natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In applying those principles to this case, the Court observed that the relevant legislation does not explicitly provide for any procedure for notication of the evidence adduced or for a hearing of the parties concerned, either before or concomitantly with the adoption of an initial decision to freeze their funds or, in the context of the adoption of subsequent decisions to maintain the freeze of funds, with a view to having them removed from the list.
Sodišče prve stopnje, ki je v obravnavani zadevi uporabilo ta načela, poudarja, da upoštevni predpisi izrecno ne predvidevajo nobenega postopka obveščanja o obremenilnih okoliščinah in zaslišanja zadevnih oseb, bodisi pred sprejetjem ali ob sprejetju prvotnega sklepa o zamrznitvi njihovih sredstev bodisi v okviru sprejetja poznejših sklepov o ohranitvi zamrznitve sredstev, z namenom, da bi se njihovo ime izbrisalo s spornega seznama.
Next, the Court found that at no time before the action was brought was the evidence which gave rise to the freezing of the funds notied to OMPI.
Sodišče prve stopnje nato ugotavlja, da pred vložitvijo tožbe OMIL sploh niso bile sporočene okoliščine, ki so privedle do zamrznitve sredstev.
Neither the initial decision to freeze its funds, nor the subsequent decisions to maintain that freeze mentioned even the specic information or material in the le which indicated that a decision justifying its inclusion in the disputed list had been taken by a competent national authority.
Niti prvotni sklep o zamrznitvi sredstev niti poznejši sklepi o ohranitvi zamrznitve teh sredstev ne omenjajo natančnih podatkov ali okoliščin iz spisa, ki bi dokazovali, da je sklep, ki upravičuje vključitev te organizacije na sporni seznam, sprejel pristojni nacionalni organ.
The Court concluded from this that the Council had infringed its obligation to state reasons.
Sodišče prve stopnje iz tega zaključuje, da je Svet kršil obveznost obrazložitve.
Consequently the Court annulled the contested decision insofar as it concerned OMPI.
Zato je Sodišče prve stopnje izpodbijani sklep v delu, ki se nanaša na OMIL, razglasilo za ničnega.
Actions for damages
Odškodninski spori
Conditions for admissibility of an action for damages
Pogoji za dopustnost odškodninske tožbe
The action for damages provided for in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is an independent form of action which diers from an action for annulment in that its end is not the abolition of a particular measure but compensation for damage caused by an institution.
Odškodninska tožba na podlagi člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES je samostojno pravno sredstvo, ki se od ničnostne tožbe razlikuje v tem, da njen namen ni odprava določenega ukrepa, ampak povračilo škode, ki jo je povzročila institucija.
The specic nature of the action for damages means that it must be declared inadmissible where it is actually aimed at securing withdrawal of a measure which has become denitive and would, if upheld, nullify the legal eects of that measure.
Posebnost odškodninske tožbe je, da jo je treba razglasiti za nedopustno, če je njen namen v resnici umik akta, ki je postal dokončen, kar bi imelo v primeru, da bi ji bilo ugodeno, za posledico odpravo pravnih učinkov zadevnega akta.
According to the case-law, that is particularly the case where the action for damages seeks the payment of an amount precisely equal to the duty paid by the applicant pursuant to the measure which has become denitive 57.
Sodna praksa je določila, da je to zlasti podano, ko je cilj odškodninske tožbe plačilo zneska, katerega višina je enaka dajatvam, ki jih je plačala tožeča stranka pri izvajanju akta, ki je postal dokončen57.
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 175/84 Krohn v Commission [1986] ECR 753, paragraphs 30, 32 and 33.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 26. februarja 1986 v zadevi Krohn proti Komisiji, 175/84, Recueil, str. 753, točke 30, 32 in 33.
In Danzer v Council 58, the applicants brought an action aimed at obtaining compensation for the loss allegedly suered because of the penalties imposed on them by the competent Austrian authorities on the basis of national law implementing two directives coordinating company law provisions 59.
Dejavnost prava, s katerim sta bili preneseni dve direktivi o usklajevanju predpisov o družbah59.
They did not allege any other loss which might be regarded as being distinct from the eects arising immediately and solely from the implementation of those decisions on penalties.
Stranki se sicer nista sklicevali na nobeno škodo, ki ne bi bila posledica samih učinkov, ki so neposredno in izključno izhajali iz izvršitve teh odločb o denarnih kaznih.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the applicants were seeking to obtain, through their action for damages, the result that would be obtained if the decisions taken by the competent national authorities were annulled, and that their action was therefore admissible.
Sodišče prve stopnje je iz tega sklepalo, da sta tožeči stranki s pomočjo njune odškodninske tožbe želeli doseči učinke, ki bi pomenili razglasitev ničnosti navedenih odločb, ki so jih izdali nacionalni organi, ki so za to pristojni, zaradi česar je njuna tožba nedopustna.
The Court of First Instance attached to that conclusion several riders concerning the system of Community remedies.
Sodišče prve stopnje je prišlo do tega sklepa na podlagi več preudarkov glede ureditve pravnih sredstev po pravu Skupnosti.
It held that, even if the disputed provisions could be regarded as being directly behind those national penalties decisions and even if the applicants thus had an interest in having the disputed provisions declared unlawful, their action for damages was not the appropriate means to achieve that end.
Odločilo je, da ob predpostavki, da bi bilo mogoče šteti, da nacionalne odločbe o denarnih kaznih neposredno izvirajo iz zadevnih direktiv, in da imata tožeči stranki interes za ugotovitev nezakonitost teh direktiv, njuna odškodninska tožba ni primeren okvir za ta namen.
In the system of legal remedies provided for by the Treaty, the appropriate legal remedy would have been to request, from the national court before which the action to have those decisions annulled was brought, a reference for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the disputed provisions from the Court of Justice.
V sistemu pravnih sredstev, ki je določen v Pogodbi, je primerno pravno sredstvo to, da se pri nacionalnem sodišču, pri katerem je bilo vloženo pravno sredstvo zoper te odločbe, predlaga, naj se Sodišču predloži vprašanje za predhodno odločanje za presojo veljavnosti spornih določb.
The Court of First Instance found it to be entirely irrelevant that the national courts seised had rejected their requests for a reference to be made.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče prve stopnje zanikalo vsakršno upoštevnost dejstva, da so nacionalna sodišča, ki obravnavajo zadevo, zavrnila njuna predloga v tej smeri.
The Court stated, without prejudice to the possible liability of the Member State concerned 60, that the caselaw of the Court of Justice does not recognise an absolute obligation to refer a question for a preliminary ruling 61.
Sodišče prve stopnje dejansko navaja, da brez poseganja v morebitno odgovornost zadevne države članice60sodna praksa Sodišča ne priznava absolutne obveznosti predložitve vprašanja za predhodno odločanje61.
The Court of First Instance held that it was not for it to assess, in the context of an action for damages, the appropriateness of the refusal of the Austrian courts to refer a question for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the disputed provisions of those directives.
Sodišče prve stopnje je torej presodilo, da ni pristojno, da v okviru odškodninske tožbe presoja o primernosti zavrnitve avstrijskih sodišč, da bi vložila predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe o veljavnosti spornih določb teh direktiv.
In the view of the Court of First Instance, to allow the action for damages as admissible would enable the applicants to circumvent both the rejection of their applications for annulment of the national decisions imposing penalties by the national courts, which alone are competent to do so, and the refusal by those courts to grant their request for a reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, which would undermine the very principle of judicial cooperation underlying the preliminary reference procedure.
Po mnenju Sodišča prve stopnje bi dopustnost odškodninske tožbe tožečim strankam omogočila, da bi obšle zavrnitev predlogov za razglasitev ničnosti nacionalnih odločb o denarnih kaznih, ki so jih izdala nacionalna sodišča, ki so za to edina pristojna, in dejstvo, da so ta sodišča zavrnila, da bi zadevo predložila Sodišču, kar bi škodilo načelu sodnega sodelovanja, ki je temeljno za postopek predhodnega odločanja.
First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article [48 EC], with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (I), p.
Prva direktiva Sveta 68/151/EGS z dne 9. marca 1968 o uskladitvi zaščitnih ukrepov za varovanje interesov družbenikov in tretjih oseb, ki jih države članice zahtevajo od gospodarskih družb v skladu s členom [48, drugi odstavek, ES], zato da se oblikujejo zaščitni ukrepi z enakim učinkom v vsej Skupnosti (UL L 65, str.
41); Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article [44(2)(g) EC] on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ L 222, 14.8.1978, p. 11).
8); Četrta direktiva Sveta 78/660/EGS z dne 25. julija 1978 o letnih računovodskih izkazih posameznih vrst družb, ki temelji na členu [44(2)(g) ES] (UL L 222, str. 11).
Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.
Sodba Sodišča z dne 30. septembra 2003 v zadevi Köbler, C-224/01, Recueil, str. I-10239.
The Commission pleaded the inadmissibility of that claim contending that the EC Treaty did not confer such a power on the Community courts even in actions for damages.
Sodišče prve stopnje čemer je trdila, da Pogodba ES sodišču Skupnosti ne daje take pristojnosti, kar velja tudi v okviru odškodninskega spora.
The Court of First Instance nonetheless held that the Community courts have the power under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC to impose on the Community any form of reparation that accords with the general principles of noncontractual liability common to the laws of the Member States, including, if it accords with those principles, compensation in kind, if necessary in the form of an injunction to do or not to do something.
Sodišče prve stopnje je kljub temu menilo, da je sodišče Skupnosti na podlagi člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES in člena 235 ES pristojno, da Skupnosti naloži vse oblike nadomestila, ki so v skladu s splošnimi načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic na področju nepogodbene odgovornosti, vključno z, glede na okoliščine primera, restitucijo v obliki odredbe, da se nekaj stori ali opusti.
In relation to trade marks, Directive 89/104/EEC 63 approximates laws so that the proprietor of a mark is entitled ‘to prevent all third parties’ from using it.
Vendar Direktiva 89/10463 na področju znamk izvaja harmonizacijo, ki daje imetniku znamke pravico, „da tretjim osebam prepove“ njeno uporabo.
The Court of First Instance concluded that the uniform protection of the proprietor of a trade mark falls within the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, so that the Community cannot, on principle, be excluded from a corresponding procedural measure on the part of the Community courts, particularly as the Community institutions are obliged to comply with the entire body of Community law, which includes secondary law.
Sodišče prve stopnje je iz tega sklepalo, da enako varstvo imetnika znamke določajo splošna načela, ki so skupna državam članicam, tako da sodišče Skupnosti načeloma ne sme izključiti Skupnosti iz ustreznega postopkovnega ukrepa, ker so institucije Skupnosti dolžne ravnati v skladu s celotnim pravom Skupnosti, ki vključuje tudi sekundarno pravo.
The noncontractual liability of the Community, whether for unlawful conduct, or in the absence of such conduct, depends on the existence of a causal connection between the operative event and the damage caused 64.
Za nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti, bodisi za zakonito bodisi za protipravno ravnanje, je potrebno, da obstaja vzročna zveza med škodljivim dejstvom in nastalo škodo64.
In its judgments in Abad Pérez and Others v Council and Commission and É.R. and Others v Council and Commission 65, the Court of First Instance dened the notion of a causal link in actions brought respectively by Spanish cattle breeders, by indirect victims and by the next of kin of five people who died in France,
V sodbah Abad Pérez in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji in É.R. in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji65 je Sodišče prve stopnje opredelilo pojem vzročne zveze v okviru tožb, ki so jih vložili španski rejci in posredne žrtve – nasledniki petih oseb, umrlih v Franciji, ki so zahtevali odškodnino za domnevno utrpelo škodo zaradi ravnanj oziroma opustitev Sveta in Komisije glede širjenja bolezni norih krav in nove različice bolezni Creutzfeldt-Jakob v Evropi.
Judgment of 10 May 2006 in CaseT-279/03 Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission (under appeal, Case C-325/06 P), not yet published in the ECR.
Poleg tega je v primerih, ko je vedenje, ki domnevno povzroči zatrjevano škodo, v bistvu opustitev, zlasti potrebna gotovost, da je bila navedena škoda dejansko posledica očitane opustitve in da ob drugačnem ravnanju toženih institucij ne bi nastala.
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1).
Prva direktiva Sveta 89/104/EGS z dne 21. decembra 1988 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic v zvezi z blagovnimi znamkami (UL 1989, L 40, str. 1).
Judgments of 13 December 2006 in Case T-304/01 Abad Pérez and Others v Council and Commission and in Case T-138/03 É.R. and Others v Council and Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 13. decembra 2006 v zadevi Abad Pérez in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-304/01, in É.R. in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-138/03, še neobjavljeni v ZOdl.
Liability for unlawful conduct
Odgovornost za nezakonito ravnanje
According to established caselaw in relation to the liability of the Community for damage caused to an individual by a breach of Community law for which a Community institution or organ is responsible, a right to reparation is conferred where three conditions are met: the rule of law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be suciently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the author of the act and the damage sustained by the injured parties 66.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je na področju odgovornosti Skupnosti za škodo, povzročeno posameznikom s kršitvijo prava Skupnosti, ki se pripisuje instituciji ali organu Skupnosti, priznana pravica do odškodnine, če so izpolnjeni trije pogoji, in sicer, da je kršeno pravno pravilo, katerega namen je podelitev pravic posameznikom, da je kršitev dovolj resna in da obstaja neposredna vzročna zveza med kršitvijo obveznosti storilca dejanja in škodo, ki je nastala oškodovancem66.
In two cases, the Court of First Instance dened what was to be understood by a rule of law which is intended to confer rights on individuals.
Sodišče prve stopnje je v dveh zadevah določilo, kaj je pravno pravilo, katerega cilj je podelitev pravic posameznikom.
First, in its judgment in Camós Grau v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that the requirement of impartiality, to which the institutions are subject in carrying out investigative tasks of the kind which are entrusted to OLAF, is intended, as well as ensuring that the public interest is respected, to protect the persons concerned and confers on them a right as individuals to see that the corresponding guarantees are complied with 67.
Prvič, v že navedeni sodbi Camós Grau proti Komisiji je Sodišče prve stopnje odločilo, da je pravilo nepristranskosti, ki je obvezno za institucije pri izpolnjevanju takih nalog preiskave, kot so dodeljene OLAF, poleg splošnega interesa namenjeno varstvu zadevnih oseb, katerim daje subjektivno pravico zahtevati, da se zagotovi spoštovanje ustreznih zagotovil67.
It must therefore be considered to be intended to confer rights on individuals.
Torej je treba šteti, da je namen tega pravila podelitev pravic posameznikom.
In this case, the breach of that rule by OLAF was serious and manifest.
V tej zadevi je bila kršitev tega pravila s strani OLAF resna in očitna.
Moreover, there was a direct causal link between the breach of that obligation and the damage sustained by the applicant, which took the form of impairment of his honour and professional reputation and diculties in his living conditions.
Poleg tega je obstajala neposredna vzročna zveza med to kršitvijo in škodo, ki jo je utrpela tožeča stranka, in sicer napad na njeno čast in njen poklicni ugled ter motene življenjske razmere. Sodišče prve stopnje je torej M.
The Court of First Instance therefore awarded Mr Camós Grau damages of EUR 10 000.
Camósu Grauu prisodilo odškodnino v višini 10 000 evrov.
See, inter alia, the judgment in Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, paragraph 51.
Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Brasserie du pêcheur in Factortame, točka 51.
Judgment of 6 April 2006 in Case T-309/03 Camós Grau v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi Camós Grau proti Komisiji, T-309/03, ZOdl., str. II-1173.
Judgment of 4 October 2006 in Case T193/04 Tillack v Commission, citing the judgment in Case T-196/99 Area Cova and Others v Council and Commission [2001] ECR II-3597, paragraph 43.
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 4. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Tillack proti Komisiji, T-193/04, ki navaja sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje z dne 6. decembra 2001 v zadevi Area Cova in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-196/99, Recueil, str. II-3597, točka 43.
Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union proclaimed on 7 December 2000 in Nice (OJ C 364, 4.12.2000, p. 1).
Listina Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah, razglašena 7. decembra 2000 v Nici (UL 2000, C 364, str. 1).
Judgment in FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission, paragraphs 158 to 160.
Zgoraj navedena sodba FIAMM in FIAMM Technologies proti Svetu in Komisiji, točke od 158 do 160.
After first observing that the liability of the Community could arise even in the absence of unlawful conduct, the Court of First Instance found that actions based on unjust enrichment or negotiorum gestio are designed, in specic civil law circumstances, to constitute a source of noncontractual obligation on the part of persons in the position of the enriched party or the principal involving, in general, either refund of sums paid in error or indemnication of the manager respectively.
Prvič, Sodišče prve stopnje je v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Galileo proti Komisiji opozorilo, da Skupnost, kadar ne obstaja nezakonito ravnanje, odgovarja zgolj, če je nastala neobičajna in posebna škoda.
Accordingly, pleas regarding unjust enrichment and negotiorum gestio cannot be dismissed solely on the ground that the condition relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct of the institution is not satised.
Škoda se šteje za neobičajno, kadar presega meje gospodarskih tveganj, povezanih z dejavnostmi v zadevnem sektorju.
Further observing that the Community courts have already had the opportunity to apply certain principles in respect of recovery of undue payments, including in relation to unjust enrichment, the prohibition of which is a general principle of Community law, the Court of First Instance concluded that it had to be examined whether the conditions governing the action de in rem verso or the action based on negotiorum gestio are satised in the case at hand.
V tej zadevi je bilo odločeno, da škode, povzročene z uporabo izraza za označitev projekta s strani institucije Skupnosti, ni mogoče obravnavati, kot da presega meje tveganj, povezanih z uporabo tega izraza v zvezi z znamkami, ker se je imetnik znamke z značilnostmi pojma, izbranega z zgledovanjem po priimku slavnega italijanskega matematika, fizika in astronoma, prostovoljno izpostavil tveganju, da bi kdo drug lahko zakonito, torej brez poseganja v njegove pravice iz znamke, svoj projekt poimenoval z istim znamenitim imenom.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance outlined the detailed rules governing such actions according to the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, namely that those actions cannot succeed where the justication for the advantage gained by the enriched party or the principal derives from a contract or legal obligation, and that it is generally possible to plead such actions only in the alternative, that is to say where the injured party has no other action available to obtain what it is owed.
Drugič, Sodišče prve stopnje je v sodbi Masdar proti Komisiji71 priznalo možnost, da se tožeča stranka sklicuje na neupravičeno obogatitev in poslovodstvo brez naročila, da bi dosegla nepogodbeno odgovornost institucij, čeprav te niso ravnale nezakonito.
It concluded that in this case the pleas of the applicant were unfounded.
Povod za to zadevo je bila podizvajalska pogodba, ki jo je tožeča stranka podpisala z družbo, ki je imela pogodbo s Komisijo.
This year 25 applications for interim relief were made to the President of the Court of First Instance, which represents a slight increase compared with the number of applications (21) made the previous year.
Ker ta družba tožeči stranki ni nakazala plačila, se je slednja obrnila na Komisijo, ki je prav tako zavrnila neposredno plačilo.
In 2006, the President decided 24 cases and twice ordered interim measures, in his orders in Globe v Commission and Romana Tabacchi v Commission 72.
Tožeča stranka je zato vložila odškodninsko tožbo, s katero je zatrjevala, da je Komisija kršila nekatera načela nepogodbene odgovornosti, ki jih priznava veliko držav članic.
The order in Globe v Commission forms part of a process begun by the order made in 2005 in Deloitte v Commission 73, but, unlike the decision in that case, it ordered interim measures.
Sklicevala se je zlasti na civilnopravna zahtevka na podlagi neupravičene obogatitve (institut de in rem verso) in poslovodstva brez naročila (institut negotiorum gestio).
In this case the applicant was seeking suspension of the operation of a Commission decision rejecting its bid made in a tendering procedure for the supply of goods destined for certain countries in central Asia.
Sodišče prve stopnje je po tem, ko je spomnilo, da Skupnost lahko odgovarja tudi, kadar ne obstaja nezakonito ravnanje, ugotovilo, da je namen zahtevkov, ki temeljijo na neupravičeni obogatitvi ali poslovodstvu brez naročila, da bi bili v posebnih okoliščinah civilnega prava vir nepogodbene obveznosti obogatenega oziroma poslovodje, da praviloma povrne bodisi neupravičeno prejeto bodisi škodo poslovodji.
First, as regards to the condition relating to the existence of a prima facie case, the President held that one of the pleas put forward by the applicant gave rise to serious doubts about the lawfulness of the contract.
Torej tožbenih razlogov, ki izhajajo iz neupravičene obogatitve in poslovodstva brez naročila, ki jih je navedla tožeča stranka, ni mogoče zavrniti samo zato, ker ni izpolnjen pogoj nezakonitosti ravnanja institucije.