natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nor did the Court of First Instance take appropriate account of the arguments of FIAMM and Fedon that, unlike an application for annulment or a reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a measure, an action for compensation cannot result in the Community measure concerned being eliminated or rendered inapplicable or, therefore, in the responsible bodies of the parties to the WTO agreements being denied the possibility of entering into negotiated arrangements.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj poleg tega ne bi ustrezno upo�tevalo argumentacije družb FIAMM in Fedon, v skladu s katero, za razliko od tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti ali predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe glede presoje veljavnosti, od�kodninska tožba ne more povzročiti razveljavitve ali neuporabe zadevnega akta Skupnosti, niti – posledično – onemogočiti podpisnicam sporazumov STO, da bi na�le re�itev s pogajanji.
That line of argument is particularly apposite because in the present instance the application for compensation is being examined after the conclusion of the dispute.
Ta argumentacija naj bi bila �e toliko bolj upo�tevna, ker se v obravnavani zadevi od�kodninski zahtevek preizku�a po re�itvi spora.
The same considerations provide grounds for rejecting the argument, recalled in paragraph 111 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 104 of the Fedon judgment, regarding the fact that the WTO agreements are founded on reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements.
Te iste ugotovitve naj bi upravičile nesprejetje navedbe iz točke 111 sodbe FIAMM in točke 104 sodbe Fedon, da sporazumi STO temeljijo na vzajemnosti in medsebojnih ugodnostih.
The Council submits that the Court of First Instance in fact examined in parallel the possibility of relying on WTO rules and on the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997, as is apparent inter alia from paragraph 129 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 122 of the Fedon judgment.
Svet meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje dobro preizkusilo možnost sklicevanja na pravila STO skupaj s sklepom ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, kot naj bi izhajalo zlasti iz točke 129 sodbe FIAMM in 122 sodbe Fedon.
The judgments under appeal are, moreover, consistent with the caselaw stating that the WTO agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court of Justice is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions, and the Court of First Instance correctly held that neither of the two permitted exceptions to that principle is applicable here.
Izpodbijani sodbi naj bi bili poleg tega v skladu s sodno prakso, na podlagi katere sporazumi STO načeloma niso med pravili, po katerih Sodi�če nadzira zakonitost aktov institucij Skupnosti, in naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje torej pravilno presodilo, da se v obravnavani zadevi ne uporabi nobena od dveh dopustnih izjem od tega načela.
Since the WTO agreements are not intended to confer rights on individuals, the Community likewise cannot incur liability by reason of any infringement of those agreements if the scope for manoeuvre enjoyed by WTO members with a view to complying or not complying with a decision of the DSB is not to be prejudiced.
Ker cilj sporazumov STO ni dajanje pravic posameznikom, tudi morebitna kr�itev navedenih sporazumov ne more naložiti odgovornosti Skupnosti, saj bi se s tem ogrozil manevrski prostor, ki ga imajo članice STO za to, da se ali se ne uskladijo s sklepom ORS.
The Council further contends that the distinction drawn by the appellants between the legal effects attached to a DSB decision and those resulting from the substantive rules which that decision has found to have been infringed is artificial.
Svet poleg tega meni, da je razlikovanje, ki ga delajo tožeče stranke med pravnimi učinki v zvezi s sklepom ORS in učinki materialnih predpisov, katerih kr�itev je bila ugotovljena s tem sklepom, umetno.
Such a decision can be taken into consideration in an action for compensation only in so far as those substantive rules have previously been found to have direct effect.
Tak sklep bi se namreč lahko upo�teval v okviru od�kodninske tožbe le, če je bil predhodno ugotovljen neposredni učinek navedenih materialnih predpisov.
In the Commission’s submission, at first instance FIAMM and Fedon did not in any way put forward the possibility of relying directly on a DSB decision as a specific and independent theory enabling the unlawfulness of action of the Community to be established or centre their arguments on this point.
Komisija meni, da družbi FIAMM in Fedon na prvi stopnji nikakor nista navajali možnosti neposrednega sklicevanja na sklep ORS kot posebno in samostojno teorijo, ki bi omogočala dokazati nezakonitost ravnanja Skupnosti, niti nista na to osredotočili svoje argumentacije.
They essentially set out standard arguments in order to establish that the failure to amend the Community legislation so as to comply with the WTO agreements after the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 involved a breach of higherranking rules of law.
Ti stranki naj bi v bistvu uveljavljali klasično argumentacijo, da bi dokazali, da so bila, s tem ko predpisi Skupnosti niso bili prilagojeni za uskladitev s sporazumi STO v skladu s sklepom ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, kr�ena pravna pravila vi�je veljave.
It was only as a subsidiary point that FIAMM and Fedon simply contended, without expanding upon and otherwise substantiating this assertion, that, should the WTO agreements not be directly applicable, the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 should have direct effect.
Družbi FIAMM in Fedon naj bi se zgolj podredno omejili na zatrjevanje, da bi moral imeti sklep ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 neposredni učinek, če se sporazumi STO ne uporabljajo neposredno, ne da bi kakorkoli razvili ali drugače utemeljili to trditev.
The Court of First Instance, which is not indeed required to rule on each of the arguments put forward by the applicants, accordingly took account of the arguments of FIAMM and Fedon in an appropriate manner, mainly concentrating, in paragraphs 108 to 150 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 101 to 143 of the Fedon judgment, on an examination of the conduct of the Community institutions, but not without referring to the effects of the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 in paragraphs 108 and 144 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 101 and 137 of the Fedon judgment.
Sodi�če prve stopnje, ki naj poleg tega ne bi bilo zavezano izreči se o vsaki navedbi tožečih strank, naj bi torej ustrezno upo�tevalo argumentacijo družb FIAMM in Fedon, pri čemer se je v točkah od 108 do 150 sodbe FIAMM in v točkah od 101 do 143 sodbe Fedon osredotočilo predvsem na preizkus ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, vendar ne brez sklicevanja na učinke sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 v točkah 108 in 144 sodbe FIAMM ter v točkah 101 in 137 sodbe Fedon.
In view of the, even implicit, grounds of the judgments under appeal, FIAMM and Fedon are, furthermore, able to understand the reasons for which the Court of First Instance held that the institutions’ conduct had not been established to be unlawful, even after a decision of the DSB.
Glede na obrazložitev, tudi implicitno, izpodbijanih sodb, bi družbi FIAMM in Fedon lahko razumeli razloge, zaradi katerih je Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da nezakonito ravnanje institucij, tudi po sklepu ORS, ni bilo dokazano.
If the Court of Justice were nevertheless to hold that the grounds of the judgments under appeal are insufficient, it could uphold their operative parts while supplementing their grounds.
Če bi Sodi�če kljub temu presodilo, da je obrazložitev izpodbijanih sodb nezadostna, bi lahko potrdilo njun izrek z dopolnitvijo te obrazložitve.
The question whether the WTO agreements may be relied upon by individuals who have suffered damage in order to contest the validity of Community legislation, in a situation where a DSB decision has found that legislation to be incompatible with the WTO agreements and the reasonable period of time granted for complying with the DSB decision has expired, was decided by the Court in the negative in Case C-377/02 Van Parys [2005] ECR I-1465.
Na vpra�anje, ali se posamezniki, ki jim je nastala �koda, lahko pri izpodbijanju veljavnosti predpisov Skupnosti sklicujejo na sporazume STO, če je bila s sklepom ORS ugotovljena neskladnost teh predpisov z navedenimi sporazumi in če se je iztekel razumni rok, določen za uskladitev s tem sklepom, naj bi Sodi�če odgovorilo nikalno v sodbi z dne 1. marca 2005 v zadevi Van Parys (C-377/02, ZOdl., str. I-1465).
Any distinction between review of the legality of Community action with a view to a finding of invalidity and such review with a view to the award of compensation is, in this regard, irrelevant.
Vsako razlikovanje med nadzorom zakonitosti ravnanja Skupnosti za namene neveljavnosti oziroma takim nadzorom za namene povrnitve �kode bi bilo v zvezi s tem neupo�tevno.
Furthermore, to compensate the industry affected by measures providing for suspension which are consistent with the WTO agreements would prejudice the rebalancing of concessions to which those measures contribute and would therefore prejudice reciprocity.
Poleg tega bi povrnitev �kode industriji, ki so jo prizadeli prekinitveni ukrepi, ki so skladni s sporazumi STO, �kodila izravnavi koncesij, h kateri prispevajo ti ukrepi, in s tem vzajemnosti.
The Kingdom of Spain also takes the view that the judgments under appeal satisfy the obligation to state reasons.
Kraljevina Španija prav tako meni, da izpodbijani sodbi izpolnjujeta obveznost obrazložitve.
The Court of First Instance referred, in paragraph 100 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 93 of the Fedon judgment, to the proposition advanced by FIAMM and Fedon regarding the direct effect of a DSB decision and, in paragraphs 116 to 150 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 109 to 143 of the
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi namreč v točki 100 sodbe FIAMM in v točki 93 sodbe Fedon navajalo trditev družb FIAMM in Fedon o neposrednem učinku sklepa ORS, ter naj bi v točkah od 116 do 150 sodbe FIAMM ter v točkah od 109 do 143 sodbe Fedon ovrglo to trditev pri obravnavi vpra�anja, ali obstoj takega sklepa
Fedon judgment, it refuted that proposition in examining the question whether the existence of such a decision enables the Community courts to review the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions in the light of WTO rules.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P poobla�ča sodnika Skupnosti za nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti glede predpisov STO.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance did not err in law in concluding that it was impossible to carry out such a review in the case in point.
Poleg tega naj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi napačno uporabilo prava, s tem da je ugotovilo, da v obravnavani zadevi ni mogoče opraviti takega nadzora.
In particular, the risk for the Community of laying itself open to actions for damages would be liable to weaken its position and to lead it not to contemplate the possibility of exhausting all the ways in which disputes may be settled, including in particular the possible adoption of retaliatory measures by the opposing party and the subsequent search for a solution.
Zlasti bi tveganje za Skupnost, da se izpostavi tožbam zaradi odgovornosti, oslabilo njen položaj in jo prisililo, da ne uporabi možnosti, da izčrpa vse oblike postopka re�evanja sporov, vključno z morebitnim sprejetjem povračilnih ukrepov za nasprotno stran in naknadno iskanje re�itve.
Nor is there any justification in law for drawing a distinction according to whether the review of the legality of the Community’s action takes place with a view to the annulment of a measure or with a view to the award of compensation, since the criteria for such review are invariable and in particular cannot depend on whether or not there is damage or on the time at which the damage is alleged.
Poleg tega nikakor naj ne bi bilo mogoče pravno razlikovati, ali se nadzor zakonitosti ravnanja Skupnosti uporabi za namene razglasitve ničnosti ali za namene povrnitve �kode, ker so merila za tak nadzor nespremenljiva in zlasti ker ne morejo biti odvisna od tega, ali �koda obstaja ali ne, oziroma od trenutka, ko se zatrjuje obstoj navedene �kode.
First of all, as the Advocate General has observed in point 20 of his Opinion, although, according to its heading, the first plea is intended to raise a lack of reasoning in the judgments under appeal, examination of the content of the appeals reveals that the latter also contain substantive complaints regarding the approach adopted by those judgments; those complaints were, moreover, the focus of most of the debate between the parties both during the written procedure and at the hearing.
Najprej je treba poudariti, kot je to storil generalni pravobranilec v točki 20 sklepnih predlogov, da, čeprav se prvi tožbeni razlog – glede na njegov naslov – nana�a na ugotovitev neobrazložitve izpodbijanih sodb, preizkus vsebine pritožb kaže, da obsegajo tudi očitke o temelju glede re�itve iz navedenih sodb, očitke, na katere bi moralo ostati osredotočeno bistvo razprave, ki se je razvila med strankama med pisnim postopkom in med obravnavo.
It is therefore appropriate, for the purposes of ruling on the first plea, to distinguish its two parts, concerning, first, a lack of reasoning in the judgments under appeal and, second, an error of law committed by the Court of First Instance in relation to the
Za namene odločanja o prvem pritožbenem razlogu je treba tu razlikovati dva dela, ki jih vsebuje, pri čemer se prvi nana�a na neobrazložitev izpodbijanih sodb, drugi pa na to, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION conditions under which the Community can incur liability for the unlawful conduct of its institutions.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI pravo glede pogojev, pod katerimi se lahko uveljavlja odgovornost Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja njenih organov.
First part of the plea
Prvi del pritožbenega razloga
The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal (see, inter alia, the judgment of 11 January 2007 in Case C-404/04 P Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, paragraph 90).
Vpra�anje, ali je obrazložitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje protislovna ali pomanjkljiva, pomeni pravno vpra�anje, ki se kot tako sme uveljavljati v okviru pritožbe (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 11. januarja 2007 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji, C-404/04 P, točka 90).
Examination of the applications lodged by FIAMM and Fedon before the Court of First Instance reveals, first of all, that the assertion relating to the possible direct effect of the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 does not appear at all in the section of those applications intended to establish that an infringement of the WTO agreements by the Community exists or can be relied upon.
Preizkus tožb, ki sta jih vložili družbi FIAMM in Fedon pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje, kaže, najprej, da trditev glede morebitnega neposrednega učinka sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 nikakor ni v tistem delu teh tožb, v katerem se želi dokazati obstoj kr�itve oziroma možnost sklicevanja na to, da je Skupnost kr�ila sporazume STO.
The assertion can be found in a section of the applications seeking to demonstrate that the higherranking rules of law which are thus alleged to have been infringed, and which include, in particular, the principle pacta sunt servanda and the WTO agreements, are ‘intended to protect individuals’, so that there would be compliance in that regard with one of the conditions which the caselaw requires to be met in order for liability of the Community for unlawful conduct of its institutions to be put in issue.
Ta trditev se namreč nahaja v tistem delu tožbe, ki se navezuje na dokazovanje, da so pravna pravila vi�je veljave, katerih kr�itev se pri tem očita, in med katerimi so zlasti načelo pacta sunt servanda in sporazumi STO, „namenjeni varstvu posameznikov“, čeprav naj bi bil s tega vidika izpolnjen eden od pogojev, ki jih sodna praksa določa glede možnosti za uveljavljanje odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja njenih organov.
Also, that assertion was expressed, from the angle described above, only very much as a subsidiary point, since FIAMM and Fedon simply submitted that, if direct effect and the resulting status of a rule protecting individuals were not to be accepted in the case of the WTO agreements, they should be as regards decisions of the DSB.
Poleg tega je bila z zgoraj navedenega vidika ta trditev izražena zelo podredno, ker sta družbi FIAMM in Fedon navajali zgolj, da če sporazumom STO ni mogoče priznati neposrednega učinka in narave pravila, ki �čiti posameznike in ki iz njih izhaja, bi ju bilo treba priznati sklepom ORS.
Finally, that assertion, which, as regards FIAMM, takes up two paragraphs of an application of 177 paragraphs and, as regards Fedon, is contained in a footnote, is not, either in the applications or in the replies subsequently lodged by FIAMM and Fedon, expanded upon or accompanied by a specific line of argument intended to support it.
Nazadnje, navedena trditev, ki se omenja – kar zadeva družbo FIAMM – v dveh točkah tožbe, ki obsega 177 točk, in – kar zadeva družbo Fedon – zgolj v opombi v spodnjem delu ene od strani, niti v navedenih tožbah niti v odgovorih na repliko, ki sta jih družbi FIAMM in Fedon naknadno predložili, nikakor ni posebej pojasnjena niti nima dodatne posebne argumentacije, ki bi jo utemeljila.
It follows from the foregoing that, contrary to what FIAMM and Fedon contend in the very specific arguments which they devote to this question in the context of their appeals under the cover of a request that the reasoning of the judgments under appeal be reviewed, they did not in their applications to the Court of First Instance in any way state with the clarity and precision which would have been required that the direct effect which may attach to decisions of the DSB would justify the establishment of failure to comply with them as a new, third, exception to the principle that the WTO agreements cannot be relied upon for the purposes of reviewing the legality of secondary Community legislation.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da – v nasprotju s tem, kar navajata družbi FIAMM in Fedon v zelo specifičnih pojasnilih, ki jih posvečata temu vpra�anju v okviru svojih pritožb, pod krinko predloga za preveritev obrazložitve izpodbijanih sodb – družbi FIAMM in Fedon v svojih tožbah pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje nikakor nista jasno in natančno izpostavili, kot se to zahteva, da naj bi morebitni neposredni učinek, povezan s sklepi ORS, upravičeval, da se kr�itev teh sklepov navede kot nova oziroma tretja izjema od načela nemožnosti sklicevanja na sporazume STO za namene nadzora zakonitosti sekundarnih aktov Skupnosti.
As is apparent from Fedon’s application and FIAMM’s reply, they, on the contrary, expressly invoked one of the two traditionally accepted exceptions to that principle, submitting that in this instance the Community indicated that it intended to implement a specific obligation assumed within the framework of the GATT.
Nasprotno, kot izhaja iz tožbe družbe Fedon in replike družbe FIAMM, sta se ti tožeči stranki izrecno sklicevali na eno od dveh izjem, ki sta običajno dopu�čeni za ta neobstoj možnosti sklicevanja, z navedbo, da naj bi Skupnost v tem primeru navajala, da namerava izpolniti posebno obveznost, ki je zajeta v okviru GATT.
It is apparent, first of all, from paragraph 108 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 101 of the Fedon judgment that in the case in point the Court of First Instance sought to decide whether the WTO agreements, including the DSU and its provisions devoted to the implementation of decisions of the DSB, confer on persons the right to rely on those agreements when contesting the validity of Community legislation ‘if the DSB has declared that both that legislation and the subsequent legislation adopted by the Community in order to comply with the WTO rules in question are incompatible with those rules’.
Iz točke 108 sodbe FIAMM in točke 101 sodbe Fedon najprej izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v tem primeru nameravalo odločiti o vpra�anju, ali sporazumi STO, vključno z DPPRS in njegovimi določbami za izvajanje sklepov ORS, dajejo posameznikom pravico, da se sklicujejo nanje v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo veljavnost skupnostne ureditve, „če je ORS odločil, da je tako ta kot tudi ureditev, ki jo je Skupnost sprejela naknadno zaradi uskladitve z zadevnimi pravili STO, z njimi nezdružljiva“.
Next, likewise referring to ‘the WTO agreements’ as so defined, the Court of First Instance explained, in paragraphs 110 to 112 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 103 to 105 of the Fedon judgment, that, in accordance with settled caselaw and for the reasons recalled by the Court of First Instance, those agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Community courts review the legality of action by the Community institutions.
Nato je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s sklicevanjem tudi na tako opredeljene „sporazume STO“, v točkah od 110 do 112 sodbe FIAMM in v točkah od 103 do 105 sodbe Fedon, odločilo, da – v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso in iz razlogov, ki jih navaja – navedeni sporazumi načeloma ne spadajo med pravila, ob upo�tevanju katerih sodi�če Skupnosti nadzira zakonitost ravnanja institucij Skupnosti.
Finally, it is to be noted that the judgments under appeal do contain considerable explanation of the legal effects that may attach to a decision of the DSB, in particular where the period of time allowed for implementation of the decision has expired.
Nazadnje je treba poudariti, da izpodbijani sodbi dejansko posvečata veliko pojasnil pravnemu pomenu, ki ga je mogoče pripisati sklepu ORS, zlasti v primeru, ko se izteče rok, določen za izvr�itev tega sklepa.
While it is true that that explanation appears in passages of the judgments under appeal in which the Court of First Instance examined whether one of the two exceptions traditionally accepted by the caselaw to the principle that the WTO agreements cannot be relied upon by individuals was applicable in the case in point, the fact remains that the findings made by the Court of First Instance at that juncture responded in an implicit, but nevertheless certain, manner to the specific arguments which are alleged in the appeals not to have been dealt with by the Court.
Čeprav ni dvoma, da so navedena pojasnila v besedilu izpodbijanih sodb, v katerih Sodi�če prve stopnje presoja, ali se ena od dveh izjem od načela nemožnosti sklicevanja posameznikov na sporazume STO, ki ju sodna praksa običajno dopu�ča, lahko uporabi v obravnavani zadevi, je res, da je s presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v tem primeru implicitno, vendar nesporno, odgovorjeno na konkretne argumente, za katere se mu v pritožbah očita, da jih ni obravnavalo.
Thus, it is apparent in particular from paragraphs 129 to 131 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 122 to 124 of the Fedon judgment that the Court of First Instance held, after an examination of the relevant provisions of the DSU, that the expiry of the period of time allowed for the Community to bring its banana import regime into conformity with the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 had
Tako zlasti iz točk od 129 do 131 sodbe FIAMM in točk od 122 do 124 sodbe Fedon izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v okviru preizkusa upo�tevnih določb DPPRS med drugim odločilo, da iztek roka, ki je bil določen Skupnosti za uskladitev njene ureditve uvoza banan s sklepom ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, ne pomeni, da so bile izčrpane vse oblike re�itve sporov, ki so na voljo na podlagi DPPRS. Sodi�če prve stopnje