natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation imposes no limit as regards the age of a vessel eligible for an increase in capacity on safety grounds.
Člen 4(2) Odločbe 97/413 o ciljih in pravilih za prestrukturiranje ribi�kega sektorja Skupnosti med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2001 za doseganje trajnega ravnovesja med ribolovnimi viri in njihovim izkori�čanjem ne predpisuje nobene omejitve glede starosti plovila v zvezi z upravičenostjo do povečanja zmogljivosti na področju varnosti.
The concept of improvements referred to in that provision refers to improvements to the national fleet, instead of to a particular vessel.
Pojem izbolj�av iz te določbe se ne nana�a na izbolj�ave, izvedene na točno določenem plovilu, ampak na nacionalno floto.
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P AND C-382/06 P pursued by that decision of conserving the fishing stocks in Community waters, that new vessels be excluded from the regime laid down by that provision.
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE C-373/06 P, C-379/06 P IN C-382/06 P cilja ohranjanja staležev rib v vodah Skupnosti, ki ga zasleduje ta odločba, ni potrebno, da so nova plovila izključena iz ureditve, ki je predvidena v navedeni določbi.
objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall criteria which are not provided for in the applicable legislation, the Commission exceeded its powers.
zaradi izbolj�av glede varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih pogojev za plovila, katerih skupna dolžina zna�a več kot dvanajst metrov, sprejela merila, ki jih veljavni predpisi v obravnavani zadevi ne predvidevajo, prekoračila svoje pristojnosti.
In those circumstances, by adopting in Decision 2003/245 on the requests received by the Commission to increase Multiannual Guidance Programme IV
V teh okoli�činah je Komisija, s tem da je v Odločbi 2003/245 o zahtevah, ki jih je prejela Komisija za povečanje ciljev večletnega usmerjevalnega programa IV
(see paras 46, 47)
(Glej točki 46 in 47.)
SHARPSTONdelivered on 11 December 2007 the contested decision since the vessels in question were ‘fictitious’. 5
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNE PRAVOBRANILKEELEANOR SHARPSTON, predstavljeni 11. decembra 2007 1 posamično, glede na to, da zadevna plovila ne obstajajo. 5
The appellants are owners of vessels which formed part of the Irish fishing fleet.
Pritožniki so lastniki plovil, ki so del irske ribi�ke flote.
Before the Court of First Instance, they sought the annulment of Decision 2003/245/EC 2(‘the contested decision’), by which the Commission rejected their requests to increase the ‘safety tonnage’ 3 of their vessels.
Pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje so zahtevale razglasitev ničnosti Odločbe 2003/245/ES 2(v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana odločba), s katero je Komisija zavrnila njihove zahteve glede povečanja „varne tonaže“ 3 njihovih plovil.
The Court of First Instance therefore rejected their applications as inadmissible.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je njihove tožbe zavrglo kot nedopustne.
In relation to 19 other applicants, it declared the applications admissible and annulled the contested decision.
Glede 19 drugih tožečih strank je ugotovilo, da so tožbe dopustne, in je izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično.
In the judgment under appeal, 4 the Court of First Instance found that the appellants had no interest in bringing an action, as at the date of the contested decision they had not built, and hence did not own, the vessels in question.
V izpodbijani sodbi 4je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da tožeče stranke niso imele pravnega interesa za vložitev tožbe, saj do dneva izdaje izpodbijane odločbe tožeče stranke teh plovil niso zgradile in torej niso bile lastnice zadevnih plovil.
It also found that the appellants were not individually concerned by
Ugotovilo je tudi, da jih izpodbijana odločba ne zadeva
Three of the four unsuccessful applicants 6 have appealed.
Tri od �tirih neuspe�nih tožečih strank 6so vložile pritožbo. Sodi�ču predlagajo, naj
set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance insofar as it dismissed their applications, and to annul the contested decision.
razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v delu, v katerem so bile njihove tožbe zavrnjene, in naj izpodbijano odločbo razglasi za nično.
2 — Decision of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48).
2 – Odločba Komisije 2003/245/ES z dne 4. aprila 2003 o zahtevah, ki jih je prejela Komisija za povečanje ciljev VUP IV zaradi izbolj�av glede varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih pogojev za plovila, katerih skupna dolžina zna�a več kot 12 metrov (UL L 90, str. 48).
3 — An increase to the tonnage of a vessel in order to render her more seaworthy or to provide safer working conditions for her crew, without increasing her available tonnage for carrying fish.
3 – Povečanje tonaže plovil, da postanejo sposobna za plovbo po morju ali da se zagotovi varnej�e delovne pogoje za njihovo posadko, ne da bi se povečala tonaža, ki je na razpolago za prevoz rib.
5 — Paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal.
5 – Točka 62 izpodbijane sodbe.
6 — The fourth, O’Neill Fishing Co.
4 – Sodba z dne 16. junija 2006 v združenih zadevah Boyle in drugi proti Komisiji (od T-218/03 do T-240/03, ZOdl., str. II-1699).
Legal context foreseen by such a programme justifies a corresponding increase in the objectives of the MAGP IV …’
Pravni okvir zmogljivosti, predvideno v takem programu, upravičuje ustrezno povečanje ciljev VUP IV […]“.
Article 4(2) of Council Decision 97/413/EC 7 is worded as follows:
Člen 4(2) Odločbe Sveta 97/413/ES 7določa:
Factual background
Dejansko stanje
‘In the multiannual guidance programmes for Member States,[ 8] increases in capacity resulting exclusively from safety improvements shall justify, on a case-by-case basis, an increase by the same amount of the objectives for fleet segments where they do not increase the fishing effort of the vessels concerned.’
„V večletnih usmerjevalnih programih, namenjenih državam članicam[ 8], povečanje zmogljivosti, ki izhaja izključno iz izbolj�anj na področju varnosti, upravičuje glede na posamezni primer enakovredno povečanje ciljev za segmente flote, če ne povečajo ribolovnega napora zadevnih plovil.“
Between 1999 and 2001, the Irish Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (‘the Department’) and the Commission exchanged correspondence relating to Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413.
Med letoma 1999 in 2001 sta ministrstvo za pomorstvo (v nadaljevanju: ministrstvo) in Komisija izmenjala korespondenco v zvezi s členom 4(2) Odločbe 97/413.
According to point 3.3 of the annex to Commission Decision 98/125/EC: 9
Točka 3.3 priloge k Odločbi Komisije 98/125/ES določa: 9
7 — Decision of 26 June 1997 concerning the objectives and detailed rules for restructuring the Community fisheries sector for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 with a view to achieving a balance on a sustainable basis between resources and their exploitation (OJ 1997 L 175, p. 27).
7 – Odločba Sveta 97/413/ES z dne 26. junija 1997 o ciljih in pravilih za prestrukturiranje ribi�kega sektorja Skupnosti med 1. januarjem 1997 in 31. decembrom 2001 za doseganje trajnega ravnotežja med ribolovnimi viri in njihovim izkori�čanjem (UL L 175, str. 27).
8 — Abbreviated as MAGPs.
8 – Kratica VUP.
9 — Decision of 16 December 1997 approving the multiannual guidance programme for the fishing fleet of Ireland for the period from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2001 (OJ 1998 L 39, p. 41; ‘MAGP IV’).
9 – Odločba Komisije 98/125/ES z dne 16. decembra 1997 o odobritvi večletnega usmerjevalnega programa ribi�ke flote Irske za obdobje od 1. januarja 1997 do 31. decembra 2001 (UL 1998 L 39, str.
By letter of 14 December 2001, the Department requested the Commission to increase
Z dopisom z dne 14. decembra 2001 je ministrstvo na podlagi člena 4(2) Odločbe
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION the polyvalent segment 10 of the Irish fleet
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI
‘Article 1 by 1304 gross tonnes (‘GT’) and the pelagic segment 11by 5335 GT under Article 4(2) of Decision 97/413.
97/413 Komisiji predlagalo povečanje polivalentnega segmenta 10irske flote za 1.304 ton bruto (v nadaljevanju: BT) in pelagičnega segmenta 11 za 5.335 BT.
(Other Member States made similar requests in respect of vessels in their fishing fleets.)
(Druge države članice so predlagale podobno za plovila svojih ribi�kih flot.)
Eligibility of requests
Upravičenost zahtev
The requests to increase MAGP IV tonnage objectives will be considered eligible subject to the following conditions:
Zahteve za povečanje ciljev VUP IV na področju tonaže se bodo �tele za upravičene pod naslednjimi pogoji:
The Department’s letter stated that it was prompted by the requests of 38 owners of vessels who had altered or replaced their vessels, or who intended to do so.
V dopisu ministrstva je bilo navedeno, da so ga spodbudile zahteve 38 lastnikov plovil, ki so izvedli spremembe na svojih plovilih ali so jih nadomestili oziroma to nameravajo storiti.
It was accompanied by documentation relating to the vessels concerned, which included those of the appellants.
Dopisu je bila priložena dokumentacija v zvezi z zadevnimi plovili, med katerimi so bila tudi plovila pritožnikov.
(1) the requests have been forwarded on a case-by-case basis by the Member State before 31 December 2001;
plovilo je pravilno vpisano v ladijski register Skupnosti;
(2) the vessel must be properly registered in the Fleet Register of the Community;
skupna dolžina plovila je najmanj petnajst metrov;
On 4 April 2003 the Commission adopted the contested decision.
Komisija je 4. aprila 2003 sprejela izpodbijano odločbo.
The operative part reads as follows:
Izrek izpodbijane odločbe se glasi:
10 — This segment comprises multi-purpose vessels and includes small inshore vessels, and medium and large offshore vessels targeting whitefish, pelagic fish and bivalve molluscs: see the 2005 Annual Report of the Licensing Authority for Sea-fishing Boats of the Irish Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources (‘the 2005 Annual Report’), at p. 7, available online at http://www. dcmnr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/1293CB76-B763-43A7-8AB9- F1F696245A28/0/LicensingAuthAnnRept051.pdf.
10 – Ta segment vsebuje večnamenska plovila in vključuje majhna obalna plovila ter srednja in velika plovila za plovbo na odprtem morju za lov na belo ribo, pelagično ribo in �koljke: glej letno poročilo organa za izdajo dovoljenj za plovila za pomorski ribolov irskega ministrstva za pomorstvo za leto 2005 (letno poročilo za leto 2005), na str. 7, ki ga najdete na http://www.dcmnr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/1293CB76-B763- 43A7-8AB9-F1F696245A28/0/LicensingAuthAnnRept051. pdf.
11 — This segment comprises vessels engaged predominantly in fishing for pelagic species (primarily herring, mackerel, horse mackerel and blue whiting): see the 2005 Annual Report, at p. 7.
11 – Ta segment vključuje plovila, namenjena pretežno ribolovu pelagičnih vrst (predvsem slanik, sku�a, �ur in sinji mol): glej letno poročilo za leto 2005, str. 7.
(4) the increase in tonnage is the result of modernisation works over the main deck performed or to be performed on an existing registered vessel at least five
povečanje tonaže je posledica že izvedenih posodobitvenih del na glavnem krovu oziroma del, ki se bodo izvedla na že obstoječem registriranem plovilu, ki je ob začetku del staro najmanj pet let. Če se je plovilo potopilo, mora
In the case where a vessel has been lost at sea, the increase in tonnage is the result of a greater volume over the main deck of the replacement vessel with respect to the vessel that was lost;
Člen 3 biti povečanje tonaže posledica večje prostornine na glavnem krovu nadomestnega plovila v primerjavi s potopljenim plovilom;
(5) the increase in tonnage is justified in order to improve safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions;
Kraljevina Belgija, Irska, Kraljevina Nizozemska, Kraljevina Švedska in Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska so naslovniki te odločbe.“ povečanje tonaže je upravičeno za izbolj�avo varnosti, pomorske navigacije, higiene, kakovosti proizvodov in delovnih pogojev;
(6) the volume under the main deck of the modified vessel or the replacement vessel is not increased.
prostornina pod glavnim krovom spremenjenega ali nadomestnega plovila se ne poveča.
The list of ‘rejected requests’ in Annex II to the contested decision included the appellants’ requests in respect of new vessels to replace, respectively, the MFV Westward Isle (Flaherty), the MFV Menhaden (Murphy) and the MFV Golden Rose (Ocean Trawlers), none of which had been lost at sea.
Na seznamu „zavrnjene zahteve“ iz Priloge II k izpodbijani odločbi so bile tudi zahteve pritožnikov glede novih plovil, ki so zamenjala MFV Westward Isle (Flaherty), MFV Menhaden (Murphy) oziroma MFV Golden Rose (Ocean Trawlers), od katerih pa nobeno ni bilo potopljeno.
Requests to increase the MAGP IV power objectives will not be eligible.
Zahteve za povečanje ciljev VUP IV glede moči niso upravičene.
Procedure before the Court of First Instance and judgment under appeal
Postopek pred sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
The requests that are accepted according to the criteria fixed in Article 1 are those listed in Annex I.
Zahteve, sprejete na podlagi meril, določenih v členu 1, so navedene v Prilogi I.
Before the Court of First Instance, 23 applicants sought annulment of the contested decision insofar as it rejected their requests for an increase in the capacity of their vessels.
Pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje je 23 tožečih strank predlagalo, naj se izpodbijana odločba razglasi za nično v delu, v katerem so bile zavrnjene zahteve za povečanje zmogljivosti njihovih plovil.
The requests all related to the construction of new vessels to replace existing vessels which had not been lost at sea.
Vse zahteve so se nana�ale na gradnjo novih plovil, ki bi nadomestila plovila, ki se niso potopila.
They invoked the Commission’s absence of power, breach of the duty to state reasons and breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Zatrjevale so neobstoj pristojnosti Komisije, kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve in kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION were based on their intention at the material time to have vessels built and given the names set out in Annex II to the contested decision.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI temeljile na njihovi takratni nameri, da zgradijo plovila in jih poimenujejo z imeni, povzetimi v Prilogi II k izpodbijani odločbi.
It transpired, however, that those applicants did not have those vessels built, so that at the date of the contested decision they were not in fact owners of the vessels in question.
Vendar se je izkazalo, da navedene tožeče stranke teh plovil niso zgradile, tako da na dan izdaje izpodbijane odločbe dejansko niso bile lastnice zadevnih plovil.
It follows that those applicants had no interest in bringing an action.
Iz tega sledi, da navedene tožeče stranke nimajo pravnega interesa za vložitev tožbe.
In any event, they are not individually concerned by the contested decision since the vessels in question are fictitious.’
V vsakem primeru pa jih izpodbijana odločba ne zadeva posamično, glede na to, da zadevna plovila ‚ne obstajajo.‘“
The Court of First Instance first examined an objection to admissibility raised by the Commission, to the effect that the applicants were not directly and individually concerned by the contested decision for the purposes of Article 230 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je najprej odločalo o ugovoru dopustnosti, ki ga je vložila Komisija, da naj izpodbijana odločba ne bi zadevala tožečih strank neposredno in posamično v smislu člena 230 ES.
It dismissed that objection, on the grounds, essentially, (i) that the decision was to be considered to be a series of individual decisions, each affecting the legal situation of the owners of the vessels listed in the annexes, including the applicants, who were characterised by reference to all other persons and distinguished individually in the same way as an addressee of the decision and (ii) that it directly affected the applicants’ legal situation, leaving no discretion to the addressees entrusted with the task of implementing it. 12
Ta ugovor je zavrnilo na podlagi tega, da (i) je ta odločba skupek posamičnih odločb, v katerem vsaka vpliva na pravni položaj lastnikov plovil, navedenih v prilogah, vključno s tožečimi strankami, ki so bile opredeljene glede na vse druge osebe in so se posamično enako razlikovale kot naslovnik odločbe, in (ii) da neposredno vpliva na pravni položaj tožečih strank in tako ne dopu�ča diskrecije naslovnikom, ki naj bi jo vnesli v svojo zakonodajo. 12
The Court of First Instance then annulled the contested decision in so far as it applied to the vessels of the remaining 19 applicants.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato izpodbijano odločbo razglasilo za nično v delu, v katerem se je nana�ala na plovila preostalih 19 tožečih strank.
It found that the Commission had exceeded its powers by adopting, in the contested decision, criteria not provided for in the relevant applicable rules, 14 in particu- lar by rejecting all applications for extra safety tonnage achieved not by modification of existing vessels but by building new vessels in the place of existing vessels. 15
Ugotovilo je, da je Komisija preko -račila pooblastila, ko je v izpodbijani odločbi uporabila merila, ki jih zadevni veljavni predpisi ne določajo, 14zlasti s tem, da je zavrnila vse zahteve za povečano varno tonažo, ki ni bila pridobljena s spreminja -njem obstoječih plovil, ampak z zgraditvijo novih namesto obstoječih plovil. 15
However, in view of Ireland’s answers to questions put to it by way of measures of organisation of procedure, the Court of First Instance, of its own motion, raised the question of whether Thomas Flaherty (Case T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (Case T-226/03), Larry Murphy (Case T-236/03) and O’Neill Fishing Co.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje glede na odgovore Irske na vpra�anja, zastavljena z ukrepi procesnega vodstva, samo zastavilo vpra�anje, ali so Thomas Flaherty (zadeva T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (zadeva T-226/03), Larry Murphy (zadeva T-236/03) in O’Neill Fishing Co.
Ltd (Case T-239/03) 13had an interest in bringing proceedings.
Ltd (zadeva T-239/03) 13imeli pravni interes za vložitev tožbe. Sklenilo je:
The appellants submit that the finding on the admissibility of their actions was incorrect in law.
Pritožniki trdijo, da gre pri ugotovitvi o dopustnosti njihovih tožb za napačno uporabo prava.
They request that the Court
Zahtevajo, da Sodi�če razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v delu, v katerem
14 — Paragraph 134 of the judgment under appeal.
„(62) Iz teh odgovorov izhaja, da so zahteve, ki so jih vložile te �tiri tožeče stranke,
15 — Paragraphs 102 to 132 of the judgment under appeal.
15 – Točke od 102 do 132 izpodbijane odločbe.
Since maritime history contains a long and melancholy catalogue of instances where modified and/or ‘improved’ vessels have subsequently suffered structural failure and foundered in bad weather, one may perhaps be thankful for the fishermen’s sake that the Court of First Instance reached the conclusion that it did.
Ker je bilo v pomorski zgodovini veliko žalostnih primerov, kjer so spremenjena in/ali „izbolj�ana“ plovila utrpela strukturno napako in bila potopljena v slabem vremenu, smo lahko v imenu ribičev hvaležni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo tako.
12 — Paragraphs 42 to 60 of the judgment under appeal.13 — Not involved in the current appeal: see footnote 6.
12 – Točke od 42 do 60 izpodbijane sodbe.13 – Ni vključen v to pritožbo: glej opombo 6.
They also ask the Court to annul the contested decision and order the Commission to pay the costs of the whole proceedings.
Zahtevajo tudi, naj Sodi�če razglasi izpodbijano odločbo za nično in naloži Komisiji plačilo stro�kov celotnega postopka.
It is important to bear in mind that, in the remainder of its judgment (no part of which is called in question by the Commission), the Court of First Instance (i) dismissed — without distinguishing between the present appellants and the other 19 applicants — the Commission’s objection that none of the applicants was directly and individually concerned by the contested decision and (ii) found that the Commission had been wrong to reject requests on the ground that the increased safety tonnage resulted from the building of new vessels rather than the modification of existing vessels.
Pomembno je upo�tevati, da je v preostalem delu sodbe (noben del, v katerega Komisija dvomi) Sodi�če prve stopnje (i) zavrnilo – ne da bi razlikovalo med sedanjimi pritožniki in drugimi 19 tožečimi stran -kami – ugovor Komisije, da izpodbijana odločba nobene izmed tožečih strank ni zadevala neposredno ali posamično, in (ii) ugotovilo, da Komisija ni ravnala pravilno, ko je zavrnila zahteve na podlagi tega, da bi bilo povečano varno tonažo bolje pridobiti z gradnjo novih plovil kot s spremembo obstoječih.
The appellants submit, inter alia, that the finding of inadmissibility in their regard is incompatible with those other findings.
Pritožniki med drugim trdijo, da ugotovitev nedopustnosti glede njih ni v skladu s preostalimi ugotovitvami.
In essence, I agree, for the reasons set out below, and I do not consider it necessary for that purpose — or appropriate, in the context of an appeal — to examine the other considerations put forward, of a more factual nature.
V bistvu se zaradi spodaj navedenih razlogov strinjam in mislim, da v ta namen ni nujno – ali ustrezno v kontekstu pritožbe – preučiti preostala predložena dejstva.
In the course of both the written and oral proceedings, the parties have discoursed at length on a number of factual considerations which do not appear to me to be relevant in the context of this appeal, the purpose of which is to determine whether the Court of First Instance’s finding in paragraph 62 of its judgment can be upheld as a matter of law.
Tako med pisnim kot med ustnim postopkom so stranke podrobno obravnavale �tevilna dejstva, ki se mi ne zdijo upo�tevna za to pritožbo, katere namen je določiti, ali so ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje iz točke 62 izpodbijane sodbe lahko pravno pravilne.
According to settled caselaw, an action for annulment brought by a natural or legal person is not admissible unless the applicant has an interest in seeing the contested
Po ustaljeni sodni praksi je ničnostna tožba, ki jo vloži fizična ali pravna oseba, dopustna le, če ima tožeča stranka interes, da se ugotovi ničnost izpodbijanega akta.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the appellants’ applications as inadmissible on two grounds: (i) lack of interest in bringing an action, on the ground that, although the appellants had had the ‘intention at the material time to have vessels built and given the names set out in Annex II to the contested decision’, they ‘did not have those vessels built, so that at the date of the contested decision they were not in fact owners of the vessels in question’; and (ii) lack of individual concern, since the vessels in question were ‘fictitious’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tožbe pritožnikov zavrglo kot nedopustne iz dveh razlogov: (i) neobstoj pravnega interesa za vložitev tožbe, ker pritožniki, čeprav so takrat imeli namen zgraditi plovila in jih poimenovati, kot je določeno v Prilogi II k izpodbijani odločbi, teh plovil niso zgradili, tako da na dan izdaje izpodbijane odločbe dejansko niso bili lastniki zadevnih plovil; in (ii) neobstoj posamičnega zadevanja, saj zadevna plovila „niso obstajala“.
FLAHERTY AND OTHERS v COMMISSION measure annulled.
FLAHERTY IN DRUGI PROTI KOMISIJI
That interest must be vested and present.
Ta interes mora biti obstoječ in dejanski. Ocenjuje se ga na dan, ko je vložena tožba. 16