natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Title I of the contested joint action, entitled ‘Principles on preventive and reactive aspects’, sets out the programme on the basis of which the European Union will aim to build consensus in the relevant regional and international forums.
Naslov I spornega skupnega ukrepa z naslovom „Načela o preventivnih in reaktivnih vidikih“ določa akcijski program, na podlagi katerega si bo Evropska unija prizadevala za doseganje soglasja v pristojnih regionalnih in mednarodnih forumih.
To this end, it sets out the principles and measures which must be realised in order to prevent the further destabilising accumulation of small arms (Article 3) and to reduce existing accumulations of small arms and their ammunition (Article 4).
V ta namen navaja načela in ukrepe, ki jih je treba uresničiti, da bi preprečila nadaljnje destabilizirajoče kopičenje orožja malega kalibra (člen 3) in da bi zmanj�ala obstoječe kopičenje orožja malega kalibra in pripadajočega streliva (člen 4).
Among the principles and measures which must be realised in order to prevent the further destabilising accumulation of small arms, Article 3 of the contested joint action refers to commitments by all the countries concerned regarding the production, export, import and holding of those arms, as well as the establishment and maintenance of national inventories of weapons and the establishment of restrictive national weapons legislation.
Med načeli in ukrepi, ki jih je treba uresničiti, da bi se preprečilo nadaljnje destabilizirajoče kopičenje orožja malega kalibra, so v členu 3 navedene zaveze vseh zadevnih držav na področju proizvodnje, izvoza, uvoza in posedovanja navedenega orožja ter ustanovitev in vodenje nacionalnega registra orožja in oblikovanje omejevalne nacionalne zakonodaje.
Among the principles and measures which must be realised in order to reduce existing accumulations of small arms and their ammunition, Article 4 of the contested joint action mentions the provision of assistance as appropriate to countries requesting support for controlling or eliminating surplus small arms on their territory, and the promotion of confidencebuilding measures and incentives to encourage the voluntary surrender of surplus or illegally-held small arms and their ammunition.
Med načeli in ukrepi, ki jih je treba uresničiti za zmanj�anje obstoječih zalog orožja malega kalibra in pripadajočega streliva, je v členu 4 navedenega skupnega ukrepa med drugim določena ustrezna pomoč državam, ki prosijo za pomoč pri nadzoru ali odstranjevanju odvečnega orožja na njihovem ozemlju, zavzemanje za ukrepe krepitve zaupanja in za ukrepe, ki spodbujajo prostovoljno oddajo orožja malega kalibra, ki je odveč ali je v nezakoniti posesti, ter streliva zanj.
Title II of the contested joint action, headed ‘Contribution by the Union to specific actions’, provides, in particular, for financial and technical assistance to programmes and projects which make a direct contribution to the principles and measures referred to in Title I.
V naslovu II „Prispevek Unije k posebnim ukrepom“ spornega skupnega ukrepa je med drugim določena finančna in tehnična pomoč programom in projektom, ki dajejo neposreden in razpoznaven prispevek načelom in ukrepom, navedenim v naslovu I tega skupnega ukrepa.
Article 6(2) of the joint action states:
V členu 6(2) navedenega skupnega ukrepa je določeno:
‘In providing such assistance, the Union shall take into account in particular the recipients’ commitments to comply with the principles mentioned in Article 3; their respect for human rights; their compliance with international humanitarian law
„Pri zagotavljanju tak�ne pomoči Unija upo�teva zlasti zavezanost prejemnikov spo�tovanju načel, navedenih v členu 3; njihovo spo�tovanje človekovih pravic; njihovo spo�tovanje mednarodnega humanitarnega prava in varovanja vladavine
COMMISSION v COUNCIL and the protection of the rule of law; and their compliance with their international commitments, in particular with regard to existing peace treaties and international arms control agreements.’
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU prava; in njihovo spo�tovanje mednarodnih zavez, zlasti glede obstoječih mirovnih sporazumov in mednarodnih sporazumov o nadzoru nad orožjem.“
Under Article 7(1) of the contested joint action, the Council is to decide on the allocation of the financial and technical assistance referred to in Article 6(1) of the joint action, on the priorities for the use of those funds and on the conditions for implementing specific actions of the Union.
V skladu s členom 7(1) spornega skupnega ukrepa Svet odloča o dodeljevanju finančne in tehnične pomoči, navedene v členu 6 tega skupnega ukrepa, določanju prioritet pri uporabi teh sredstev in pogojih za izvajanje posebnih ukrepov Evropske unije.
Article 7(2) provides that ‘[t]he Council shall decide on the principle, arrangements and financing of such projects on the basis of concrete and properly-costed project proposals and on a case-by-case basis, without prejudice to Member States’ bilateral contributions and operation of the Community’.
V odstavku 2 člena 7 je določeno, da „Svet za vsak primer posebej odloča o temeljnem načelu, dogovorjenih načinih in o financiranju takih projektov na podlagi dejanskih in stro�kovno primerno ovrednotenih projektnih predlogov brez poseganja v bilateralne prispevke držav članic in v delovanje Skupnosti“.
Article 8 of the contested joint action provides:
Člen 8 spornega skupnega ukrepa določa:
Article 9(1) of the joint action provides:
Člen 9(1) navedenega skupnega ukrepa določa:
Commission shall ensure implementation of their respective action, each in accordance with its powers.’
2008 – ZADEVA C-91/05 in Komisija zagotavljata izvajanje svojih lastnih zadevnih ukrepov v skladu s svojimi pristojnostmi.“
The contested decision
Izpodbijani sklep
On 2 December 2004, the Council adopted the contested decision, which implements the contested joint action with a view to a contribution by the Union to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons.
Svet je 2. decembra 2004 sprejel izpodbijani sklep o izvr�itvi spornega skupnega ukrepa z namenom prispevanja Evropske unije ECOWAS-u v okviru moratorija na lahko orožje in na orožje malega kalibra.
As its legal basis, the contested decision refers to the contested joint action, in particular Article 3 thereof, in conjunction with Article 23(2) EU.
V izpodbijanem sklepu je kot pravna podlaga naveden sporni skupni ukrep, zlasti njegov člen 3 ter člen 23(2) EU.
The preamble of the contested decision contains the following recitals:
V izpodbijanem sklepu so te uvodne izjave:
‘(1) The excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons poses a threat to peace and security and reduces the prospects for sustainable development; this is particularly the case in West Africa.
„(1) Pretirano in nenadzorovano kopičenje in �irjenje orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja predstavlja grožnjo miru in varnosti ter zmanj�uje možnosti za trajnostni razvoj, kar �e posebej velja za Zahodno Afriko.
(2) In pursuing the objectives set out in Article 1 of [the contested] Joint Action, the European Union envisages operating within the relevant international forums to promote confidencebuilding measures.
(2) Evropska unija namerava pri uresničevanju ciljev iz člena 1 [spornega] skupnega ukrepa delovati v okviru mednarodnih forumov, pristojnih za spodbujanje ukrepov za vzpostavitev zaupanja.
(3) The European Union considers that a financial contribution and technical assistance would help to consolidate the [ECOWAS] initiative concerning small arms and light weapons.
(3) Evropska unija ocenjuje, da bi finančni prispevek in tehnična pomoč pripomogla k utrditvi pobude [ECOWAS] na področju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja.
(4) The European Union therefore intends to offer financial support and technical assistance to ECOWAS in accordance with Title II of [the contested] Joint Action.’
(4) Evropska unija namerava torej ECOWAS-u zagotoviti finančno in tehnično pomoč v skladu z naslovom II [spornega] skupnega ukrepa.“
Under Article 1 of the contested decision, the Union is to contribute towards implementing projects in the framework of the ECOWAS Moratorium on the Import, Export and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons.
V skladu s členom 1 izpodbijanega sklepa Unija prispeva k izvedbi projektov v okviru moratorija ECOWAS-a na uvoz, izvoz in izdelavo orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja.
To that end, it is to offer a financial contribution and technical assistance in order to set up the Light Weapons Unit within the ECOWAS Technical Secretariat and to convert the Moratorium into a Convention on small arms and light weapons between the ECOWAS Member States.
V ta namen daje finančni prispevek in tehnično pomoč za ustanovitev enote za lahko orožje v okviru tehničnega sekretariata ECOWAS-a in za preoblikovanje moratorija v konvencijo o orožju malega kalibra in lahkem orožju med državami članicami ECOWAS-a.
Article 3 of the contested decision provides:
Člen 3 spornega sklepa določa:
‘The Commission shall be entrusted with the financial implementation of this Decision.
„Komisijo se pooblasti za finančno izvedbo tega sklepa.
Amongst other things, this grant shall cover, over a period of 12 months, salaries, travel expenses, supplies and equipment necessary for setting up the Light Weapons Unit within the ECOWAS Technical Secretariat and converting the Moratorium into a Convention on small arms and light weapons between the ECOWAS Member States. …’
Ta pomoč je namenjena predvsem dvanajstmesečnemu kritju plač, potnih stro�kov, dobav in potrebne opreme, potrebnih za vzpostavitev enote za lahko orožje v okviru tehničnega sekretariata ECOWAS-a kot tudi za preoblikovanje moratorija v konvencijo o orožju malega kalibra in lahkem orožju med državami ECOWAS-a. […]“
Article 4(2) of the decision provides:
V členu 4(2) navedenega sklepa je določeno:
‘The Presidency and the Commission shall submit to the relevant Council bodies regular reports on the consistency of the European Union’s activities in the field of small arms and light weapons, in particular with regard to its development policies, in accordance with Article 9(1) of [the contested] Joint Action.
„Predsedstvo in Komisija predložita pristojnim organom Sveta redna poročila o skladnosti dejavnosti Evropske unije na področju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja, predvsem glede upo�tevanja njene razvojne politike, v skladu s členom 9(1) [spornega] skupnega ukrepa.
This information shall be based, amongst other things, on regular reports to be supplied by ECOWAS under its contractual relationship with the Commission.’
Te informacije morajo zlasti temeljiti na rednih poročilih, ki jih ECOWAS predloži v okviru svojega pogodbenega odnosa s Komisijo.“
When the draft of the contested decision was discussed by the Committee of Permanent Representatives on 24 November 2004, the Commission made the following declaration to the minutes of the Council meeting (document No 15236/04 PESC 1039 of 25 November 2004):
Ob razpravi o osnutku izpodbijanega sklepa v okviru odbora stalnih predstavnikov 24. novembra 2004 je Komisija v zapisnik sestanka Sveta vključila to izjavo (dokument �t. 15236/04 SZVP 1039, z dne 25. novembra 2004):
‘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 (v nadaljevanju: 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 jasno potrjuje člen 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 [Common Foreign and Security Policy — “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 [skupna zunanja in varnostna politika (v nadaljevanju: SZVP)] (19 03 02) proračuna za leto 2004 izhaja, da je financiranje takih projektov iz naslova SZVP izključeno, če so ti že predmet Sporazuma iz Cotonouja.
The Joint Action for financing under the CFSP would have been eligible under the 9th EDF and fully coherent with the regional indicative programme with ECOWAS.
Skupni ukrep, ki se financira iz naslova SZVP bi lahko bil financiran iz devetega ERS in bi bil popolnoma v skladu z okvirnim regionalnim programom ECOWAS.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the Commission is already preparing a financing proposal for an indicative amount of EUR 1.5 million to support the implementation of the ECOWAS moratorium on small arms and light weapons (SALW).
Dejstvo je, da Komisija pripravlja predlog o financiranju, ki se nana�a na okvirni znesek 1,5 milijona eurov in je namenjen podpori izvedbe moratorija ECOWAS na lahko orožje in orožje malega kalibra.
Finally, the Joint Action falls within the shared competences on which Community development policy and the Cotonou Agreement are based.
Na koncu, skupni ukrep spada na področje deljene pristojnosti, na kateri temeljita razvojna politika Skupnosti in Sporazum iz Cotonouja.
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, prav tako kot na področjih izključne pristojnosti, sicer ne bi imel polnega učinka.
The Commission reserves its rights in this matter.’
Komisija si pridržuje izvr�evanje svojih pravic na tem področju.“
Taking the view that the contested decision was not adopted on the correct legal basis, and that by virtue of that fact Article 47 EU was infringed, the Commission brought the present action.
Ker je Komisija menila, da izpodbijani sklep ni bil sprejet na ustrezni pravni podlagi in da je bil zato kr�en člen 47 EU, je vložila to tožbo.
— annul the contested decision;
– izpodbijani sklep razglasi za ničen;
— declare illegal and hence inapplicable the contested joint action, in particular Title II thereof.
– ugotovi, da je sporni skupni ukrep, zlasti njegov naslov II, nezakonit, zaradi česar se ne uporablja.
— dismiss the application for annulment of the contested decision as unfounded;
– predlog za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa kot neutemeljenega zavrne;
— dismiss the Commission’s application for a declaration of the inapplicability of the contested joint action as inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded;
– predlog Komisije, naj se ugotovi, da se sporni skupni ukrep ne uporablja, kot nedopustnega zavrže, podredno pa naj ga zavrne kot neutemeljenega;
By order of the President of the Court of 7 September 2005, the European Parliament was granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Commission.
Evropskemu parlamentu je bila s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 7. septembra 2005 dovoljena intervencija v podporo predlogom Komisije.
By the present action for annulment, brought under Article 230 EC, the Commission is seeking a declaration that the Council, by adopting the contested decision, has encroached upon Community competences and, therefore, infringed Article 47 EU.
Komisija sku�a s to ničnostno tožbo, vloženo na podlagi člena 230 ES, doseči, da se ugotovi, da je Svet s sprejetjem izpodbijanega sklepa posegel v pristojnosti Skupnosti in zato kr�il člen 47 EU.
In so far as the contested decision is based on the contested joint action, the Commission relies on Article 241 EC in order to invoke the inapplicability of that joint action, in particular Title II thereof, on the ground that it also infringes Article 47 EU.
Ker izpodbijani sklep temelji na spornem skupnem ukrepu, se Komisija pri utemeljitvi, da se ta skupni ukrep in zlasti njegov naslov II ne uporablja, opira na člen 241 ES, zaradi enake kr�itve člena 47 EU.
Without thereby calling in question the jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the action, the Council, supported by the Spanish and United Kingdom governments, submits, in particular with regard to the plea based on the illegality of the contested joint action, that the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the legality of a measure falling within the CFSP.
Svet, ki ga podpirata vladi Španije in Združenega kraljestva, kljub nesporni pristojnosti Sodi�ča za odločanje o tožbi opozarja, zlasti glede ugovora nezakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa, da Sodi�če ni pristojno za odločanje o zakonitosti akta s področja SZVP.
In that regard, it follows from Article 46(f) EU that the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the powers of the Court and the exercise of those powers are applicable to Article 47 EU.
V zvezi s tem iz člena 46(f) EU izhaja, da se določbe Pogodbe ES, ki se nana�ajo na pristojnost Sodi�ča in na izvajanje te pristojnosti, uporabljajo za člen 47 EU.
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 Treaty on European Union and which, by their nature, are capable of having legal effects, do not encroach upon the powers conferred by the EC Treaty on the Community (see, to that effect, Case C-170/96 Commission v Council [1998] ECR I-2763, paragraph 16; Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, paragraph 39; and Case C-440/05 Commission v Council, paragraph 53).
Sodi�če mora paziti, da akti, za katere Svet trdi, da se zanje uporablja naslov V Pogodbe EU, in ki imajo lahko pravne učinke, ne posegajo v pristojnosti, ki jih določbe Pogodbe ES priznavajo Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 12. maja 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu, C-170/96, Recueil, str. I-2763, točka 16, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 13. septembra 2005 Komisija proti Svetu, točka 39, in z dne 23. oktobra 2007 Komisija proti Svetu, točka 53).
It follows that the Court has jurisdiction to consider the action for annulment brought by the Commission under Article 230 EC and, in that context, to consider the pleas invoked in accordance with Article 241 EC in so far as they allege an infringement of Article 47 EU.
Iz tega izhaja, da je Sodi�če pristojno za odločanje o ničnostni tožbi, ki jo je vložila Komisija v skladu s členom 230 ES, in v tem okviru za obravnavanje tožbenih razlogov, navedenih na podlagi člena 241 ES, kolikor se ti nana�ajo na kr�itev člena 47 EU.
The Commission, supported by the Parliament, claims that the contested decision should be annulled because it impinges upon competences conferred upon the Community in the area of development cooperation, thus infringing Article 47 EU.
Komisija, ki jo podpira Parlament, navaja, da je treba izpodbijani sklep razglasiti za ničen, ker posega v pristojnosti, priznane Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, in je zato v nasprotju s členom 47 EU.
The Commission and the Parliament take the view that Article 47 EU establishes a ‘fixed’ boundary between the competences of the Community and those of the Union.
Komisija in Parlament menita, da člen 47 EU določa „nespremenljivo“ razmejitev med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in pristojnostmi Unije.
If, in an area of shared competence, such as development cooperation policy, the Member States retain the competence to act by themselves, whether individually or collectively, to the extent that the Community has not yet exercised its competence, the same cannot be said for the Union which, under Article 47 EU, does not
Čeprav države članice na področju deljenih pristojnosti, kot je politika razvojnega sodelovanja, ohranijo pristojnost, da odločajo same, posamično ali skupno, če Skupnost �e ni izvr�ila svoje pristojnosti, enako ne velja za Evropsko unijo, ki v skladu s členom 47 EU nima
COMMISSION v COUNCIL enjoy the same complementary competence, but must respect the competences of the Community, whether exclusive or not, even if they have not been exercised.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU enake komplementarne pristojnosti, ampak mora spo�tovati izključne ali neizključne pristojnosti Skupnosti, čeprav gre za neizvr�ene pristojnosti.
Therefore, there is an encroachment upon Community competences whenever the Council adopts, in the framework of the CFSP, an act which could properly have been adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty.
Zato pride do poseganja v pristojnosti Skupnosti, če Svet v okviru SZVP sprejme akt, ki bi bil lahko zakonito sprejet na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
According to the Commission and the Parliament, the combating of the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, since it has become an integral part of development cooperation policy, falls within the scope of the competences conferred on the Community in that field.
Po mnenju Komisije in Parlamenta boj proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, zato ker je postal sestavni del politike razvojnega sodelovanja, spada med pristojnosti, ki jih ima na tem področju Skupnost.
Cooperation in the longterm development of a country can be effective only where there is a minimum degree of stability and democratic legitimacy.
Dolgoročno razvojno sodelovanje države je namreč lahko učinkovito le, če obstaja minimalna stopnja stabilnosti in demokratične legitimnosti.
As part of that stability perspective, the policy of mine clearance and decommissioning of small arms and light weapons constitutes an indispensable means of achieving the objectives of development cooperation policy.
Politika odstranjevanja min in uničevanja lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, ki je del tega cilja stabilnosti, naj bi pomenila bistveno sredstvo za dosego ciljev politike razvojnega sodelovanja.
The Commission claims that the integration of the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons into Community development cooperation policy was established by the Cotonou Agreement, in particular Article 11(3) thereof.
Komisija zatrjuje, da je bila dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra v politiko Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja vključena s Sporazumom iz Cotonouja, zlasti njegovim členom 11(3).
The connection between the destabilising accumulation of small arms and light weapons and development cooperation policy is moreover recognised by the Council itself and by the international community.
Povezavo med destabilizirajočim kopičenjem lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra in politiko razvojnega sodelovanja naj bi med drugim priznal sam Svet in tudi mednarodna skupnost.
According to the Commission, supported by the Parliament, the contested decision, by virtue of its objective and its content, falls within the scope of Community competences and could therefore properly have been adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty.
Po mnenju Komisije, ki jo podpira Parlament, se izpodbijani sklep, glede na svoj namen in vsebino nana�a na pristojnosti Skupnosti in bi ga bilo mogoče zakonito sprejeti na podlagi Pogodbe ES. Na eni strani naj namreč namen izpodbijanega sklepa ne bi bil samo spodbujanje miru in varnosti, ampak tudi izbolj�anje perspektiv trajnostnega razvoja v Zahodni Afriki.
First, the objective of the contested decision is not only the promotion of
Na drugi strani naj bi projekt krepitve enote
Second, the strengthening of the Light Weapons Unit within the ECOWAS Technical Secretariat and the appointment of experts in order to draw up a draft convention on light weapons, as provided for in the annex to the contested decision, constitutes a typical form of assistance in the context of development cooperation planning, which does not require specific activities falling within the CFSP.
2008 – ZADEVA C-91/05 za lahko orožje v okviru tehničnega sekretariata ECOWAS-a in najetje strokovnjakov za pripravo osnutka konvencije o lahkem orožju, kot to predvideva priloga k izpodbijanem sklepu, vključeval klasično pomoč v okviru programov razvojnega sodelovanja, ki naj ne bi zahtevala posebnih dejavnosti v okviru SZVP.