natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Community judicature must ensure the review, in principle the full review, of the lawfulness of all Community acts in the light of fundamental rights, which form an integral part of the general principles of Community law, including review of Community measures which, like the regulation in question, are designed to give effect to resolutions adopted by the Security Council.
Sodišča Skupnosti morajo zagotoviti načeloma popoln nadzor zakonitosti vseh aktov Skupnosti, glede na temeljne pravice, ki so del splošnih načel prava Skupnosti, vključno z akti Skupnosti, katerih namen je, tako kot pri zadevni uredbi, izvajanje resolucij Varnostnega sveta.
In regard to that point, the Court observed that the effectiveness of judicial review means that the Community authority is bound to communicate to the persons or entities concerned the grounds on which the measure in question is founded, so far as possible, either when that measure is decided on or, at the very least, as swiftly as possible after that decision in order to enable those persons or entities to exercise, within the periods prescribed, their right to bring an action.
Glede tega je Sodišče spomnilo, da učinkovitost sodnega nadzora vključuje to, da mora organ Skupnosti zadevnega posameznika ali subjekt čim bolje obvestiti o razlogih, na katerih temelji zadevni ukrep, ko sprejme odločitev o ukrepu, ali vsaj čim prej po tej odločitvi, da naslovnikom omogoči pravočasno vložitev pravnega sredstva.
Having regard to those considerations, the Court maintained the effects of the regulation for a period not exceeding three months running from the date of the judgment, to allow the Council to remedy the infringements found.
Glede na navedeno je Sodišče razsodilo, da se učinki navedene uredbe ohranijo za obdobje, ki ne sme biti daljše od trehmesecev od dneva razglasitve sodbe, da bi se Svetu omogočila odprava ugotovljene kršitve.
Another judgment of particular interest is that of 16 December 2008 in Case C-47/07 P Masdar (UK) vCommission, which deals with the procedures to be followed in order to obtain access to the Community judicature.
V drugi, v zadevi Masdar (UK) proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2008, C-47/07 P), je Sodišče obravnavalo proceduralne možnosti dostopa do sodišča Skupnosti.
Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictivemeasures directed against certain persons and entities associatedwithUsamabin Laden, theAl-Qaida network and theTaliban, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 (OJ 2002 L 139, p. 9).
Sodišče je razsodilo, da ima v skladu z načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic, oseba, ki je utrpela izgubo, s katero je bilo povečano premoženje druge osebe, pri čemer zato obogatitev ni nikakršne pravne podlage, praviloma pravico do povračila – od osebe, ki se je obogatila – v vrednosti te izgube.
This case concerned unjust enrichment. The Court held that, according to the principles common to the laws of the Member States, a person who has suffered a loss which increases the wealth of another person without there being any legal basis for that enrichment has the right, as a general rule, to restitution from the person enriched, up to the amount of the loss.
Razvoj in dejavnost dokaz o nezakonitem ravnanju tožene stranke niti obstoj samega ravnanja, temveč le dokaz o obogatitvi brez ustrezne pravne podlage tožene stranke in o prikrajšanju tožeče stranke, povezanem z navedeno obogatitvijo.
Legal redress for undue enrichment, as provided for in the majority of national legal systems, is not necessarily conditional upon unlawfulness or fault with regard to the defendant’s conduct.
To da kljub tem značilnostim osebi, ki želi zoper Skupnost vložiti tožbo, utemeljeno na neupravičeni obogatitvi, tega ni mogoče preprečiti zgolj zato, ker v Pogodbi ES ni izrecno določeno pravno sredstvo za takšno tožbo.
On the other hand, it is essential that there be no valid legal basis for the enrichment. Given that unjust enrichment is a source of noncontractual obligation common to the legal systems of the Member States, the Community cannot be dispensed from the application to itself of the same principles where a natural or legal person alleges that the Community has been unjustly enriched to the detriment of that person.
Razlaga členov 235 ES in 288, drugi odstavek, ES, na podlagi katere bi bila ta možnost izključena, bi pripeljala do rezultata, ki je v nasprotju z načelom učinkovitega pravnega varstva, kot je določeno v sodni praksi Sodišča in potrjeno v členu 47 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah.
They differ from actions brought under those rules in that they do not require proof of unlawful conduct — indeed, of any form of conduct at all — on the part of the defendant, but merely proof of enrichment of the defendant for which there is no valid legal basis and of impoverishment of the applicant which is linked to that enrichment.
Ravno na področju tožbe zaradi nepogodbene obveznosti Skupnosti si posebno pozornost zaslužita združeni zadevi FIAMM in FIAMM Technologies proti Svetu in Komisiji (sodba z dne 9. septembra 2008, C-120/06 P in C-121/06 P), ki se nanašata na problem odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi zakonodajnega akta.
However, despite those characteristics, the possibility of bringing an action for unjust enrichment against the Community cannot be denied to a person solely on the ground that the ECTreaty does not make express provision for a means of pursuing that type of action.
Organ za reševanje sporov Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) je razsodil, da uvozni režim Skupnosti za banane ni bil združljiv s sporazumi STO in je Združenim državam Amerike dovolil, da za nekatere uvoze iz Skupnosti uporabijo dodatno carinsko dajatev.
If Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288 EC were to be construed as excluding that possibility, the result would be contrary to the principle of effective judicial protection laid down in the case-law of the Court and confirmed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Šest družb s sedežem v Evropski uniji je predlagalo, naj se Komisiji in Svetu naloži, da povrneta škodo, ki sojo zaradi izvajanja ameriških povračilnih ukrepov utrpele pri izvažanju v Združene države.
Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P FIAMMand FIAMMTechnologies v Council and Commission (judgment of 9 September 2008) are worthy of particular note in relation precisely to that area of actions for noncontractual liability.
Sodišče je opozorilo, da je odgovornost Skupnosti zaradi zakonodajnega akta, ki vsebuje izbiro ekonomske politike, mogoča le, če gre za dovolj hudo kršitev nadrejenega pravnega pravila, ki varuje posameznike in ki jim podeljuje pravice.
They concern the problem of Community liability for a legislative measure.
Poleg tega je poudarilo, da čeprav načelo o odgovornosti Skupnosti ob obstoju nezakonitega akta institucij pomeni izraz splošnega načela, ki ga poznajo pravni redi držav članic, v skladu s katerim nezakonito ravnanje povzroči obveznost povrnitve povzročene škode, taka usmerjenost pravnih redov držav članic ni podana glede obstoja načela odgovornosti, če gre za zakonit akt javnega organa, še zlasti če je ta akt zakonodajen.
The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of theWorld Trade Organisation (WTO) ruled that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible withWTO agreements and authorised the United States of America to impose an increased customs duty on certain Community imports.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da pravo Skupnosti v njegovem sedanjem stanju ne predvideva sistema, ki bi omogočal uveljavljanje odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi njenega normativnega ravnanja v položaju, v kateremmorebitne neskladnosti takega ravnanja s sporazumi STO ni mogoče uveljavljati pred sodiščem Skupnosti.
Six companies established in the EuropeanUnion sought compensation from the Commission and the Council for the damage suffered by them in consequence of the application of American retaliatory measures to their exports to the United States.
Poleg tega je pojasnilo, da bi posledica zakonodajnega akta Skupnosti, katerega uporaba vodi k omejitvam lastninske pravice in prostega izvajanja poklicne dejavnosti, lahko bila nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti, če pomeni nesorazmeren in nesprejemljiv poseg v sam temelj teh pravic, kar velja, čeni predvideno ustrezno nadomestilo za preprečitev ali odpravo tega posega.
The Court observed that the Community does not incur liability on account of a legislative measure which involves choices of economic policy unless a sufficiently serious breach of a superior rule of law for the protection of individuals, and conferring rights on them, has occurred.
Direktiva Sveta 89/552/EGS z dne 3. oktobra 1989 o usklajevanju nekaterih zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članico opravljanju dejavnosti razširjanja televizijskih programov (UL L 298, str.
It also noted that, while the principle of liability of the Community in the case of an unlawful act of the institutions constitutes an expression of the general principle familiar to the legal systems of the Member States that an unlawful act gives rise to an obligation to make good the damage caused, no such convergence of the legal systems of the Member States has been established as regards the existence of a principle of liability in the case of a lawful act of the public authorities, in particular where such an act is of a legislative nature. The Court concluded
23), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 97/36/ES Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. junija 1997 (UL L 202, str. 60).
Other, more standard, judgments have added to the wealth of case-law of the Court on the admissibility of actions for annulment.
Sodišče na pravni položaj imetnika teh pravic v smislu pogojev dopustnosti ničnostne tožbe.
Since the restrictions imposed by those measures are linked to the circumstances in which broadcasters acquire the television broadcasting rights to designated events from the holder of the exclusive broadcasting rights, the effect of the measures adopted by that Member State and the decision approving them is to subject the rights held by a company which has acquired television broadcasting rights to new restrictions which did not exist when it acquired those rights and which render their exercise more difficult.
Če so namreč te omejitve, ki nalagajo te ukrepe, vezane na pogoje, pod katerimi ti izdajatelji pridobijo pravice televizijskega prenosa dogodkov s seznama od imetnika ekskluzivnih pravic za televizijsko razširjanje, je posledica ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela ta država članica, in odločbe, s katero so bili odobreni, da se uskladitev pravic, ki jih ima družba, ki je pridobila pravice televizijskega prenosa, podvrže novim omejitvam, ki niso obstajale, ko je ta družba pridobila navedene pravice, in ki otežijo njihovo izvrševanje.
Furthermore, the Court held, the prejudice to the legal situation of the holder of the rights is due only to the requirement to attain the result determined by those measures and by the Commission’s decision, without national authorities having any discretion in the decision’s implementation that could affect that situation.
Poleg tega, kot je ugotovilo Sodišče, je vzrok poseganja v položaj omenjenega imetnika zgolj zahteva po dosegu rezultata, določenega s temi ukrepi in z odločbo Komisije, ne da bi nacionalni organi, ki nimajo nobene diskrecijske pravice pri njenem izvajanju, lahko na ta položaj vplivali.
As regards the condition that the applicant must be individually concerned, the Court held that, where the decision affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons might be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders.
V zvezi s pogojem, da mora odločba tožečo stranko zadevati posamično, je Sodišče razsodilo, da kadar odločba zadeva skupino oseb, ki so bile prepoznane ali prepoznavne, ko je bil ta akt sprejet, in z merili, lastnimi članom skupine, lahko te osebe ta akt posamično zadeva, ker so del omejenega kroga gospodarskih subjektov.
That can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual prior to its adoption.
Zato gre lahko predvsem takrat, kadar odločba posega v pravice, ki jih je posameznik pridobil pred njeno izdajo.
In Case C-521/06 P Athinaïki Techniki v Commission (judgment of 17 July 2008), the concept of ‘act open to challenge’for the purposes of Article 230 EC required clarification.
V zadevi Athinaïki Techniki proti Komisiji (sodba z dne 17. julija 2008, C-521/06 P) je moralo Sodišče pojasniti pojem„izpodbojni akt“ v smislu člena 230 ES.
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice against an order of theCourtofFirstIn-stance dismissing as inadmissible an action seeking annulment of a Commission decision, of which the appellant was made aware by letter, to taken o further action on a complaint concerning alleged State aid granted in connection with a public contract.
Dopis, s katerim je Komisija obvestila vlagatelja pritožbe, katere namen je bil ugotoviti kršitev členov 87 ES in 88 ES, da je„Komisija […] zato, ker ni imela dodatnih podatkov, ki bi upravičili izvedbo preiskave, […] ustavila upravni postopek“, kaže nato, da je Komisija dejansko sprejela akt o ustavitvi upravnega postopka v zadevi.
The Court held that, to determine whether an act in matters of State aid constitutes a decision within the meaning of
Z navedenim aktom je ugotovila, da začeta preiskava ni omogočila ugotovitve o obstoju pomoči v smislu člena 87 ES, in je implicitno zavrnila začetek formalnega postopka preiskave, ki ga predvideva člen 88(2) ES.
Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (OJ 1989 L 298, p.
V takem položaju osebe, ki so upravičene do postopkovnih jamstev, predvidenih v tej določbi, te uveljavljajo le, kadar imajo možnost, da to odločbo izpodbijajo pred sodiščem Skupnosti v skladu s členom 230, četrti odstavek, ES.
23), as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 202, p. 60).
To načelo velja tako takrat, kadar je odločba sprejeta zato, ker Komisija meni, da je pomoč združljiva s skupnim trgom, kakor če meni, da pomoč ne obstaja.
Article 4 of Regulation No 659/1999 (6), it is necessary to ascertain whether, taking account of the substance of that act and the Commission’s intention, that institution has, at the end of the preliminary examination stage, definitively established its position — by way of the act under consideration— on the measure under review and, therefore, whether it has decided that that measure constitutes aid or not and whether or not the measure raises doubts as regards its compatibility with the common market.
V zvezi s tem takega akta ni mogoče opredeliti kot predhodnega ali pripravljalnega, ker mu v okviru začetega upravnega postopka ne sledi noben drug akt, zoper katerega bi bilo mogoče vložiti ničnostno tožbo.
A letter by which the Commission informs a complainant seeking a finding of infringement of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC that,‘in the absence of additional information to justify continuing the investigation, the Commission has, for the purposes of administrative action, closed the file on the case ...’, indicates that the Commission has actually closed the file for the purposes of administrative action.
V zvezi s tem ni upoštevno, da bi zainteresirana stranka lahko Komisiji predložila še dodatne podatke, na podlagi katerih bi ta morala znova preučiti svoje stališče o zadevnem državnem ukrepu, kajti zakonitost odločbe, sprejete na koncu predhodne faze preučitve, se presoja le glede na podatke, ki jih je Komisija lahko imela takrat, ko jo je sprejemala, torej v obravnavanem primeru ob ustavitvi upravnega postopka v zadevi.
It is apparent from the substance of that act and from the intention of the Commission that it has thus decided to bring to an end the preliminary examination procedure initiated by the complainant.
Če zainteresirana stranka predloži dodatne podatke po ustavitvi postopka v zadevi, mora Komisija, če je treba, začeti nov upravni postopek.
By that act, the Commission has stated that the review initiated did not enable it to establish the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 87 EC and it has implicitly refused to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 88(2) EC.
Vendar ti podatki ne vplivajo na dejstvo, da je prvi predhodni postopek preučitve že končan.
In such a situation, the persons to whom the procedural guarantees under that provision apply may ensure that those guarantees are observed only if they are able to challenge that decision before the Community judicature in accordance with the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Iz tega je razvidno, da je s tem aktom Komisija sprejela dokončno stališče o predlogu vlagatelja pritožbe.
That principle applies both when a decision is taken on the ground that the Commission considers that the aid is compatible with the common market, and when it takes the view that the existence of aid should be ruled out.
Sodišče je sklenilo, da ker tak akt vlagatelju pritožbe onemogoča, da bi predložil pripombe v okviru formalnega postopka preiskave, ki ga določa člen 88(2) ES, povzroči zavezujoče pravne učinke, ki lahko vplivajo na njegove interese, zato gre za izpodbojni akt v smislu člena 230 ES.
Such an act cannot be classified as preliminary or preparatory since it cannot be followed, in the context of the administrative procedure which has been initiated, by any other decision amenable to annulment proceedings.
Sodna praksa v zvezi s posledicami za državo članico, če ne ukrepa po tem, ko je bilo s sodbo ugotovljeno, da ni izpolnila obveznosti, je sicer manj klasična, ker je novejša, vendar se je obogatila.
It is not relevant, in that regard, that the interested party may still provide the Commission with additional information which might oblige the Commission to review its position on the State measure at issue, since the lawfulness of a decision taken at the end of the preliminary examination stage is examined only on the basis of the information which the Commission had at its disposal at the time when it made the decision, that is to say, in this particular case, at the time when it closed the file for the purposes of administrative action. If an interested party provides additional information after the closing of the file, the Commission can be obliged to open, if appropriate, a new administrative procedure.
Tako je Sodišče v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (sodba z dne 9. decembra 2008, C-121/07) po tem, ko je spomnilo, da interes takojšnje in enotne uporabe prava Skupnosti zahteva, da se izvršitev sodbe, s katero je bila ugotovljena neizpolnitev obveznosti države članice, začne takoj in se čim prej konča, razsodilo, da čeprav se zdi v okviru postopka, ki je predviden v členu 228(2) ES, naložitev denarne kazni posebej prilagojena za spodbuditev države članice, da v čim krajšem roku izpolni obveznost, ki bi ob neobstoju takega ukrepa ostala neizpolnjena, temelji naložitev pavšalnega zneska bolj na presoji posledic neizpolnitve obveznosti zadevne države članice za zasebne in javne interese, zlasti če se je neizpolnitev obveznosti nadaljevala dolgo po sodbi, s katero je bila prvotno ugotovljena.
The body of—more recent and, therefore, less standard— case-law on the consequences for a Member State of failing to take action following a judgment establishing that it has failed to fulfil its obligations has also expanded.
Ob tem je Sodišče poudarilo, da okoliščina, da se doslej v primerih, v katerih se je prvotna sodba vceloti izvršila pred koncem postopka iz člena 228 ES, ni naložilo plačilo pavšalnega zneska, ne morebiti ovira zato, da bi se plačilo pavšalnega zneska naložilo v okviru druge zadeve, če bi se to izkazalo za nujno, upoštevajoč posebnosti primera in potrebno stopnjo prepričevanja ter odvračanja.
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article [88] of the ECTreaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).
Nazadnje je Sodiščemenilo, da čeprav smernice v sporočilih, ki jih objavi Komisija, dejansko lahko prispevajo k zagotovitvi preglednosti, predvidljivosti in pravne varnosti postopka, ki ga vodi Komisija, takšna pravila ne morejo zavezovati Sodišča pri izvajanju široke diskrecijske pravice, ki mu jo podeljuje člen 228(2) ES.
Thus, in Case C-121/07 Commission v France (judgment of 9 December 2008), the Court recalled that the importance of immediate and uniform application of Communitylaw means that the process of compliance with a judgment establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations must be initiated at once and completed as soon as possible.
Na področju sporov je prav tako treba spomniti, da je Sodišče leta 2008 uvedlo nov postopek, in sicer nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja, z učinkom od 1. marca 2008.
It then held that while, in the context of the procedure provided for in Article 228(2) EC, the imposition of a periodic penalty payment seems particularly suitable for the purpose of inducing a Member State to put an end as soon as possible to a breach of obligations which, in the absence of such ameasure, would tend to persist, the imposition of a lump sum is based more on the assessment of the effects on public and private interests of the failure of the Member State concerned to comply with its obligations, in particular where the breach has persisted for along period since the judgment initially establishing it was delivered.
Povod za ta postopek so bile tri zadeve: Santesteban Goicoechea (sodba z dne 12. avgusta 2008, C-296/08 PPU), Leymann in Pustovarov (sodba z dne 1. decembra 2008, C-388/08 PPU), ki se nanaša na razlago Okvirnega sklepa 2002/584 o evropskemnalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami7, ter Rinau (sodba z dne 11. julija 2008, C-195/08 PPU) s področja pravil Skupnosti v zvezi z vrnitvijo otroka, ki se nezakonito zadržuje v drugi državi članici.
It is for the Court, in each case, in the light of the circumstances of the case before it and the degree of persuasion and deterrence which appears to it to be required, to determine the financial penalties appropriate for making sure that the judgment which previously established the breach is complied with as swiftly as possible and preventing similar infringements of Communitylaw from recurring.
V zgoraj navedeni zadevi Rinau je Sodišče pojasnilo pogoje, katerih izpolnitev se zahteva za uvedbo nujnega postopka predhodnega odločanja.
The Court also pointed out that the fact that the payment of a lump sum had hitherto not been imposed in situations in which the original judgment was fully complied with before the procedure laid down in Article 228 EC was concluded could not prevent such an order being made in another case, should that be necessary in the light of the details of the individual case and the degree of persuasion and deterrence required.
Sodišče je tako razsodilo, da je predlog predložitvenega sodišča, naj se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki se nanaša na razlago Uredbe št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe št. 1347/20008, obravnava po nujnem postopku iz člena 104b Poslovnika Sodišča, utemeljen, če temelji na potrebi po nujnem ukrepanju.