natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Such areas of shared competences are just as much protected by Article 47 [EU] as the areas of exclusive Community competence; otherwise Article 47 would be deprived of a large part of its useful effect.
Člen 47 [EU] se uporablja na področjih deljene pristojnosti ter na področjih izključne pristojnosti, sicer v veliki meri ne bi imel učinka.
The Commission reserves its rights in this matter.’ 10
Komisija si pridržuje izvr�evanje pravic na tem področju. 10“
III — Forms of order sought and procedure before the Court
III – Predlogi strank in postopek pred Sodiščem
‘In the view of the Commission this Joint Action should not have been adopted and the project ought to have been financed from the 9th [European Development Fund (EDF)] under the Cotonou Agreement.
„Komisija meni, da ta skupni ukrep ne bi smel biti sprejet in da bi se moral projekt financirati iz devetega [Evropskega razvojnega sklada (ERS)] na podlagi Sporazuma iz Cotonouja.
This is clearly borne out by Article 11(3) of the Cotonou Agreement which specifically mentions the fight against the accumulation of small arms and light weapons as a relevant activity.
To mnenje je potrjeno v členu 11(3) Sporazuma iz Cotonouja, v katerem je med upo�tevnimi dejavnostmi izrecno naveden boj proti kopičenju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja.
It is also reflected in the annotation to the relevant CFSP budget line (19 03 02) in the 2004 budget, which excludes CFSP financing of such projects if they “are already covered by the provisions of the Cotonou Agreement …”.
Poleg tega iz komentarjev, ki se nana�ajo na zadevno proračunsko postavko SZVP (19 03 02) proračuna za leto 2004, izhaja, da je financiranje takih projektov na podlagi SZVP izključeno, če so ti že predmet Sporazuma iz Cotonouja.
— declare illegal and hence inapplicable the contested Joint Action, in particular Title II thereof.
– sporni skupni ukrep, zlasti njegov Naslov II, razglasi za nezakonitega, zaradi česar se ne uporablja.
By order of 12 September 2005, the President of the Court also granted the Kingdom of Denmark leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 12. septembra 2005 tudi kraljevini Danski dovolil intervencijo v podporo predlogom Sveta.
— dismiss the claim for annulment of the contested decision as unfounded,
– predlog za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa kot neutemeljenega zavrne;
The Commission and the Council, and also the parties which were given leave to intervene in the present case, made submissions at the hearing which took place on 5 December 2006, with the exception of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which was not represented.
Komisija in Svet ter stranke, ki jim je bila dovoljena intervencija v tej zadevi, so bile, z izjemo kraljevine Nizozemske, ki na obravnavi ni bila navzoča, zasli�ane na tej obravnavi, ki je potekala 5. decembra 2006.
— dismiss the Commission’s claim for a declaration of inapplicability of the contested Joint Action as inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded,
– predlog Komisije, ki se nana�a na to, da se ugotovi, da se sporni skupni ukrep ne uporablja, kot nedopustnega zavrže podredno pa naj ga zavrne kot neutemeljenega;
Admissibility of the application for annulment of the contested decision
Dopustnost predloga ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa
There is no doubt — and the Council and the parties which have intervened in support of the forms of order it seeks have not argued to the contrary — that the application for annulment of the contested decision is
Brez dvoma – pri čemer se Svet in intervenienti v podporo njegovim predlogom strinjajo – je predlog za razglasitev ničnosti
Admissibility of the plea of illegality of the contested Joint Action admissible in that it seeks a finding that the act adopted by the Council in the framework of Title V of the EU Treaty (‘Provisions on a [CFSP]’) encroaches on the powers of the European Community in the area of development cooperation.
Dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa izpodbijanega sklepa dopusten v delu, v katerem se nana�a na ugotovitev, da naj bi akt, ki ga je sprejel Svet v okviru Naslova V Pogodbe EU („[d]oločbe, ki se nana�ajo na [SZVP]“), posegal v pristojnosti Evropske skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
(a) Arguments of the parties
a) Trditve strank
According to the Council, supported by the Spanish and United Kingdom governments, the Commission’s plea that the contested Joint Action is illegal is inadmissible in so far as, first, the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a measure under the CFSP and, second, a privileged applicant such as the Commission is barred from pleading the illegality of an act the annulment of which it could have sought directly by an action under Article 230 EC.
Po mnenju Sveta, ki ga podpirata vladi Španije in Združenega kraljestva, je ugovor nezakonitosti, ki ga Komisija navaja zoper sporni skupni ukrep, nedopusten, ker, prvič, Sodi�če ni pristojno za odločanje o zakonitosti akta, ki je predmet SZVP, in, drugič, privilegirana tožeča stranka, kot je Komisija, ne sme uveljavljati nezakonitosti akta, glede katerega bi lahko neposredno predlagala razglasitev ničnosti s tožbo na podlagi člena 230 ES.
Following the example of what has been inferred from Articles 46(f) and 47 EU with regard to the judicial review of acts of the Council adopted on the basis of the present Title VI of the EU Treaty (the third pillar), it is therefore the task of the Court to ensure that acts which, according to the Council, fall within the scope of Title V of the EU Treaty do not encroach on the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community. 11
Namreč, čeprav izpodbijani sklep, ki temelji na členu 23 EU in spornemu skupnemu ukrepu, sprejetemu v skladu z Naslovom V Pogodbe EU, načeloma ni predmet sodnega nadzora na podlagi čle -na 230 ES, je treba opozoriti, da se določbe Pogodbe ES o pristojnosti Sodi�ča in izva -janju teh pristojnosti v skladu s členom 46(f) EU uporabljajo zlasti za člen 47 EU, ki določa, da nobena določba v Pogodbi EU ne vpliva na Pogodbo ES.
In its reply and its written observations on the statements in intervention of the Spanish and the United Kingdom governments, the Commission rebuts the objections to the admissibility of the plea of illegality by observing, first, that the plea is raised only in the light of Article 47 EU, that is to say, for the same reasons as those on which its principal application for the annulment of the contested decision is based, and, second, that privileged applicants have the right to plead the illegality of a legislative act where such illegality is revealed fully when the act is actu-
Komisija v repliki in pisnih stali�čih na intervencijski vlogi vlad Španije in Združenega kraljestva zavrača ugovore glede dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti, pri čemer najprej opozarja, da je bil ugovor vložen le na podlagi člena 47 EU, in sicer iz istih razlogov, na katerih temelji njen prvotni predlog za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa, in dalje, da naj bi se imele privilegirane tožeče stranke pravico sklicevati na nezakonitost normativnega akta, kadar se navedena nezakonitost v celoti odkrije med
(i) Admissibility of a plea of illegality raised by a privileged applicant against a regulation pursuant to Article 241 EC ally applied, after the expiry of the period laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC for bringing an action for the annulment of that act.
MENGOZZIJA – ZADEVA C-91/05 i) Dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti na podlagi člena 241 ES, na katerega se zoper uredbo sklicuje privilegirana tožeča stranka njegovo dejansko uporabo, po izteku roka, določenega v členu 230, peti odstavek, ES, z namenom vložitve ničnostne tožbe zoper navedeni akt.
It must be observed that, under Article 241 EC, notwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, any party may, in proceedings in which a regulation adopted jointly by the Parliament and the Council, or a regulation of the Council, of the Commission or of the European Central Bank is at issue, plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of Article 230 in order to invoke before the Court of Justice the inapplicability of that regulation. 12
Opozoriti je treba, da v skladu s čle -nom 241 ES, ne glede na iztek roka, določenega v petem odstavku člena 230 ES, lahko vsaka stranka ob sporu, v katerem se izpodbija uredba, ki sta jo skupaj sprejela Evropski parlament in Svet, ali uredba Sveta, Komisije ali Evropske centralne banke, pred Sodi�čem uveljavlja, da se ta uredba iz razlogov, navedenih v drugem odstavku člena 230, ES, ne uporablja 12.
I wish to point out straightaway that examination of the admissibility of the plea of illegality of the contested Joint Action seemed to me necessary at this stage of my remarks in so far as, on the substance of the case, the assessment of the legality of the contested decision cannot, in my view, be dissociated from the assessment of the provisions of the contested Joint Action.
Takoj želim pojasniti, da se mi zdi obravnava dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa na tej stopnji mojih ugotovitev nujna, ker menim, da presoja zakonitosti izpodbijanega sklepa, glede na vsebino zadeve, ne more biti ločena od presoje določb spornega skupnega ukrepa.
As to the nature of the act at issue, the caselaw accepts that a plea of illegality cannot be limited to acts which take the form of a regulation within the meaning of Article 241 EC and, preferring a broader interpretation of Article 241, looks rather to the content of the allegedly illegal act which must have a ‘general character.’ 13
Glede narave zadevnega akta sodna praksa priznava, da naj ugovor nezakonitosti ne bi bil omejen na akte, ki imajo obliko uredbe v smislu člena 241 ES, ampak se ob sprejemanju �ir�e razlage navedenega člena navezuje raje na vsebino domnevno nezakonitega akta, ki mora biti „splo�na“ 13.
12 — Italics added.
12 – Moj poudarek.
See also Joined Cases T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II-1047, paragraph 56, and Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001] ECR II-2823, paragraph 134.
II-1047, točka 56) in z dne 2. oktobra 2001 v združenih zadevah Martinez in drugi proti Parlamentu (T-222/99, T-327/99 in T-329/99, Recueil, str. II-2823, točka 134).
First, the question whether, in the context of the EC Treaty, it is open to a so-called ‘privileged’ applicant to plead the illegality of an act which the applicant could certainly have challenged directly in accordance with Article 230 EC.
Prvič, ali je v okviru Pogodbe ES dopustno, da se t. i. privilegirana tožeča stranka sklicuje na nezakonitost akta, ki bi ga lahko vsekakor neposredno izpodbijala na podlagi člena 230 ES.
Second, if the reply to that question is at least partly in the affirmative, it is necessary to determine whether that solution can be extended to a situation such as that in the present case where the allegedly illegal act was adopted on the basis of Title V of the EU Treaty.
Drugič, če je odgovor na to vpra�anje vsaj deloma pritrdilen, je treba ugotoviti, ali je to re�itev mogoče uporabiti v situaciji, ko je akt, za katerega se predlaga ugotovitev nezakonitosti, kot je v tem primeru, sprejet na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU.
These two questions will be examined in turn.
Ti vpra�anji bom zaporedoma obravnaval v nadaljevanju.
COMMISSION v COUNCIL cant such as a Community institution or a Member State, has however arisen on several occasions in recent decades.
Skupnosti ali država članica, sklicuje na podlagi člena 241 ES, v zadnjih desetletjih večkrat postavilo.
This clarification means, as a first consequence, that any applicant, including therefore a privileged applicant, is barred from pleading the illegality of decisions formal - ly addressed to that applicant which it has fail - ed to challenge directly within the period laid down by the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC, 14 save in a situation — which is in any case irrelevant in the present case — where the measure at issue contained such particularly serious and manifest defects that it could be deemed non-existent. 15
Posledica takega pojasnila je, da se nobena tožeča stranka, torej tudi privilegirana, ne sme sklicevati na nezakonitost odločb, katerih uradna naslovnica je in jih ni izpodbijala neposredno v roku iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES 14, razen v primeru – ki vsekakor v tem primeru ni upo�teven –, če bi akt vseboval posebno težke in očitne napake in bi ga bilo mogoče �teti za neobstoječega 15.
The recurrence of this question seems to have been partly occasioned by the Court’s repeated refusal to give a ruling on the admissibility of pleas of illegality raised by privileged applicants against Community regulations either in the context of an application for the annulment of a decision based on the regulation in question or as a means of defence against an allegation of failure to comply with a regulation, 16in spite of the proposals of several advocates general who, mainly with reference to the wording of Article 241, delivered opinions suggesting that those collateral challenges are admissible. 17
Ponovni pojav tega vpra�anja je deloma posledica ponavljajočega se zavračanja Sodi�ča, da bi odločalo o dopustnosti ugovorov nezakonitosti, na katere se sklicujejo privilegirane tožeče stranke, zoper uredbe Skupnosti, bodisi v okviru ničnostne tožbe zoper akt, ki temelji na zadevni uredbi, bodisi kot sredstvo obrambe proti zatrjevani neizpolnitvi obveznosti iz uredbe 16, ne glede na predloge več generalnih pravobranilcev, ki so se v glavnem na podlagi člena 241 ES izrekli v prid dopustnosti teh incidenter predlogov 17.
It should be noted that, although in some of those cases the Court examined in substance the alleged illegality of the regu-
Opozoriti je treba, da čeprav je v določenih izmed teh zadev Sodi�če obravnavalo
Greece, cited above,
II-2265, točka 103).
17 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Roemer delivered in Italy v Council and Commission, 411; the Opinion of Advocate General Slynn in France v Commission, 703; point 6 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mancini in Greece v Council; and points 23 to 32 of the Opinion of Advocate General Darmon in Commission v Spain.
15 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 30. junija 1988 v zadevi Komisija proti Grčiji (točka 16 in navedena sodna praksa).
15 — Case 226/87 Commission v paragraph 16 and caselaw cited.
17 – Glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Roemerja, ki so predstavljeni v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Italija proti Svetu in Komisiji, str.
22 in favour of the admissibility of the pleas of illegality, 19the refusal to give an express ruling on admissibility has continued to give rise to certain questions, which may be supposed to have been the origin of the hesitation expressed by Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion delivered on 3 October 2002 in Commission v ECB 20 — to which I shall revert later — with regard to expressing ‘a final view’ on the question. 21
utemeljenost domnevne nezakonitost zadevnih uredb 18, pri čemer je imelo na voljo sklepne predloge v prid dopustnosti navedenih ugovorov nezakonitosti 19, je zavrnitev izrecnega odločanja o navedeni dopustnosti �e naprej porajala določena vpra�anja, ki bi jih lahko �teli kot razlog za pridržek, ki ga je izrazil generalni pravobranilec F. G.
Consequently, this reasoning appeared to tie the right to institute a collateral review of a regulation to the unavailability of the possibility of bringing an action for its annulment.
Ta obrazložitev je tako možnost inci­denter nadzora nad zakonitostjo uredbe vezala na neobstoj možnosti vložitve ničnostne tožbe zoper tak akt.
In addition, it is relevant to note that the Council as well as the Spanish Government largely base on that line of reasoning their objection of inadmissibility in relation to the Commission’s plea that the contested Joint Action is illegal.
Poleg tega ni odveč poudariti, da Svet in �panska vlada ugovor nedopustnosti zoper ugovor nezakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa, na katerega se sklicuje Komisija, utemeljujeta predvsem s tem sklepanjem.
The controversy also appears to have been started by an a contrario interpretation of the reasoning of certain judgments in which the Community court stated that Article 241 EC gives expression to the general principle conferring upon any party to proceedings the right to make a collateral challenge to the validity of regulations or of Community acts ‘of a general nature’ if that party was not entitled under Article 230 EC
Nejasnost naj bi bila tudi posledica a contrario razlage obrazložitve določenih sodb, v katerih je sodi�če Skupnosti menilo, da člen 241 ES pomeni izraz splo�nega načela, ki vsaki stranki zagotavlja pravico do
18 — That was the case in Commission v Germany (paragraph 8), France v Commission (paragraphs 4, 5 and 31), Greece v Council (paragraph 11) and Greece v Commission (paragraph 97).
18 – To je bil primer v zgoraj navedenih sodbah v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji (točka 8), v zadevi Francija proti Komisiji (točke 4, 5 in 31), v zadevi Grčija proti Svetu (točka 11) in v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji (točka 97).
It should be noted that in Italy v Council and Commission the Court dismissed the plea of illegality as inadmissible on the ground that there was no connection between the allegedly illegal regulation and the contested measure; in Commission v Spain the Court avoided the procedural difficulty by finding (in paragraph 6) that the defence raised by the Spanish Government did not relate to the regulation in question as such, but to the interpretation of it set out by the Commission in its action for failure to fulfil obligations.
Opozoriti je treba, da je Sodi�če v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Italija proti Svetu in Komisiji zavrnilo ugovor nezakonitosti kot nedopustnega, ker ni bilo nobene povezave med domnevno nezakonito uredbo in izpodbijano odločbo; v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Komisija proti Španiji se je Sodi�če izognilo postopkovnemu vpra�anju s tem, da je menilo (točka 6 sodbe), da se sredstvo obrambe, na katerega se sklicuje �panska vlada, ni nana�alo na zadevno uredbo kot tako, ampak na razlago navedene uredbe, ki jo je Komisija podala v tožbi zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti.
Furthermore, the controversy was certainly not settled by the Nachi Europe judgment in the complex matter of the imposition of antidumping duties, in which the Court found that an undertaking which undoubtedly had a right to bring an action before the Community court for the annul-
Poleg tega nejasnost nedvomno ni bila odpravljena ob izdaji sodbe Nachi Europe, ki je bila razgla�ena v zapleteni zadevi, ki se je nana�ala na naložitev protidampin�kih dajatev in v kateri je Sodi�če menilo, da podjetje, ki ima nedvomno pravico do vložitve tožbe pred sodi�čem Skupnosti, da
19 — However, it must be observed that in Commission v Germany no specific attention was paid to this procedural problem, whereas in Greece v Commission, Advocate General Tizzano proposed, at point 114 of his Opinion, that the plea of illegality be dismissed as inadmissible primarily on the ground that the Greek Government had not challenged the regulation at issue within the timelimit laid down in Article 230 EC.
19 – Opozoriti je treba, da v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji temu postopkovnemu vpra�anju ni bila namenjena nobena posebna pozornost, medtem ko je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji generalni pravobranilec A. Tizzano v točki 114 sklepnih predlogov predlagal, naj se ugovor nezakonitosti zavrne kot nedopusten, ker gr�ka vlada ni izpodbijala zadevne uredbe v rokih, določenih v členu 230 ES.
22 — See Simmenthal (paragraph 39).
22 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Simmenthal proti Komisiji (točka 39).
See also Martinez and Others v Parliament (paragraph 133) and Joined Cases T-93/00 and T-46/01 Alessandrini and Others v Commission [2003] ECR II-1635, paragraph 76 (italics added).
Glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 2. oktobra 2001 v zadevi Martinez in drugi proti Parlamentu (točka 133) in sodbo z dne 10. aprila 2003 v združenih zadevah Alessandrini in drugi proti Komisiji (T-93/00 in T-46/01, Recueil, str.
20 — Case C-11/00 Commission v ECB [2003] ECR I-7147.21 — Points 100 and 190 of the Opinion in Commission v ECB.
II-1635, točka 76) (moj poudarek).
COMMISSION v COUNCIL of a plea of illegality, the inapplicability of a regulation of a general or legislative nature.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU z ugovorom nezakonitosti lahko sklicuje na to, da se uredba, ki ima splo�ni ali normativni značaj, ne uporablja.
ment of a Community regulation fixing antidumping duties could not, on grounds of legal certainty, 23collaterally call into question the validity of that regulation in a dispute before a national court.
bi doseglo razveljavitev skupnostne uredbe, ki določa protidampin�ke dajatve, ob sporu pred nacionalnim sodi�čem ne sme incidenter izpodbijati veljavnosti te uredbe, zaradi razlogov, povezanih s pravno varnostjo 23.
Although the reasoning of that judgment is also based on the hybrid nature of regulations of that kind, being acts of a legislative nature and, at the same time, acts liable to be of direct and individual concern to certain traders, 24the reference to the wording in Simmenthal, 25 cited in point 42 above, and its extension to the case of a Community regulation, without the Court’s reasoning appearing to be limited to the special nature of antidumping regulations, could also contribute to continued doubts as to the outcome of a plea of illegality raised by privileged applicants before the Court in the context of the formal application of Article 241 EC.
Čeprav obrazložitev te re�itve prav tako temelji na hibridnosti te vrste uredb, in sicer hkrati normativnosti in tega, da lahko neposredno in posamično zadevajo posameznike 24, lahko sklicevanje na re�itev v sodbi Simmenthal proti Komisiji 25, ki je navedena v točki 42 zgoraj, ter njena raz�iritev na primer skupnostne uredbe, pri čemer naj se poleg tega obrazložitev Sodi�ča ne bi omejevala na posebnost protidampin�kih uredb, prav tako prispeva k ohranjanju dvomov glede izida ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicujejo privilegirane tožeče stranke pred Sodi�čem v okviru formalne uporabe člena 241 ES.
In that case, the Commission sought the annulment of a decision of the European Central Bank (ECB) concerning the prevention of fraud, on the ground that the decision infringed Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
V tej zadevi je Komisija predlagala razglasitev ničnosti odločbe Evropske centralne banke (ECB) o preprečevanju goljufij, ker je ta odločba kr�ila Uredbo (ES) �t. 1073/1999 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 25. maja 1999 o preiskavah, ki jih izvaja Evropski urad za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF) 26.
26 One of the defences raised by the ECB to the application for annulment was that Regulation No 1073/1999 was unlawful and should be declared inapplicable pursuant to Article 241 EC on the ground that it was adopted in breach of several provisions of the Treaty, in particular Article 105(4) EC, relating to consultation of the ECB.
Med sredstvi obrambe zoper ničnostno tožbo ECB zatrjuje, da je bila Uredba (ES) �t. 1073/1999 nezakonita in da je treba v skladu s členom 241 ES ugotoviti, da se ne uporablja, saj naj bi bila sprejeta ob kr�itvi več določb Pogodbe, med drugim člena 105(4) ES glede posvetovanja z ECB.
The Commission took the view that such a defence was inadmissible because the ECB was barred from pleading the unlawfulness of an act against which it could have brought an action for annulment under Article 230 EC.
Komisija je menila, da je tako sredstvo obrambe nedopustno, ker se ECB nima pravice sklicevati na nezakonitost akta, glede katerega bi lahko predlagala razglasitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 230 ES.
However, the Court provided significant clarification in Commission v ECB, which suggests that it is open to a privileged applicant to invoke before the Court, by means
Sodi�če je vendarle v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti ECB podalo pomembna pojasnila, na podlagi katerih sklepamo, da se privilegirana tožeča stranka pred Sodi�čem