natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Judgment of 10 October 2006 in Case T-172/05 Armacell v OHIM — nmc (ARMAFOAM), not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 10. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Armacell proti UUNT – nmc (ARMAFOAM), T-172/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43).
Uredba Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) št. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
Judgments of 6 July 2006 in Joined Cases T-391/03 and T-70/04 Franchet and Byk; and of 14 December 2006 in Case T-237/02 Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR.
Sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. julija 2006 v zadevi Franchet in Byk, T-391/03 in T-70/04, in z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji, T-237/02, še neobjavljeni v ZOdl.
Those documents had been sent to the French and Luxembourg judicial authorities in the context of an investigation into alleged irregularities at Eurostat. The applicants’ liability had been an issue in the context of that case.
Glede druge izjeme na podlagi varstva namena inšpekcije, preiskave in revizije je Sodišče prve stopnje presodilo, da ta izjema velja samo, če bi lahko razkritje obravnavanih dokumentov ogrozilo dokončanje zadevnih inšpekcij, preiskav ali revizij.
As regards the first exception, the Court held that, in the circumstances of this case, the Commission was not entitled to find that the various documents sent by OLAF had been drawn up solely for the purposes of court proceedings.
Torej je treba preveriti, ali so inšpekcije in preiskave, ki bi jih razkritje zahtevanih dokumentov lahko ogrozilo, ob sprejetju izpodbijanih odločb še potekale in ali so trajale razumno dolgo.
The action taken by the national competent authorities or the institutions in response to the reports and information forwarded by OLAF is within their sole and entire responsibility and it is possible that a communication from OLAF to the national authorities or to an institution would not lead to the opening of judicial proceedings at national level or disciplinary or administrative proceedings at Community level. Compliance with national procedural rules is suciently safeguarded if the institution ensures that disclosure of the documents does not constitute an infringement of national law.
Komisija v tej zadevi ni napačno uporabila prava in ni kršila pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, ko je menila, da je treba ob sprejetju prve izpodbijane odločbe dostop do dokumentov, poslanih francoskim in luksemburškim organom, zavrniti zato, ker bi njihovo razkritje škodovalo varstvu namena inšpekcij, preiskav in revizij.
Court of First Instance in abstracto without showing to the requisite legal standard that disclosure of these documents would actually prejudice the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits and that the exception invoked actually applied to all the information contained in those documents.
Kljub temu pa se izkaže, da se je OLAF glede nekaterih njegovih sporočil Komisiji opredelil in abstracto, ne da bi v pravno zadostni meri dokazal, da bi razkritje teh dokumentov povzročilo konkretno škodo varstvu namena inšpekcij, preiskav in revizij in da se uporabljena izjema dejansko nanaša na vse informacije, vsebovane v teh dokumentih.
The decision to refuse access was therefore annulled insofar as it concerned those documents.
Odločba o zavrnitvi dostopa do teh dokumentov je bila zato razglašena za nično.
Finally, mention should be made of the application, in Kallianos v Commission, of the principles deriving from Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in order to rule, in an action brought by an ocial against a decision withholding part of his remuneration, on a plea alleging inter alia a lack of transparency 52.
Na koncu je treba navesti, da so bila v sodbi Kallianos proti Komisiji pri odločanju v okviru tožbe, ki jo je uradnik vložil zoper odločbo o odtegljaju od njegove plače, o tožbenem razlogu pomanjkljive transparentnosti52uporabljena načela, ki izhajajo iż Uredbe št. 1049/2001.
In that case, the applicant had requested access to the opinions of the Commission’s legal service concerning his personal circumstances.
V tej zadevi je tožeča stranka zahtevala dostop do mnenja pravne službe Komisije, ki se je nanašalo nanjo.
Although the applicant had not lodged a request on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, it is in the light of the caselaw concerning that legislation that it was held that the Commission had partially infringed the applicant’s right of access to the file.
Čeprav tožeča stranka ni vložila prošnje na podlagi Uredbe št. 1049/2001, je bilo v skladu s sodno prakso v zvezi s to ureditvijo odločeno, da je Komisija delno kršila pravico tožeče stranke do vpogleda v spis.
The Court did not however annul the Commission’s decision, since the refusal to disclose the legal opinions in question had not harmed the applicant’s defence.
Vendar pa Sodišče prve stopnje odločbe Komisije ni razglasilo za nično, ker zavrnitev razkritja zadevnih pravnih mnenj ni škodila obrambi tožeče stranke.
Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Combating terrorism
Skupna zunanja in varnostna politika (SZVP) – Boj proti terorizmu
In 2006, the Court delivered three judgments concerning the fight against terrorism 53.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v tem letu razglasilo tri sodbe na področju boja proti terorizmu53.
The first two supplement the principles laid down in Yusuf and Al Barakaat International
Prvi dve dopolnjujeta načela, postavljena v sodbi Yusuf in Al Barakaat International
, whilst the
54, medtem ko
Foundation v Council and Commission and in Kadi v Council and Commission 54third judgment was given in an unprecedented legal context.
Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji ter v sodbi Kadi proti Svetu in Komisijitretja spada v nov pravni okvir.
A Sanctions Committee was tasked by the Security Council with identifying the subjects and maintaining an updated list of them. Those resolutions were implemented in the Community by Council regulations ordering the freezing of the funds of the persons and entities concerned.
Varnostni svet Združenih narodov je po terorističnih napadih 11. septembra 2001 sprejel več resolucij, s katerimi je vse države članice Organizacije združenih narodov (OZN) pozval k zamrznitvi sredstev in drugih finančnih virov oseb in subjektov, povezanih s talibani,
Judgment of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission (under appeal, Case C-323/06 P), not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 17. maja 2006 v zadevi Kallianos proti Komisiji, T-93/04 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-323/06 P), še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Judgments of 12 July 2006 in Case T-253/02 Ayadi v Council (under appeal, Case C-403/06 P), not yet published in the ECR, and in CaseT-49/04 Hassan v Council and Commission (under appeal, Case C-399/06 P), not published in the ECR; and judgment of 12 December 2006 in Case T-228/02 Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. julija 2006 v zadevi Ayadi proti Svetu, T-253/02 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-403/06 P), še neobjavljena v ZOdl., ter v zadevi Hassan proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-49/04 (v pritožbenem postopku, C-399/06 P), še neobjavljena v ZOdl., in sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 12. decembra 2006 v zadevi Organizacija Mudžahidov iranskega ljudstva proti Svetu, T-228/02, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.
Chaq Ayadi, a Tunisian national residing in Dublin (Ireland), and Faraj Hassan, a Libyan national held in Brixton prison (United Kingdom), were included in the Community list in question.
Chaq Ayadi, tunizijski državljan s prebivališčem v Dublinu (Irska), in Faraj Hassan, libijski državljan, zaprt v zaporu v Brixtonu (Združeno kraljestvo), sta bila vpisana na zadevni seznam Skupnosti.
Those two persons requested that the Court annul that measure and, in the two resulting judgments, the Court claried a number of points in relation to the procedure for freezing funds.
Sodišču prve stopnje sta predlagala, naj razglasi ničnost tega ukrepa, Sodišče prve stopnje pa je v dveh sodbah, ki sta bili izdani v zvezi s tem, pojasnilo več vprašanj glede postopka zamrznitve sredstev.
In Ayadi v Council, the Court, having observed that the freezing of funds provided for by the contested regulation does not infringe the universally recognised fundamental rights of the human person (juscogens), acknowledged that such a measure is particularly drastic.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Ayadi proti Svetu je Sodišče prve stopnje potem, ko je spomnilo, da zamrznitev sredstev, ki je predvidena z izpodbijano uredbo, ne krši splošno priznanih temeljnih človekovih pravic (iuscogens), priznalo, da je tak ukrep posebej oster.
However, it went on to state that the importance of the aims pursued by the legislation in question is such as to justify those negative consequences and that the freezing of the funds did not prevent the individuals concerned from leading satisfactory personal, family and social lives, given the circumstances.
Kljub temu je dodalo, da pomembnost ciljev, ki jih zasledujejo zadevni predpisi, upravičuje take negativne posledice, in da zamrznitev sredstev zadevnim posameznikom ne onemogoča, da bi glede na okoliščine imeli zadovoljivo osebno, družinsko in socialno življenje.
In particular, they were not prevented from carrying on professional activities even if, however, the receipt of income from those activities was regulated.
Zlasti jim ni prepovedano opravljati poklicne dejavnosti, upoštevajoč seveda, da je prejemanje dohodkov od te dejavnosti urejeno s predpisi.
As regards, next, the procedure for removal from the list, the Court found that the Sanctions Committee’s guidelines and the contested Council regulation provide for the right for an individual to submit his case to the Sanctions Committee for re-examination through the government of the country in which he resides or of which he is a national.
Sodišče prve stopnje glede postopka izbrisa s seznama ugotavlja, da navodila odbora za sankcije in izpodbijana uredba Sveta določajo, da ima posameznik pravico, da s posredovanjem vlade države, v kateri prebiva ali katere državljan je, odboru za sankcije predloži predlog za ponovni preizkus njegovega primera.
That right is therefore also safeguarded by the Community legal order.
To pravico torej zagotavlja tudi pravni red Skupnosti.
In examining such a request, the Member States are bound to respect the fundamental rights of the persons involved given that the respect of those rights is not capable of preventing the proper performance of their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations.
V okviru preizkusa takega predloga so države članice dolžne spoštovati temeljne pravice zadevnih oseb, če to ne ovira dobrega izvrševanja njihovih obveznosti na podlagi listine Združenih narodov.
In particular, the Member States must ensure, so far as is possible, that interested persons are put in a position to put their point of view before the competent national authorities.
Države članice morajo zlasti v največji možni meri zagotavljati, da imajo zadevne osebe možnost učinkovito predstaviti svoje stališče pred pristojnimi nacionalnimi organi.
The Member States are not entitled to refuse to initiate the review procedure solely because the individual concerned cannot provide precise and relevant information owing to his having been unable to ascertain the precise reasons for which he was included in the list in question, on account of the condential nature of those reasons.
Države članice ne morejo zavrniti uvedbe postopka ponovnega preizkusa zgolj iz razloga, da zadevna oseba ne more predložiti točnih in upoštevnih podatkov, pri čemer se slednja ni mogla seznaniti z natančnimi razlogi, ki so upravičevali njeno vključitev na seznam, ker so ti razlogi zaupni.
Member States are also required to act promptly to ensure that such persons’ cases are presented without delay and fairly and impartially to the Sanctions Committee if that appears to be objectively justied in the light of the relevant information supplied.
Države članice so prav tako dolžne poskrbeti za to, da se primer zadevnih oseb predloži odboru za sankcije brez zamude, nepristranskost in korektno, če je to objektivno upravičeno glede na predložene upoštevne podatke.
Finally, it is open to the persons concerned to bring an action before the national courts against any wrongful refusal by the competent national authority to submit their cases to the Sanctions Committee for re-examination.
Končno lahko zadevne osebe na nacionalnih sodiščih vložijo tožbo zoper zavrnitev s strani pristojnega nacionalnega organa, da bi njihov primer predložil odboru za sankcije v ponovni preizkus, pri čemer je morebiti podana zloraba.
The need to ensure the full eectiveness of Community law may lead a national court to refrain from applying, if need be, a national rule preventing the exercise of that right, such as a rule excluding from judicial review a refusal of national authorities to take action with a view to guaranteeing the diplomatic protection of their nationals.
Nujnost, da se zagotovi polno učinkovanje prava Skupnosti, lahko nacionalno sodišče privede do tega, da po potrebi ne upošteva nacionalnega pravila – kot je pravilo, ki izključuje sodni nadzor nad zavrnitvijo nacionalnih organov, da zagotovijo svojim državljanom diplomatsko zaščito –, ki ovira izvrševanje te pravice.
The judgment in Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran v Council also concerned the fight against terrorism, but was given in another legal context which gives rise to the establishment of dierent principles. On 28 September 2001, the United Nations Security
Hassan imeti pravico, da na podlagi nacionalnega prava sprožita sodni postopek, če imata namen izpodbijati zatrjevano nekorektno ravnanje irskih in britanskih organov do njiju.
Council adopted a resolution calling on all the Member States of the UN to combat terrorism and the financing thereof by all means, inter alia by freezing the funds of persons and entities who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts.
Zgoraj navedena sodba Organizacija Mudžahidov iranskega ljudstva proti Svetu se prav tako nanaša na boj proti terorizmu, vendar spada v drug pravni okvir, iz katerega izhajajo drugačna načela.Varnostni svet Združenih narodov je 28. septembra 2001 sprejel resolucijo, s katero je vse države članice OZN pozval k boju z vsemi sredstvi proti terorizmu in njegovemu financiranju, zlasti k zamrznitvi sredstev oseb in subjektov, ki izvršujejo ali nameravajo izvršiti teroristična dejanja.
That resolution can be distinguished from those at issue in Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, Kadi v Council and Commission, Ayadi v Council and Hassan v Council and Commission in that the identication of the persons whose funds must be frozen is left to the discretion of the States.
Ta resolucija se od resolucij v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji, Kadi proti Svetu in Komisiji, Ayadi proti Svetu in Hassan proti Svetu in Komisiji razlikuje v tem, da identikacijo oseb, katerih sredstva je treba zamrzniti, opravijo države.
That resolution was implemented in the Community inter alia by two common positions and a Council regulation, adopted on 27 December 2001, which order the freezing of funds of the persons and entities included in a list drawn up and regularly updated by the Council 55. By a common position and by a decision of 2 May
V Skupnosti je bila ta resolucija uveljavljena zlasti z dvema skupnima stališčema in uredbo Sveta, ki so bili sprejeti 27. decembra 2001 in odrejajo zamrznitev sredstev oseb in subjektov, vpisanih na seznam, ki ga je Svet pripravil in ga redno posodablja55.
2002, the Council updated the list of persons and entities concerned, including in it inter alia l’Organisation des Modjahedines du peuple d’Iran (OMPI) 56.
Svet je s skupnim stališčem in sklepom z dne 2. maja 2002 posodobil seznam zadevnih oseb in subjektov, v katerega je vključil zlasti Organizacijo Mudžahidov iranskega ljudstva (OMIL)56.
Since then, the Council has adopted a number of common positions and decisions updating the list in question, OMPI still appearing in that list.
Po tem je Svet sprejel več skupnih stališč in sklepov o posodobitvi zadevnega seznama, ki je še zmeraj vseboval OMIL.
OMPI brought an action before the Court seeking the annulment of those common positions and decisions to the extent that those measures concerned it.
Slednja je na Sodišče prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti teh skupnih stališč in sklepov v delih, kjer se nanašajo nanjo.
In its judgment, the Court found that certain rights and fundamental safeguards, in particular the right to a fair hearing, the obligation to state reasons and the right to eective judicial protection are, as a matter of principle, fully applicable in the context of the adoption of a Community decision to freeze funds under the regulation in question.
Sodišče v sodbi ugotavlja, da so nekatere temeljne pravice in jamstva, zlasti pravica do obrambe, obveznost obrazložitve in pravica do učinkovitega sodnega varstva, načeloma polno zagotovljene v okviru sprejetja sklepa Skupnosti o zamrznitvi sredstev na podlagi zadevne uredbe.
As regards the right to a fair hearing, the Court drew a distinction between this case and Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission and Kadi v Council and Commission.
Sodišče prve stopnje glede pravice do obrambe razlikuje med to zadevo in zadevami, v katerih sta bili izdani sodba Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji ter sodba Kadi proti Svetu in Komisiji.
Since, in the system in question in the present case, the specic identication of the persons and entities whose funds must be frozen is left to the assessment of the members of the UN, that identication involves the exercise of the Community’s own powers, entailing, by the Community, a discretionary appreciation from the point of view of UN law.
Ker je bila v tej zadevi namreč konkretna določitev oseb in subjektov, katerih sredstva je treba zamrzniti, prepuščena presoji članic OZN, ta opredelitev spada v izvajanje izvirne pristojnosti, ki z vidika prava OZN vključujejo diskrecijsko presojo Skupnosti.
In those circumstances, the Council is in principle fully bound to observe the right to a fair hearing of the parties concerned.
V teh okoliščinah mora Svet načeloma v celoti spoštovati pravico zadevnih oseb do obrambe.
Determining next the extent of those rights and safeguards, and the restrictions to which they may be subject in the context of the adoption of a Community measure to freeze funds, the Court held, first, that the general principle of observance of the right to a fair hearing does not require that the parties concerned be heard by the Council when an initial decision freezing their funds is adopted, since that decision must be able to benet from a surprise eect.
Sodišče prve stopnje, ki je nato določilo obseg teh pravic in jamstev ter njihove omejitve v okviru sprejetja ukrepa Skupnosti o zamrznitvi sredstev, je najprej odločilo, da splošno načelo spoštovanja pravice do obrambe ne zahteva, da bi moral Svet, ko je sprejemal prvotni sklep o zamrznitvi sredstev, zaslišati zadevne osebe, saj naj bi imel ta sklep učinek presenečenja.To načelo pa po drugi strani zahteva, da se elementi, na katerih temelji sklep o zamrznitvi sredstev, razen če temu nasprotujejo nujni varnostni razlogi Skupnosti ali varnostni razlogi njenih držav članic ali razlogi v zvezi z vodenjem njihovih mednarodnih odnosov, sporočijo v največjem možnem obsegu bodisi sočasno ali takoj, ko je to mogoče po sprejetju takega sklepa.
By contrast, that principle requires, unless precluded by overriding considerations concerning the security of the Community or its Member States, or the conduct of their international relations, that the evidence which gives rise to a decision to freeze funds be notied, insofar as reasonably possible, either concomitantly with or as soon as possible after the adoption of such a decision.
Z enako izjemo je treba zadevnim osebam pred sprejetjem vsakega poznejšega sklepa o ohranitvi zamrznitve sredstev omogočiti, da učinkovito uveljavljajo svoja stališča.
Subject to the same reservations,
Z enako izjemo se mora obrazložitev prvotnega ali poznejšega sklepa o zamrznitvi sredstev vsaj posebej in konkretno nanašati na okoliščine, katerih posledica je zamrznitev sredstev,
Common Position 2001/930/CFSP on combating terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p.
Skupno stališče 2001/930/SZVP o boju proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str.
90), Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specic measures to combat terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p.
90), Skupno stališče 2001/931/SZVP o uporabi posebnih ukrepov za boj proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str.
93), and Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specic restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ L 344, 28.12.2001, p. 70).
93), ter Uredba (ES) št. 2580/2001 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte zaradi boja proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str. 70).
Common Position 2002/340/CFSP updating Common Position 2001/931 (OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p.
Skupno stališče 2002/340/SZVP o posodobitvi Skupnega stališča 2001/931 (UL L 116, str.
75), and Decision 2002/334/EC implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ L 116, 3.5.2002, p. 33).
75), in Sklep 2002/334/ES o izvedbi člena 2(3) Uredbe št. 2580/2001 in razveljavitvi Sklepa 2001/927/ES (UL L 116, str. 33).
Proceedings the parties concerned must be aorded the opportunity eectively to make known their views before any subsequent decision to maintain a freeze of funds.
Sodišče prve stopnje in sicer zlasti na natančne podatke ali dejstva iz spisa, ki dokazujejo, da je sklep glede zadevnih oseb sprejel pristojni organ države članice.
That statement must also indicate the reasons why the Council considers, in the exercise of its discretion, that the parties concerned must be the subject of such a measure.
Obrazložitev mora zajemati tudi razloge, na podlagi katerih je Svet v okviru svoje diskrecijske pravice presodil, da je treba zoper zadevne osebe sprejeti tak ukrep.
Lastly, the right to eective judicial protection is ensured by the right the parties concerned have to bring an action before the Court against any decision ordering the freeze of their funds or the maintenance thereof.
Pravica do učinkovitega sodnega varstva je zagotovljena s pravico zadevnih oseb, da proti sklepu, s katerim je bila odrejena ali ohranjena zamrznitev njihovih sredstev, vložijo tožbo na Sodišče prve stopnje.
However, given the broad discretion that the Council enjoys in this area, the review carried out by the Court of the lawfulness of such decisions must be restricted to checking that the rules governing procedure and the statement of reasons have been complied with, that the facts are materially accurate, and that there has been no manifest error of assessment of the facts or misuse of power.
Glede na široko polje proste presoje, ki ga ima Svet na tem področju, se mora nadzor Sodišča prve stopnje nad zakonitostjo takih sklepov omejiti na preverjanje spoštovanja pravil glede postopka, obrazložitve, pravilnost ugotovljenega dejanskega stanja, očitne napake pri presoji dejstev in zlorabo pooblastil.