natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
B — Regulation No 1415/2004 and by Member State, for the areas referred to in Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation [No 1954/2003], are set out in Annex I to this Regulation.
B – Uredba št. 1415/2004 vrsto ribi�tva ter glede na državo članico za območja iz člena 3(1)(a) in (b) Uredbe […] �t. 1954/2003, je podan v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
According to the final recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1415/2004, ‘[t]he maximum annual fishing effort, to be fixed for the vessels flying the flag of a Member State, by group of species, area and fishery, should be equal to the global fishing effort exerted over the five-year period 1998 to 2002 by those vessels, divided by five’.
V skladu z zadnjo uvodno izjavo Uredbe 1415/2004 mora biti „[n]ajvečja letna količina ribolovnega napora, ki naj se določi za plovila, ploveča pod zastavo določene države članice, glede na skupino vrste, območje in vrsto ribi�tva, […] enaka celotnemu ribolovnemu naporu navedenih plovil za obdobje 5 let od leta 1998 do 2002, deljeno s pet“.
The maximum levels of annual fishing effort by group of species, area and fishery, and by Member State, for the area referred to in Article 6(1) of Regulation [No 1954/2003], are set out in Annex II to this Regulation.
Največji dovoljeni obseg ribolovnega napora glede na skupino vrste, območje in vrsto ribi�tva ter glede na državo člani- co za območje iz člena 6(1) Uredbe […] �t. 1954/2003, je podan v Prilogi II k tej uredbi.
Regulation No 1415/2004 provides as follows:
Ta uredba določa:
‘Article 1
Področje
Subject matter
Tranzit prek območja
This Regulation sets the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for each area and fishery defined in Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation [No 1954/2003].
Ta uredba določa največjo dovoljeno letno količino ribolovnega napora za vsako državo članico ter za vsako območje in vrsto ribi�tva, navedeno v členih 3 in 6 Uredbe […] �t. 1954/2003.
Each Member State shall ensure that the utilisation of fishing effort allocations by area, as defined in Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation [No 1954/2003], will not result in more time spent fishing by comparison to fishing effort levels exerted during the reference period.
Vsaka država članica zagotovi, da uporaba dodeljenih količin ribolovnega napora glede na območje, opredeljeno v členih 3 in 6 Uredbe […] �t. 1954/2003, ne bo povzročila dalj�ega časa ribolova v primerjavi z obsegom ribolovnega napora v referenčnem obdobju.
The maximum levels of annual fishing effort by group of species, area and fishery,
Največji dovoljeni obseg ribolovnega napora glede na skupino vrste, območje in
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.’
Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.“
Methodology
II – Tožba
Each Member State shall ensure that the method used to record fishing effort is the same as the one used in assessing the levels of fishing effort according to Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation [No 1954/2003].
Vsaka država članica zagotovi, da je metoda evidentiranja ribolovnega napora enaka metodi za ocenjevanje obsega ribolovnega napora v skladu s členi 3 in 6 Uredbe […] �t. 1954/2003.
The maximum levels of annual fishing effort fixed in Annexes I and II shall be without prejudice to fishing effort limitations fixed under recovery plans or any other management measure under Community law provided that the measure with the lower amount of fishing effort is complied with.
Največji dovoljeni letni obseg ribolovnega napora, določen v prilogah I in II, ne posega v omejitve ribolovnega napora, določene v skladu z načrti obnove ali s katerim koli drugim upravljalnim ukrepom v okviru zakonodaje Skupnosti, pod pogojem, da se upo�teva ukrep z nižjo količino ribolovnega napora.
It asked the Court to declare that regulation illegal.
Predlaga, naj Sodi�če ugotovi, da je ta uredba nezakonita.
It is for that reason that it brought an action for annulment in Spain v Council.
III – Presoja bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
I would first like to express my position on the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain.
Najprej bom zavzel stali�če do dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija.
In its application, the Kingdom of Spain alleges, first of all, infringement of the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality with regard, on the one hand, to the reference period used to fix the maximum annual fishing effort and, on the other, the delimitation of the sensitive area.
Prvi očitek, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija v svoji tožbi, je kr�itev načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva glede referenčnega obdobja, uporabljenega za določitev največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora, in glede določitve občutljivega območja.
Similarly, with regard to the second submission — alleging misuse of powers on the part of the Council — the Kingdom of Spain reiterates in its application the arguments it put forward in Spain v Council.
Kraljevina Španija glede drugega očitka zlorabe pooblastil s strani Sveta v svoji tožbi prav tako ponavlja utemeljitve, ki jih je navedla v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
The arguments put forward by Spain in support of that submission are identical to those which it put forward in Spain v Council.
Trditve te države članice v podporo temu očitku so enake trditvam, ki jih je navajala v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
The Kingdom of Spain points out in point 36 of its application that it considers that Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation
Kraljevina Španija v točki 36 svoje tožbe navaja, da členi 3, 4 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 kr�ijo načelo prepovedi diskriminacije in jih je treba razglasiti za nične.
It its reply, lodged after the delivery of judgment in Spain v Council, the Kingdom of Spain argued that a plea of illegality under Article 241 EC should be raised in regard to Regulation No 1954/2003.
Kraljevina Španija v svoji repliki, ki jo je vložila po razglasitvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Španija proti Svetu, zatrjuje, da se je zoper Uredbo �t. 1954/2003 treba sklicevati na ugovor nezakonitosti na podlagi člena 241 ES.
It advances a number of reasons which, in its view, demonstrate the need to ascertain, incidentally, whether Regulation No 1954/2003 is in conformity with Community law.
Kraljevina Španija navaja več razlogov, ki naj bi po njenem mnenju upravičili incidenter nadzor nad skladnostjo Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 s pravom Skupnosti.
Among those reasons, the Kingdom of Spain argues, in particular, that the plea of illegality is a means of removing, where necessary, provisions which, albeit contrary to Community law, constitute the legal basis for a measure which is the subject of an action for annulment.
Kraljevina Španija kot enega od razlogov med drugim navaja, da je ugovor nezakonitosti sredstvo za izključitev določb, ki so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti in na katerih temelji akt, ki je predmet ničnostne tožbe.
In addition, the Kingdom of Spain considers that the present case is different from the situation in which a plea of illegality raised by a Member State is inadmissible on the ground that the timelimits for bringing an action for annulment have expired.
Kraljevina Španija poleg tega meni, da se obravnavani primer razlikuje od primera, v katerem je ugovor nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje država članica, nedopusten zaradi poteka roka za vložitev ničnostne tožbe 11.
11It maintains that it, the Kingdom of Spain, complied with that requirement in the action it brought against the basic regulation in Spain v Council.
Kraljevina Španija naj bi namreč ravnala v skladu s to zahtevo v okviru svoje tožbe zoper temeljno uredbo v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
The Council also notes that in Spain v Council, the Kingdom of Spain asked the Court to annul Articles 3 and 6 of the latter regulation for the same reasons as those put forward in the present case, that is to say, infringement of the principle of nondiscrimination and misuse of powers.
Svet poleg tega ugotavlja, da je Kraljevina Španija v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu, Sodi�ču predlagala, naj člena 3 in 6 zadnjenavedene uredbe razglasi za nična iz istih razlogov kot v obravnavani zadevi, in sicer zaradi kr�itve načela prepovedi diskriminacije in zlorabe pooblastil.
It then sets out its position on the substance of the case.
Nato navaja svoje stali�če do utemeljenosti.
In its view, the absence of a decision on the substance of the case and the
Nazadnje ta država članica poudarja, da v sodbi, ki je bila izdana v tej zadevi, očitki, na katere se je sklicevala in ki naj bi v glavnem
11 — The Kingdom of Spain refers, on that subject, to Case C-135/93 Spain v Commission [1995] ECR I-1651, para -graph 17.
11 – Kraljevina Španija v zvezi s tem navaja sodbo z dne 29. junija 1995 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-135/93, Recueil, str. I-1651, točka 17).
In its rejoinder, the Council points out that the present action against Regulation No 1415/2004 was brought as part of proceedings which are distinct and separate from the action in Spain v Council,
Svet v svoji dupliki poudarja, da je bila ta tožba zoper Uredbo �t. 1415/2004 vložena v okviru ločenega in samostojnega postopka glede na zadevo, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu,
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-442/04 although the two cases are obviously linked.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU čeprav sta bili tožbi očitno povezani.
It argues that if a Member State were entitled to challenge a Community measure by means of a plea of illegality every time an institution adopted a measure implementing that Community measure, it would be possible to call into question indefinitely Community measures producing legal effects and that would, in its view, be contrary to the objective which the procedural timelimits seek to achieve, namely to ensure legal certainty.
Svet namreč meni, da če bi država članica lahko izpodbijala akt Skupnosti na podlagi ugovora nezakonitosti vsakič, ko bi institucija sprejela izvedbeni akt tega akta Skupnosti, bi to omogočilo neskončno izpodbijanje aktov Skupnosti, ki imajo pravne učinke, kar bi bilo po njegovem mnenju v nasprotju z namenom rokov za vložitve tožb, to je z zagotavljanjem pravne varnosti.
It considers that, having regard to the provisions of the first subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, 12 dismissal of the Kingdom of Spain’s action in Spain v Council cannot be regarded as a new fact.
Meni namreč, da zavrženja tožbe Kraljevine Španije v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu, glede na določbe člena 42(2), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča 12, ni mogoče �teti za novo dejstvo.
The Council refers to the Court’s caselaw to the effect that the addressee of a decision adopted by a Community institution which has not been challenged within the timelimits laid down in the last paragraph of Article 230 EC cannot invoke the illegality of such a decision, which has become definitive as against him. 13
Svet se v zvezi s tem sklicuje na sodno prakso Sodi�ča, iz katere izhaja, da se naslovnik odločbe, ki so jo sprejele institucije Skupnosti in ki ni bila izpodbijana v roku iz člena 230, zadnji odstavek, ES, ne more sklicevati na nezakonitost, saj je taka odločba zanj postala dokončna 13.
The Council maintains that that caselaw should be applied here, even though the present case differs in two respects: first, the Kingdom of Spain challenged the measure whose lawfulness it is now calling into question, but its action was dismissed; and,
Svet meni, da je v tej zadevi treba uporabiti to sodno prakso, čeprav se razlikuje z dveh vidikov, in sicer je po eni strani Kraljevina Španija izpodbijala akt, ki mu zdaj ugovarja veljavnost, tožba pa je bila zavržena,
In any event, the Council maintains that the Kingdom of Spain cannot challenge the
Svet v zvezi s tem zlasti poudarja, da se za akte institucij Skupnosti domneva, da so veljavni, tako da sodba Sodi�ča, ki potrdi veljavnost akta, ne spremeni pravnega položaja, v katerem se nahaja tožeča stranka, in zato ni podlaga za predložitev novega tožbenega razloga.
13 — The Council refers to Case 52/83 Commission v France [1983] ECR 3707, paragraph 10; Case C-188/92 TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf [1994] ECRI-833, paragraph 13; and Case C-239/99 Nachi Europe [2001] ECR I-1197, paragraph 29.
12 – Ta člen določa, da „[n]avajanje novih razlogov med postopkom ni dovoljeno, razen če ti izhajajo iz pravnih in dejanskih okoli�čin, ki so se pojavile med postopkom“.
15 secondly, the measure being challenged in the present proceedings is a regulation.
po drugi strani pa je izpodbijani akt v tem postopku uredba.
In addition, it implies the introduction of a new plea in law and an amendment of the initial application, which the first subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court does not permit.
Prav tako naj bi ugovor nezako -nitosti pomenil nov tožbeni razlog ter spremembo prvotnega predloga, česar naj člen 42(2), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča ne bi dopu�čal.
For those reasons, the Commission contends that the present action should be dismissed without it being necessary to consider the substance of the case.
Komisija zato meni, da bi bilo treba to tožbo zavreči, ne da bi bilo treba presojati utemeljenost zadeve.
14 On the other hand, a plea of illegality is not a
1415/2004, temveč členi 3, 4 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003.
In its reply to the Commission’s statement in intervention, the Kingdom of Spain points out that, in its view, the judgment in Spain v Council, is a new matter of fact and law which came to light in the course of the proceedings and which permits the introduction of a new plea in law in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Kraljevina Španija v svojem odgovoru na intervencijsko vlogo Komisije pojasnjuje, da meni, da zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu pomeni novo dejansko in pravno okoli�čino, ki se je pojavila med postopkom, zaradi česar se je v skladu s členom 42(2), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča mogoče sklicevati na nov tožbeni razlog.
Finally, a plea of illegality does not contravene the principle of legal certainty or the principle of res judicata.
Nazadnje naj ugovor nezakonitosti ne bi nasprotoval niti načelu pravne varnosti niti načelu pravnomočnosti.
14 — The Commission refers to Joined Cases T-244/93 and T-486/93 TWD v Commission [1995] ECR II-2265, paragraph 103.
14 – Komisija v zvezi s tem navaja sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 1995 v zadevi TWD proti Komisiji (T-244/93 in T-486/93, Recueil, str. II-2265, točka 103).
15 — The Commission mentions Case 14/59 [1959] ECR 215.
15 – Komisija v zvezi s tem navaja sodbo z dne 17. decembra 1959 v zadevi Société des fonderies de Pont-à-Mousson proti Visoki oblasti (14/59, Recueil, str. 445).
The right of privileged applicants to raise a plea of illegality in regard to a regulation
Možnost, da se privilegirana tožeča stranka sklicuje na ugovor nezakonitosti zoper uredbo
It should be pointed out, first of all, that, according to the terms of Article 241 EC, ‘[n]otwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230, any party may, in proceedings in which a regulation adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, or a regulation of the Council, of the Commission, or of the [European Central Bank] is at issue, plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of Article 230 in order to invoke before the Court of Justice the inapplicability of that regulation’.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da na podlagi člena 241 ES lahko, „[n]e glede na iztek roka iz petega odstavka člena 230 […] vsaka stranka v sporu, v katerem gre za uredbo, ki sta jo skupaj sprejela Evropski parlament in Svet, ali za uredbo Sveta, Komisije ali [Evropske centralne banke], pred Sodi�čem uveljavlja, da se ta uredba iz razlogov, navedenih v drugem odstavku člena 230, ne uporablja“.
In support of their point of view, the Council and the Commission put forward two arguments: first, they defend a position of principle, arguing, essentially, that a Member State cannot raise a plea of illegality in respect of a Community measure which it was able to challenge earlier, even if it is a regulation.
Svet in Komisija v utemeljitev svojega stali�ča po eni strani zagovarjata temeljno stali�če, da naj se država članica ne bi mogla sklicevati na ugovor nezakonitosti zoper akt Skupnosti, ki bi ga predhodno lahko izpodbijala, tudi če gre za uredbo. Po drugi strani menita, da je v obravnavani zadevi ugovor nezakonitosti prepozen.
The Court has dealt on numerous occasions with the question of the admissibility of pleas of illegality raised under Article 241 EC by ordinary applicants or privileged applicants.
Sodi�če je bilo večkrat soočeno z vpra�anjem dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega so se na podlagi člena 241 ES sklicevale neprivilegirane tožeče stranke.
That has given rise to a complex line of authority, the main strands of which are as follows.
Iz tega izhaja kompleksna sodna praksa, katere glavne smernice so navedene v nadaljevanju.
I take the contrary view that the terms of Article 241 EC give a Member State a great deal of leeway to invoke the inapplicability of a regulation, even, in my opinion, where that Member State has already brought an action for the partial annulment of the regulation but that action has been declared inadmissible.
V nasprotju s tem menim, da se na podlagi besedila člena 241 ES država članica lahko sklicuje predvsem na neuporabljivost uredbe tudi takrat, ko je že vložila ničnostno tožbo zoper tako uredbo, ki pa je bila razgla�ena za nedopustno.
In its judgment of 6 March 1979, Simmenthal v Commission, 16the Court decided that ‘Article [241 EC] gives expression to a general principle conferring upon
Sodi�če je v sodbi z dne 6. marca 1979 v zadevi Simmenthal proti Komisiji 16navedlo, da „člen [241 ES] pomeni izraz splo�nega načela, ki vsaki stranki zagotavlja
I also consider that the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain cannot be regarded as out of time inasmuch as it was impliedly contained in the application presented by the Kingdom of Spain.
Poleg tega menim, da ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, ni mogoče �teti za prepoznega, če je bil implicitno vsebovan v tožbi Kraljevine Španije.
20 any party to proceedings the right to challenge, for the purpose of obtaining the annulment of a decision of direct and individual concern to that party, the validity of previous acts of the institutions which form the legal basis of the decision which is under challenge, if that party was not entitled under Article [230 EC] to bring a direct action challenging those acts by which it was thus affected without having been in a position to ask that they be declared void’. 17
pravico do izpodbijanja veljavnosti prej�njih aktov Skupnosti, ki so pravni temelj izpodbijane odločbe, z namenom doseči razglasitev ničnosti odločbe, ki jo neposredno in posamično zadeva, če ta stranka nima pravice do vložitve neposredne tožbe zoper te akte v skladu s členom 230 ES“ 17.
According to that line of reasoning, the fact of considering an incidental challenge to be out of time is designed to penalise the negligent conduct of applicants who have failed to make use of the action for annulment in order to challenge a decision, even though they have certainly had the possibility of doing so. 21
Po tej logiki ima ugasnitev pravice do incidenter izpodbijanja namen sankcionirati malomarno ravnanje tožeče stranke, ki ni uporabila ničnostne tožbe za izpodbijanje odločbe, čeprav je to možnost gotovo imela 21.
That judgment introduced into the relationship between the action for annulment and the plea of illegality a rationale based on the principle that legal remedies should be mutually compensatory.
S to sodbo je bila med ničnostno tožbo in ugovorom nezakonitosti vzpostavljena logika nadome�čanja pravnih sredstev 18. Sodi�če je s tem, da je dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti pogojevalo z neobstojem drugega pravnega sredstva, ugovoru nezakonitosti pripisalo subsidiaren značaj 19.
Thus, like ordinary applicants, the privileged applicants cannot, in an action for annulment of a decision, raise a plea of illegality in respect of an earlier measure of the same kind, annulment of which they could have sought directly.
Tako kot neprivilegirane tožeče stranke se privilegirane tožeče stranke zato v okviru ničnostne tožbe zoper odločbo ne morejo sklicevati na ugovor nezakonitosti prej�njega akta iste narave, glede katerega bi lahko neposredno predlagale razglasitev ničnosti.
In the Court’s view, the contrary approach would permit the timelimits for bringing proceedings laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC to be circumvented.
Sodi�če meni, da bi nasprotna re�itev omogočila izigravanje roka za vložitev tožbe po členu 230, peti odstavek, ES 22.
22 That principle of the inviolability of decisions which have not been challenged within those timelimits is set aside only where the allegedly unlawful measure contains such serious and manifest defects that it could be deemed non-existent. 23
To načelo nedotakljivosti odločitev, ki niso bile izpodbijane v tem roku, preneha veljati zgolj ob predpostavki, da ima domnevno nezakoniti akt tako velike in očitne pomanjkljivosti, da bi ga bilo mogoče opredeliti kot neobstoječega 23.
21 — That time bar was first raised against a negligent applicant in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling on validity (TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, paragraphs 23 to 25).
21 – Ta ugasnitev pravice je bila zoper tožečo stranko najprej uporabljena v okviru predloga za presojo veljavnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba TWD Textilwerke Deggendorf, točke od 23 do 25).
The following year, the Court of First Instance transposed that reasoning to the plea of illegality (TWD v Commission, paragraph 103).
Sodi�če prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti je naslednje leto to razlogovanje preneslo v okvir ugovora nezakonitosti (zgoraj navedena sodba TWD proti Komisiji, točka 103).
22 — See, in particular, Spain v Commission (paragraph 17).
22 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji (točka 17).
18 — According to the expression used by L. Coutron, La contestation incidente des actes de l’Union européenne, a thesis defended on 10 December 2005 at the University of Montpellier I. B
18 – V skladu z izrazom, ki ga uporablja Coutron, L.: La contesta­tion incidente des actes de l’Union européenne; disertacija, predstavljena 10. decembra 2005 na Univerzi v Montpellierju I.
7, point 22.
3611, točka 16).
23 — Case 226/87 Commission v Greece [1988] ECR 3611, paragraph 16).
Glej v tem smislu tudi sodbo z dne 10. decembra 1969 v zadevi Komisija proti Franciji (6/69 in 11/69, Recueil, str. 523, točke od 11 do 13).
Is that reasoning, based on the principle that legal remedies should be mutually compensatory, also relevant where a plea of illegality is raised in regard to a regulation?
Ali je to razlogovanje, ki temelji na nadome�čanju pravnih sredstev, prav tako upo�tevno, ko se ugovor nezakonitosti uporabi zoper uredbo?
However, once a plea of illegality is raised by a privileged applicant in regard to a regulation, a line of reasoning in terms of the above principle becomes irrelevant in so far as it infringes the terms of Article 241 EC.
Če pa se na ugovor nezakonitosti sklicuje privilegirana tožeča stranka zoper uredbo, razlogovanje v smislu nadome�čanja pravnih sredstev ni več upo�tevno, če bi nasprotovalo besedilu člena 241 ES.
In that situation, the possibility of an incidental challenge compensates for the restricted access which non-privileged applicants have to the action for annulment of legislative measures.
V tem primeru je namreč namen možnosti incidenter izpodbijanja nadomestiti ozek dostop neprivilegiranih tožečih strank do ničnostne tožbe zoper normativne akte.