natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By decision of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 6 April 2006, Mr Enzo Moavero Milanesi was appointed as a Judge of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities until 31 August 2007.
S sklepom predstavnikov vlad držav članic Evropskih skupnosti z dne 6. aprila 2006 je bil Enzo Moavero Milanesi imenovan za sodnika Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti do 31. avgusta 2007. Enzo Moavero Milanesi je nasledil Paola Mengozzija.
Upon the renewal of the mandates of certain members of the Court of Justice and the appointment of two Judges of the Court of First Instance as members of the Court of Justice, Mr Nils Wahl and Mr Miro Prek were appointed as Judges of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, replacing Ms Pernilla Lindh and Ms Verica Trstenjak respectively.
Ob delni zamenjavi članov Sodišča in po imenovanju dveh sodnikov Sodišča prve stopnje za člana Sodišča sta bila za člana Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti imenovana Nils Wahl, ki je nadomestil Pernillo Lindh, in Miro Prek, ki je nadomestil Verico Trstenjak.
PAPASAVVAS, Judge V. TRSTENJAK, Judge
LABUCKA, sodnica S. PAPASAVVAS, sodnik V.
PAPASAVVAS, Judge V. TRSTENJAK, Judge E. MOAVERO MILANESI, Judge
TRSTENJAK, sodnica E. MOAVERO MILANESI, sodnik
PAPASAVVAS, Judge E. MOAVERO MILANESI, Judge N. WAHL, Judge M. PREK, Judge
TRSTENJAK, sodnica E. MOAVERO MILANESI, sodnik
Former Members of the Court of First Instance
Nekdanji člani Sodišča prve stopnje
Presidents
Predsednika
C — Statistics concerning the judicial activity of the Court of First Instance
C – Sodne statistike Sodišča prve stopnje
New cases, completed cases, cases pending (2000–06)
Vložene zadeve, zaključene zadeve, nerešene zadeve (2000–2006)
Nature of proceedings (2000–06)Type of action (2000–06)Subject-matter of the action (2000–06)
Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)Vrste tožb (2000–2006)Predmet tožbe (2000–2006)
Nature of proceedings (2000–06)Subject-matter of the action (2006)Subject-matter of the action (2000–06) (judgments and orders)Bench hearing action (2000–06)Duration of proceedings in months (2000–06) (judgments and orders)
Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)Predmet tožbe (2006)Predmet tožbe (2000–2006) (sodbe in sklepi)Sestava (2000–2006)Trajanje postopkov v mesecih (2000–2006) (sodbe in sklepi)
Nature of proceedings (2000–06)Subject-matter of the action (2000–06)Bench hearing action (2000–06)
Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)Predmet tožbe (2000–2006)Sestava (2000–2006)
Proceedings for interim measures (2000–06)Expedited procedures (2001–06)Appeals against decisions of the Court of First Instance (1989–2006)Distribution of appeals according to the nature of the proceedings (1989–2006)Results of appeals (2006) (judgments and orders)General trend (1989–2006)New cases, completed cases, cases pending
Odločbe o začasnih odredbah (2000–2006)Hitri postopki (2001–2006)Odločbe Sodišča prve stopnje, zoper katere je bila vložena pritožba (1989–2006)Porazdelitev pritožbenih postopkov po vrsti postopka (1989–2006)Izidi pritožbenih postopkov (2006) (sodbe in sklepi)Splošni razvoj (1989–2006)Vložene zadeve, zaključene zadeve, nerešene zadeve
Unless otherwise indicated, this table and the following tables take account of special forms of procedure.
Če ni drugače označeno, ta in naslednje tabele upoštevajo posebne postopke.
The following are considered to be ‘special forms of procedure’: application to set a judgment aside (Article 41 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance); thirdparty proceedings (Article 42 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; Article 123 of the Rules of Procedure); revision of a judgment (Article 44 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; Article 125 of the Rules of Procedure); interpretation of a judgment (Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; Article 129 of the Rules of Procedure); taxation of costs (Article 92 of the Rules of Procedure); legal aid (Article 96 of the Rules of Procedure), and rectication of a judgment (Article 84 of the Rules of Procedure).
Za „posebne postopke“ se štejejo: ugovor zoper sodbo (člen 41 Statuta ES; člen 122 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje); ugovor tretjega (člen 42 Statuta ES; člen 123 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje); obnova postopka (člen 44 Statuta ES; člen 125 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje); razlaga sodbe (člen 43 Statuta ES; člen 129 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje); odmera stroškov (člen 92 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje); pravna pomoč (člen 94 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje) in poprava sodbe (člen 84 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje).
New cases — Nature of proceedings (2000–06)1
Vložene zadeve – Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)1
Other actions St a cases
Druge zadeve Uslužbenci
Intellectual property Appeals
Intelektualna lastnina Pritožbe
Other actions Intellectual property St a cases Appeals Special forms of procedure
Druge zadeve Intelektualna lastnina Uslužbenci Pritožbe Posebni postopki
The entry ‘other actions’ in this and the following tables refers to all direct actions other than actions brought by ocials of the European Communities and intellectual property cases.
V tej in naslednjih tabelah pomeni označba„drugi spori“ vse tožbe, ki so jih vložile fizične ali pravne osebe, ki niso uradniki Evropskih skupnosti, in ki niso spori s področja intelektualne lastnine.
New cases — Type of action (2000–06)
Vložene zadeve – Vrste tožb (2000–2006)
Actions for failure to act0.93 %
Tožba zaradi nedelovanja 0,93 %
Actions for damages1.85 %
Odškodninska tožba1,85 %
Special forms of procedure7.87 %
Posebni postopki7,87 %
Intellectual property33.10 %
Intelektualna lastnina33,10 %
Staff cases0.23 %
Uslužbenci0,23 %
Commercial policy Common Customs Ta ri Common foreign and security policy Community own resources Company law Competition Culture Customs union Economic and monetary policy Energy Environment and consumers European citizenship External relations Fisheries policy Free movement of goods Freedom of establishment Freedom of movement for persons Freedom to provide services Intellectual property Justice and home a air s Law governing the institutions Regional policy Research, information, education and statistics Social policy State aid Taxation Transport
Arbitražna klavzula Carinska unija Državne pomoči Ekonomska in monetarna politika Energija Evropsko državljanstvo Intelektualna lastnina Kmetijstvo Konkurenca Kultura Lastna sredstva Skupnosti Obdavčenje Okolje in potrošniki Podjetniško pravo Politika na področju ribištva Pravica do ustanavljanja Pravo institucij Pravosodje in notranje zadeve Približevanje zakonodaj Pridruževanje čezmorskih držav in ozemelj Pristop novih držav Promet Prosti pretok blaga Prosto gibanje oseb Raziskave, informacije, izobraževanje, statistike Regionalna politika Skupna carinska tarifa Skupna varnostna in zunanja politika Socialna politika Svoboda opravljanja storitev Trgovinska politika Zunanji odnosi
Staff Regulations Special forms of procedure
Kadrovski predpisi Posebni postopki
Completed cases — Nature of proceedings (2000–06)
Zaključene zadeve – Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)
Other actions
Druge zadeve
Staff cases
Uslužbenci
Other actions Intellectual property St a cases Special forms of procedure
Druge zadeve Intelektualna lastnina Uslužbenci Posebni postopki
Completed cases — Subject-matter of the action (2006)
Zaključene zadeve – Predmet tožbe (2006)
Orders
Skupaj
Association of the Overseas Countries and Territories
Raziskave, informacije, izobraževanje, statistike
Completed cases — Bench hearing action (2000–06) t of F ir st In stan c
Zaključene zadeve – Sestava (2000–2006) ep r ve stopnje
Distribution in 2006 e
Porazdelitev leta 2006
Chambers (3 judges)81.42 %
Senat 3 sodnikov81,42 %
Single judge1.61 %
Sodnik posameznik1,61 %
President of the Court4.36 %
Predsednik Sodišča prve stopnje4,36 %
Chambers (5 judges)12.61 %
Senat 5 sodnikov12,61 %
Cour t of F ir st In stan c
Sodišč ep r ve stopnje
Completed cases — Duration of proceedings in months (2000–06)1
Zaključene zadeve – Trajanje postopkov v mesecih (2000–2006)1(sodbe in sklepi)
Other actions Intellectual property St a cases
Druge zadeve Intelektualna lastnina Uslužbenci
The calculation of the average duration of proceedings does not take account of: cases ruled upon by interlocutory judgment; special forms of procedure; cases referred by the Court of Justice following the amendment of the division of jurisdiction between it and the Court of First Instance; cases referred by the Court of First Instance after the Civil Service Tribunal began operating.
Pri izračunu povprečnega trajanja postopkov se ne upoštevajo: zadeve, v katerih je izdana vmesna sodba; posebni postopki; zadeve, ki jih je Sodišče odstopilo po spremembi porazdelitve pristojnosti med Sodiščem in Sodiščem prve stopnje; zadeve, ki jih je Sodišče prve stopnje odstopilo po prevzemu funkcij Sodišča za uslužbence.
The duration of proceedings is expressed in months and tenths of months.
Čas trajanja je izražen v mesecih in desetinah mesecev.
Cases pending as at 31 December — Nature of proceedings (2000–06)
Nerešene zadeve na dan 31. december – Vrste postopkov (2000–2006)
Commercial policy Common Customs Ta ri Common foreign and security policy Community own resources Company law Competition Culture Customs union Economic and monetary policy Energy Environment and consumers European citizenship External relations Fisheries policy Free movement of goods Freedom of establishment Freedom of movement for persons Freedom to provide services Intellectual property Justice and home a air s Law governing the institutions Regional policy
Evropsko državljanstvo Intelektualna lastnina Kmetijstvo Konkurenca Kultura Lastna sredstva Skupnosti Obdavčenje Okolje in potrošniki Podjetniško pravo Politika na področju ribištva Pravica do ustanavljanja Pravo institucij Pravosodje in notranje zadeve Približevanje zakonodaj Pridruževanje čezmorskih držav in ozemelj Pristop novih držav Promet Prosti pretok blaga Prosto gibanje oseb
Research, information, education and statistics
Raziskave, informacije, izobraževanje, statistike
Chambers (3 judges)80.17 %
Senat 3 sodnikov80,17 %
Single judge0.19 %
Sodnik posameznik0,19 %
Chambers (5 judges)11.37 %
Senat 5 sodnikov11,37 %
President of the Court0.10 %
Predsednik Sodišča prve stopnje0,10 %
Grand Chamber Appeal Chamber President of the Court Chambers (5 judges)Chambers (3 judges)Single judge Not assigned
Senat 5 sodnikov Senat 3 sodnikov Sodnik posameznik Nedodeljeno
Miscellaneous — Proceedings for interim measures (2000–06)
Razno – Odločbe o začasnih odredbah (2000–2006)
Brought to a conclusion
Zaključeni
Applications for interim measures brought to a conclusion
Izbriszadeve/ Ustavitev postopka
Agriculture Commercial policy Company law Competition Environment and consumers Law governing the institutions
Kmetijstvo Državne pomoči Konkurenca Podjetniško pravo Pravo institucij Okolje in potrošniki Trgovinska politika Socialna politika
Staff Regulations
Skupaj Pogodba ESKadrovski predpisi
Tables and st a
Sodišče prve stopnje
2006 e
Letno poročilo 2006
Cour t of F
Sodišč
Agriculture Commercial policy Common foreign and security policy Community own resources Company law Competition Environment and consumers External relations Fisheries policy Freedom of movement for persons Law governing the institutions
Pristop novih držav Kmetijstvo Državne pomoči Konkurenca Podjetniško pravo Pravo institucij Okolje in potrošniki Prosto gibanje oseb Trgovinska politika Politika na področju ribištva Skupna varnostna in zunanja politika
Staff Regulations State aid Transport
Zunanji odnosi Lastna sredstva Skupnosti Kadrovski predpisi Promet
The Court of First Instance may decide pursuant to Article 76a of the Rules of Procedure to deal with a case before it under an expedited procedure.
Hitro obravnavanje zadeve pred Sodiščem prve stopnje je mogoče na podlagi člena 76a Poslovnika. Ta določba velja od 1. februarja 2001.
That provision has been applicable since 1 February 2001.The category ‘Not acted upon’ covers the following instances: withdrawal of the application for expedition, discontinuance of the action and cases in which the action is disposed of by way of order before the application for expedition has been ruled upon.
V kategorijo„brez posledice“ spadajo naslednji primeri: umik predloga, odstop in primeri, ko je postopek končan s sklepom, preden je odločeno o zahtevi za hitri postopek.
Miscellaneous — Appeals against decisions of the Court of First Instance (1989–2006)
Razno – Odločbe Sodišče prve stopnje, zoper katere je bila vložena pritožba (1989–2006)
Number of decisions against which appeals were brought
Število odločb, zoper katere je bila vložena pritožba
Total number of decisions open to challenge1
Skupno število izpodbijanih odločb1
Percentage of decisions against which appeals were brought
Skupno število izpodbijanih odločb1
Total number of decisions open to challenge1
Odstotek odločb, zoper katere je bila vložena pritožba
Total number of decisions open to challenge – judgments, and orders relating to admissibility, concerning interim measures, declaring that there was no need to give a decision or refusing leave to intervene – in respect of which the period for bringing an appeal expired or against which an appeal was brought.
Skupno število izpodbijanih odločb – sodbe in sklepi o nedopustnosti, začasnih odredbah ustavitvi postopka in zavrnitvi intervencije – za katere se je rok za vložitev pritožbe iztekel ali zoper katere je bila vložena pritožba.
O IS S
Sodišč
M t ti c ri r o om m s s o o o of f p p ee rr p p e l la r ro o t t c cy ye eT T d do o a all u u t t n e r re e
Razno – Porazdelitev pritožbenih postopkov po vrsti postopka (1989–2006) ep r ve stopnje
A p p e a l s
Sodne sta o r
Customs union
Okolje in potrošniki
Freedom of movement for persons
Pravosodje in notranje zadeve
Freedom to provide services
Približevanje zakonodaj
Justice and home aairs
Prosto gibanje oseb
Law governing the institutions
Svoboda opravljanja storitev
Staff Regulations
Zunanji odnosi
Miscellaneous — General trend (1989–2006)New cases, completed cases, cases pending
Razno – Splošni razvoj (1989–2006)Vložene zadeve, zaključene zadeve, nerešene zadeve
New cases1
Vložene zadeve1
Completed cases2
Zaključene zadeve2
1989: the Court of Justice referred 153 cases to the newly created Court of First Instance.
1989: Sodišče je 153 zadev odstopilo v odločanje novo ustanovljenemu Sodišču prve stopnje.
1993: the Court of Justice referred 451 cases as a result of the first extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
1993: Sodišče je 451 zadev odstopilo po prvi širitvi pristojnosti Sodišča prve stopnje.
1994: the Court of Justice referred 14 cases as a result of the second extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
1994: Sodišče je 14 zadev odstopilo po drugi širitvi pristojnosti Sodišča prve stopnje.
2004–05: the Court of Justice referred 25 cases as a result of the third extension of the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
2004/2005: Sodišče je 25 zadev odstopilo po tretji širitvi pristojnosti Sodišča prve stopnje.
2005–06: the Court of First Instance referred 118 cases to the newly created Civil Service Tribunal.
2005–2006: Sodišče prve stopnje je 118 zadev odstopilo v odločanje novo ustanovljenemu Sodišču za uslužbence.
A — Proceedings of the Civil Service Tribunal in 2006
A – Dejavnost Sodišča za uslužbence v letu 2006
The year 2006 was the first full year of operation of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union.
V letu 2006 je Sodišče za uslužbence Evropske unije prvič delovalo vse leto.
During the year the Tribunal devoted a signicant part of its time to the continuation of work on its draft Rules of Procedure, which began in the first months of its existence in 2005.
V tem letu je Sodišče za uslužbence (v nadaljevanju: SDU) posvetilo pomemben del svoje dejavnosti nadaljnji sestavi predloga svojega poslovnika, s katero se je začelo ukvarjati že v prvih mesecih obstoja v letu 2005.
The draft which resulted from the studies and consultation 1conducted by the Tribunal was submitted, following a phase of collaboration with the Court of First Instance of the European Communities and by agreement with the Court of Justice of the European Communities, for approval to the Council of the European Union on 19 December 2006.
Predlog, izdelan na podlagi razmisleka in posvetovanj1, ki jih je opravilo SDU, je bil po stopnji sodelovanja s Sodiščem prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti in Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti predložen v odobritev Svetu Evropske unije 19. decembra 2006.
Thus, the Tribunal should probably have its own Rules of Procedure available by the second half of 2007.
SDU naj bi torej z drugim semestrom leta 2007 razpolagalo s svojim poslovnikom.
As regards the work of the Tribunal as a judicial body, it appears from the statistics that 148 actions were brought before it, which represents a slight decrease in volume compared with the number of actions brought in staff cases in 2005, when 164 actions were brought (151 before the Court of First Instance and 13 before the Tribunal between 12 and 31 December 2005).
Kar zadeva sojenje SDU, statistike kažejo, da je bilo na SDU vloženih 148 tožb, kar je rahlo zmanjšanje obsega glede na število vloženih tožb na področju uslužbencev v letu 2005, v katerem je bilo na Sodišču prve stopnje vloženih 164 tožb (151 na Sodišču prve stopnje in 13 na SDU od 12. do 31. decembra 2005).
Since its creation, the Tribunal has had 161 cases brought directly before it, to which the 118 cases transferred from the Court of First Instance must be added.
Od ustanovitve je bilo neposredno SDU predloženih 161 zadev, ki jim je treba dodati 118 odstopljenih zadev Sodišča prve stopnje.
The Tribunal has thus had 279 cases brought before it since its creation.
Vse od njegovih začetkov je bilo torej SDU predloženih 279 zadev.
Fifty-three cases were brought to a close in 2006, including two delivered by the full Tribunal.
V letu 2006 je bilo zaključenih 53 zadev, od katerih sta bili 2 sodbi izdani na občni seji.
There was a fairly clear increase in the pace of adoption of decisions closing cases in the second half of the year as the written procedure was concluded in the cases transferred from the Court of First Instance.
V drugi polovici leta je mogoče opaziti rahlo pospešitev sprejemanja odločb, s katerimi se postopek konča, sočasno z nepričakovanim koncem pisnega postopka v zadevah, ki jih je odstopilo Sodišče prve stopnje.
There was also a proportionately fairly high number of annulments, in that 10 judgments to that eect were delivered.
Poleg tega je opaziti sorazmerno veliko razglasitev ničnosti, 10 sodb je bilo namreč izdanih v tej smeri.
Appeals against 10 decisions of the Tribunal were lodged before the Court of First Instance.
Proti 10 odločbam SDU je bila vložena pritožba na Sodišče prve stopnje.
It should be pointed out that proceedings were stayed in a signicant number of cases by orders adopted pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 8(3) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice, inter alia, pending the delivery of the decisions of the Court of First Instance in Case T-58/05 Centeno Mediavilla and Others v Commission and Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Commission concerning classication/reclassication in grade following the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of Ocials of the European Communities.
Vredno je poudariti, da je bil postopek v več zadevah prekinjen s sklepi, sprejetimi na podlagi člena 8(3), prvi pododstavek, Priloge I k Statutu Sodišča, zlasti v pričakovanju razglasitve odločb Sodišča prve stopnje v zadevah Centeno Mediavilla in drugi proti Komisiji,T-58/05, in Angé Serrano in drugi proti Parlamentu, T-47/05, ki se nanašata na razvrstitev/ponovno razvrstitev v razred po začetku veljave novih Kadrovskih predpisov za uradnike Evropskih skupnosti.
Thus, 68 orders staying proceedings were delivered by the Tribunal in 2006.
Tako je SDU v letu 2006 izdalo 68 sklepov o prekinitvi postopka.
The first year of judicial activity of the Tribunal was also marked by its endeavours to comply with the Council’s wish, expressed in the seventh recital in the preamble to its Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom and repeated in Article 7(4) of Annex I to the Statute of the
Za prvo leto sodne dejavnosti SDU je značilno tudi prizadevanje, da bi odgovorilo na poziv Sveta, izraženega v sedmi uvodni izjavi njegovega Sklepa 2004/752/ES in prevzetega v členu 7(4) Priloge I k Statutu Sodišča, da bi se v vsaki fazi postopka olajšalo mirno reševanje sporov.Tako so sodniki poročevalci v več zadevah strankam predlagali mirno rešitev spora.
In the course of this preparatory work the Tribunal undertook consultations, in particular of representatives of the institutions, staff committees and unions.
V okviru pripravljalnih del se je SDU posvetovalo zlasti s predstavniki institucij, odborov uslužbencev in sindikatov.
A meeting with the heads of administration was held for that purpose on 26 January 2006.
V ta namen je bil 26. januarja 2006 organiziran sestanek z vodji uprave.
It was followed, on 8 February 2006, by a meeting with the unions and professional organisations and their lawyers.
Temu je 8. februarja 2006 sledil sestanek s sindikalnimi in poklicnimi organizacijami, ki so jih spremljali njihovi odvetniki.
Proceedings
Postopkovni vidiki
Court of Justice, that it should facilitate the amicable settlement of disputes at all stages of the procedure. For instance, in several cases, the judge-rapporteur put proposals for amicable settlement before the parties for consideration.
SDU je v svoji prvi sodbi Falcione proti Komisiji, ki jo je razglasilo na občni seji 26. aprila 20062, odločilo, da se do začetka veljavnosti poslovnika SDU uporablja ureditev o stroških iz poslovnika
Four disputes were brought to a close by orders striking the cases from the register and recording that the parties had reached an agreement, following an amicable settlement at the instigation of the Tribunal.
Sodišča prve stopnje, da bi se upravičencem v skladu z načelom dobrega delovanja sodnega organa zagotovila zadostna predvidljivost pri uporabi pravil o stroških postopka.
It would clearly be premature, at this stage, to attempt to assess the success of the practice of amicable settlement or to dene the Tribunal’s own decision-making practice.
Vredno je izpostaviti dve odločbi, izdani na podlagi člena 8 Priloge I k Statutu Sodišča.
The account given below will be conned to a brief outline of the main decisions made by the Tribunal, looking in turn at certain general aspects of procedure (I), proceedings concerning the legality of measures (II), applications for interim relief (III) and, finally, applications for legal aid (IV).
V zadevi Marcuccio proti Komisiji3 je SDU odklonilo svojo pristojnost na podlagi člena 8(3), drugi pododstavek, Priloge I k Statutu Sodišča, ker je menilo, da je bil predmet te zadeve enak kot predmet dveh zadev, ki sta bili predloženi Sodišču prve stopnje.
Procedural aspects
Spori o zakonitosti
By order in Gualtieri v Commission 4, the Tribunal held that a dispute between the Commission of the European Communities and a national expert on secondment does not constitute a dispute between the Community and its servants within the meaning of Article 236 EC.
V sklepu Lebedef in drugi proti Komisiji5 je SDU navedlo, da je način, kako uprava uporablja računalniška orodja, kar zadeva jezik operacijskega sistema in programov osebnih računalnikov, notranji organizacijski ukrep službe, ki ga ni mogoče izpodbijati na podlagi členov 90(2) in 91(1) Kadrovskih predpisov.
Accordingly, the Tribunal took the view that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the action and referred it to the Court of First Instance on the basis of Article 8(2) of Annex I to the Statute of the Court of Justice.
V sodbi Grünheid proti Komisiji6 je SDU z namenom razglasitve dopustnosti tožbe, vložene zoper odločbo o končni razvrstitvi v razred, zavrnilo ugovor nedopustnosti na podlagi okoliščine, da naj bi bila pritožba na podlagi člena 90(2) Kadrovskih predpisov vložena več
Judgment of the Tribunal of 26 April 2006 in Case F-16/05 Falcione v Commission, not yet published in the ECR.
Sodba SDU z dne 26. aprila 2006 v zadevi Falcione proti Komisiji (F-16/05, še neobjavljena v ZOdl.).