natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— Asylum policy — Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status: judgment of 6 May 2008 (Parliament v Council, C-133/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Opredelitev in pridobitev znamke Skupnosti – Absolutni razlogi za zavrnitev – Znamke brez razlikovalnega učinka: sodba z dne 8. maja 2008 (Eurohypo proti UUNT, C-304/06 P) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-133/06
Zadeva C-133/06
(Action for annulment — Common policy on asylum — Directive 2005/85/EC — Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status — Safe countries of origin — European safe third countries — Minimum common lists — Procedure for adopting or amending the minimum common lists — Article 67(1) and first indent of Article 67(5) EC — No power)
„Ničnostna tožba – Skupna azilna politika – Direktiva 2005/85/ES – Postopek za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah – Varne izvorne države – Varne tretje evropske države – Minimalni skupni seznami – Postopek sprejetja in spremembe minimalnih skupnih seznamov – Člen 67(1) in (5), prva alinea, ES – Nepristojnost“
Visas, asylum, immigration — Asylum policy — Procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status
Vizumi, azil in priseljevanje – Azilna politika – Postopek za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah
SUMMARY — CASE C-133/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-133/06
Acts of the institutions — Procedure for adoption — Rules laid down in the Treaty — Mandatory nature
Akti institucij – Postopek priprave – Pravila iz Pogodbe – Kogentnost (člen 67(2), druga alinea, ES)
(Arts 63, first para., points 1 and 2(a), EC, 67(1) and (5) EC and 202 EC; Council Directive 2005/85)
(členi 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 in 2(a), 67(1) in (5), in 202 ES; Direktiva Sveta 2005/85)
vation of implementing powers which is specific to the Council.
varnih držav in njunih spremembah, ne obrazložijo pa dovolj pridržka izvajanja, ki je v okviru Sveta poseben primer.
Under Article 202 EC, when measures implementing a basic instrument need to be taken at Community level, it is the Commission which, in the normal course of events, is responsible for exercising that power.
Če je treba na ravni Skupnosti sprejeti ukrepe za izvajanje temeljnega akta, je v skladu s členom 202 ES običajno Komisija pristojna izvajati to pooblastilo.
The Council must properly explain, by reference to the nature and content of the basic instrument to be implemented, why exception is being made to that rule.
Svet mora glede na naravo in vsebino temeljnega akta, ki ga izvaja, pravilno utemeljiti izjemo od tega pravila.
The rules regarding the manner in which the Community institutions arrive at their decisions are laid down in the Treaty and are not at the disposal of the Member States or of the institutions themselves.
Pravila o izražanju volje institucij Skupnosti so določena v Pogodbi in niso na razpolago niti državam članicam niti institucijam.
The Treaty alone may, in particular cases such as that provided for in the second indent of Article 67(2) EC, empower an institution to amend a deci-sion-making procedure established by the Treaty.
Le iz Pogodbe lahko v posameznih primerih, kot je ta, predviden v členu 67(2), druga alinea, ES, izhaja pooblastilo instituciji, da spremeni postopek odločanja, ki je določen s Pogodbo.
In that regard, the grounds set out in recitals 19 and 24 in the preamble to Directive 2005/85 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, which relate respectively to the political importance of the designation of safe countries of origin and to the potential consequences for asylum applicants of the safe third country concept, are conducive to justifying the consultation of the Parliament in respect of the establishment of the lists of safe countries and the amendments to be made to them, but not to justifying sufficiently a reser-
V zvezi s tem razlogi, navedeni v devetnajsti in �tiriindvajseti uvodni izjavi Direktive 2005/85 o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah, ki se nana�ajo na politični pomen označitve izvornih držav za varne oziroma na posledice, ki bi jih za prosilca za azil lahko imel koncept varne tretje države, utemeljujejo posvetovanje s Parlamentom o sprejetju seznamov
To acknowledge that an institution can establish secondary legal bases, whether for the purpose of strengthening or easing the detailed rules for the adoption of an act, would be tantamount to
Če bi instituciji priznali možnost ustvarjanja izvedenih pravnih podlag v smislu otežitve ali poenostavljanja podrobnih pravil za sprejetje akta, bi s tem instituciji dodelili zakonodajno pooblastilo, ki
PARLIAMENT v COUNCIL according that institution a legislative power which exceeds that provided for by the Treaty.
PARLAMENT PROTI SVETU presega pooblastilo iz Pogodbe.
It would also enable the institution concerned to undermine the principle of institutional balance which requires that each of the institutions must exercise its powers with due regard for the powers of the other institutions.
To bi ji prav tako omogočalo kr�itev načela institucionalnega ravnovesja, ki pomeni, da mora vsaka institucija izvr�evati lastna pooblastila ob spo�tovanju pooblastil drugih institucij.
of a delegation or reservation of implementing powers, fall within paragraphs (1) or (5) of Article 67 EC, it is necessary to assess whether, with the adoption of Directive 2005/85 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status, the Council has adopted Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles governing the issues covered by points 1 and 2(a) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC.
uporabi prvi ali peti odstavek člena 67 ES, je treba presoditi, ali je Svet s sprejetjem Direktive 2005/85 o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah sprejel zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela glede vpra�anj iz člena 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 in 2(a), ES.
Furthermore, the existence of an earlier practice of establishing secondary legal bases cannot derogate from the rules laid down in the Treaty and cannot therefore create a precedent binding on the institutions.
Med drugim obstoj predhodne prakse, v okviru katere so se ustvarjale izvedene pravne podlage, ne sme odstopati od pravil Pogodbe ES in zato ne more ustvariti precedenčnega primera, ki bi zavezoval institucije.
(see paras 54-57, 60)
(Glej točke od 54 do 57 in 60.)
Since Directive 2005/85 adopts detailed criteria enabling the lists of safe countries to be established subsequently, the Council has, by that legislative act, adopted ‘Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles’ within the meaning of the first indent of Article 67(5) EC, and therefore the co-decision procedure is applicable.
Ker so bila z Direktivo 2005/85 sprejeta podrobna merila, ki omogočajo vzpostavitev poznej�ih seznamov varnih držav, je Svet s tem zakonodajnim aktom sprejel „zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela“ v smislu člena 67(5), prva alinea, ES, in se zato uporabi postopek soodločanja.
In order to determine whether the future adoption and amendment of the lists of safe countries through legislation or any decision to apply the third indent of Article 202 EC, in the form
Da bi lahko ugotovili, ali se za zakonodajno sprejetje in spremembo seznamov varnih držav ali za morebitno odločitev o uporabi člena 202, tretja alinea, ES v obliki prenosa ali pridržka izvajanja
(see paras 63, 65, 66)
(Glej točke 63, 65 in 66.)
In this case the Court of Justice is being asked to rule on a legal question of fundamental importance for the Community institutional system and the institutional balance which underpins it.
Sodi�če naj se v obravnavani zadevi izreče o pravnem vpra�anju, ki je temeljnega pomena za institucionalni sistem Skupnosti in za institucionalno ravnovesje, iz katerega izhaja.
The question is whether it is permissible under Community law to create secondary legal bases for the purpose of adopting legislative measures following a simplified procedure as opposed to that laid down by the Treaty.
Gre za dopustnost, da se v pravu Skupnosti ustvarjajo izvedene pravne podlage z namenom sprejemanja zakonodajnih aktov po enostavnej�em postopku, kot je postopek, ki ga določa Pogodba.
In other words, it is a matter of deciding whether it is legally possible to delegate legislative power within the Community legal order.
Drugače povedano, gre za ugotovitev, ali so prenosi zakonodajnih pooblastil v pravnem redu Skupnosti zakoniti.
The contested directive is based on point 1(d) of the first paragraph of Article 63 EC which provides: ‘The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 67, shall, within a period of five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, adopt:
Sporna direktiva temelji na členu 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(d), ES, ki določa:
measures on asylum … within the following areas:
I – Pravni okvir tožbe ukrepe, ki se nana�ajo na azil, […] na naslednjih področjih:
On the basis of the first paragraph of Article 230(1) EC, the European Parliament brought an action before the Court of Justice for the annulment, primarily, of Articles 29(1) and (2) and 36(3) of Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005 on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing
Evropski parlament na podlagi člena 230, prvi odstavek, ES Sodi�ču s tožbo predlaga razglasitev ničnosti, primarno, členov 29(1)
(d) minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status;’ providing for all or parts of the areas covered by this Title to be governed by the procedure referred to in Article 251 and adapting the provisions relating to the powers of the Court of Justice’.
Svet po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom soglasno sprejme sklep, s katerim zagotovi, da vsa področja ali dele področij iz tega naslova ureja postopek iz člena 251, in prilagodi določbe o pristojnostih Sodi�ča“.
Directive 2005/85 was adopted unanimously by the Council on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, in accordance with Article 67(1) EC which provides: ‘During a transitional period of five years following the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam, the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission … and after consulting the European Parliament’.
To direktivo je Svet soglasno sprejel na predlog Komisije Evropskih skupnosti in po posvetovanju s Parlamentom, kot to predpisuje člen 67(1) ES:
The directive was in fact adopted more that five years after the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the second indent of Article 67(2) EC provides:
Vendar kot izhaja iz njegove četrte uvodne izjave, Sklep 2007/927/ES 3o prehodu na
While Article 67(5) EC, by derogation from paragraph 1 thereto, provides for the adoption, in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 EC of the measures provided for in Article 63(1) EC, that is only ‘provided that the Council has previously adopted, in accordance with paragraph 1 of this article, Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles governing these issues’.
Oziroma, če člen 67(5) ES z odstopanjem od odstavka 1 omenjenega člena določa sprejetje ukrepov, predvidenih v členu 63(1) ES, v skladu s postopkom iz člena 251 ES, je to le: „če je Svet pred tem v skladu z odstavkom 1 tega člena sprejel zakonodajo Skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela glede teh vpra�anj“.
The contested directive specifically aims to set out the common rules and basic principles governing the procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status.
Namen sporne direktive je ravno določiti skupna pravila in temeljna načela, ki urejajo postopek za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah.
For that purpose, the contested provisions of Directive 2005/85 authorise the Council, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal
V tem pogledu izpodbijane določbe te direktive omogočajo Svetu, da na predlog
The first two pleas raise the central question in this case, which justified its assignment to the Grand Chamber, that of whether it is possible for the Community legislature to have recourse to secondary legal bases.
Prva dva tožbena razloga sprožata osrednje vpra�anje te zadeve, ki utemeljuje obravnavanje zadeve pred velikim senatom, to je možnost zakonodajalca Skupnosti, da se zateka k izvedenim pravnim podlagam.
I will first turn my attention to an assessment of the merits of those two pleas and, as the arguments put forward in support of each one are not easily dissociable, I will examine them together.
Najprej bom posvetil pozornost njegovi utemeljenosti, ker pa so argumenti, navedeni v podporo vsakemu razlogu posebej, nerazdružljivi, jih bom preučil skupaj.
from the Commission and after consultation of the European Parliament, to adopt and to amend, first, a minimum common list of third countries which are to be regarded by Member States as safe countries of origin, which is the object of Article 29(1) and (2) and, second, a common list of European safe third countries, which is the object of Article 36(3) (‘the lists of safe countries’).
Komisije in po posvetovanju z Evropskim parlamentom s kvalificirano večino sprejme in spremeni, prvič, minimalni skupni seznam tretjih držav, ki se �tejejo za varne izvorne države, kar je predmet člena 29(1) in (2), in, drugič, skupen seznam tretjih evropskih držav, ki se �tejejo za varne tretje države, kar določa člen 36(3) (v nadaljevanju: seznama varnih držav).
Those lists of safe countries are to be adopted by applying the criteria for the designation of safe third countries set out in Annex II to that directive and the criteria for the designation of European safe countries set out in Article 36(2) of the directive.
Ta seznama bosta sprejeta v skladu z merili za označitev držav za varne države, ki so določena v prilogi II k omenjeni direktivi, in merili za označitev evropskih držav za varne države iz člena 36(2) te direktive.
II — Merits of the action
II – Utemeljenost tožbe
I would simply observe, as a preliminary point, that the reason for the Parliament’s alternative heads of claim that the directive should be annulled in its entirety is expressly the wish to avoid a finding of inadmissibility which would result from application of the caselaw according to which an application for partial annulment is admissible only if the provisions the annulment of which is sought may be severed from the remainder of the measure. 4 That is so only where the
Parlament s to tožbo Svetu očita, da je z izpodbijanimi določbami ustvaril izvedene pravne podlage, ki ga poobla�čajo, da sprejme in spremeni seznama varnih držav po postopku, ki odstopa od postopka iz člena 67(5), prva alinea, ES, ki določa soodločanje pod nekaterimi pogoji.
By this action, the Parliament essentially alleges that the Council, by means of the contested provisions, created secondary legal bases which enable it to adopt and amend the lists of safe countries according to a procedure which derogates from that of the first indent of Article 67(5) EC, which, subject to conditions, provides for co-decision.
Najprej bom le opozoril, da so podredni predlogi Parlamenta, naj se Direktiva v celoti razglasi za nično, izrecno utemeljeni s skrbjo, da bi se izognili nedopustnosti, ki naj bi izhajala iz uporabe sodne prakse, po kateri je predlog za delno razglasitev ničnosti dopusten, le če je določbe, katerih razglasitev ničnosti se predlaga, mogoče ločiti od preostalega akta.
annulment of the contested provisions would not alter the substance of the measure.
4Tako je le v primeru, če razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanih določb ne bi spremenila bistva akta.
5In the case submitted for our consideration, the annulment of the contested provisions clearly would not alter the substance of the contested directive, with the result that the principal heads of claim are admissible.
5 V zadevi, ki jo preučujem, pa razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanih določb očitno ne bi spremenila bistva sporne direktive, tako da so primarni predlogi dopustni.
4 — See Case C-29/99 Commission v Council [2002] ECR I-11221, paragraphs 45 and 46.
4 – Glej sodbo z dne 10. decembra 2002 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (C-29/99, Recueil, str. I-11221, točki 45 in 46).
5 — See Case C-239/01 Germany v Commission [2003] ECR I-10333, paragraphs 34 to 37.
5 – Glej sodbo z dne 30. septembra 2003 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-239/01, Recueil, str. I-10333, točke od 34 do 37).
The Parliament formally submits four pleas in law supporting its claim for annulment: infringement of the Treaty stemming from disregard of Article 67(5) EC, the Council’s lack of competence, an insufficient statement of reasons constituting a
Parlament v utemeljitev svojega ugovora formalno navaja �tiri tožbene razloge za razglasitev ničnosti: kr�itev Pogodbe, ki je posledica kr�itve člena 67(5) ES, nepristojnost Sveta, nezadostno obrazložitev, ki
Those are the two assumptions which I shall touch on briefly even though, as I am going to demonstrate, it is not necessary to examine their relevance for the purpose of assessing the merits of the pleas of lack of competence and infringement of the Treaty.
Ta tožbena razloga sta očitno nerazdružljiva – če bi bil Svet pristojen za uporabo izvedenih pravnih podlag, ne bi kr�il člena 67(5) ES in bi bila seznama varnih držav pravilno sprejeta na temelju izvedenih pravnih podlag, in ne na podlagi določb Pogodbe.
Directive 2005/85 — the final stage of the necessary legislation?
Direktiva 2005/85, zadnja stopnja potrebne zakonodaje?
It is apparent that the two pleas are inseparable: if the Council had the competence to have recourse to secondary legal bases, it could not have infringed Article 67(5) EC; in that case, the lists of safe countries will be adopted correctly on the basis of secondary legal bases and not on the basis of the Treaty provisions.
Te trditve Parlamenta temeljijo na dveh temeljnih predpostavkah. Člen 67(5) ES naj bi določal, da se seznami varnih držav sprejemajo po postopku soodločanja, če je sporna direktiva zadnja stopnja določitve skupnih pravil in temeljnih načel glede teh vpra�anj s strani zakonodajalca, kar je po besedah
That argument of the Parliament is based on two fundamental assumptions: that Article 67(5) EC requires the lists of safe countries to be adopted according to the co-decision procedure, inasmuch as the contested directive constituted the final stage in the determination by the legislature of the
Člen 67(5), prva alinea, ES, določa, da Svet sprejme ukrepe, predvidene v členu 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 in 2(a), ES po postopku soodločanja iz člena 251 ES, če je pred tem sprejel „zakonodajo skupnosti, ki opredeljuje skupna pravila in temeljna načela glede teh vpra�anj“, to pomeni, da ureja politiko azila, predvideno v členu 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1, ES, in del ukrepov, ki se nana�ajo na begunce in razseljene osebe iz člena 63, prvi odstavek,
Consequently, the subsequent amendment of those lists should follow the co-decision procedure, contrary to what the contested secondary legal bases provide.
Zato bi morala poznej�a sprememba teh seznamov potekati po postopku soodločanja, kar je v nasprotju s tem, kar je določeno v izpodbijanih izvedenih pravnih podlagah.
Failing that, the Council could delay indefinitely completion of the task of determining the common rules and basic principles and, therefore, the transition to the co-decision procedure.
Sicer bi Svet lahko neomejeno zavlačeval končno določitev skupnih pravil in temeljnih načel in s tem prehod na postopek soodločanja.
The Council contends that ‘necessary legislation’ is a vague concept the meaning of which can be defined only by the legislature, in this case the Council.
Sporna direktiva naj bi namreč pomenila zadnjo stopnjo potrebne zakonodaje, ki se zahteva v členu 67(5) ES, za prehod na soodločanje; temeljni pravni okvir s področja člena 63, prvi odstavek, točki 1 in 2(a), ES naj bi bil od tedaj celovit, upo�tevajoč že sprejete zakonodajne ukrepe.
In the present case, the Council took the view that the establishment of the list of safe countries and the list of European safe countries forms part of the Community legislation defining the common rules and basic principles on asylum. Moreover, it endeavoured to adopt them in the actual body of the contested directive.
Parlament navaja te akte: Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 343/2003 z dne 18. februarja 2003 o vzpostavitvi meril in mehanizmov za določitev države članice, odgovorne za obravnavanje pro�nje za azil, ki jo v eni od držav članic vloži državljan tretje države 6, ki temelji na členu 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(a), ES; Direktivo Sveta 2003/9/ES z dne 27. januarja 2003 o minimalnih standardih za sprejem prosilcev za azil 7, ki temelji na členu 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(b), ES; Direktivo Sveta 2004/83/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o minimalnih standardih glede pogojev, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati državljani tretjih držav ali osebe brez državljanstva, da se jim prizna status begunca ali osebe, ki iz drugih razlogov potrebuje mednarodno za�čito, in o vsebini te za�čite 8, ki temelji na členu 63, prvi odstavek, točke 1(c), 2(a) in 3(a), ES.
The contested directive constitutes the final stage of the necessary legislation required by Article 67(5) EC for the transition to co-decision; the basic legal framework in respect of Article 63(1) and 2(a) EC is now complete, given the legislative measures already adopted.
V obravnavanem primeru je Svet menil, da je sprejetje seznama varnih tretjih držav in seznama varnih evropskih držav del zakonodaje Skupnosti, ki določa skupna pravila in temeljna načela na področju azila. Posku�al jih je sprejeti v sporni direktivi.
Secondly, the Parliament submits that if, as the Commission, which intervened in support of the form of order sought by the Parliament, believes to be the case, the initial adoption of the lists of safe countries still had to form part of the common rules required
Parlament podredno zatrjuje, da – kot meni tudi Komisija, ki je intervenirala v
It is apparent that the parties are divided as regards that problem of categorisation.
Tako vidimo, da so mnenja strank o tem problemu opredelitve različna.
I would observe at the outset that it is obviously not possible to share the Council’s opinion as regards the absolute discretion it claims to have to decide on what forms part of the necessary legislation.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da se očitno ni mogoče strinjati s Svetom o popolni diskreciji, ki naj bi jo imel na voljo za določitev tega, kaj spada pod potrebno zakonodajo.
It goes without saying that the interpretation and application of a concept which determines the legislative procedure applicable, and therefore in particular the extent of the Parliament’s participation in the decision-making process, which accordingly affects the institutional
V zvezi s pojmom, ki določa veljavni zakonodajni postopek,
PARLIAMENT v COUNCIL procedure provided for to that effect by the Treaty, establish legal bases for the purpose of adopting subsequent measures in accordance with another procedure which is simplified in relation to that laid down by the Treaty.
PARLAMENT PROTI SVETU aktom, ki ga sprejme ob spo�tovanju postopka, v ta namen določenega v Pogodbi, zakonito vzpostavi pravne podlage z namenom sprejetja poznej�ih aktov, katerih namen je sprejemanje zakonodajnih aktov po enostavnej�em postopku, kot je postopek, ki ga določa Pogodba.
The answer would certainly be in the affirmative 10if those subsequent measures were in the nature of implementing measures.
Odgovor bi bil zagotovo pritrdilen, 10če bi bili ti poznej�i akti izvedbeni ukrepi.
11The question is thus whether the adoption and amendment of the lists of safe countries constitute implementing measures.
11Vpra�anje je torej, ali so sprejetje in sprememba seznamov varnih držav izvedbeni ukrepi.