v sodbah z dne 10. februarja 2004 v zadevi Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie in Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. proti Komisiji (T-64/01 in T-65/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil) in v zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Cantina sociale di Dolianova in drugi proti Komisiji opozorjeno na zahtevo sodne prakse, da obstaja dovolj resna 55
Excluding Community staff cases.
Izvzeti so spori o javni upravi Skupnosti.
Proceedings must be established (judgment in Case C-352/98 P Bergaderm and Goupil v Commission [2000] ECR I-5291).
Sodišče prve stopnje kršitev pravnega pravila, katerega namen je poveriti pravice posameznikom (sodba Sodišča z dne 4. julija 2000 v zadevi Bergaderm in Goupil proti Komisiji, C-352/98 P, Recueil, str. I-5291).
Where the Member State or the institution in question has only considerably reduced discretion, or even no discretion at all, the mere infringement of Community law may be sufficient to establish the existence of a sufficiently serious breach.
Kadar ta institucija razpolaga samo z znatno zmanjšano presojo oziroma je sploh nima, zadostuje že sama kršitev prava Skupnosti za to, da gre za dovolj resno kršitev.
The expression ‘rule of law intended to confer rights on individuals’ has been analysed on several occasions by the Court of First Instance.
Izraz „pravnega pravila, katerega namen je poveriti pravice posameznikom“ je Sodišče prve stopnje večkrat presojalo.