natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After observing, first, that the addressee of an individual decision is barred from pleading its illegality and, second, that, in accordance with Nachi Europe, a Community
Potem ko je Sodi�če opozorilo, prvič, da se naslovnik posamične odločbe nima pravice sklicevati na njeno nezakonitost in, drugič, da lahko v skladu z zgoraj navedeno
23 — Case C-239/99 Nachi Europe [2001] ECR I-1197, paragraphs 37 and 38.
23 – Sodba z dne 15. februarja 2001 v zadevi Nachi Europe (C-239/99, Recueil, str. I-1197, točki 37 in 38).
24 — End of paragraph 37 of the judgment.25 — Cited above (paragraph 39).
24 – Točka 37 na koncu sodbe.25 – Zgoraj navedena sodba (točka 39).
If indeed there is still any doubt, after reading the judgment in Commission v ECB, as to the extension to all privileged applicants of its conclusion with regard to the admissibility of the plea of illegality raised by the ECB, in view of the fact that, under the third paragraph of Article 230 EC, the ECB has capacity to bring actions only for the purpose of protecting its prerogatives, a literal and logical argument following on from the reasoning in that judgment supports that extension.
Čeprav je glede razlage sodbe Komisija proti ECB v zvezi z raz�iritvijo ugotovitve Sodi�ča glede dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti, na katero se je skliceval ECB, na vse privilegirane tožeče stranke �e vedno lahko podan dvom glede na dejstvo, da ima ECB v skladu s členom 230, tretji odstavek, ES, aktivno legitimacijo le za za�čito svojih prerogativ, dobesedna in logična utemeljitev, ki dopolnjuje utemeljitev iz te sodbe, govori v prid tej raz�iritvi.
regulation may become definitive as against an individual in regard to whom it must be considered to be an individual decision and who could undoubtedly have sought its annulment under Article 230 EC, 27 the Court stated that those ‘principles … nevertheless do not in any way affect the rule laid down by Article 241 EC, which provides that any party may, in proceedings in which a regulation of the kind referred to in Article 241 EC is at issue, plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of Article 230 EC in order to invoke before the Court of Justice the inapplicability of that regulation’.
sodbo Nachi Europe skupnostna uredba za posameznika postane dokončna, če bi jo bilo treba �teti kot posamično odločbo, zoper katero bi brez dvoma lahko predlagali razglasitev ničnosti na podlagi člena 230 ES 27, je navedlo, da ta „načela […] nikakor ne vplivajo na pravilo, določeno v členu 241 ES, katerega besedilo določa, da lahko vsaka stranka ob sporu, v katerem se izpodbija uredba, ki se nana�a na to določbo, pred Sodi�čem uveljavlja, da se ta uredba iz razlogov, navedenih v drugem odstavku člena 230 ES, ne uporablja“ 28.
28Since the ‘legislative nature’ of Regulation No 1073/1999 was not challenged and it was not claimed that the regulation should be treated as a decision or that the ECB would, in such a case, be the addressee thereof, 29 the Court dismissed the Commission’s objection of inadmissibility and examined in substance the ECB’s plea of illegality.
Ker v tem primeru „normativnost“ Uredbe �t. 1073/1999 ni bila vpra�ljiva in ker se ni zatrjevalo, da bi bilo treba navedeno uredbo obravnavati kot odločbo, katere naslovnik bi bil v takem primeru ECB 29, je Sodi�če zavrnilo ugovor nedopustnosti Komisije in preizkusilo utemeljenost ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega se je skliceval ECB.
It must be remembered that Article 241 EC grants any party the right to invoke the inapplicability of a regulation in a dispute in which it is at issue ‘notwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 [EC]’. 30
Opozoriti je namreč treba, da člen 241 ES vsaki stranki daje pravico sklicevati se na to, da se uredba v sporu, v katerem se o njej dvomi, „ne glede na iztek roka iz petega odstavka člena 230 [ES]“ ne uporablja 30.
In relying only on a literal reading of Article 241 EC to recognise that any party has the right to invoke, as a collateral challenge, the inapplicability of a regulation of a ‘legislative nature’, the Court, this time expressly, endorsed the position of several of its Advocates General, as previously described.
Sodi�če je, pri čemer se je pri priznanju pravice vsem strankam do incidenter sklicevanja na to, da se „normativna“ uredba ne uporablja, oprlo le na dobesedno razlago člena 241 ES, tokrat izrecno potrdilo predhodno navedeno stali�če več generalnih pravobranilcev.
The argument that the possibility of pleading the unlawfulness of a regulation should be reserved to parties who have been unable to bring an action for annulment is not very convincing if, according to the wording of Article 241 EC, that plea may be invoked ‘notwithstanding’ the expiry of the period for bringing an action for annulment. 31
Re�itev, da imajo lahko le stranke, ki niso mogle vložiti ničnostne tožbe, pravico do uveljavljanja nezakonitosti uredbe, ni prepričljiva, saj je mogoče ta ugovor v skladu s členom 241 ES uveljavljati „ne glede na“ iztek roka za vložitev ničnostne tožbe 31.
30 — Italics added.
30 – Moj poudarek.
31 — See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Darmon (paragraph 25).
31 – Glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedene sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca M. Darmona (točka 25).
27 — See paragraphs 74 and 75 of the judgment.28 — Paragraph 76 of the judgment (italics added).29 — Paragraph 77 of the judgment.
27 – Glej točki 74 in 75 sodbe.28 – Točka 76 sodbe (moj poudarek).29 – Točka 77 sodbe.
Article 241 EC therefore undoubtedly gives privileged applicants the right to invoke, as a collateral challenge, the illegality of a regulation ‘of a legislative nature’ even when they could have challenged it directly within the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Člen 241 ES torej privilegiranim tožečim strankam nesporno daje možnost incidenter uveljavljanja nezakonitosti „normativne“ uredbe, čeprav bi lahko ta akt izpodbijale neposredno v roku, določenem v člena 230, peti odstavek, ES.
Consequently, it is necessary to determine whether that conclusion can be extended to a situation where the plea of illegality is raised by the Commission against a joint action adopted on the basis of Title V of the EU Treaty.
Zato je treba obravnavati, ali je mogoče to ugotovitev uporabiti v primeru, ko se na ugovor nezakonitosti zoper skupni ukrep, sprejet na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, sklicuje Komisija.
(ii) Admissibility of a plea of illegality raised against a joint action adopted on the basis of Title V of the EU Treaty.
ii) Dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti, ki se uveljavlja zoper skupni ukrep, sprejet na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU
As is clear from the preceding paragraph, Article 47 EU naturally imposes limits on the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate on a plea of illegality of an act adopted on the basis of Title V of the EU Treaty, like the limits it imposes on the application of Article 230 EC to those same acts.
Kot izhaja iz prej�nje točke, so v členu 47 EU vsekakor navedene omejitve pristojnosti Sodi�ča pri odločanju o ugovoru nezakonitosti akta, sprejetega na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, kot so omejitve, postavljene pri uporabi člena 230 ES glede istih aktov.
Accordingly, the arguments in support of the plea of illegality, like those in support of the main application for annulment, must, in my view, be limited to disputing the Council’s power to adopt the allegedly unlawful act on the ground that it encroached on the competences conferred on the Community by the EC Treaty.
Tako je treba tožbene razloge, navedene v utemeljitev ugovora nezakonitosti, in tožbene razloge, ki se uveljavljajo v utemeljitev predloga za razglasitev ničnosti, po mojem mnenju omejiti na izpodbijanje pristojnosti Sveta za sprejetje domnevno nezakonitega akta, ker naj bi ta posegal v pristojnosti, ki jih Pogodba ES daje Skupnosti.
Articles 2 to 5), was within the scope of the CFSP, apart from certain elements of Article 4. 32.
drugi strani pa, če bi bilo treba sporni skupni ukrep označiti kot odločbo, katere naslovnica je Komisija, ta ne bi imela pravice uveljavljati nezakonitost tega akta.
This position should lead to a finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to assess the plea of illegality in so far as it concerns the abovementioned articles.
To stali�če bi moralo peljati k ugotovitvi, da Sodi�če ni pristojno za presojo ugovora nezakonitosti v delu, v katerem se nana�a na zgoraj navedene člene.
Such a finding would not mean, however, that the Court cannot take those articles into account when examining the legality of the contested decision, having regard to the fact that the only citation in the preamble to the latter refers to Article 3 of the contested Joint Action.
Ta ugotovitev pa ne bi pomenila, da Sodi�če navedenih členov ne sme upo�tevati pri obravnavi zakonitosti izpodbijanega sklepa, zlasti glede na dejstvo, da se njegov uvodni stavek nana�a na člen 3 spornega skupnega ukrepa.
In that connection it must be observed that, under Article 14(1) EU, joint actions address situations where operational action by the Union is deemed to be required, and they lay down their objectives, scope, the means to be made available to the Union, if necessary their duration, and the conditions for their implementation.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da v skladu s členom 14(1) EU skupni ukrep zadeva položaje, v katerih se �teje, da je potrebno operativno ukrepanje Evropske unije in da so v njem določeni njegovi cilji, sredstva, ki morajo biti dana na voljo Uniji, pogoji za njegovo izvajanje, po potrebi pa tudi njegovo trajanje.
In addition, under Article 14(3), joint actions commit the Member States in the positions they adopt and in the conduct of their activity.
Poleg tega v skladu s členom 14(3) EU skupni ukrepi obvezujejo države članice pri stali�čih, ki jih sprejemajo, in pri njihovem delovanju.
If the contested Joint Action is of a legislative or general nature within the meaning of the Court’s caselaw and therefore resembles a regulation for the purpose of Article 241 EC, the Commission, like any party, may use the method laid down by that provision to mount a collateral challenge to the Council’s power to adopt that act.
Namreč, če je sporni skupni ukrep v smislu sodne prakse Sodi�ča normativnega ali splo�nega značaja in se torej približuje uredbi v smislu člena 241 ES, bo lahko Komisija, kot vsaka druga stranka, na način, določen v tej določbi, incidenter izpodbijala pristojnost Sveta za sprejetje tega akta. Po
In the present case, it will be recalled that Article 1 of the contested Joint Action describes the objectives relating to combating the accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons, while Titles I and II of the contested Joint Action respectively set out the principles of preventive and reactive aspects and the contribution of the European Union to the realisation of those principles.
V tem primeru je treba opozoriti, da člen 1 spornega skupnega ukrepa opredeljuje cilje glede boja proti kopičenju in �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, medtem ko njegova naslova I in II določata načela, ki urejajo preventivne in reaktivne vidike, in prispevek Evropske unije, ki omogoča doseganje navedenih načel.
According to the provisions of Title II of the contested Joint Action, the Council must in particular decide on the principles, arrangements and financing which make a direct and identifiable contribution to the principles set out in Title I of the contested Joint Action.
V skladu z določbami Naslova II spornega skupnega ukrepa mora Svet med drugim odločiti o načelih, vrstah in financiranju projektov, ki neposredno in vidno prispevajo k uporabi načel, navedenih v Naslovu I spornega skupnega ukrepa.
Furthermore, under Article 8 of the contested Joint Action, the Council notes that the Commission intends to direct its
Poleg tega Svet, v skladu s členom 8 spornega skupnega ukrepa, navaja, da je namen
32 — See, in particular, points 52 to 54 of the application.
32 – Glej zlasti točke od 52 do 54 tožbe.
COMMISSION v COUNCIL the contested Joint Action is admissible, at least so far as Title II thereof is concerned.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU sija zoper sporni skupni ukrep, dopusten, vsaj glede Naslova II navedenega akta.
action towards achieving the objectives and the priorities of the contested Joint Action.
Komisije ukrepati v smeri uresničitve ciljev in prednostnih nalog spornega skupnega ukrepa.
Finally, Article 12 of the contested Joint Action provides that it is to enter into force on the date of its adoption, without specifying the addressees.
Na koncu, v členu 12 spornega skupnega ukrepa je določeno, da začne veljati na dan sprejetja, ne da bi bili v njem določeni njegovi naslovniki.
This conclusion is not called into question by the Council’s argument that the Commission’s submissions show that the alleged unlawfulness of the contested Joint Action was apparent when it was adopted, so that the Commission is barred from pleading that it is unlawful.
Te ugotovitve ne izpodbija trditev Sveta, da naj bi razlogi, ki jih je navedla Komisija, dokazovali, da naj bi bila domnevna nezakonitost spornega skupnega ukrepa očitna ob sprejetju, tako da naj se Komisija ne bi imela pravice sklicevati na njegovo nezakonitost.
In view of those characteristics, and even though the contested Joint Action undeniably, at least with regard to Title II, has an operational aspect inherent in the very nature of such an act, it has in no way, including in relation to Title II, the character of a decision vis-à-vis the Commission such as to make the Commission its addressee.
Glede na te značilnosti, in čeprav sporni skupni ukrep nesporno pomeni, vsaj glede na njegov Naslov II, operativni vidik, ki je del same narave takega akta, se nikakor ne izkaže, da bi imel ta akt, tudi glede na Naslov II tega akta, naravo odločbe za Komisijo, tako da bi bila ta njegova naslovnica.
Just as a circumstance of that kind is irrelevant in relation to a plea of il- legality against a regulation for the purpose of Article 241 EC, it cannot be taken into account as a condition for the admissibility of a plea of illegality against an act of a general nature such as the contested Joint Action adopted on the basis of Title V of the EU Treaty.
Namreč, tako kot taka okoli�čina ni upo�tevna v okviru ugovora nezakonitosti, podanega zoper uredbo v smislu člena 241 ES, je tudi ni mogoče upo�tevati kot pogoj za dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti zoper splo�ni akt, kakr�en je sporni skupni ukrep, sprejet na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU.
Furthermore, it has not been alleged, in support of the objection of inadmissibility to the plea of illegality, that the contested Joint Action had the character of an individual decision vis-à-vis the Commission, and neither the Council nor the Spanish or the United Kingdom governments have disputed the general nature of the contested Joint Action rightly asserted by the Commission.
Poleg tega se v utemeljitev ugovoru nedopustnosti zoper ugovor nezakonitosti ni zatrjevalo, da ima sporni skupni ukrep za Komisijo značaj posamične odločbe, in niti Svet niti vlada Španije in Združenega kraljestva niso prerekali splo�nega značaja spornega skupnega ukrepa, ki ga pravilno zagovarja Komisija.
In addition, to dismiss that circumstance as irrelevant does not amount to permitting the Commission to circumvent the mandatory timelimit laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC for bringing an action for annulment, The claim lodged by the Commission constitutes only a declaration that the contested joint action is not
Poleg tega, zavrnitev upo�tevnosti te okoli�čine Komisiji ne omogoča, da bi zaob�la obvezni rok iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES za vložitev ničnostne tožbe. Predlog Komisije pomeni namreč le izjavo o neuporabni
and Community competences.
in orožja malega kalibra in pristojnostmi Skupnosti.
Third, their submissions on the two preceding questions lead to diametrically opposed conclusions as to the legality of the contested decision and of the contested Joint Action.
Tretjič, iz njihovih odgovorov na predhodni vpra�anji izhajajo diametralno nasprotne posledice glede zakonitosti izpodbijanega sklepa in zakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa.
In the following remarks I shall therefore proceed to examine those three points.
V nadaljevanju bom torej preučil ta tri vpra�anja.
Therefore, in my view, the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council and the Spanish and United Kingdom governments should be dismissed and the Commission’s plea that the contested Joint Action, or at least Title II thereof, is illegal should be found admissible.
Zato menim, da je treba zavrniti ugovor nedopustnosti, ki so ga vložili Svet in vladi Španije in Združenega kraljestva, in dopustiti ugovor nezakonitosti spornega skupnega ukrepa ali vsaj njegovega Naslova II, na katerega se sklicuje Komisija.
Interpretation and scope of Article 47 EU
Razlaga in obseg člena 47 EU
Consequently, the Commission’s application for the annulment of the contested decision and its claim that the contested Joint Action, or at least Title II thereof, be declared inapplicable are admissible.
Predlogi za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega sklepa in predlog Komisije, naj se za sporni skupni ukrep ali v vsakem primeru za njegov Naslov II ugotovi, da se ne uporablja, so torej dopustni.
As they stress in their respective pleadings, the principal parties and interveners disagree, first, on the interpretation and scope of Article 47 EU and, second, on the relationship between combating the proliferation of small arms and light weapons
Stranki in intervenienti si v pisanjih nasprotujejo, prvič, glede razlage in obsega člena 47 EU in, drugič, glede zveze med dejavnostjo proti �irjenju lahkega orožja
The Commission, supported by the Parliament, considers that the contested decision relating to combating the proliferation of small arms and light weapons must be annulled because it encroaches upon the competences conferred on the Community in the area of development cooperation, thus failing to observe Article 47 EU.
Komisija, ki jo podpira Parlament, meni, da je treba izpodbijani sklep o dejavnosti proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra razglasiti za ničnega, ker posega v pristojnosti, dodeljene Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, pri čemer kr�i člen 47 EU.
According to the Commission and the Parliament, Article 47 EU aims to protect the Community’s competences as against the activity of the European Union based on the EU Treaty by establishing a ‘fixed’ boundary between the competences of the Community and those of the European Union.
Po mnenju Komisije in Parlamenta naj bi se člen 47 EU nana�al na za�čito pristojnosti Skupnosti pred ukrepanjem Evropske unije, ki temelji na Pogodbi EU, s tem da določa „fiksno“ mejo med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in pristojnostmi Evropske unije.
On the interpretation of Article 47 EU, the Council submits that that provision aims to maintain the balance of powers established by the Treaties and cannot be interpreted as aiming to protect the competences conferred upon the Community to the detriment of those conferred upon the European Union.
Svet v zvezi z razlago člena 47 EU poudarja, da je namen te določbe ohraniti ravnotežje moči, vzpostavljene s pogodbami, in je ni mogoče razlagati tako, da se nana�a na za�čito pristojnosti, dodeljenih Skupnosti na �kodo pristojnosti, dodeljenih Evropski uniji.
Under Article 5 EC, the Community can act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the EC Treaty and of the objectives assigned to it therein.
Skupnost v skladu s členom 5 ES namreč deluje v mejah pristojnosti in ciljev, ki jih določa Pogodba ES.
The Council adds that Article 47 EU does not prevent the adoption of measures in the framework of the CFSP which use the same instruments as those used by the Community in the framework of development cooperation, where those measures do not aim to achieve the objectives of development cooperation but those arising from the CFSP.
Svet dodaja, da člen 47 EU ne preprečuje sprejetja ukrepov v okviru SZVP, ki uporabljajo enake instrumente, kot so tisti, ki jih Skupnost uporablja v okviru razvojnega sodelovanja, ker se na podlagi teh ukrepov ne sku�ajo doseči cilji razvojnega sodelovanja, ampak cilji, ki izhajajo iz SZVP.
Under Article 47 EU, the relationship between Community competence and the competence of the European Union acting in the framework of the CFSP is not like that between Community competences and the competences of the Member States in the sense that, to delimit the competences of the Community and of the European Union, recourse cannot be had to the principle of pre-emption.
V skladu s členom 47 EU naj razmerje med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in pristojnostmi Evropske unije pri delovanju v okviru SZVP ne bi bilo enako razmerju med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in pristojnostmi držav članic v tem smislu, da za razmejitev pristojnosti Skupnosti in Evropske unije ni mogoče uporabiti načela prekluzije.
If, in an area of shared competence, such as development cooperation policy, the Member States retain the competence to act by themselves, whether individually or collectively, to the extent that the Community has not yet exercised its competence, the same cannot be said for the Union which, under Article 47 EU, must respect the competences of the Community, whether exclusive or not, even if they have not been exercised.
Če države članice na področju deljenih pristojnosti, kot je politika razvojnega sodelovanja, ohranijo pristojnost, da odločajo same, posamično ali skupno, če Skupnost �e ni izvr�ila svoje pristojnosti, naj ne bi bilo enako za Evropsko unijo, ki mora v skladu s čle -nom 47 EU spo�tovati izključne ali neizključne pristojnosti Skupnosti, čeprav gre za neizvr�ene pristojnosti.
The United Kingdom Government considers for its part that two conditions must be satisfied for an act based on the EU Treaty to be regarded as contrary to Article 47 EU.
Vlada Združenega kraljestva meni, da morata biti izpolnjena dva pogoja, da bi bilo mogoče akt, ki temelji na Pogodbi EU, �teti, da je v nasprotju s členom 47 EU.
First, the Community must be competent to adopt a measure having the same purpose and the same content.
Prvič, Skupnost mora biti pristojna za sprejetje akta, ki ima enak namen in vsebino.
Even if the
Tudi če se akt, sprejet na podlagi Pogodbe
The Council claims that the controversy on the distribution of competences between the Community and the European Union is no doubt relevant, but in the present case the Community has no competence (potential or actual) to combat the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
Svet trdi, da čeprav je razprava o delitvi pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in Evropsko unijo vsekakor upo�tevna, prav tako velja, da naj Skupnost v tem primeru ne bi imela nobene pristojnosti (morebitne ali dejanske) za dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra.
act adopted on the basis of the EU Treaty relates to a matter in which the Community could have acted by virtue of the objectives assigned to it, there is thus no infringement of Article 47 EU where that act pursues a totally different objective, in particular an objective falling specifically within the CFSP.
EU, nana�a na področje, na katerem bi lahko Skupnost delovala v skladu s cilji, ki so ji naloženi, ne bi �lo za kr�itev člena 47 EU, kadar ta akt zasleduje popolnoma drugačen cilj, zlasti cilj, ki se posebej nana�a na SZVP.
According to the model upheld by the Commission, the relationship between the European Union and the Community is not comparable with that between the Community and the Member States.
Po modelu, ki ga zagovarja Komisija, razmerja med Evropsko unijo in Skupnostjo niso primerljiva s tistimi, ki urejajo razmerja med Skupnostjo in državami članicami.
In that model, which could be called ‘triangular’, the Union possesses and exercises its own competences which are not merely equivalent to the collective exercise of the competences retained by the Member States.
Po tem modelu, ki bi ga bilo mogoče opredeliti za „tristranskega“, Evropska unija ima in izvr�uje lastne pristojnosti, ki niso enake le skupnemu izvr�evanju pristojnosti držav članic.