natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In Case C-415/05 P the Commission contends that the Court should:
Komisija Sodi�ču predlaga, naj v zadevi C-415/05 P:
— reject the appeal in its entirety, and
– pritožbo v celoti zavrne in
The United Kingdom has brought a cross-appeal contending that the Court should:
Združeno kraljestvo je vložilo nasprotno pritožbo in Sodi�ču predlagalo, naj:
— set aside that part of the judgments under appeal which deal with the question of jus cogens, that is to say, paragraphs 226 to 231 of Kadi and paragraphs 277 to 281 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat.
– razveljavi del izpodbijanih sodb, ki se nana�a na vpra�anje ius cogens, in sicer točke od 226 do 231 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter od 277 do 281 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat.
The Kingdom of Spain, granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Council by orders of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 (Case C-402/05 P) and 15 May 2006 (Case C-415/05 P), contends that the Court should:
Kraljevina Španija, ki ji je bilo na podlagi sklepov predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 27. aprila 2006 (zadeva C-402/05 P) in z dne 15. maja 2006 (zadeva C-415/05 P) dovoljeno posredovati v podporo predlogov Sveta, Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— reject the appellants’ appeals in their entirety and uphold in their entirety the judgments under appeal, and
– v celoti zavrne pritožbi pritožnikov in v celoti potrdi izpodbijani sodbi,
— order the appellants to pay the costs;
– pritožnikom naloži plačilo stro�kov;
— dismiss the Commission’s contentions in relation to the first ground of each appeal, upholding the judgments under appeal, and
– zavrne zahteve Komisije glede prvega pritožbenega razloga vsake od pritožb in potrdi izpodbijani sodbi ter
— order the Commission to pay the costs;
– Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov;
— in the alternative, if the Court should set aside the judgment under appeal and, consequently, annul Regulation No 881/2002, order the effects of that regulation to be maintained, pursuant to Article 231 EC, until a new regulation is adopted replacing it.
– podredno, če bi Sodi�če razveljavilo izpodbijani sodbi in, posledično, za nično razglasilo izpodbijano uredbo, naj na podlagi člena 231 ES do sprejetja nove uredbe, ki bi jo nadomestila, �teje za dokončne učinke te uredbe.
The French Republic, granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Council by orders of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 (Case C-402/05 P) and 15 May 2006 (Case C-415/05 P), contends that the Court should:
Francoska republika, ki ji je bilo na podlagi sklepov predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 27. aprila 2006 (zadeva C-402/05 P) in z dne 15. maja 2006 (zadeva C-415/05 P) dovoljeno posredovati v podporo predlogov Sveta in Komisije, Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— reject the appellants’ appeals, allow the cross-appeal of the United Kingdom and carry out a substitution of the grounds as regards the part of the judgments under appeal which concerns jus cogens, and
– zavrne pritožbi pritožnikov, ugodi nasprotnim pritožbam Združenega kraljestva in nadomesti obrazložitev sodb v delih, ki se nana�ajo na ius cogens, ter
— order the appellants to pay the costs.
– pritožnikom naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The Kingdom of the Netherlands, granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought by the Council by orders of the President of the Court of 27 April 2006 (Case C-402/05 P) and 15 May 2006 (Case C-415/05 P), contends in both cases that the Court should dismiss the appeal, with the proviso that there should be substitution of the grounds with regard to the scope of the review of legality or, alternatively, to the question whether norms of jus cogens have been infringed.
Kraljevina Nizozemska, ki ji je bilo na podlagi sklepov predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 27. aprila 2006 (zadeva C-402/05 P) in z dne 15. maja 2006 (zadeva C-415/05 P) dovoljeno posredovati v podporo predlogov Sveta, Sodi�ču predlaga, naj v dveh zadevah zavrne pritožbo, če nadomesti obrazložitev v zvezi z obsegom nadzora zakonitosti, in, podredno, vpra�anja, če so bila kr�ena pravila ius cogens.
The grounds of challenge to the judgments under appeal
Pritožbeni razlogi za razveljavitev izpodbijanih sodb
Al Barakaat puts forward three grounds of appeal, the first alleging lack of any legal basis for the contested regulation, the second infringement of Article 249 EC and the third infringement of certain of its fundamental rights.
Al Barakaat navaja tri pritožbene razloge, prvi se nana�a na neobstoj pravne podlage izpodbijane uredbe, drugi na kr�itev člena 249 ES, tretji pa na kr�itev nekaterih njegovih temeljnih pravic.
In its cross-appeal the United Kingdom puts forward a single ground relating to the error of law allegedly committed by the Court of First Instance in concluding in the judgments under appeal that it was competent to consider whether the Security Council’s resolutions at issue were compatible with the rules of jus cogens.
Združeno kraljestvo v okviru nasprotne pritožbe uveljavlja le en pritožbeni razlog, ki se nana�a na to, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijanih sodbah napačno uporabilo pravo pri presoji, da je samo pristojno za preučitev združljivosti zadevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta s pravili ius cogens.
Concerning the appeals
Pritožbi
By order of 13 November 2007 the President of the Court ordered the name of Ahmed Ali Yusuf to be struck from the Court’s register in response to his abandonment of the appeal that he had brought jointly with Al Barakaat in Case C-415/05 P.
Predsednik Sodi�ča je s sklepom z dne 13. novembra 2007 odredil izbris imena Ahmed Ali Yusuf iz vpisnika Sodi�ča zaradi njegovega odstopa od pritožbe, ki jo je vložil skupaj z Al Barakaatom v zadevi C-415/05 P.
The parties and the Advocate General having been heard in this regard, it is appropriate, on account of the connection between them, to join the present cases for the purposes of the judgment, in accordance with Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court.
Ker so se stranke in generalni pravobranilec o tem že opredelili, je treba zaradi medsebojne povezanosti zadevi, v skladu s členom 43 Poslovnika Sodi�ča, združiti zaradi izdaje skupne sodbe.
Concerning the grounds of appeal relating to the legal basis of the contested regulation
Pritožbeni razlog: pravna podlaga izpodbijane uredbe
That plea falls into three parts.
Ta pritožbeni razlog je sestavljen iz treh delov.
Furthermore, the Court of First Instance did not explain how those provisions, which can provide a basis only for measures against third countries, could be envisaged, together with Article 308 EC, as the legal basis of the contested regulation, when the latter contains only restrictive measures directed against individuals and non-State entities.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj poleg tega ne bi pojasnilo, kako se lahko te določbe, ki lahko utemeljijo le ukrepe zoper tretje države, �teje, skupaj s členom 308 ES, za pravno podlago te uredbe, medtem ko se leta nana�a le na ukrepe zoper posameznike in nedržavne subjekte.
In Kadi, paragraphs 122 to 134, the Court of First Instance wrongly assimilated the objectives of the two integrated but separate legal orders constituted by the Union and the Community and thus misinterpreted the limitations of Article 308 EC.
V točkah od 122 do 134 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno izenačilo cilje dveh združenih, vendar različnih pravnih redov, ki tvorita Unijo in Skupnost, zato naj bi napačno postavilo meje člena 308 ES.
Furthermore, such a view is, to his mind, incompatible with the principle of conferred powers laid down in Article 5 EC.
Tak koncept naj med drugim ne bi bil združljiv z načelom dodeljenih pristojnosti, določenim v členu 5 EU.
It follows from paragraphs 28 to 35 of Opinion 2/94 of 28 March 1996 (ECR I-1759) that the fact that an objective is mentioned in the Treaty on European Union cannot make good the lack of that objective in the list of the objectives of the EC Treaty.
V tej zvezi iz točk od 28 do 35 mnenja 2/94 z dne 28. marca 1996 (Recueil, str. I-1759) izhaja, da omemba cilja v Pogodbi EU ne more odpraviti dejstva, da ta cilj ni naveden med cilji Pogodbe ES.
For its part, the United Kingdom maintains that Article 308 EC was used as a means of supplementing the instrumental powers provided for by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, those articles not constituting, therefore, a partial legal basis for the contested regulation.
Združeno kraljestvo pa poudarja, da je bil člen 308 ES uporabljen kot mehanizem, ki omogoča dopolnitev instrumentalnih pristojnosti, določenih v členih 60 ES in 301 ES, ki zato nista delna pravna podlaga izpodbijane uredbe.
The Kingdom of Spain raises in essence the same line of argument.
Kraljevina Španija se v bistvu sklicuje na iste trditve.
With regard to the second part of that ground of appeal, the Council maintains that the raison d’être of the bridge provided for in Article 301 EC is precisely to give it the power to adopt measures intended to attain an objective of the EU Treaty.
Glede drugega dela tega pritožbenega razloga Svet poudarja, da je smiselnost (raison d’être) mostu iz člena 301 ES prav to, da se mu podeli pristojnost za sprejetje ukrepov za uresničitev cilja Pogodbe EU.
The Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the United Kingdom maintain that it is Article 308 EC, and not Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, that enabled the adoption of restrictive measures aimed at individuals and non-State entities, so enlarging the ambit of those two articles.
Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika in Združeno kraljestvo poudarjajo, da je člen 308 ES, ne člena 60 ES in 301 ES, omogočil sprejetje omejevalnih ukrepov, ki se nana�ajo na posameznike in nedržavne subjekte, ter s tem dopolnil področje uporabe teh zadnjih dveh členov.
The United Kingdom and the Member States intervening in the appeal broadly support that position.
Združeno kraljestvo in države članice, ki intervenirajo v pritožbenem postopku, se v bistvu strinjajo s tem stali�čem.
The United Kingdom clarifies its position by stating that, in its view, the action provided for by the contested regulation can be regarded as contributing to the attainment, not of an objective of the Union but of an objective of the Community, namely, the implicit and purely instrumental objective underlying Articles 60 EC and 301 EC of providing effective means of giving effect, exclusively by way of coercive economic measures, to acts adopted under the power conferred upon the Union by Title V of the EU Treaty.
Združeno kraljestvo svoje stali�če pojasnjuje z navedbami, da je za ukrepanje, predvideno v izpodbijani uredbi, mogoče �teti, da ne prispeva k uresničitvi cilja Unije, temveč cilja Skupnosti, to je cilja – ki je implicitno povsem instrumentalen ter izhaja iz členov 60 ES in 301 ES – da se izključno s prisilnimi gospodarskimi ukrepi priskrbi učinkovita sredstva za izvajanje aktov, sprejetih na podlagi pristojnosti, ki jo ima Unija na podlagi naslova V Pogodbe EU.
According to that Member State, when attainment of that instrumental objective requires forms of economic coercion going beyond the powers specifically conferred on the Council by Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, it is appropriate to have recourse to Article 308 EC to supplement those powers.
Kadar so za uresničitev tega instrumentalnega cilja potrebne oblike gospodarske prisile, ki presegajo pristojnosti, ki so Svetu podeljene na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES, je po mnenju te države članice za dopolnitev teh pristojnosti primerna uporaba člena 308 ES.
The Commission, having declared that it had reconsidered its point of view, argues, primarily, that Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, having regard to their wording and context, constituted in themselves appropriate and sufficient legal bases for the adoption of the contested regulation.
Komisija, potem ko je navedla, da je ponovno preučila svoje stali�če, primarno uveljavlja, da sta bila člena 60 ES in 301 ES glede na svoje besedilo ter svoj kontekst primerna in zadostna pravna podlaga za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe.
— the wording of Article 301 EC is sufficiently broad to cover economic sanctions against individuals — provided that they are present in or otherwise associated with a third country.
– Besedilo člena 301 ES naj bi bilo dovolj �iroko, da pokrije gospodarske sankcije, sprejete zoper posameznike, če so ti v tretji državi oziroma so z njo v drugačni zvezi.
The expression ‘economic relations’ covers a vast range of activities.
Pojem „gospodarski odnosi“ naj bi zajemal �irok obseg dejavnosti.
Any economic sanction, even directed at a third country, such as an embargo, directly affects the individuals concerned and the country only
Vse gospodarske sankcije, tudi če se nana�ajo na tretjo državo, kot je embargo, bi neposredno vplivale na zadevne posameznike in le posredno na to državo.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P indirectly.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P
The wording of Article 301 EC, especially the term ‘in part’, does not call for a partial measure to be directed against a particular section of the countries in question, such as the government.
Z besedilom člena 301 ES, zlasti izrazom „delno“, naj se ne bi zahtevalo, da se delni ukrep nana�a na poseben del zadevnih držav, kot je njihova vlada.
Allowing, as it does, the Community to break off completely economic relations with all countries, that provision must also authorise it to interrupt economic relations with a limited number of individuals in a limited number of countries;
Ker lahko Skupnost na podlagi te določbe popolnoma prekine gospodarske odnose z vsemi državami, bi morala ta določba prav tako omogočiti prekinitev gospodarskih odnosov z omejenim �tevilom posameznikov v omejenem �tevilu držav.
— the fact that similar words are used in Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations and in Article 301 EC shows that the authors of that latter provision clearly intended to provide a platform for the implementation by the Community of all measures adopted by the Security Council that call for action by the Community;
– Terminolo�ko skladnost med členom 41 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov in členom 301 ES naj bi zaznamoval jasen namen snovalcev slednje določbe, da predvidijo temelj za to, da Skupnost izvr�i vse ukrepe, ki jih sprejme Varnostni svet in zahtevajo ukrep Skupnosti.
— Article 301 EC puts in place a procedural bridge between the Community and the Union, but seeks neither to increase nor to reduce the ambit of Community competence.
– Člen 301 ES naj bi vzpostavil postopkovni most med Skupnostjo in Unijo, vendar naj njegov namen ne bi bil niti raz�iriti niti zožiti področja pristojnosti Skupnosti.
As a result, that provision has to be interpreted as broadly as the relevant Community powers.
Posledično bi bilo treba to določbo razlagati tako �iroko kot upo�tevne pristojnosti Skupnosti.
The Commission maintains that the measures at issue fall within the ambit of the common commercial policy, having regard to the effect on trade of measures prohibiting the movement of economic resources, and even that those measures constitute provisions relating to the free movement of capital, since they involve the prohibition of transferring economic resources to individuals in third countries.
Komisija poudarja, da zadevni ukrepi, ob upo�tevanju učinka, ki ga imajo na menjavo ukrepi, ki prepovedujejo pretok gospodarskih virov, izhajajo iz skupne trgovinske politike in so celo določbe o prostem pretoku kapitala, ker zajemajo prepoved prenosa gospodarskih virov posameznikom v tretjih državah.
The Commission also argues that it is clear from Article 56(1) and (2) EC that movements of capital and payments between the Community and third countries fall within
Komisija prav tako navaja, da iz člena 56(1) in (2) ES izhaja, da pretok kapitala in plačil med Skupnostjo in tretjimi državami izhaja iz pristojnosti Skupnosti, ter da
Community competence, the Member States being able to adopt sanction measures only within the framework of Article 60(2) EC and not of Article 58(l)(b) EC.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI lahko države članice sprejmejo sankcije na tem področju le v okviru člena 60(2) ES, ne pa v okviru člena 58(1)(b) ES.
In consequence, the Commission believes that recourse may not be had to Article 308 EC for the adoption of the contested regulation, since power to act is provided for in Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
Komisija zato ocenjuje, da se za sprejetje izpodbijane uredbe ni bilo mogoče sklicevati na člen 308 ES, ker je pooblastilo za ukrepanje določeno v členih 60 ES in 301 ES.
The Commission, referring in particular to Case C-94/03 Commission v Council [2006] ECR I-1, paragraph 35, argues that those articles provide the basis for the main or predominant component of the contested regulation, in relation to which other components such as the freezing of the assets of persons who are both nationals of Member States of the Union and associated with a foreign terrorist group are merely secondary.
Ta člena naj bi bila temelj za glavni oziroma prevladujoči sestavni del te uredbe, glede na kateri bi bili drugi sestavni deli, kot je zamrznitev sredstev posameznikov, ki so hkrati državljani držav članic Evropske unije in povezani s tujo teroristično skupino, povsem sekundarnega pomena, pri čemer se Komisija v tej zvezi sklicuje zlasti na sodbo z dne 10. januarja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (C-94/03, ZOdl., I-1, točka 35).
Alternatively, the Commission contends that, before resorting to Article 308 EC, it is necessary to examine the applicability of the articles of the EC Treaty dealing with the common commercial policy and the free movement of capital and payments.
Podredno Komisija navaja, da je pred sklicevanjem na člen 308 ES treba preučiti uporabljivost členov Pogodbe ES na področju skupne trgovinske politike ter prostega pretoka kapitala in plačil.
In the further alternative, it maintains that, if Article 308 EC were to be held to be the legal basis of the contested regulation, it would be the sole legal basis, for recourse to that provision must be based on the consideration that action by the Community is necessary in order to attain one of the objectives of the Community and not, as the Court of First Instance held, the objectives of the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, in this case the CFSP.
Podrednejo poudarja, da če je treba člen 308 ES �teti kot pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe, bi bila to edina pravna podlaga, ker mora sklicevanje na to določbo temeljiti na preudarku, da je ukrepanje Skupnosti potrebno zaradi doseganja enega od njenih ciljev, ne pa, kot je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, zaradi uresničitve ciljev Pogodbe EU, v tem primeru ciljev SZVP.
The Community objectives involved in this instance are the common commercial policy, mentioned in Article 3(1)(b) EC, and the free movement of capital, referred to by implication in Article 3(1)(c) EC, read in conjunction with the relevant provisions of the EC Treaty, namely those contained in Article 56 EC relating to the free movement of capital to and from third countries.
V tem primeru naj bi �lo za cilj Skupnosti v zvezi s skupno trgovinsko politiko, ki je določen v členu 3(1)(b) ES, in cilj v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala, ki je implicitno določen v členu 3(1)(c) ES, v povezavi z upo�tevnimi določbami Pogodbe ES, namreč s členom 56 ES v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala s tretjimi državami.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P on trade, regardless of the fact that they were adopted in pursuit of foreign policy objectives, fall within the ambit of those Community objectives.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P zadevni ukrepi vplivali na trgovino, čeprav so bili sprejeti v okviru uresničevanja ciljev zunanje politike, naj bi spadali v okvir navedenih ciljev Skupnosti.
— it is an extensive interpretation of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC misconstruing the radically different and new nature of what are known as the ‘smart’ sanctions in question, in that they are no longer linked to any third country, and a hazardous interpretation, for those articles were introduced at a time when such a link was a feature of sanctions;
– Šlo naj bi za �iroko razlago členov 60 ES in 301 ES, ki naj ne bi upo�tevala, da gre za povsem drugačno in novo vrsto tako imenovanih „pametnih“ sankcij, ker te ne izkazujejo več nobene zveze s tretjo državo; ta razlaga bi bila tvegana, saj so bili ti členi bili uvedeni,ko je bila tak�na vez za sankcije značilna.
— unlike the ‘smart’ sanctions in question, a total embargo is essentially directed against the rulers of a third country on whom such a measure is designed to exert pressure, and only indirectly against economic operators in the country concerned, so that it cannot be argued that all sanctions, including embargoes, are primarily directed at individuals;
– Drugače kot zadevne pametne sankcije se popoln embargo nana�a predvsem na voditelje tretje države, na katere naj bi tak ukrep izvajal pritisk, in le posredno na gospodarske subjekte zadevne države, tako da ne bi bilo mogoče trditi, da se vsaka sankcija, vključno z embargom, primarno nana�a na posameznike.
— unlike Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 301 EC is specifically concerned with the interruption of economic relations ‘with one or more third countries’, with the result that no argument can be drawn from the similarity of the wording of those two provisions;
– V nasprotju s členom 41 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov se člen 301 ES nana�a posebej na prekinitev gospodarskih odnosov „z eno ali več tretjimi državami“, tako da iz podobnosti besedila teh dveh določb ne bi bilo mogoče izpeljati nobene trditve.
— Article 301 EC is not just a procedural provision.
– Člen 301 ES naj ne bi bil preprosta postopkovna določba.
It institutes a specific legal basis and procedure and clearly confers material competence upon the Community;
Ta določba naj bi uvedla pravno podlago in poseben postopek ter Skupnosti jasno poverila materialno pristojnost.
— the measures imposed by the contested regulation do not concern commercial relations between the Community and third countries, and cannot, therefore, rely on the objective of the common commercial policy;
– Ukrepi, ki jih nalaga izpodbijana uredba, naj se ne bi nana�ali na trgovinske odnose med Skupnostjo in tretjimi državami, zato se ne morejo sklicevati na cilj skupne trgovinske politike.
— the Court of First Instance correctly held that those measures do not help to avoid the risk of obstacles to the free movement of capital and that Article 60(2) EC cannot be used as the basis for restrictive measures aimed at individuals or entities.
– Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi pravilno presodilo, da ti ukrepi ne prispevajo k temu, da se prepreči tveganje oviranja prostega pretoka kapitala, in da naj se s členom 60(2) ES ne bi utemeljilo omejevalnih ukrepov zoper posameznike ali subjekte.
That provision concerning only measures against third countries, the measures at issue could have been adopted only pursuant to Article 58(1)(b) EC.
Ta določba naj bi določala le ukrepe zoper tretje države, zato so bili zadevni ukrepi lahko sprejeti le v okviru člena 58(1)(b) ES.
Recourse to Articles 133 EC or 57(2) EC is not permitted, given that the measures laid down by the contested regulation do not concern commercial relations with third countries and do not fall within the category of movements of capital referred to in Article 57(2) EC.
Sklicevanje na člena 133 ES ali 57(2) ES naj ne bi bilo dopustno, ker se ukrepi, določeni z izpodbijano uredbo, ne nana�ajo na trgovinske odnose s tretjimi državami in ne izhajajo iz kategorije pretoka kapitala iz člena 57(2) ES.
Nor can it be argued that the contested regulation is designed to attain any Community objectives within the meaning of Article 308 EC.
Še več, ne bi bilo mogoče trditi, da se z izpodbijano uredbo stremi k doseganju ciljev Skupnosti v smislu člena 308 ES.