natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Referring to the judgment of the Court in Case 68/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 855, the Parliament submits that, in the field of legislation, the Treaty applies and it is not possible to alter the procedures it lays down.
Parlament ob sklicevanju na sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 23. februarja 1988 v zadevi Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu (68/86, Recueil, str. 855) trdi, da se Pogodba na zakonodajnem področju uporablja, ne da bi bilo mogoče posegati v postopke, ki jih predvideva.
The Commission takes the view that the secondary legal bases contained in the contested provisions are unlawful.
Komisija meni, da so izvedene pravne podlage v izpodbijanih določbah nezakonite.
The Community legislature does not have the option of choosing the manner in which it exercises its powers.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti nima možnosti določiti načina izvajanja svojih pristojnosti.
The institutions may act only within the limits of the powers conferred upon them by the Treaties, which alone determine the procedures for the adoption of legislative acts.
Institucije Skupnosti delujejo le v mejah pristojnosti po pogodbah, v katerih so določeni postopki za sprejetje zakonodajnih aktov.
According to the Commission, the contested provisions cannot be regarded as reservations of the right to exercise implementing power, available to the Council on the basis of the third indent of Article 202 EC.
Po mnenju Komisije izpodbijanih določb ni mogoče obravnavati kot pridržek pristojnosti izvajanja, ki bi ga lahko uporabil Svet na podlagi člena 202, tretja alinea, ES.
The contested provisions constitute a twofold procedural abuse: first, in relation to the unanimity rule laid down in point 1(d) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC at the time of the adoption of Directive 2005/85 and, second, in relation to the co-deci-sion procedure which must replace that rule once Community legislation is adopted which defines the common rules and basic principles governing asylum policy.
Izpodbijane določbe pomenijo dvojno zlorabo postopka, prvič, v zvezi s pravilom soglasnosti, ki je bilo ob sprejetju Direktive 2005/85 določeno v členu 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(d), ES, ter drugič, v zvezi s postopkom soodločanja, ki mora nadomestiti navedeno pravilo, če je sprejeta zakonodaja Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela azilne politike.
The Council submits that, on the contrary, nothing in the EC Treaty precludes an act adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down by the applicable legal basis from creating a secondary legal basis for the purposes, inter alia, of the subsequent adoption of a legislative act in that area by means of a simplified decision-making procedure.
Svet navaja nasprotno, da nič v Pogodbi ES ne nasprotuje temu, da bi akt, sprejet na podlagi postopka, ki ga predvideva veljavna pravna podlaga, ustvaril izvedeno pravno podlago, zlasti za namene sprejetja poznej�ega zakonodajnega akta na tem področju v poenostavljenem postopku odločanja.
According to the Council, the use of secondary legal bases is an established legislative technique, which is illustrated in numerous Community acts.
Po mnenju Sveta je uporaba izvedenih pravnih podlag potrjena zakonodajna tehnika, ponazorjena v �tevilnih aktih Skupnosti.
The only lesson to be drawn from the judgment in United Kingdom v Council is that a secondary legal basis cannot result in the procedure laid down by the Treaty becoming more cumbersome, which is not the case as regards the procedure introduced by Directive 2005/85.
Edini nauk, ki izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu, je, da izvedena pravna podlaga ne sme otežiti postopka, ki ga določa Pogodba, to pa ni tako v postopku, ki ga vzpostavlja Direktiva 2005/85.
The Council takes the view that the circumstances of the case called for recourse to be had to a secondary legal basis, and that the first indent of Article 67(5) EC did not preclude this.
Svet meni, da so okoli�čine v obravnavani zadevi zahtevale uporabo izvedene pravne podlage in da to ni bilo v nasprotju s členom 67(5), prva alinea, ES.
The instruments constituted by the lists of safe countries fall within an area characterised both by great political sensitivity on the part of the Member States, and by the practical need to react quickly and effectively to changes in the situation of the third countries in question.
Instrumenti, ki jih vzpostavljata seznama varnih držav, spadajo na področje, za katero sta značilna velika politična občutljivost držav članic in dejanska potreba po hitrem in učinkovitem odzivanju na spremenjene položaje v zadevnih tretjih državah.
In fact, those instruments cannot be used effectively unless they are adopted and subsequently amended by means of a procedure such as that introduced by the contested provisions.
Natančneje, te instrumente je mogoče učinkovito uporabiti le, če njihovo sprejetje in njihove poznej�e spremembe ne nastopijo v postopku, kot ga uvajajo izpodbijane določbe.
The Council denies that the secondary legal bases contained in the contested provisions conflict with the co-decision procedure provided for in the first indent of Article 67(5) EC.
Svet zavrača trditev, da naj bi bile izvedene pravne podlage, vsebovane v izpodbijanih določbah, v nasprotju s postopkom soodločanja iz člena 67(5), prva alinea, ES.
That provision is applicable only on the twofold condition that the act to be adopted is founded on points 1 or 2(a) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC and that the Council has previously adopted Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles governing the issue.
Ta določba bi bila namreč uporabljiva le pod dvojnim pogojem, da akt, ki bo sprejet, temelji na členu 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 ali 2(a), ES in da je Svet pred tem sprejel zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela glede teh vpra�anj.
With regard to the first of those conditions, the Council observes, in essence, that the lists of safe countries will not be adopted on the basis of Article 63 EC but will be founded on the contested provisions, which provide for a less cumbersome procedure than that used for the adoption of the basic act.
Svet v zvezi s prvim pogojem v bistvu opozarja, da seznama varnih držav nista bila sprejeta na podlagi člena 63 ES, ampak sta temeljila na izpodbijanih določbah, ki so določale enostavnej�i postopek od tistega, po katerem je bil sprejet temeljni akt.
The Council adds that, since the Treaty required only the consultation of the Parliament for the adoption of Directive 2005/85, it is hard to find fault with recourse to the contested provisions which provide for the same level of participation by the Parliament.
Svet dodaja, da ker je v Pogodbi za sprejetje Direktive 2005/85 določeno le posvetovanje s Parlamentom, se zdi uporabo izpodbijanih določb, ki določajo isto raven udeležbe zadnjenavedenega, težko grajati.
As far as the second condition is concerned, the Council takes the view that, by referring to ‘Community legislation’, the first indent of Article 67(5) EC does not require the common rules and basic principles to be laid down in a single legislative act and at a specific time.
V zvezi z drugim pogojem Svet meni, da s sklicevanjem na „zakonodajo Skupnosti“ člen 67(5), prva alinea, ES ne vsebuje zahteve, da je treba skupna pravila in temeljna načela določiti le v enem zakonodajnem aktu in v določenem trenutku.
The transition to the co-decision procedure is linked to a substantive, rather than to a formal or temporal, criterion.
Prehod na postopek soodločanja je vezan na vsebinsko merilo, in ne na formalno ali časovno merilo.
Since the conditions laid down for transition to the co-decision procedure have not been fulfilled, neither the Parliament’s prerogatives nor the institutional balance have been undermined.
Ker nista bila izpolnjena pogoja za prehod na postopek soodločanja, s tem niso kr�ene niti posebne pravice Parlamenta niti institucionalno ravnovesje.
The French Republic submits that the adoption of the lists of safe countries forms part of Community legislation defining ‘the common rules and basic principles’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 67(5) EC.
Francoska republika navaja, da za sprejetje seznamov varnih držav velja zako -nodaja Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje „skupna pravila in temeljna načela“ v smislu člena 67(5), prva alinea, ES.
Consequently, even if those lists are required to be adopted on the basis of the Treaty itself and not on the basis of the contested provisions, they should be adopted only after mere consultation of the Parliament.
Čeprav bi bilo torej treba ta seznama sprejeti na podlagi same Pogodbe in ne na podlagi izpodbijanih določb, bi jih bilo mogoče sprejeti le po enostavnem posvetovanju s Parlamentom.
With regard to the general question of the possibility of recourse to a secondary legal basis, the French Republic, like the Council, takes the view that there is nothing in the Treaty that precludes it.
Francoska republika se v zvezi s splo�nim vpra�anjem možnosti uporabe izvedene pravne podlage strinja s Svetom, da nič v Pogodbi ne nasprotuje temu.
Recourse to secondary legal bases is an established practice of the Community legislature.
Uporaba izvedenih pravnih podlag naj bi bila v skladu z ustaljeno prakso zakonodajalca Skupnosti.
Admittedly, a mere practice cannot derogate from the rules laid down in the Treaty and cannot therefore create a precedent binding on the Community institutions.
Res je, da naj zgolj na podlagi prakse ne bi bilo mogoče odstopati od pravil Pogodbe in naj zato ne bi mogla ustvariti precedenčnega primera, ki bi zavezoval institucije Skupnosti.
However, the caselaw shows that the Court of Justice is not necessarily indifferent to the practices followed by those institutions (Case 230/81 Luxembourg v Parliament [1983] ECR 255, paragraphs 48 and 49).
Vendar iz sodne prakse izhaja, da Sodi�če ni nujno ravnodu�no glede praks, ki jih izvajajo slednje (sodba z dne 10. februarja 1983 v zadevi Luksemburg proti Parlamentu, 230/81, Recueil, str. 255, točki 48 in 49).
Finally, as regards the substantive conditions for recourse to secondary legal bases, these are met in the present case.
Nazadnje je treba v zvezi z vsebinskimi pogoji za uporabo izvedenih pravnih podlag navesti, da so bili v obravnavani zadevi izpolnjeni.
The contested provisions are of great political sensitivity and reflect the practical need to react quickly and effectively to changes in the situation of third countries.
Izpodbijane določbe namreč izkazujejo veliko politično občutljivost ter zahtevajo dejansko potrebo po hitrem in učinkovitem ukrepanju v zvezi s spremenjenim položajem v tretjih državah.
By its first two pleas in law, the Parliament raises, in essence, the question whether the Council could lawfully provide in the contested provisions for the adoption and amendment of the lists of safe countries by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the Parliament.
Parlament s prvima tožbenima razlogoma v bistvu spra�uje, ali bi lahko Svet v izpodbijanih določbah zakonito predvidel sprejetje in spremembo seznamov varnih držav s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom.
It should be borne in mind that, under the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) EC, each institution is to act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaty (see Case C-403/05 Parliament v Commission [2007] ECR I-9045, paragraph 49, and the caselaw cited).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 7(1), drugi pododstavek, ES institucije Skupnosti delujejo le v mejah pristojnosti po tej pogodbi (glej sodbo z dne 23. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Parlament proti Komisiji, C-403/05, ZOdl., str. I-9045, točka 49 in navedena sodna praksa).
It must be observed, first, that, when adopting Directive 2005/85 in accordance with the arrangements laid down in Article 67(1) EC, the Council had the opportunity to apply the third indent of Article 202 EC in order to adopt measures not essential to the subjectmatter to be regulated (see, to that effect, Case C-240/90 Germany v Commission [1992] ECR I-5383, paragraph 36).
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je Svet ob sprejetju Direktive 2005/85 na podlagi podrobnih pravil iz člena 67(1) ES imel možnost uporabiti člen 202, tretja alinea, ES za sprejetje nebistvenih ukrepov na področju, ki ga je bilo treba urediti (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 27. oktobra 1992 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, C-240/90, Recueil, str. I-5383, točka 36).
Thus, on the assumption that the lists of safe countries are non-essential and relate to a specific case, the Council could have decided to reserve the right to exercise implementing powers, provided that it stated in detail the grounds for its decision (see, to that effect, Case C-257/01 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-345, paragraph 50).
Svet bi lahko ob predpostavki, da sta bila seznama varnih držav nebistvena in sta pomenila poseben primer, odločil, da si pridrži uresničevanje pristojnosti za izvajanje, pri čemer bi moral svojo odločitev podrobno obrazložiti (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 18. januarja 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu, C-257/01, ZOdl., str. I-345, točka 50).
The Council must properly explain, by reference to the nature and content of the basic instrument to be implemented, why exception is being made to the rule that, under the system established by the Treaty, when measures implementing a basic instrument need to be taken at Community level, it is the Commission which, in the normal course of events, is responsible for exercising that power (Commission v Council, paragraph 51).
Svet mora glede na naravo in vsebino temeljnega akta, ki ga izvaja, pravilno utemeljiti izjemo od pravila, po katerem mora v sistemu Pogodbe, če je treba na ravni Skupnosti sprejeti ukrepe za izvajanje temeljnega akta, Komisija običajno izvajati to pooblastilo (zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Svetu, točka 51).
In the present case, the Council expressly referred, in recital 19 in the preamble to Directive 2005/85, to the political importance of the designation of safe countries of origin and, in recital 24, to the potential consequences for asylum applicants of the safe third country concept.
V obravnavanem primeru se je Svet v devetnajsti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2005/85 izrecno skliceval na politični pomen označitve izvornih držav za varne in v �tiriindvajseti uvodni izjavi iste direktive na posledice, ki bi jih za prosilca za azil lahko imel koncept varne tretje države.
However, as the Advocate General stated at point 21 of his Opinion, the grounds set out in those recitals are conducive to justifying the consultation of the Parliament in respect of the establishment of the lists of safe countries and the amendments to be made to them, but not to justifying sufficiently a reservation of implementing powers which is specific to the Council.
Vendar kot poudarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 21 sklepnih predlogov, razlogi, opisani v navedenih uvodnih izjavah, utemeljujejo posvetovanje s Parlamentom o sprejetju seznamov varnih držav in njunih spremembah, ne obrazložijo pa dovolj pridržka izvajanja, ki je v okviru Sveta poseben primer.
In addition, in the present dispute — which concerns a directive the contested provisions of which reserve to the Council a power which is not limited in time — the Council has not advanced any argument as to why those provisions should be reclassified as provisions on the basis of which the Council has reserved the right to exercise directly specific implementing powers itself.
Poleg tega Svet v tem sporu – ki se nana�a na Direktivo, katere izpodbijane določbe pridržujejo Svetu pristojnost, ki ni časovno omejena – ni navedel nobene trditve v zvezi s tem, da bi bilo treba te določbe prekvalificirati v določbe, na podlagi katerih si pridrži pravico, da neposredno uresničuje posebnih pristojnosti za izvajanje.
On the contrary, the Council confirmed at the hearing that those provisions confer upon it a secondary legislative power.
Svet je po drugi strani na obravnavi potrdil, da mu navedene določbe dodeljujejo izvedeno zakonodajno pristojnost.
In those circumstances, no possibility arises of a reclassification of the contested provisions to enable the view to be taken that the Council applied the third indent of Article 202 EC.
V teh okoli�činah se vpra�anje morebitne prekvalifikacije izpodbijanih določb, da bi lahko menili, da je Svet uporabil člen 202, tretja alinea, ES, ne postavlja.
Second, it should be noted that, in the context of the application of Article 67 EC, the measures to be taken in the areas covered by points 1 and 2(a) of Article 63 EC are adopted in accordance with two separate procedures laid down in Article 67 EC: the procedure for unanimous adoption after consultation of the Parliament or the co-decision procedure.
Drugič, treba je ugotoviti, da so v okviru uporabe člena 67 ES ukrepi, ki jih je treba sprejeti na področjih iz člena 63, točki 1 in 2(a), ES, sprejeti na podlagi dveh ločenih postopkov iz člena 67 ES, in sicer postopka sprejetja s soglasjem po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom ali postopka soodločanja.
The contested provisions introduce a procedure for the adoption of those measures by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission and after consultation of the Parliament; such a procedure differs from those laid down in Article 67 EC.
Z izpodbijanimi odločbami je vzpostavljen postopek za sprejetje navedenih ukrepov s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom, tak postopek pa se razlikuje od postopkov, določenih v členu 67 ES.
However, it has already been held that the rules regarding the manner in which the Community institutions arrive at their decisions are laid down in the Treaty and are not at the disposal of the Member States or of the institutions themselves (see United Kingdom v Council, paragraph 38).
Vendar je bilo že odločeno, da so pravila o izražanju volje institucij Skupnosti določena v Pogodbi in niso na razpolago niti državam članicam niti institucijam (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu, točka 38).
The Treaty alone may, in particular cases such as that provided for in the second indent of Article 67(2) EC, empower an institution to amend a decision-making procedure established by the Treaty.
Le iz Pogodbe lahko v posameznih primerih, kot je ta, predviden v členu 67(2), druga alinea, ES, izhaja pooblastilo instituciji, da spremeni postopek odločanja, ki je določen s Pogodbo.
To acknowledge that an institution can establish secondary legal bases, whether for the purpose of strengthening or easing the detailed rules for the adoption of an act, is tantamount to according that institution a legislative power which exceeds that provided for by the Treaty.
Če bi instituciji priznali možnost ustvarjanja izvedenih pravnih podlag v smislu otežitve ali poenostavljanja podrobnih pravil za sprejetje akta, bi s tem instituciji dodelili zakonodajno pooblastilo, ki presega pooblastilo iz Pogodbe.
It would also enable the institution concerned to undermine the principle of institutional balance which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions (Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041, paragraph 22).
To bi ji prav tako omogočalo kr�itev načela institucionalnega ravnovesja, ki pomeni, da mora vsaka institucija izvr�evati lastna pooblastila ob spo�tovanju pooblastil drugih institucij (sodba z dne 22. maja 1990 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu, C-70/88, Recueil, str. I-2041, točka 22).
The Council cannot reasonably claim that the adoption procedure laid down by the contested provisions does not conflict with the co-decision procedure on the ground that the lists of safe countries will not be adopted on the basis of Article 63 EC but on the basis of those provisions, which provide for a less cumbersome procedure than that under which the basic act was adopted.
Svet ne more upravičeno zatrjevati, da postopek sprejetja, predviden z izpodbijanimi določbami, ni v nasprotju s postopkom soodločanja, ker seznama varnih držav v bistvu ne bosta sprejeta na podlagi člena 63 ES, ampak na podlagi navedenih določb, ki predvidevajo enostavnej�i postopek od tistega, na podlagi katerega je bil sprejet temeljni akt.
Such an argument effectively accords provisions of secondary legislation primacy over primary legislation — in the present case, Article 67 EC, paragraphs (1) and (5) of which must be applied successively in compliance with the conditions laid down to that effect.
Tako utemeljevanje bi določbam sekundarne zakonodaje podelilo primarnost nad določbami primarnega prava – v obravnavanem primeru člen 67 ES, katerega prvi in peti odstavek je treba uporabiti zaporedoma v skladu s pogoji, ki jih določata za to.
Nor can the adoption of secondary legal bases be justified on the basis of considerations relating to the politically sensitive nature of the issue concerned or to a concern to ensure the effectiveness of a Community action.
Sprejetja izvedenih pravnih podlag prav tako ni mogoče upravičiti na podlagi preudarkov, povezanih s politično občutljivostjo zadevnega področja ali z zagotavljanjem učinkovitosti ukrepa Skupnosti.
Furthermore, the existence of an earlier practice of establishing secondary legal bases cannot reasonably be relied upon.
Med drugim se ni mogoče učinkovito sklicevati na obstoj predhodne prakse, v okviru katere so se ustvarjale izvedene pravne podlage.
Even on the assumption that there is such a practice, it cannot derogate from the rules laid down in the Treaty and cannot therefore create a precedent binding on the institutions (see, to that effect, United Kingdom v Council, paragraph 24, and Case C-426/93 Germany v Council [1995] ECR I-3723, paragraph 21).
Tudi če bi bile domnevno ustvarjene, tak�na praksa ne sme odstopati od pravil Pogodbe ES in zato ne more ustvariti precedenčnega primera, ki bi zavezoval institucije (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu, točka 24, in sodbo z dne 9. novembra 1995 v zadevi Nemčija proti Svetu, C-426/93, Recueil, str. I-3723, točka 21).
It follows that, by including in Directive 2005/85 the secondary legal bases constituted by the contested provisions, the Council infringed Article 67 EC, thereby exceeding the powers conferred on it by the Treaty.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je Svet, s tem da je v Direktivi 2005/85 z izpodbijanimi določbami ustvaril izvedene pravne podlage, kr�il člen 67 ES, pri čemer je prekoračil pooblastila, ki so mu podeljena s Pogodbo.
It must be added that, as regards the future adoption of the lists of safe countries and their amendment, the Council must proceed in compliance with the procedures established by the Treaty.
Dodati je treba, da mora Svet ob prihodnjem sprejetju in spreminjanju seznamov varnih držav spo�tovati postopke, ki so določeni v Pogodbi.
In that respect, in order to determine whether the adoption and amendment of the lists of safe countries through legislation or any decision to apply the third indent of Article 202 EC, in the form of a delegation or reservation of implementing powers, fall within paragraphs (1) or (5) of Article 67 EC, it is necessary to assess whether, with the adoption of Directive 2005/85, the Council has adopted Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles governing the issues covered by points 1 and 2(a) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC.
Da bi v zvezi s tem lahko ugotovili, ali se za zakonodajno sprejetje in spremembo seznamov varnih držav ali za morebitno odločitev o uporabi člena 202, tretja alinea, ES, v obliki prenosa ali pridržka izvajanja, uporabi prvi ali peti odstavek člena 67 ES, je treba presoditi, ali je Svet s sprejetjem Direktive 2005/85 sprejel zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela glede vpra�anj iz člena 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 in 2(a), ES.
As regards procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status, point 1(d) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC merely provides for the adoption of ‘minimum standards’.
Člen 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(d), ES v zvezi s postopki za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah predvideva zgolj sprejetje „minimalnih standardov“.