natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
After observing in paragraph 146 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 139 of the Fedon judgment that ‘the complaints advanced by the applicants based on breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, on infringement of the right to property and to pursuit of an economic activity and, finally, on failure to observe the principle of proper administration all rest on the premiss that the conduct of which the defendant institutions are accused is contrary to WTO rules’, the Court deduced, in paragraphs 147 and 140 of those judgments, that, ‘inasmuch as those rules are not among the rules by reference to which the Community courts review the legality of the Community institutions’ conduct, these complaints [would] therefore be rejected’.
Ker je bilo v točki 146 sodbe FIAMM in točki 139 sodbe Fedon poudarjeno, da „[o]čitki tožečih strank glede kr�itve načel varstva upravičenih pričakovanj in pravne varnosti, nespo�tovanja lastninske pravice in gospodarske pobude in na koncu nespo�tovanja načela dobrega upravljanja temeljijo na predpostavki, da ravnanje, ki se očita toženima institucijama, nasprotuje pravilom STO“, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 147 in 140 navedenih sodb iz tega sklepalo, da „[k]er se ta pravila ne nahajajo med tistimi, po katerih sodi�če Skupnosti nadzira zakonitost ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, je treba posledično tudi te očitke zavrniti“.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court found, in paragraph 149 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 142 of the Fedon judgment, that, ‘since it [had] not been proved that the conduct of which the defendant institutions [were] accused was unlawful, one of the three cumulative conditions of noncontractual liability of the Community for unlawful conduct [was] not met’.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 149 sodbe FIAMM in točki 142 sodbe Fedon ugotovilo, da „[k]akor hitro nezakonitost ravnanja, ki se očita toženima institucijama, ni izkazana, eden izmed treh kumulativnih pogojev za obstoj nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja njenih organov ni izpolnjen“.
Consequently, it dismissed the applicants’ first head of claim.
Zato je zavrnilo prvi tožbeni predlog tožečih strank.
As regards the head of claim founded on a regime providing for noncontractual Community liability even in the absence of unlawful conduct of the institutions, the Court first of all affirmed the existence of such a regime in paragraphs 157 to 160 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 150 to 153 of the Fedon judgment, stating as follows:
Glede tožbenega predloga, ki temelji na ureditvi nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti, tudi če ne gre za nezakonito ravnanje institucij, je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej potrdilo obstoj take ureditve v točkah od 157 do 160 sodbe FIAMM in v točkah od 150 do 153 sodbe Fedon. V zvezi s tem se je izrazilo tako:
[150] Where, as in the present case, it has not been established that conduct attributed to the Community institutions is unlawful, that does not mean that undertakings which, as a category of economic operators, are required to bear a disproportionate part of the burden resulting from a restriction of access to export markets can in no circumstances obtain compensation by virtue of the Community’s noncontractual liability (see, to this effect, Case 81/86 De Boer Buizen v Council and Commission [1987] ECR 3677, paragraph 17).
„157 [150] Kadar nezakonitost ravnanja, ki se ga kot v tem primeru pripisuje institucijama Skupnosti, ni ugotovljena, to ne pomeni, da podjetja, kot kategorija gospodarskih subjektov, ki nosi nesorazmerni del bremena, izhajajočega iz omejitve dostopa na izvozne trge, ne morejo v nobenem primeru dobiti nadomestila na podlagi nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti (glej v tem smislu sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 29. septembra 1987 v zadevi De Boer Buizen proti Svetu in Komisiji, 81/86, Recueil, str. 3677, točka 17).
[151] The second paragraph of Article 288 EC bases the obligation which it imposes on the Community to make good any damage caused by its institutions on the “general principles common to the laws of the Member States” and therefore does not restrict the ambit of those principles solely to the rules governing noncontractual Community liability for unlawful conduct of those institutions.
158 [151] Dejansko na členu 288, drugi odstavek, ES temelji obveznost, ki Skupnosti nalaga povrnitev �kode, ki jo povzročijo njene institucije na podlagi ‚splo�nih načel, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic‘, ne da bi bil posledično obseg teh načel omejen le na ureditev nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti za nezakonito ravnanje omenjenih institucij.
[152] National laws on noncontractual liability allow individuals, albeit to varying degrees, in specific fields and in accordance with differing rules, to obtain compensation in legal proceedings for certain kinds of damage, even in the absence of unlawful action by the perpetrator of the damage.
159 [152] Vendar nacionalne pravne ureditve nepogodbene odgovornosti posameznikom, čeprav v različnih obsegih, na posebnih področjih in na različne načine, dopu�čajo, da v sodnem postopku prejmejo od�kodnino za določeno �kodo, tudi takrat, kadar nezakonito ravnanje povzročitelja �kode ni podano.
[153] When damage is caused by conduct of the Community institution not shown to be unlawful, the Community can incur noncontractual liability if the conditions as to sustaining actual damage, to the causal link between that damage and the conduct of the Community institution and to the unusual and special nature of the damage in question are all met (Case C-237/98 P Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission [[2000] ECR I-4549], paragraph 19).’
160 [153] V primeru �kode, povzročene z ravnanjem institucij Skupnosti, katerega nezakonitost ni dokazana, je lahko podana nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti, če so kumulativno izpolnjeni pogoji glede resničnosti �kode, vzročne zveze med to in ravnanjem institucij Skupnosti ter neobičajne in posebne narave zadevne �kode (sodba z dne 15. junija 2000 v zadevi Dorsch Consult proti Svetu in Komisiji, [C-237/98 P, Recueil, str. I-4549,] točka 19.“
The Court then concluded that the applicants had sustained actual and certain damage.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato ugotovilo obstoj take dejanske in gotove �kode za tožeče stranke.
It further held that a direct causal link existed between the conduct of the Community institutions with regard to the importing of bananas into the Community and the damage thereby sustained by the applicants.
Poleg tega je presodilo, da obstaja neposredna vzročna zveza med ravnanjem toženih institucij na področju uvoza banan v Skupnost in �kodo, ki je s tem nastala tožečim strankam.
Finally, the Court held that the damage incurred by FIAMM and Fedon was not unusual in nature, and therefore rejected their claims in so far as they were founded on the regime providing for liability of the Community in the absence of unlawful conduct of its institutions.
Nazadnje je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da �koda, ki je nastala FIAMM in Fedon, ni neobičajna, zaradi česar je zavrnilo njune predloge, ker so temeljili na sistemu odgovornosti Skupnosti, če njeni organi ne ravnajo nezakonito.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court held in particular, in paragraphs 205 and 207 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 194 and 196 of the Fedon judgment:
Za oblikovanje te ugotovitve je Sodi�če prve stopnje, zlasti v točkah 205 in 207 sodbe FIAMM ter v točkah 194 in 196 sodbe Fedon, presodilo:
[194] … the possibility, which has come about in the present case, of tariff concessions being suspended as provided for by the WTO agreements is among the vicissitudes inherent in the current system of international trade.
„205 [194] […] [T]reba [je] ugotoviti, da je možna prekinitev tarifnih koncesij, ki jo predvidevajo sporazumi STO, kar se je zgodilo v obravnavani zadevi, ena izmed sprememb, ki je inherentno povezana s sedanjim sistemom mednarodne trgovine.
Accordingly, the risk of this vicissitude has to be borne by every operator who decides to sell his products on the market of one of the WTO members.
Zato morajo tveganje take spremembe nositi vsi gospodarski subjekti, ki se odločijo proizvajati na trgu ene izmed članic STO.
[196] In addition, it is clear from Article 22(3)(b) and (c) of the DSU, an international instrument which was publicised appropriately so as to ensure that Community operators were aware of it, that the complaining member of the WTO may seek to suspend concessions or other obligations in sectors other than that in which the panel or Appellate Body has found a violation by the member concerned, whether under the same agreement or another WTO agreement.’
207 [196] Poleg tega iz člena 22(3)(b) in (c) DPPRS, mednarodnega instrumenta, ki je bil ustrezno objavljen, kar zagotavlja, da so bili gospodarski subjekti Skupnosti z njim seznanjeni, izhaja, da članica STO, ki se pritožuje, lahko zahteva prekinitev koncesij ali drugih obveznosti v drugih sektorjih, kot so tisti, v katerih je ugotovitveni svet ali pritožbeni organ ugotovil kr�itev zadevne članice, bodisi po istem sporazumu ali drugem sporazumu STO.“
The forms of order sought and the course of the proceedings before the Court of Justice
Predlogi strank in postopek pred Sodiščem
FIAMM, in Case C-120/06 P, and Fedon, in Case C-121/06 P, claim respectively that the FIAMM judgment and the Fedon judgment should be set aside.
Družbi FIAMM, v zadevi C-120/06 P, in Fedon, v zadevi C-121/06 P, predlagata razveljavitev sodbe FIAMM in razveljavitev sodbe Fedon.
They each put forward two pleas in law in support of their appeal.
Obe navajata dva pritožbena razloga v utemeljitev svojih pritožb.
By their first plea, they submit that the judgments under appeal lack reasoning and are unfounded so far as concerns one of the main arguments — regarding direct effect of decisions of the DSB — underlying their respective applications for damages by reason of unlawful conduct of the Community.
S prvim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjujeta, da izpodbijani sodbi nista obrazloženi in utemeljeni glede enega od glavnih argumentov, ki je temelj njunih tožb zaradi odgovornosti za nezakonito ravnanje Skupnosti, in sicer trditve o neposrednem učinku sklepov ORS.
By their second plea, FIAMM and Fedon submit that, in concluding that the damage incurred by them was not unusual in nature and accordingly rejecting their claim for compensation founded on a liability regime applicable in the absence of unlawful conduct of the Community institutions, the Court of First Instance gave reasons that were insufficiently explained, illogical and at variance with the relevant settled case-law.
Družbi FIAMM in Fedon z drugim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjujeta, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje z ugotovitvijo, da �koda, ki jima je nastala, ni neobičajna, in z zavrnitvijo njunega od�kodninskega zahtevka, utemeljenega z ureditvijo odgovornosti, ki se uporabi, če organi Skupnosti ne ravnajo nezakonito, podalo nezadostno obrazloženo razlago, ki vsebuje nelogičnosti in je v nasprotju z ustaljeno sodno prakso na tem področju.
They each further claim that the Court should:
Poleg tega obe Sodi�ču predlagata, naj:
— give a substantive ruling confirming their entitlement to compensation arising out of the defendants’ liability for an unlawful act or for a lawful act;
– odloči o temelju, tako da jima prizna pravico do povračila �kode, ki izhaja iz odgovornosti toženih strank za nezakonito ali zakonito ravnanje;
— in any event, order the defendants to pay the costs both of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings at first instance.
– v vsakem primeru naloži toženima strankama plačilo stro�kov pritožbenega postopka in postopka na prvi stopnji.
In the alternative, FIAMM and Fedon request the Court to grant them fair compensation on account of the unreasonable duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and to grant such further relief as fairness might require.
Družbi FIAMM in Fedon podredno Sodi�ču predlagata, naj jima odobri pravično od�kodnino zaradi nerazumno dolgega postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in sprejme druge ukrepe in določbe, ki bi bili nujni iz razlogov pravičnosti.
— replace certain of the Court of First Instance’s grounds or partially set aside the judgments under appeal, declaring that noncontractual liability of the Community in the absence of an unlawful act is inapplicable in respect of a failure to take legislative action or, in the alternative, declaring that the factors required for such liability are not present;
– nadomesti nekatere obrazložitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje oziroma deloma razveljavi izpodbijani sodbi, tako da razglasi, da se nepogodbena odgovornost Skupnosti ne uporablja, če ni nezakonitega ravnanja pri opustitvi zakonodajne dejavnosti, ali podredno, tako da razglasi, da ni elementov, ki pomenijo tako odgovornost;
— dismiss the appeals as unfounded;
– zavrne pritožbi kot neutemeljeni;
— order the appellants to pay the costs.
– pritožnicama naloži plačilo stro�kov.
— dismiss the appeals, altering, in so far as is necessary, the grounds of the judgments under appeal;
– zavrne pritožbi in spremeni, če je potrebno, obrazložitev izpodbijanih sodb;
— in the alternative, dismiss the claims put forward at first instance seeking compensation for damage;
– podredno, zavrne zahtevke za naložitev plačila od�kodnine, vložene na prvi stopnji;
— in the further alternative, refer the cases back to the Court of First Instance in order for the proceedings to be resumed and the damage for which compensation may be awarded to be quantified, in accordance with Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice;
– povsem podredno, naj v skladu s členom 61 Statuta Sodi�ča vrne zadevi Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da se ponovno izvede postopek in določi vi�ino �kode, ki se lahko povrne;
Both in Case C-120/06 P, in which it lodged a response in its capacity as a party to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, and in Case C-121/06 P, in which it has the status of intervener before the Court of Justice, the Kingdom of Spain contends that the Court should:
Kraljevina Španija v zadevi C-120/06 P, v kateri je predložila odgovor na tožbo kot stranka v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, in v zadevi C-121/06 P, v kateri nastopa kot intervenientka pred Sodi�čem, Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— dismiss the appeal in so far as it relates to liability for an unlawful act of the defendant institutions;
– zavrne pritožbo v delu, v katerem se nana�a na odgovornost za nezakonito ravnanje toženih institucij;
— partially set aside the judgment under appeal and find that liability for a lawful act does not exist in Community law or, in the alternative, dismiss the appeal in so far as it relates to the liability of the defendant institutions for a lawful act or, in the further alternative, dismiss the appellants’ claim for compensation for a lawful act;
– delno razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo in ugotovi neobstoj odgovornosti zaradi akta, ki je zakonit v pravnem redu Skupnosti, ali, podredno, zavrne pritožbo kolikor se nana�a na odgovornost toženih institucij zaradi zakonitega akta ali, prav tako podredno, zavrne od�kodninski zahtevek zaradi zakonitega akta, ki sta ga pritožnici vložili;
— declare the claim for compensation based on the unreasonable duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance to be inadmissible;
– razglasi nedopustnost od�kodninskega zahtevka, ki temelji na nerazumno dolgem postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje;
After the Council and the Commission had lodged their responses in Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P and the Kingdom of Spain had lodged its response in Case C-120/06 P, FIAMM and Fedon were, upon application by them, granted the right to submit a reply under Article 117(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.
Družbama FIAMM in Fedon je bila zaradi vložitve odgovorov na tožbo s strani Sveta in Komisije v zadevah C-120/06 P in C-121/06 P ter vložitve odgovora na tožbo s strani Kraljevine Španije v zadevi C-120/06 P na njun predlog odobrena pravica do replike na podlagi člena 117(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča.
In Case C-120/06 P, the Court Registry received by fax, within the periods referred to in Article 117(1) and (2) respectively of the Rules of Procedure, FIAMM’s reply and its response to the cross-appeal brought by the Council.
Družba FIAMM je v zadevi C-120/06 P prek telefaksa v sodno tajni�tvo Sodi�ča posredovala repliko in odgovor na nasprotno pritožbo, ki jo je Svet vložil v roku, navedenem v členu 117(1) in (2) omenjenega poslovnika.
The originals of those pleadings were not, however lodged at the Court Registry within the period of 10 days referred to in Article 37(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
Vendar izvirna različica teh odgovorov ni bila predložena v tajni�tvu Sodi�ča v desetdnevnem roku, navedenem v členu 37(6) tega poslovnika.
Consequently, those pleadings, and the originals thereof belatedly received at the Registry, were excluded from the proceedings and returned to FIAMM.
Tako so bili ti odgovori, kot tudi njihovi izvirniki, ki so prepozno prispeli v tajni�tvo, izločeni iz postopka in vrnjeni družbi FIAMM.
In Case C-121/06 P, Fedon lodged neither a reply nor a response to the Council’s cross-appeal.
Družba Fedon v zadevi C-121/06 P ni predložila replike niti odgovora na nasprotno pritožbo, ki jo je predložil Svet.
Fedon and the Commission lodged observations on the statement in intervention of the Kingdom of Spain.
Družba Fedon in Komisija sta poleg tega vložili pripombe glede intervencijske vloge Kraljevine Španije.
The first plea in the main appeals
Prvi pritožbeni razlog iz glavnih pritožb
By their first plea, FIAMM and Fedon submit that the judgments under appeal lack reasoning and are unfounded as regards one of the main arguments put forward in
Družbi FIAMM in Fedon s prvim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjujeta, da izpodbijani sodbi nista obrazloženi in utemeljeni glede na eno od glavnih trditev, navedenih v utemeljitev njunih tožb zaradi odgovornosti za nezakonito ravnanje Skupnosti.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P support of their respective applications for damages in respect of unlawful conduct of the Community.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P
They state that, as the Court of First Instance indeed noted in paragraph 100 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 93 of the Fedon judgment, during both the written procedure and the hearing they dwelt on the specific legal effects attaching to the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 that found against the Community.
Kot naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje poleg tega poudarilo v točki 100 sodbe FIAMM in v točki 93 sodbe Fedon, naj bi ti družbi med pisnim postopkom in na obravnavi vztrajali pri posebnih pravnih učinkih sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, s katerim je bila obsojena Skupnost.
They thus submitted that the existence of such a decision constitutes, alongside the two types of exception already laid down by Fediol v Commission and Nakajima v Council, a third case where it is appropriate to allow a breach of the WTO agreements by the Community institutions to be pleaded before the Community courts, in particular exclusively for purposes of compensation.
Poleg tega naj bi navajali, da obstoj takega sklepa pomeni, ob dveh vrstah izjem, ki sta bili že določeni v zgoraj navedenih sodbah Fediol proti Komisiji in Nakajima proti Svetu, tretji primer, v katerem bi bilo treba dovoliti sklicevanje pred sodi�čem Skupnosti na kr�itev sporazumov STO, ki so jo storili organi Skupnosti, zlasti za izključne namene povrnitve �kode.
The assessments of the Court of First Instance and the mere reference to previous caselaw contained in paragraphs 110 to 112 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 103 to 105 of the Fedon judgment are irrelevant in this regard, since that caselaw rules on a different question, namely whether a substantive rule contained in the WTO agreements can be relied upon for the purpose of reviewing the legality of Community legislation and of declaring, where appropriate, such legislation to be inapplicable.
Presoja Sodi�ča prve stopnje in zgolj sklicevanje na dotedanjo sodno prakso, navedeno v točkah od 110 do 112 sodbe FIAMM in v točkah od 103 do 105 sodbe Fedon, naj v zvezi s tem torej ne bi bila upo�tevna, ker se navedena sodna praksa nana�a na drugačno vpra�anje, v tem primeru na vpra�anje, ali se je za namene nadzora zakonitosti predpisov Skupnosti in za razglasitev – če je potrebno – takih predpisov za neuporabljive mogoče sklicevati na materialni predpis v sporazumih STO.
As is apparent, in particular, from paragraphs 114 and 115 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraphs 107 and 108 of the Fedon judgment, the Court of First Instance took the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 into consideration only in order to determine whether, given its existence, either of the exceptions already established in the caselaw to the rule that the WTO agreements lack direct effect could apply here.
Kot naj bi izhajalo zlasti iz točk 114 in 115 sodbe FIAMM ter iz točk 107 in 108 sodbe Fedon, naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje upo�tevalo sklep ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997 le da bi odločilo, ali bi se glede na njen obstoj lahko ena od dveh izjem iz sodne prakse, če ni neposrednega učinka sporazumov STO, ki so bili do tedaj sklenjeni, lahko uporabila v obravnavani zadevi.
In so doing, the Court of First Instance did not take appropriate account of the arguments of FIAMM and Fedon to the effect that, after the expiry of the reasonable period of time allowed for implementing the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997, the Community then had just two options, namely to comply or not to comply with that decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj s tem ne bi ustrezno upo�tevalo navedbe družb FIAMM in Fedon, da je imela Skupnost po izteku razumnega roka, določenega za izvajanje sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, na voljo le dve možnosti, namreč, da se uskladi s tem sklepom ali se z njim ne uskladi.
The flexibility of the WTO dispute settlement system, a feature which in particular enables the parties to pursue negotiated solutions and upon which
V obravnavanem primeru naj torej ne bi obstajala prožnost sistema re�evanja sporov STO, ki zlasti omogoča strankam, da poi�čejo re�itev s pogajanji, in na kateri naj bi temeljila sodna praksa, navedena v točkah 112
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the caselaw recalled in paragraph 112 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 105 of the Fedon judgment, establishing that it is not possible to review the legality of Community legislation in the light of the WTO agreements, is founded, is accordingly lacking here.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI sodbe FIAMM in 105 sodbe Fedon, v skladu s katero ni mogoč nadzor zakonitosti predpisov Skupnosti v zvezi s sporazumi STO.
In those circumstances there is nothing to preclude direct effect being accorded to a decision of the DSB.
V teh okoli�činah torej ni razlogov, da se ne bi priznal neposredni učinek sklepa ORS.
Furthermore, a finding of unlawfulness which merely takes note of the failure to comply with the DSB’s decision of 25 September 1997 within the period allowed does not require the substance of the Community measure at issue to be examined and cannot therefore affect the way in which the Community decides to put an end to the unlawfulness, any solution remaining possible provided that it is consistent with the WTO agreements and accepted by the opposing party.
Poleg tega ugotovitev nezakonitosti, ki se omejuje na sprejetje akta, ki ne upo�teva sklepa ORS z dne 25. septembra 1997, v predpisanem roku, naj ne bi zahtevala preizkusa vsebine zadevnega ukrepa Skupnosti in zato ne more vplivati na način, kako se Skupnost odloči prekiniti to nezakonitost, ker ostane mogoča vsaka re�itev, če je skladna s sporazumi STO in jo sprejme nasprotna stran.