natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The first alleges breach of the right to be heard, the second, breach of the right to respect for property and of the principle of proportionality, and the third, breach of the right to effective judicial review.
Prvi tožbeni razlog se je nana�al na kr�itev pravice do zasli�anja,
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI drugi na kr�itev pravice do spo�tovanja lastnine in načela sorazmernosti, tretji pa na kr�itev pravice do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora.
For its part, Al Barakaat based its claims on three grounds of annulment: the first alleges that the Council was incompetent to adopt the contested regulation, the second alleges infringement of Article 249 EC and the third alleges breach of its fundamental rights.
Al Barakaat je v utemeljitev svojih predlogov navedel tri tožbene razloge za razglasitev ničnosti, in sicer, prvič, nepristojnost Sveta za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe, drugič, kr�itev člena 249 ES, in tretjič, kr�itev svojih temeljnih pravic.
As regards the Council’s competence concerning the adoption of the contested regulation
Pristojnost Sveta za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe
In the contested judgments, the Court of First Instance first of all considered whether the Council was competent to adopt the contested regulation on the legal basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, taking the view, in paragraph 61 of Kadi, that that was a matter of public policy which could therefore be raised by the Community judicature of its own motion.
V izpodbijanih sodbah je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej preučilo vpra�anje, ali je bil Svet pristojen za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe na pravni podlagi členov 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES, ob upo�tevanju, v točki 61 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, da je �lo za tožbeni razlog, ki izhaja iz javnega reda in ga zato lahko sodi�če Skupnosti preizkusi po uradni dolžnosti.
In Yusuf and Al Barakaat, the Court of First Instance at the outset dismissed the applicants’ claim alleging that there was no legal basis for Regulation No 467/2001.
V izpodbijani sodbi Yusuf in Al Barakaat je Sodi�če prve stopnje sprva zavrnilo očitek tožečih strank glede domnevnega neobstoja pravne podlage za Uredbo �t. 467/2001.
In paragraph 107 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance found it appropriate to take such a step, even though the ground of challenge had become devoid of purpose because of the repeal of that regulation by the contested regulation, for it considered that the grounds on which it dismissed that claim formed part of the premisses of its reasoning concerning the legal basis of the latter regulation, thenceforth the sole subject of the action for annulment.
Čeprav je ta očitek postal brezpredmeten, ker je to uredbo razveljavila sporna uredba, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 107 navedene sodbe presodilo, da je tak�no ravnanje primerno, saj je menilo, da so bili razlogi, ki utemeljujejo to zavrnitev, med premisami njegovega razlogovanja glede pravne podlage sporne uredbe, ki je bila edina, na katero se je od takrat naprej nana�ala ničnostna tožba.
In this connection, it first rejected, in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 112 to 116, the argument that the acts in question affected individuals, who were moreover nationals of a Member State, whereas Articles 60 EC and 301 EC authorised the Council to take measures against third countries only.
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 112 do 116 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat najprej zavrnilo trditev, da so zadevni ukrepi prizadeli posameznike, ki so bili poleg tega državljani države članice, medtem ko člena 60 ES in 301 ES dovoljujeta le, da Svet sprejme ukrepe glede tretjih držav.
In paragraph 115 of that judgment, the Court of First Instance held that, just as economic or financial sanctions may legitimately be directed specifically at the rulers of a third country, rather than at the country as such, they may be directed at the persons or entities associated with those rulers or directly or indirectly controlled by them, wherever they may be.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 115 te sodbe presodilo, da tako kot lahko ekonomske in finančne sankcije legitimno posebej prizadenejo voditelje tretje države in ne države kot take, se mora z njimi omogočiti tudi usmerjanje – ne glede na to, kje so – na posameznike in subjekte, ki so s temi voditelji povezani oziroma jih ti neposredno ali posredno nadzorujejo.
According to paragraph 116, that interpretation, which is not contrary to the letter of Article 60 EC or Article 301 EC, is justified both by considerations of effectiveness and by humanitarian concerns.
Kot je navedeno v točki 116 te sodbe, to razlago, ki ni v nasprotju z besedilom členov 60 ES in 301 ES, upravičujejo presoje o učinkovitosti in tudi o skrbi za humanitarni red.
Next, in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 117 to 121, the Court of First Instance rejected the argument that the measures at issue in that case were not intended to interrupt or reduce economic relations with a third country but to combat international terrorism and, more particularly, Usama bin Laden.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 117 do 121 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat nato zavrnilo trditev, da namen zadevnih ukrepov ni bila prekinitev ali zmanj�anje ekonomskih odnosov s tretjimi državami, ampak boj proti mednarodnemu terorizmu, zlasti proti Osami bin Ladnu.
Finally, in paragraphs 122 and 123 of that judgment, it rejected the argument that those measures were disproportionate to the objective pursued by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
Nazadnje je v točkah 122 in 123 iste sodbe zavrnilo trditev, da navedeni ukrepi niso bili sorazmerni glede na cilj členov 60 ES in 301 ES.
With regard, next, to the challenge to the legal basis of the contested regulation, the Court of First Instance first held, that, as the Council and the Commission have maintained, Articles 60 EC and 301 EC did not constitute in themselves a sufficient
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato glede očitkov v zvezi s pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe, prvič, presodilo, kot sta poudarila Svet in Komisija, da člena 60 ES in 301 ES
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION legal basis for that regulation (Kadi, paragraphs 92 to 97, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 128 to 133).
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI nista zadostna pravna podlaga za utemeljitev izpodbijane uredbe (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 92 do 97, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točke od 128 do 133).
It found, in particular, that that regulation was intended to enforce what are known as ‘smart’ sanctions of a new kind, a feature of which is that there is nothing at all to link the sanctions to the territory or the governing regime of a third country, for after the collapse of the Taliban regime the measures at issue, as provided for by Resolution 1390 (2002), were aimed directly at Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and the persons and entities associated with them.
Zlasti je ugotovilo, da je namen te uredbe izvajanje tako imenovanih „pametnih“ sankcij („smart sanctions“), to je sankcij nove vrste, za katere je značilen neobstoj vsakr�ne vezi med njimi in ozemljem ali vodilnim režimom tretje države, ker so bili po razpadu režima talibanov zadevni ukrepi, določeni v Resoluciji 1390(2002), usmerjeni neposredno proti Osami bin Ladnu, mreži Al Kaida ter osebam in subjektom, ki so z njimi povezani.
According to the Court of First Instance, in the light of the wording of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, and especially of the expressions ‘as regards the third countries concerned’ and ‘with one or more third countries’ appearing there, it is not possible to have recourse to those articles to impose that new kind of sanction.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje besedila členov 60 ES in 301 ES, zlasti pa v njih uporabljenih izrazov „glede zadevnih tretjih držav“ in „z eno ali več tretjimi državami“, teh členov ni mogoče uporabiti za naložitev tovrstnih novih sankcij.
They in fact authorise only the adoption of measures against a third country, which may include the rulers of such a country and the individuals and entities associated with them or controlled by them, directly or indirectly.
To bi namreč dejansko omogočilo le, da bi sprejetje ukrepov proti tretji državi lahko vključevalo voditelje te države ter tudi posameznike in subjekte, ki jih ti neposredno ali posredno nadzirajo.
When, however, the regime targeted by those measures has disappeared, there no longer exists a sufficient link between those individuals or entities and the third country concerned.
Vendar ker ni več režima, na katerega so se te določbe nana�ale, ne obstaja več zadostna vez med temi posamezniki in subjekti ter zadevnimi tretjimi državami.
The Court of First Instance held, secondly, that the Council had rightly considered that Article 308 EC did not on its own constitute an adequate legal basis for the adoption of the contested regulation (Kadi, paragraphs 98 to 121, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 134 to 157).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je presodilo, drugič, da je Svet pravilno menil, da člen 308 ES ni ustrezna pravna podlaga, ki bi omogočala sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 98 do 121, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točke od 134 do 157).
In that regard it decided that the fight against international terrorism, particularly by the imposition of economic and financial sanctions, such as the freezing of funds, in respect of individuals and entities suspected of contributing to the funding of terrorism, cannot be made to refer to one of the objects which Articles 2 EC and
V tej zvezi je odločilo, da boja proti mednarodnemu terorizmu, zlasti z naložitvijo ekonomskih in finančnih sankcij, kot so zamrznitev sredstev posameznikom in subjektom, za katere se domneva, da prispevajo k njegovemu financiranju, ni mogoče
3 EC expressly entrust to the Community (Kadi, paragraph 116, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 152).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P povezati z nobenim od ciljev, ki sta bila za Skupnost izrecno določena v členih 2 ES in 3 ES (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 116, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 152).
According to the Court of First Instance, the measures provided for by the contested regulation could not be authorised by the object of establishing a common commercial policy (Article 3(1)(b) EC), since the Community’s commercial relations with a third country are not at issue in a situation such as that in the cases before it.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje ukrepov, ki so določeni v izpodbijani uredbi, namreč ni mogoče opreti na cilj vzpostavitve skupne trgovinske politike (člen 3(1)(b) ES), ker trgovinski odnosi Skupnosti s tretjo državo niso sporni v okoli�činah, kakr�ne so bile v zadevah, v katerih je odločalo.
Nor could the objective of creating a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted (Article 3(1)(g) EC) be validly relied on, for in any event the elements presented to the Court of First Instance provided no grounds for considering that the contested regulation actually helps to avoid the risk of impediments to the free movement of capital or of appreciable distortion of competition.
Prav tako ni mogoče sprejeti, da gre za cilj vzpostavitve režima, ki zagotavlja neizkrivljeno konkurenco na notranjem trgu (člen 3(1)(g) ES), zlasti ker Sodi�če prve stopnje na podlagi predloženih elementov v vsakem primeru ni moglo ugotoviti, da ta uredba dejansko prispeva k preprečitvi verjetnih ovir pri prostem pretoku kapitala ali precej�njih motenj konkurence.
The Court of First Instance held, thirdly, that the Council was competent to adopt the contested regulation which sets in motion in the Community the economic and financial sanctions provided for by Common Position 2002/402, on the joint basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC (Kadi, paragraph 135, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 170).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je presodilo, tretjič, da je bil Svet vendarle pristojen za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe, prek katere se v Skupnosti izvajajo ekonomske in finančne sankcije, ki jih določa Skupno stali�če 2002/402 na povezani podlagi členov 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 135, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 170).
On this point, the Court of First Instance considered that account had to be taken of the bridge, explicitly established at the time of the revision caused by the Maastricht Treaty, between Community actions imposing economic sanctions under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and the objectives of the Treaty on European Union in the sphere of external relations (Kadi, paragraph 123, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 159).
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da je treba upo�tevati most, posebej uveden z revizijo, ki je rezultat Maastrichtske pogodbe, med dejavnostmi Skupnosti, ki zajemajo gospodarske sankcije na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES, ter cilji Pogodbe EU na področju zunanjih odnosov (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 123, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 159).
According to the Court of First Instance, Articles 60 EC and 301 EC are wholly special provisions of the EC Treaty, in that they expressly contemplate situations in which action by the Community may prove to be necessary in order to achieve not one of the objects of the Community as fixed by the EC Treaty but rather one of
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje sta člena 60 ES in 301 ES posebni določbi Pogodbe ES, ker izrecno določata, da se lahko ukrep Skupnosti ne bi izkazal kot nujen za uresničitev enega od ciljev Skupnosti, kot jih določa Pogodba ES, ampak kot nujen za uresničitev enega od ciljev, ki jih člen 2 EU posebej določa za Unijo, in sicer
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the objectives specifically assigned to the European Union by Article 2 EU, namely, the implementation of a common foreign and security policy (‘CFSP’) (Kadi, paragraph 124, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 160).
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI izvajanje skupne zunanje in varnostne politike (v nadaljevanju: SZVP) (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 124, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 160).
Under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, action by the Community is in actual fact, according to the Court of First Instance, action by the Union, the implementation of which finds its basis in the Community pillar after the Council has adopted a common position or a joint action under the CFSP (Kadi, paragraph 125, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 161).
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje je torej v okviru členov 60 ES in 301 ES ukrepanje Skupnosti v resnici ukrepanje Unije, ki se izvaja na podlagi stebra Skupnosti, potem ko Svet sprejme skupno stali�če ali skupni ukrep na podlagi SZVP (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 125, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 161).
Observance of Article 249 EC
Spoštovanje člena 249 ES
In Yusuf and Al Barakaat, the Court of First Instance then went on to examine a plea raised only in the case giving rise to that judgment, alleging that the contested regulation, in so far as it directly prejudiced the rights of individuals and prescribed the imposition of individual sanctions, had no general application and therefore contravened Article 249 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi Yusuf in Al Barakaat nadalje preučilo tožbeni razlog, navajan izključno v zadevi T-306/01, v kateri je bila izrečena ta sodba, da se izpodbijana uredba ne uporablja na splo�no v delu, v katerem neposredno ogroža pravice posameznikov in določa uporabo posamičnih sankcij, zato je v nasprotju s členom 249 ES.
That regulation could not, as a result, be understood to be a regulation, but rather a bundle of individual decisions.
Te uredbe se zato ne bi smelo upo�tevati kot uredbe, ampak bi jo bilo treba upo�tevati kot sklop posamičnih odločb.
In paragraphs 184 to 188 of that judgment the Court of First Instance rejected that plea.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo ta tožbeni razlog v točkah od 184 do 188 te sodbe.
In paragraph 186 of that judgment, it held that the contested regulation unarguably had general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 249 EC, since it prohibits anyone to make available funds or economic resources to certain persons.
V točki 186 te sodbe je presodilo, da se izpodbijana uredba neizpodbitno uporablja splo�no, v smislu člena 249 ES, drugi odstavek, ES, ker vsakomur prepoveduje, da bi dal določenim osebam na voljo sredstva ali gospodarske vire.
The Court of First Instance added that the fact that those persons are expressly named in Annex I to the regulation, so that they appear to be directly and individually concerned by it, within the meaning of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC, in no way affects the general nature of that prohibition which is effective erga omnes, as is made clear, in particular, by Article 11 of the regulation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dodalo, da okoli�čina, da so te osebe poimensko navedene v Prilogi I k tej uredbi, tako da se zdi, da jih neposredno in posamično zadeva v smislu člena 230, četrti odstavek, ES, v ničemer ne prizadene splo�nosti te prepovedi, ki velja erga omnes, kot izhaja zlasti iz člena 11 te uredbe.
Concerning respect of certain fundamental rights
Spoštovanje določenih temeljnih pravic
As regards, last, the pleas alleging, in both cases, breach of the applicants’ fundamental rights, the Court of First Instance considered it appropriate to consider, in the first place, the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the domestic or Community legal order, and also the extent to which the exercise by the Community and its Member States of their powers is bound by resolutions of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nazadnje glede tožbenih razlogov kr�itve temeljnih pravic tožečih strank v teh zadevah menilo, da je koristno preizkusiti, najprej, odnos med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in nacionalnim pravnim redom ali pravnim redom Skupnosti ter stopnjo, na kateri so pristojnosti Skupnosti in držav članic povezane z resolucijami Varnostnega sveta, ki so bile sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
This consideration would effectively determine the scope of the review of lawfulness, particularly having regard to fundamental rights, which that court must carry out in respect of the Community acts giving effect to such resolutions.
Ta preizkus dejansko določa obseg nadzora zakonitosti, zlasti glede temeljnih pravic, ki ga mora izvajati Sodi�če prve stopnje pri aktih Skupnosti, ki dajejo učinek tak�nim resolucijam.
It is only if it should find that they fall within the scope of its judicial review and that they are capable of leading to annulment of the contested regulation that the Court of First Instance would have to rule on those alleged breaches (Kadi, paragraphs 178 to 180, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 228 to 230).
Samo če bo ugotovljeno, da navedene kr�itve temeljnih pravic, na katere se sklicuje, res spadajo pod njegov sodni nadzor in lahko pripeljejo do razglasitve ničnosti izpodbijane uredbe, bo Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo o teh kr�itvah (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 178 do 180, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točke od 228 do 230).
Examining first the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the domestic legal orders or the Community legal order, the Court of First Instance ruled that, from the standpoint of international law, the Member States, as Members of the United Nations, are bound to respect the principle of the primacy of their obligations ‘under the Charter’ of the United Nations, enshrined in Article 103 thereof, which means, in particular, that the obligation, laid down in Article 25 of the Charter, to carry out the decisions of the Security Council prevails over any other obligation they may have entered into under an international agreement (Kadi, paragraphs 181 to 184, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 231 to 234).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato, prvič, preučilo vez med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in nacionalnimi pravnimi redi ali pravnim redom Skupnosti ter presodilo, da morajo države članice in članice OZN z vidika mednarodnega prava spo�tovati načelo primarnosti obveznosti – prevzetimi „na podlagi Ustanovne listine“ Združenih narodov –, ki je določeno v členu 103 navedene listine, ki zlasti določa, da obveznost izvr�iti odločbe Varnostnega sveta, določena v členu 25 te listine, prevlada nad vsemi drugimi pogodbenimi obveznostmi, ki so jih sprejele (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 181 do 184, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točke od 231 do 234).
According to the Court of First Instance, that obligation of the Member States to respect the principle of the primacy of obligations undertaken by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations is not affected by the EC Treaty, for it is an obligation arising from an agreement concluded before the Treaty, and so falling within the scope of Article 307 EC.
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje na to obveznost spo�tovanja načela primarnosti obveznosti, sprejetih na podlagi Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, ne vpliva Pogodba ES, saj gre za obveznost, ki izvira iz sporazuma, obstoječega pred Pogodbo ES, zato za to obveznost veljajo določbe člena 307 ES.
What is more, Article 297 EC is intended to ensure that that principle is observed (Kadi, paragraphs 185 to 188, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 235 to 238).
Še več, namen člena 297 ES je zagotoviti spo�tovanje tega načela (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 185 do 188, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točke od 235 do 238).
The Court of First Instance concluded that resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations are binding on all the Member States of the Community which must therefore, in that capacity, take all measures necessary to ensure that those resolutions are put into effect and may, and indeed must, leave unapplied any provision of Community law, whether a provision of primary law or a general principle of Community law, that raises any impediment to the proper performance of their obligations under that Charter (Kadi, paragraphs 189 and 190, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 239 and 240).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je na podlagi tega sklenilo, da so resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, zavezujoče za vse države članice, ki morajo zato sprejeti vse potrebne ukrepe za zagotovitev izvajanja teh resolucij, ter lahko in celo morajo zavrniti uporabo vseh norm prava Skupnosti, tudi če gre za določbo primarnega prava ali splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, ki bi oviralo pravilno izvr�evanje pogodbenih obveznosti na podlagi te Ustanovne listine (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točke od 189 do 190, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točki 239 in 240).
However, according to the Court of First Instance, the mandatory nature of those resolutions stemming from an obligation under international law does not bind the Community, for the latter is not, as such, directly bound by the Charter of the United Nations, not being a Member of the United Nations, or an addressee of the resolutions of the Security Council, or the successor to the rights and obligations of the Member States for the purposes of public international law (Kadi, paragraph 192, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 242).
Vendar po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje zavezujoči učinek navedenih resolucij, sprejetih na podlagi obveznosti mednarodnega prava, ne velja za Skupnost, saj te Ustanovna listina Združenih narodov neposredno ne zavezuje, ker ni ne članica OZN, ne naslovnica resolucij Varnostnega sveta, ne naslednica pravic in obveznosti svojih držav članic v smislu mednarodnega javnega prava (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 192, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 242).
Nevertheless, that mandatory force binds the Community by virtue of Community law (Kadi, paragraph 193, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 243).
Nasprotno, tak zavezujoči učinek velja za Skupnost na podlagi prava Skupnosti (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 193, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 243).