natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
26 — See Case 17/81 Pabst & Richarz [1982] ECR 1331, paragraph 27, Kupferberg, paragraphs 22 and 23, Demirel, paragraph 14, the Opinion of Advocate General Darmon in Demirel, which summarises all of the caselaw on this issue (point 18), Racke, paragraph 31, Dior and Others, paragraph 42, and International Air Transport Association and Others, paragraph 39; see also the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-308/06 Intertanko and Others, pending before the Court, point 48. 31 — As some legal writers (see Kovar, R., ‘Les accords liant les Communautés européennes et l’ordre juridique communautaire’, RMC, 1974, p.
26 – Glej sodbo z dne 29. aprila 1982 v zadevi Pabst & Richarz (17/81, Recueil, str. 1331, točka 27); zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kupferberg (točki 22 in 23) in Demirel (točka 14) ter sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Darmona v isti zadevi, ki v zvezi s tem povzame celotno sodno prakso (točka 18); zgoraj navedene sodbe Racke (točka 31), Dior in drugi (točka 42), International Air Transport Association (točka 39); glej tudi sklepne predloge generalne pravobranilke J. Kokott v zadevi The International Asso -ciation of Independent Tanker Owners in drugi (C-308/06, v kateri �e ni bilo odločeno pred Sodi�čem, točka 48). 31 – Kot so nekateri teoretiki (glej Kovar, R., „Les accords liant les Communautés européennes et l’ordre juridique commu -nautaire“, RMC 1974, str. 352, zlasti strani od 358 do 359) ali Sodi�ča (Joliet, R., Le droit institutionnel des Communautés européennes – Les institutions – Les sources – Les rapports entre ordres juridiques, Liège 1983, zlasti strani 256 in 257) to predhodno v celoti razumeli.
27 — Case C-280/93 [1994] ECR I-4973, paragraphs 103 to 112.
27 – Sodba z dne 5. oktobra 1994 (C-280/93, Recueil, str. I-4973, točke od 103 do 112).
As the two conditions relating to the direct effect of international agreements and the direct effect of Community law thus differ so markedly, in both concept and scope, it would undoubtedly be wise to use different terms to describe them in future in order to avoid any unfortunate confusion, and hence to speak only of the possibility of relying on international agreements.
Ker se pojma neposrednega učinka mednarodnih sporazumov in neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti tako jasno razlikujeta, tako po pojmu kot po obsegu, bi bilo v prihodnosti, da bi se izognili vsakr�ni neprijetni zmedi, brez dvoma pametno uporabljati različne izraze za njihovo označitev in zato govoriti le o možnosti sklicevanja na mednarodne sporazume.
First, despite the judicial format of the dispute settlement system, the agreement still leaves wide scope for negotiation between parties, even where the member concerned has failed to implement the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.
Prvič, kljub sodnemu nadzoru sistema re�evanja sporov pu�ča sporazum �e veliko prostora za pogajanje med strankami, celo v primeru, v katerem zadevni član ne izvr�uje odločb in priporočil ORS.
Consequently, to require courts not to apply internal rules that are incompatible with the provisions of the agreement would deprive the Community institutions of that opportunity to reach negotiated solutions.
Zato bi dejstvo, da se sodnim organom naloži obveznost, da ne uporabljajo notranjih pravil, ki niso združljiva z določbami sporazuma, organom Skupnosti odvzelo možnost za re�itev, ki se jo doseže s pogajanji.
Secondly, some of the Community’s trading partners refuse to allow the agreement to be relied on in any circumstance.
Drugič, nekateri trgovski partnerji Skupnosti odklanjajo vsakr�no možnost sklicevanja na Sporazum.
The Community’s legislative and executive organs must be permitted the same latitude so as not to create an imbalance in the application of the WTO rules, since the WTO is based on the principle of reciprocity and mutual advantage.
Isto svobodo je treba pustiti zakonodajnim in izvr�ilnim organom Skupnosti, da ne bi to privedlo do neravnovesja pri uporabi pravil STO, zlasti ker ta temelji na načelu vzajemnosti in obojestranskih koristi.
Applying this analytical matrix to the GATT, the Court ruled that the great flexibility of its provisions and its underlying principle of negotiations undertaken on the basis of reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements prevented its being relied on.
Ob uporabi te analize za GATT je Sodi�če presodilo, da velika fleksibilnost njegovih določb in načelo pogajanj, vodenih na podlagi vzajemnosti in obojestranskih koristi, ki jih podpirajo, ovira možnost sklicevanja nanj.
32Put another way, the spirit, general scheme and terms of the agreement did not create an obligation to recognise it as having direct effect.
32 Z drugimi besedami, iz namena, sistematike in besedila Sporazuma ne izhaja obveznost, da se jim prizna neposredni učinek.
33 As we know, the Court has reached the same conclusion with regard to the WTO agreements, 34 even though some believe it should have decided otherwise, given the strengthened dispute settlement mechanism put in place by those agreements.
33Znano je, da je Sodi�če pri�lo do istega sklepa v zvezi s sporazumi STO 34, čeprav so nekateri menili, da bi moralo biti ob upo�tevanju okrepljenega mehanizma re�evanja sporov, ki so ga ti sporazumi vzpostavili, drugače.
The Court has based its denial of direct effect to WTO law as a whole on the following two considerations.
Sodi�če se je, da pravu STO ni v celoti priznalo neposrednega učinka, oprlo na naslednji utemeljitvi.
32 — See International Fruit Company and Others.33 — See Germany v Council, paragraph 110.34 — In Portugal v Council.
33 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nemčija proti Svetu (točka 110).34 – V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu.
It follows from these considerations that the WTO agreements are to be interpreted as leaving the Community institutions a margin of political freedom in the context of the WTO that recognition of the direct effect of the agreements would be likely to jeopardise.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je treba sporazume STO razlagati tako, kot da dopu�čajo politično svobodo institucijam Skupnosti v okviru STO, ki bi bila s priznavanjem neposrednega učinka tem sporazumom lahko ogrožena.
Also the Court considers that in this domain it could not encroach on the prerogatives of the political authorities without upsetting the institutional equilibrium.
Sodi�če meni, da na tem področju ne more posegati v pravice politike, ne da bi ogrožalo institucionalno ravnovesje.
As we know, the merits of this line of argument has been fiercely debated in the literature 35and sometimes contested by the Advocates General.
O primernosti tega utemeljevanja se je, kot vemo, veliko razpravljalo v teoriji 35in včasih so jo izpodbijali generalni pravobranilci. 36 Lahko se je zdela v protislovju s prej-
36It has appeared to contradict reasoning previously developed by the Court with regard to the direct effect of this or that international agreement. 37
�njimi utemeljitvami, ki jih je Sodi�če razvilo v zvezi z neposrednim učinkom tega ali onega mednarodnega sporazuma.
The solution deduced from this line of argument — namely, that WTO law does not have direct effect — has none the less been confirmed with unshakeable constancy by subsequent case-law.
37Re�itev, ki je bila iz nje izpeljana o neobstoju neposrednega učinka prava STO, je bila od tedaj večkrat poudarjena z neomajano stalnostjo sodne prakse.
38 Hence this caselaw must be understood not as denying that the WTO rules are a source of Community law but as affecting their significance before a court.
38 Te sodne prakse torej ni mogoče razumeti tako, kot da pravu STO zanika lastnost pravnega vira Skupnosti, temveč kot da vpliva na njegov domet v sodnih postopkih.
Otherwise, how can it be explained that the denial of relevance before a court is only partial?
Kako bi sicer razumeli, da se domet v sodnih postopkih odvzame le deloma?
It is only to the extent that the judicial application of WTO law would adversely affect the political freedom of the Community institutions within the WTO sphere that WTO law may not be effectively relied upon before the Court of Justice.
Namreč, le če bi sodna uporaba prava STO ogrožala politično svobodo institucij Skupnosti v okviru STO, se na to pravo ne bi bilo mogoče uspe�no sklicevati pred Sodi�čem.
(b) Modifications to the principle that the WTO rules may not be relied upon
b) Omilitve načela nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO
However, the fact that WTO law cannot be relied upon before a court does not mean that it does not form part of the Community legal system.
Vendar to, da se na pravo STO ni mogoče sklicevati pri sodi�ču, ne pomeni, da ni del pravnega reda Skupnosti.
From this point of view, the formulation used by the Court in Portugal v Council is undoubtedly unfortunate.
S tega stali�ča formulacija Sodi�ča v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu brez dvoma ni posrečena.
It nurtures a belief that an international agreement does not form part of the body of Community legality, whereas it is merely a question of the provision’s enforceability, of the jurisdiction of the courts to take cognisance of it.
Zavede nas, da mednarodni sporazum ni del zakonodaje Skupnosti, medtem ko gre le za vpra�anje sklicevanja v sodnih postopkih na to pravilo, to je pristojnosti sodi�ča, da o njem presoja.
In reality, this is what the Court, albeit clumsily, has intended to say.
Vendar je nazadnje to tisto, kar je Sodi�če, čeprav nespretno, v resnici želelo povedati.
It declines to include the WTO agreements among the rules in the light of which it reviews the legality of acts of the Community institutions because, given the nature of the WTO rules,
Zavrača namreč, da bi sporazume STO �telo med predpise, glede kate -rih nadzoruje zakonitost aktov Skupnosti, ker – glede na značaj prava STO – ni mogoče „priznati, da ima sodi�če Skupnosti neposredno nalogo, da zagotavlja skladnost prava
Community caselaw has made a number of modifications to the principle that WTO law may not be relied upon, which are possible only because WTO law constitutes part of the Community legal system.
Sodna praksa Skupnosti je pripravila �tevilne omilitve načela nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravo STO, ki so mogoče le zato, ker je pravo STO del pravnega reda Skupnosti.
Moreover, those modifications are based on the
Razlage same, ki utemeljujejo zavrnitev načela možnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO,
36 — See in particular the Opinion of Advocate General Saggio in Portugal v Council and the Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro in Case C-53/96 Hermès [1998] ECR I-3603, points 28 to 37.
36 – Glej zlasti sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Saggia v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu in sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Tesaura v zadevi Hermès (sodba z dne 16. junija 1998, C-53/96, Recueil, str. I-3606, točke od 28 do 37).
37 — It is sufficient to compare this reasoning with the analysis carried out by the Court in Kupferberg, paragraphs 17 to 22, with regard to another international agreement.
37 – Zadostuje, da se to razlago primerja z analizo Sodi�ča v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Kupferberg glede nekega drugega mednarodnega sporazuma (točke od 17 do 22).
38 — Portugal v Council, paragraphs 46 and 47, and Van Parys, paragraph 53.
38 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu (točki 46 in 47) in Van Parys (točka 53).
very considerations that justify the general refusal to allow the WTO rules to be invoked.
utemeljujejo te omilitve.
They are of three types.
Te omilitve so treh vrst.
First, Community legislation 39and national measures 40 must be interpreted in accordance with WTO law.
Na prvem mestu je treba akte Skupnosti 39 in nacionalne ukrepe 40 razlagati
It is also true when it applies to Community acts.
Prav tako to tudi velja, kadar se ta obveznost uporablja za akte Skupnosti.
Interpretation in keeping with WTO law is required only in so far as that is possible.
Skladna razlaga velja namreč le takrat, kadar je to mogoče.
The institutions are thus given the option of preferring the path of a negotiated solution, by adopting or retaining an act that is clearly contrary to WTO law.
Tako se vzpostavi možnost institucij, da s sprejetjem ali ohranitvijo akta, ki je jasno v nasprotju s pravom STO, raje izberejo pot, ki jo dosežejo s pogajanji.
Secondly, agreements may also serve as the basis for a finding that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations.
Na drugem mestu lahko sporazumi služijo kot temelj za obsodbo države članice zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti.
41 This solution is also easy to comprehend.
41Ta re�itev je tudi lahko razumljiva.
The absence of a Community act that is contrary to WTO law demonstrates the will of the institutions to comply with it.
Neobstoj akta Skupnosti, ki bi bil v nasprotju s pravom STO, razkriva željo institucij, da se z njim uskladijo.
Hence, a Member State cannot unilaterally evade the obligations resulting from WTO law.
Zato se država članica ne more enostransko zavezati za obveznosti, ki iz njega izhajajo.
The two instances mentioned above are the expression of such a desire on the part of the Community.
In njena obsodba v ničemer ne obremenjuje možnosti institucij, da v prihodnosti ne bi uporabljale pravila STO, temelja
42 — These instances are recalled in particular in Portugal v Council, paragraph 49.
42 – Med drugim sta omenjena v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu (točka 49).
For an application, see Petrotub and Republica, paragraphs 52 to 56.
Glede uporabe glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 9. januarja 2003 v zadevi Petrotub in Republica (točke od 52 do 56).
40 — See Hermès, paragraph 28, and Dior and Others, paragraph 47.
40 – Glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Hermès (točka 28) in Dior in drugi (točka 47).
44 — The Fediol hypothesis.45 — See Portugal v Council, paragraph 35.
45 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Portugalska proti Svetu (točka 35).
41 — See Commission v Germany.
41 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Komisija proti Nemčiji.
The impact of a DSB decision finding against the Community
Vpliv sklepa ORS o obsodbi Skupnosti
The appellants complain that in the contested judgments the Court of First Instance gave a negative answer to that question.
Pritožnici Sodi�ču prve stopnje očitata, da je v izpodbijanih sodbah odgovorilo nikalno.
However, in ruling as it did, the Court of First Instance merely followed the previous line of case-law.
Vendar pa je sodi�če na prvi stopnji, s tem ko je tako presodilo, le sledilo prej�nji usmeritvi sodne prakse.
The Court of Justice had, in fact, already indicated that it is impossible to rely on a DSB decision unless the WTO rules can also be relied on.
Sodi�če je namreč že dopustilo, da se razume, da ne more obstajati možnost sklicevanja na sklep ORS neodvisno od možnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO.
47 Admittedly, the question whether a DSB decision finding against the Community can overturn the principle that WTO law cannot be relied upon remained in suspension.
47Seveda pa vpra�anje, ali sklep ORS o obsodbi Skupnosti lahko preusmerja načelo nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravo STO, ostaja nere�eno.
Moreover, the Court of Justice had, it is true, appeared initially to have opened the door on this point, having reproached the Court of First Instance for having failed to respond to an argument that the legal effects of a DSB decision vis-à-vis the European Community ‘called into question the Court’s finding that the WTO rules did not have direct effect and provided grounds for a review by the Community courts of the legality of Directives … in the light of those rules in the action for damages brought by the then applicant’.
Res je tudi, da je bilo najprej videti, da je Sodi�če na tej točki odprlo vrata, s tem da je očitalo Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da ni odgovorilo na trditev, da so pravni učinki sklepa ORS glede Evropske skupnosti „taki, da postavljajo pod vpra�aj njihovo presojo glede neobstoja neposrednega učinka pravil STO in upravičujejo izvajanje nadzora nad zakonitostjo direktiv […] s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti glede teh pravil, v okviru od�kodninske tožbe, ki jo je vložila tožeča stranka“.
48The door was swiftly closed again, however, the Community courts ruling that reliance could be placed, notwithstanding the lack of direct of effect of the WTO rules, on the incompatibility of a Community act with WTO law — even where that incompatibility was found by a DSB decision — in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling as to validity 49or in support of an action for damages 50 only within the narrow framework defined by the Nakajima and Fediol solutions.
48Vendar je sodi�če Skupnosti to hitro prekinilo, s tem da je presodilo, da je mogoče ugotoviti nezdružljivost akta Skupnosti s pravom STO – čeprav je bila ugotovljena s sklepom ORS – v okviru vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje glede presoje veljavnosti 49ali utemeljitve od�kodninske tožbe 50, ne glede na neobstoj neposrednega učinka pravil STO, le v ozkem okviru, ki ga omejujejo re�itve iz zadev Nakajima in Fediol.
They ask the Court to determine whether and to what extent a DSB decision finding Community legislation to be incompatible with a provision of the WTO agreements can also overturn the refusal as a matter of principle to allow the agreements to be relied upon, thus precluding any review of the compatibility of secondary Community legislation with the agreements.
Sodi�ču so predlagale, naj ugotovi, ali in v kak�ni meri je sklep ORS, s katerim je ugotovljena nezdružljivost ureditve Skupnosti z določbami sporazumov STO, tudi tak�ne narave, da preusmerja zavrnitev načela o možnosti sklicevanja na te sporazume, s tem da posledično izključi vsakr�ni nadzor nad združljivostjo sekundarnega prava Skupnosti glede na te sporazume.
To that end, they stress the binding nature of the DSB decision in order to maintain that they must be able to rely on it and complain that it has not been implemented, even though the WTO agreements themselves cannot be invoked.
V ta namen vztrajajo pri zavezujočem značaju sklepa ORS, da utemeljijo to, da mora bit tak, da se nanj lahko sklicujejo in da se lahko pritožijo, če ni izvr�en, čeprav se na same sporazume STO ni mogoče sklicevati.
Presented in this manner, the argument is undeniably clumsy.
Utemeljevanje, predstavljeno na ta način, je nesporno nerodno.
As the Council has rightly retorted, a DSB decision cannot produce wider effects than the WTO rules which it has found to have been infringed.
Kot je Svet pravilno odgovoril, sklep ORS ne more povzročiti večjih učinkov, kot so pravila STO, katerih kr�itev je ugotovljena z njim.
The question that the Court is asked to answer is therefore more precisely whether, to repeat the words of the Court of First Instance in the contested judgments, ‘the WTO agreements give rise, for persons subject to Community law, to the right to rely on those agreements when contesting the validity of Community legislation if the DSB has declared that both that legislation and the subsequent legislation adopted by the Community in order to comply with the WTO rules in question are incompatible with those rules’. 46
Vpra�anje, postavljeno Sodi�ču, je torej natančneje vpra�anje, ali – če povzamem besede Sodi�ča prve stopnje v izpodbijanih sodbah – „sporazumi STO dajejo posameznikom v Skupnosti pravico, da se sklicujejo nanje v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo veljavnost skupnostne ureditve, če je ORS odločil, da je tako ta kot tudi ureditev, ki jo je Skupnost sprejela naknadno zaradi uskladitve z zadevnimi pravili STO, z njimi nezdružljiva“. 46
47 — Indeed, the Court has already stated that, if an individual pleads failure to have regard to the compulsory nature of a DSB decision for the Community, that is tantamount to alleging infringement of the compulsory effect of the WTO agreement, which is possible only if that agreement has direct effect (see Case C-104/97 P Atlanta and Others v European Community [1999] ECR I-6983, paragraphs 17 to 23).
47 – Sodi�če je namreč že pojasnilo, da dejstvo, da se posameznik sklicuje na neupo�tevanje obveznega značaja, za Skupnost, sklepa ORS, vodi do zatrjevanja kr�itve obveznega učinka sporazuma STO, kar je mogoče le v primeru neposrednega učinka tega sporazuma (glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 14. oktobra 1999 v zadevi Atlanta proti Evropski skupnosti, C-104/97 P, Recueil, str. I-6983, točke od 17 do 23).
46 — The FIAMM judgment, paragraph 108, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 101.
48 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Biret International proti Svetu (točka 57).
48 — See Biret International v Council, paragraph 57.49 — See Van Parys.50 — See Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission.
50 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Chiquita Brands in drugi proti Komisiji.
FIAMM and Fedon are not ignorant of this case-law.
Družbi FIAMM in FEDON to sodno prakso poznata.
They nevertheless dwell on the particular features of their case compared with the earlier cases in order to claim a different outcome.
Kljub temu vztrajata na posebnostih njunega primera glede na prej�nje zadeve, da bi dosegli drugačno re�itev.
To that end, they state that the Court is being asked to rule on the possibility of relying on a DSB decision after expiry of the reasonable period laid down for compliance therewith in order to obtain compensation for damage actually suffered as a result of retaliatory measures.
V tem pogledu navajata, da je Sodi�če povabljeno, da se izreče o možnosti sklicevanja na sklep ORS po poteku razumnega roka, določenega za uskladitev z njim, da bi dobili od�kodnino za dejansko utrpljeno �kodo, ki je nastala zaradi povračilnih ukrepov.
In their opinion, it is therefore a novel case, since the judgment in Van Parys dealt with the inability to rely on a DSB decision for the purpose of assessing the validity of a Community act in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling; it is also novel because in Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission, a case which likewise concerned a claim for compensation for damage suffered as a result of a persisting infringement of WTO rules ascertained by the DSB, the applicant had, however, confined itself to claiming application of the Nakajima exception.
Šlo naj bi torej za nov primer, ker je bila v sodbi Van Parys obravnavana nemožnost sklicevanja na sklep ORS, da bi se v okviru vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje presodila veljavnost akta Skupnosti; nov tudi zato, ker čeprav se je v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Chiquita Brands in drugi prav tako obravnavalo od�kodninski zahtevek zaradi �kode, utrpljene zaradi stalnih kr�itev pravil STO, ki jih je ugotovil ORS, vendar je tožeča stranka le predlagala uporabo izjeme Nakajima.
From that perspective, the first question relates to whether such political freedom continued to exist in the specific circumstances of the cases in point.
S tega vidika se prvo vpra�anje nana�a na obstoj take politične svobode v posebnih okoli�činah obravnavanega primera.
The answer would certainly be in the affirmative if the reasonable period for implementation of the DSB decision had not yet expired.
Odgovor bi bil zagotovo pritrdilen, če razumni rok za izvr�itev sklepa ORS �e ne bi potekel.
The Court has already stated that ‘the Community courts cannot, in any event, carry out a review of the legality of the Community measures in question, particularly not in the context of an action for damages under Article 178 of the Treaty, without rendering ineffective the grant of a reasonable period for compliance with the DSB recommendations or rulings, as provided for in the dispute settlement system put in place by the WTO agreements’.
Sodi�če je že pojasnilo, da „sodi�če Skupnosti – zato da ne bi odvzelo učinka podelitvi razumnega roka za uskladitev s priporočili ali sklepi ORS, določenega v okviru sistema re�evanja sporov, ki je bil vzpostavljen s sporazumi STO – ne sme nadzorovati zakonitosti zadevnih aktov Skupnosti, zlasti v okviru od�kodninske tožbe, vložene na podlagi člena 178 Pogodbe“.