natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
During that period, each of the 23 applicants at first instance requested the Department to approve an increase in capacity for safety improvements, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 and point 3.3 of the annex to Decision 98/125.
V tem obdobju je vseh 23 tožečih strank na prvi stopnji od ministrstva zahtevalo, naj jim dovoli povečanje zmogljivosti zaradi izbolj�av varnosti na podlagi člena 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 in točke 3.3 Priloge k Odločbi 98/125.
By letter of 14 December 2001, the Department requested the Commission to increase the polyvalent segment of the Irish fleet by 1 304 gross tonnes and the pelagic segment by 5 335 gross tonnes under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413.
Ministrstvo je z dopisom z dne 14. decembra 2001 na podlagi člena 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 Komisiji predlagalo povečanje polivalentnega segmenta irske flote za 1304 tone bruto in pelagičnega segmenta za 5335 ton bruto.
That letter supplemented a previous request submitted by the Department concerning two vessels, which was sent to the Commission as a ‘test case’.
Ta dopis je dopolnjeval prej�njo zahtevo ministrstva glede dveh plovil, ki je bila Komisiji poslana kot „testni primer“.
The Department’s letter stated that it was prompted by the requests of 38 owners of vessels who had altered or replaced their vessels, or who intended to do so.
V tem dopisu ministrstva je bilo navedeno, da je bil pripravljen na podlagi zahtev 38 lastnikov plovil, ki so spremenili svoja plovila ali jih nadomestili oziroma to nameravajo storiti. Dopisu je bila priložena podrobna dokumentacija za 38 zadevnih plovil.
It is apparent from a table enclosed with the letter that 18 of the applicants at first instance were among those owners.
Iz preglednice, priložene k temu dopisu, izhaja, da je med temi lastniki 18 tožečih strank na prvi stopnji.
The operative part of the contested decision is worded as follows:
Izrek sporne odločbe se glasi:
1. the requests have been forwarded on a case-by-case basis by the Member State before 31 December 2001;
1. država članica je poslala zahteve v vsakem posameznem primeru pred 31. decembrom 2001;
2. the vessel must be properly registered in the Fleet Register of the Community;
2. plovilo je pravilno vpisano v ladijski register Skupnosti;
3. the vessel concerned has an overall length of 15 m or more;
3. skupna dolžina plovila je najmanj petnajst metrov;
4. the increase in tonnage is the result of modernisation works over the main deck performed or to be performed on an existing registered vessel at least five years old on the starting date of the works.
4. povečanje tonaže je posledica že izvedenih posodobitvenih del na glavnem krovu oziroma del, ki se bodo izvedla na že obstoječem registriranem ribi�kem plovilu, ki je ob pričetku del staro najmanj pet let.
In the case where a vessel has been lost at sea, the increase in tonnage is the result of a greater volume over the main deck of the replacement vessel with respect to the vessel that was lost;
Če se je plovilo potopilo, mora biti povečanje tonaže posledica večje prostornine na glavnem krovu nadomestnega plovila v primerjavi s potopljenim plovilom;
5. the increase in tonnage is justified in order to improve safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions;
5. povečanje tonaže upravičujejo izbolj�ava varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih razmer;
6. the volume under the main deck of the modified vessel or the replacement vessel is not increased.
6. prostornina pod glavnim krovom spremenjenega ali nadomestnega plovila se ne poveča.
The requests that are rejected according to the criteria fixed in Article 1 are those listed in Annex II.
Zahteve, zavrnjene v skladu z merili, določenimi v členu 1, so navedene v Prilogi II.
The list of ‘rejected requests’ in Annex II to the contested decision includes the present appellants’ requests in respect of new vessels to replace, respectively, the MFV Westward Isle (Flaherty), the MFV Menhaden (Murphy) and the MFV Golden Rose (Ocean Trawlers Ltd). None of those vessels was lost at sea.
Na seznamu „zavrnjene zahteve“ iz priloge II k sporni odločbi so bile tudi zahteve pritožnikov v obravnavani zadevi glede novih plovil, ki naj bi nadomestila MFV Westward Isle (Flaherty), MFV Menhaden (Murphy) oziroma MFV Golden Rose (družba Ocean Trawlers Ltd), od katerih pa nobeno ni bilo potopljeno.
Procedure before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
Before the Court of First Instance, 23 applicants sought annulment of the contested decision in so far as it rejected their requests for an increase in the capacity of their vessels.
Pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje je 23 tožečih strank predlagalo, naj se sporna odločba razglasi za nično v delu, v katerem so bile zavrnjene njihove zahteve za povečanje zmogljivosti njihovih plovil.
The requests all related to the building of new vessels to replace existing vessels which had not been lost at sea.
Te zahteve so se nana�ale na gradnjo novih plovil, ki bi nadomestila obstoječa plovila, ki se niso potopila.
In support of their case, the applicants invoked a lack of competence on the Commission’s part, a breach of the duty to state reasons and breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Te tožeče stranke so v utemeljitev svojih predlogov zatrjevale neobstoj pristojnosti Komisije, kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve in kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance examined, first, the plea of inadmissibility which the Commission raised with a view to securing a ruling that the applicants were not directly and individually concerned by the contested decision for the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi najprej preučilo ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je vložila Komisija, da naj izpodbijana odločba ne bi zadevala navedenih tožečih strank neposredno in posamično v smislu člena 230 ES.
The Court of First Instance dismissed that plea on the grounds, essentially, (i) that the decision must be considered to be a series of individual decisions, each affecting the legal situation of the owners of the vessels listed in the annexes to the decision, including the applicants, who were characterised by reference to all other persons and distinguished individually in the same way as an addressee of the decision, and (ii) that the decision directly affected the applicants’ legal situation, leaving no discretion to the addressees as regards their obligation to implement it.
Ta ugovor je zavrnilo na podlagi tega, da je ta odločba na eni strani skupek posamičnih odločb, v katerem vsaka od njih vpliva na pravni položaj lastnikov plovil, navedenih v prilogah k tej odločbi, vključno s tožečimi strankami, ki so bile opredeljene glede na vse druge osebe in so se razlikovale posamično enako kot naslovnik Odločbe, in da na drugi strani neposredno vpliva na pravni položaj tožečih strank in tako ne dopu�ča diskrecije naslovnicam glede njihove obveznosti izvajanja Odločbe.
The Court of First Instance nevertheless rejected as inadmissible the applications of four of the applicants at first instance, three of whom are the present appellants.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje tožbo �tirih tožečih strank na prvi stopnji, pri čemer so zadnje tri pritožniki v obravnavani zadevi, zavrglo kot nedopustno.
It held as follows in paragraphs 61 and 62 of the judgment under appeal:
V zvezi s tem je odločilo, kar sledi v točkah 61 in 62 izpodbijane sodbe:
However, in view of Ireland’s answers to the questions put to it by way of measure of organisation of procedure, the Court has raised of its own motion the question whether four of the applicants had an interest in acting in the present case … The applicants in question are Thomas Flaherty (T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (T-226/03), Larry Murphy (T-236/03) and O’Neill Fishing Co. Ltd (T-239/03).
Vendarle je glede na odgovore, ki jih je Irska predložila na vpra�anja, zastavljena v okviru ukrepov procesnega vodstva, Sodi�če prve stopnje po uradni dolžnosti preverilo za �tiri tožeče stranke, ali imajo v obravnavanem primeru pravni interes za vložitev tožbe […]. Gre za Thomasa Flahertyja (T-224/03), družbo Ocean Trawlers Ltd (T-226/03), Larryja Murphyja (T-236/03) in družbo O’Neill Fishing Co. Ltd (T-239/03).
It follows from those answers that the requests submitted by those four applicants were based on their intention at the material time to have vessels built and given the names set out in Annex II to the contested decision.
Iz teh odgovorov izhaja, da so zahteve, ki so jih vložile te �tiri tožeče stranke, temeljile na njihovi takratni nameri, da zgradijo plovila in jih poimenujejo z imeni, povzetimi v Prilogi II k [sporni] odločbi.
It transpired, however, that those applicants did not have those vessels built, so that at the date of the contested decision they were not in fact owners of the vessels in question.
Vendar se je izkazalo, da navedene tožeče stranke teh plovil niso zgradile, tako da na datum izdaje [sporne] odločbe dejansko niso bile lastnice zadevnih plovil.
In any event, they are not individually concerned by the contested decision since the vessels in question are fictitious.’
V vsakem primeru pa jih [sporna] odločba ne zadeva posamično, glede na to, da zadevna plovila ne obstajajo.“
Second, the Court of First Instance examined the dispute in relation to the vessels of the 19 other applicants at first instance, as follows:
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje je spor v zvezi s plovili drugih 19 tožečih strank na prvi stopnji preučilo tako:
It must be pointed out that Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 … imposes no limit as regards the age of a vessel eligible for an increase in capacity on safety grounds.
„105 Treba je ugotoviti, da člen 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 (…) ne predpisuje nobene omejitve glede starosti plovila v zvezi z upravičenostjo do povečanja zmogljivosti na področju varnosti.
At first sight, the wording of that provision permits any increase in
Besedilo te določbe na prvi pogled omogoča vsako
2008 — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P capacity resulting from safety improvements, provided that those increases do not lead to an increase in the fishing effort.
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P povečanje zmogljivosti, ki je posledica izbolj�av na področju varnosti, če ta povečanja ne povzročijo povečanja ribolovnega napora.
If the Council had intended to exclude new vessels it would in all likelihood have made its intention clear …
Če bi Svet hotel izključiti nova plovila, bi to najverjetneje navedel […]
Contrary to the Commission’s contention, the concept of improvements referred to in Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 must be understood not as referring to improvements to a particular vessel but as referring to the national fleet.
Nasprotno s tem, kar trdi Komisija, se pojma izbolj�ave iz člena 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 ne sme razumeti, kot da se nana�a na izbolj�ave, izvedene na točno določenem plovilu, temveč ga je treba razumeti tako, kot da se nana�a na nacionalno floto.
In that regard, it should be noted, in particular, that point 3.3 of the annex to Decision 98/125 refers to a “programme of safety improvements” of the national fleet in general.
V tem pogledu je treba poudariti, da se zlasti točka 3.3 Priloge k Odločbi 98/125 nana�a na ‚program varnostnih izbolj�av‘ nacionalne flote na splo�no.
It is also appropriate to bear in mind the objectives of Decision 97/413.
Prav tako je treba upo�tevati cilje Odločbe 97/413.
The objective of that decision is to conserve the fishing stocks in Community waters.
V bistvu je namen te odločbe ohranjanje staležev rib v vodah Skupnosti.
However, the Council took into account “the need to ensure the highest safety standards in the Community” (12th recital).
Vendar je Svet upo�teval ‚potrebo po zagotovitvi najvi�jih varnostnih norm v ribi�ki floti Skupnosti‘ (dvanajsta uvodna izjava).
Accordingly, it included Article 3 (which concerns fishing vessels of less than 12 metres overall) and Article 4(2) in the decision.
Zato je v navedeno odločbo vključil člen 3 (ki se nana�a na ribi�ka plovila, katerih skupna dolžina je manj kot dvanajst metrov, razen plovil z vlečnimi mrežami) in člen 4(2).
Contrary to the impression given by the Commission, it is not necessary, in order to ensure the abovementioned objective of Decision 97/413, that new vessels be excluded from the regime established by Article 4(2) of that decision.
V nasprotju s tem, kar razlaga Komisija, za zagotovitev cilja iz navedene Odločbe 97/413 ni potrebno, da so nova plovila izključena iz ureditve, ki jo določa člen 4(2) te odločbe.
The Court emphasises, in that regard, that Article 4(2) is consistent
Sodi�če prve stopnje v tem pogledu poudarja, da je ta zadnja določba v skladu z navedenim ciljem, saj prepoveduje vsako
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION with that objective in that it prohibits any increase in the fishing effort.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI povečanje ribolovnega napora.
The Commission, which puts forward very considerable arguments which are not based on safety grounds, could have examined the vessels, case by case, in order to establish whether or not there was an increase in the fishing effort.
Komisija, ki navaja zelo velika povečanja, ki niso obrazložena z varnostnimi razlogi, bi lahko preverila vsako posamezno plovilo in ugotovila, ali je oziroma ni pri�lo do povečanja ribolovnega napora.
In fact, it states itself that the prohibition of such an increase seeks to satisfy the general objective of Decision 97/413, which is to reduce the quantity of fish caught in the Community …
Dejansko sama navaja, da prepoved navedenega povečanja izpolnjuje splo�ni cilj Odločbe 97/413, in sicer zmanj�anje količine ulovljenih rib v Skupnosti […]
In the light of all of the foregoing, the Court finds that in adopting in the contested decision criteria not provided for in the rules applicable in the present case, the Commission exceeded its powers.
Na podlagi vsega prej navedenega je treba razsoditi, da je Komisija, s tem da je v [sporni] odločbi uporabila merila, ki jih veljavni predpisi v obravnavanem primeru ne določajo, prekoračila svoje pristojnosti.
The first plea must therefore be upheld and the contested decision must be annulled and it is therefore unnecessary to examine the remaining pleas.’
Zato je treba prvemu tožbenemu razlogu ugoditi in [sporno] odločbo razglasiti za nično in preostalih tožbenih razlogov ni treba obravnavati.“
The appeals
Pritožbe
In their appeals, the appellants submit that the finding of the Court of First Instance on the admissibility of their actions was incorrect in law.
Pritožniki v pritožbah trdijo, da gre pri presoji Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z dopustnostjo njihovih tožb za napačno uporabo prava.
They request that the Court set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it dismissed their applications and ordered them to bear their own costs of the proceedings at first instance.
Predlagajo, da Sodi�če razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v delu, v katerem je zavrnilo njihove tožbe in jim naložilo plačilo lastnih stro�kov postopka na prvi stopnji.
They also ask the Court to annul the contested decision and to order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and of this appeal.
Predlagajo tudi razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe in naložitev plačila navedenih stro�kov in stro�kov pritožbenega postopka Komisiji.
The Commission contends that the appeals should be dismissed as unfounded and that the applicants should be ordered to pay the costs.
Komisija predlaga zavrnitev pritožb kot neutemeljenih in naložitev plačila stro�kov tožečim strankam.
The appellants submit before the Court of Justice that the Court of First Instance wrongly concluded that they had no interest in bringing proceedings and were not individually concerned by the contested decision since the vessels in respect of which requests for an increase in capacity had been made were fictitious.
Pritožniki pred Sodi�čem zatrjujejo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno ugotovilo, da niso imeli pravnega interesa in da jih sporna odločba ni zadevala posamično, ker plovila, za katere je bila vložena zahteva za povečanje zmogljivosti, niso obstajala.
First, the appellants submit that the admissibility of their actions must be determined by reference to their interest in bringing proceedings at the time when the request for an increase in capacity was lodged, rather than by reference to a future, hypothetical event.
Prvič, pritožniki trdijo, da je treba dopustnost njihovih tožb presoditi ob upo�tevanju njihovega pravnega interesa na dan predložitve zahteve za povečanje zmogljivosti in ne ob upo�tevanju prihodnjega in hipotetičnega dogodka.
Therefore, by determining the interest in bringing proceedings as at the date of the adoption of the contested decision, the Court of First Instance applied an incorrect legal test.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi torej, s tem da je presodilo pravni interes na dan sprejetja sporne odločbe, uporabilo napačno pravno merilo.
Second, they claim that it is clear from the documents submitted to the Court of First Instance that, both at the date on which their applications were lodged before the Court of First Instance and at the date of adoption of the contested decision, on the assumption that the latter may be regarded as being the relevant date, they were in fact owners of the vessels in respect of which the Commission had received and refused requests for an increase in capacity.
Drugič, zatrjujejo, da iz dokumentov, predloženih Sodi�ču prve stopnje, jasno izhaja, da so bili tako na dan predložitve njihovih tožb pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje kot na dan sprejetja sporne odločbe, pod predpostavko, da je mogoče zadnji datum �teti kot upo�tevni datum, dejansko lastniki plovil, za katera je Komisija prejela in zavrnila zahteve za povečanje zmogljivosti.
It follows that the Court of First Instance made a substantive error in the assessment of the documents lodged at first instance, which should, according to settled caselaw, justify setting aside the judgment under appeal.
Iz tega naj bi izhajalo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje storilo vsebinsko napako pri presoji dokumentov, predloženih na prvi stopnji, zaradi katere bi morala biti v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso izpodbijana sodba razveljavljena.
Third, the appellants submit that the Court of First Instance found in the judgment under appeal that all the requests for an increase in capacity related to new vessels, many of them having been made in respect of vessels proposed to be built.
Tretjič, pritožniki zatrjujejo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi ugotovilo, da so se vse zahteve za povečanje zmogljivosti nana�ale na nova plovila, od katerih jih je bilo veliko predloženih v zvezi s plovili, ki so se gradila.
That is said to be clear from the requests submitted to the Commission on the appellants’ behalf.
To naj bi jasno izhajalo iz zahtev, ki so bile v imenu pritožnikov predložene Komisiji.
Moreover, the Court of First Instance did not determine whether each of the vessels in respect of which a request had been submitted had been built as at the date of adoption of the contested decision or when the actions for annulment were
Poleg tega naj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi preverilo, ali je bilo vsako plovilo, v zvezi s katerim je bila predložena
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION brought, since that point was irrelevant.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI zahteva, zgrajeno do dne sprejetja sporne odločbe ali dne vložitve ničnostnih tožb, ker naj ta dejavnik ne bi bil upo�teven.
The appellants also submit that, since the Court of First Instance held that the Commission was bound to consider applications to build new vessels, the Court of First Instance should have determined those applications according to the applicable law.
Pritožniki tudi trdijo, da če je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da je bila Komisija zavezana preučiti zahteve za gradnjo novih plovil, bi Sodi�če prve stopnje moralo odločati o teh zahtevah na podlagi veljavnega prava.
Consequently, the finding that the appellants were not individually concerned since the vessels in question were fictitious has no basis in law and is contradicted by the reasoning itself in the judgment under appeal.
Ugotovitev, da sporna odločba pritožnikov ne zadeva posamično, ker zadevna plovila ne obstajajo, zato ni pravno utemeljena in naj bi bila celo v nasprotju z obrazložitvijo izpodbijane sodbe.
The Commission contends that the admissibility of an action cannot be determined on the basis of a future hypothetical event.
Komisija zatrjuje, da o dopustnosti teh tožb ni mogoče odločiti na podlagi prihodnjega in hipotetičnega dogodka.
However, the Court of First Instance did not invoke such an event.
Vendar naj se Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi sklicevalo na tak dogodek.
On the contrary, it took into account the undisputed fact that the appellants have never built the vessels referred to in Annex II to the contested decision.
Nasprotno, upo�tevalo naj bi nesporno dejstvo, da pritožniki niso nikoli zgradili plovil, določenih v Prilogi II k sporni odločbi.
According to the Commission, there was no evidence therefore to identify the owners of those vessels.
Komisija meni, da torej na podlagi nobenega dokaza ni bilo mogoče določiti lastnikov teh plovil.
The question whether the Court of First Instance made an error of law by declaring the actions brought before it by the appellants to be inadmissible must be examined on the basis of that Court’s assessment of the appellants’ interest in bringing proceedings and of the question whether or not they were individually concerned.
Vpra�anje, ali je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je tožbe, ki so jih pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložili pritožniki, razglasilo za nedopustne, napačno uporabilo pravo, je treba preučiti na podlagi presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede tega, ali imajo slednji pravni interes, in ali jih je sporna odločba zadevala posamično.
According to established caselaw, an applicant’s interest in bringing proceedings must, in the light of the purpose of the action, exist at the time at which the action is
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora pravni interes tožeče stranke glede predmeta tožbe obstajati ob njeni vložitvi, sicer ta ni dopustna. Tak�en predmet spora in pravni
2008 — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P brought, failing which it will be inadmissible.
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P interes morata obstati do razglasitve sodne odločbe, sicer se postopek ustavi, kar je predpostavka za to, da ima lahko stranka, ki je vložila tožbo, zaradi izida tožbe koristi (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 24. junija 1986 v zadevi AKZO Chemie in AKZO Chemie UK proti Komisiji, 53/85, Recueil, str.
It follows from paragraphs 61 and 62, read in conjunction with paragraph 17, of the judgment under appeal, that the Court of First Instance took into account the appellants’ status as owners — at the date of the contested decision — of the vessels referred to in Annex II to the decision as being crucial to the determination of their interest in bringing proceedings.
Iz točk 61 in 62 v povezavi s točko 17 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upo�tevalo položaj lastnikov – na dan izdaje sporne odločbe – plovil, določenih v Prilogi II k sporni odločbi, kot odločilni dejavnik pri določitvi pravnega interesa tožečih strank.
The Court of First Instance thus proceeded on the basis that 19 of the applicants, who implicitly were held to have already built or commenced building the vessels in question, could be regarded as being owners of the vessels at the date of the contested decision and therefore had an interest in procuring its annulment, whereas the same could not be said for the other four applicants.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako izhajalo iz tega, da je 19 tožečih strank, za katere je izrecno ugotovilo, da so že zgradile ali začele graditi zadevna plovila, mogoče �teti za lastnike navedenih plovil z dnem izdaje sporne odločbe in da imajo torej pravni interes za razglasitev njene ničnosti, medtem ko v primeru drugih �tirih tožečih strank ni bilo tako.