natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Born 1938; Doctor of Laws (1966); Professor of Public International Law (1974); Senior Visiting Fellow at the University of Oxford (1985); Professor at the International Christian University, Tokyo (1988); author of several works on public international law, European Community law and human rights law; member of several learned societies in the field of international law, European law and human rights law; Negotiator for the Polish Government for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Poland; Under-Secretary of State, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1989-92); Chairman of the Polish delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations; Judge at the European Court of Human Rights (1992-2002); President of the Institut de droit international (2003); Advisor to the President of the Republic of Poland on foreign policy and human rights (2002-04); Judge at the Court of Justice since 11 May 2004.
Rojen leta 1955; diploma pravnih in političnih znanosti na Univerzi v Hamburgu; znanstveni sodelavec pravne fakultete Univerze v Kielu; svetovalec latvijskega parlamenta za vprašanja mednarodnega prava, ustavnega prava in zakonodajne reforme; veleposlanik Latvije v Nemčiji in Švici (1992-1993), Avstriji, Švici in na Madžarskem (19941995); podpredsednik vlade in pravosodni minister, z nalogami ministra za zunanje zadeve (1993-1994); konciliator na Arbitražnem sodišču OVSE (od 1997); član Stalnega arbitražnega sodišča (od 2001); leta 1995 imenovan za sodnika Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice, ponovno imenovan leta 1998 in leta 2001; več objav s področja ustavnega in upravnega prava, zakonodajne reforme in prava Skupnosti; sodnik Sodišča od 11. maja 2004.
Born 1938; graduated in law from the University of Vilnius (1961); Doctorate in legal science, University of Moscow (1965); Doctor in legal science (Dr. hab), University of Moscow (1973); Research Assistant at the Institut des hautes études internationales (Director: Professor C. Rousseau), University of Paris (1967-68); Member of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences (1996); Doctor honoris causa of the Law University of Lithuania (2001); various teaching and administrative duties at the University of Vilnius (1961-90); Lecturer, Assistant Professor, Professor of Public International Law, Dean of the Faculty of Law; several governmental posts in the Lithuanian Diplomatic Service and Lithuanian Ministry of Justice; Minister for Justice (1990-91), Member of the State Council (1991), Ambassador of the Republic of Lithuania to Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (1992-94); Judge at the (old) European Court of Human Rights (June 1994 to November 1998); Judge at the Supreme Court of Lithuania and subsequently President of the Supreme Court (December 1994 to October 1998); Judge at the European Court of Human Rights (from November 1998); participated in several international conferences; member of the delegation of the Republic of Lithuania for negotiations with the USSR (1990-92); author of numerous publications (approximately 200); Judge at the Court of Justice since 11 May 2004.
Rojen leta 1950; diplomirani pravnik civilnega prava (National University of Ireland, University College Dublin, 1971); barrister (King’s Inns, 1972), diploma specialističnega študija evropskega prava (University College Dublin, 1977); barrister v okviru Odvetniške zbornice Irske (1972-1999); predavatelj evropskega prava (King’s Inns, Dublin); Senior Counsel (1994-1999); zastopnik irske vlade v številnih zadevah pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti; sodnik High Court of Ireland (Višje sodišče Irske) (od 1999); član upravnega odbora (doyen) Honorable Society of King’s Inns (od leta 1999); podpredsednik Irskega združenja za evropsko pravo; član Združenja za mednarodno pravo (irska sekcija); sin Andreasa O’Keeffa (Aindriasa Ó Caoimha), sodnika Sodišča (1974-1985); sodnik Sodišča od 13. oktobra 2004.
Members
Spremembe
Anthony Borg Barthet U.O.M.
Spremembe v sestavi Sodišča v letu 2004
Changes in the composition
Protokolarni vrstni red
On 7 January, Mr David Alexander Ogilvy Edward, Judge, left the Court of Justice.
Schiemann, sodnik J. Makarczyk, sodnik P.
On 13 October, Ms Fidelma O’Kelly Macken, Judge, left the Court of Justice.
Ilešič, sodnik J. Malenovský, sodnik J.
Order of precedence
Protokolarni vrstni red
R. Grass, Registrar
Nekdanji člani Sodišča
Order of precedence
Nekdanji člani
R. Grass, Registrar
─ Sodni tajniki
Former Members
Sodišče prve stopnje
– Presidents
G. predsednik Bo Vesterdorf
A — Proceedings of the Court of First Instance in 2004
Papasavvas so prisegli dne 12. maja 2004; ga. V.
By Mr Bo Vesterdorf, President of the Court of First Instance
Odslej ga sestavlja 25 sodnikov, en sodnik na vsako državo članico.
The Court of First Instance of the European Communities experienced significant changes in 2004 which will leave their mark on the European judicial institution’s history.
Mandati več članov Sodišča prve stopnje, med katerimi jih je bilo nekaj imenovanih pred kratkim, so se iztekli 31. avgusta 2004.
In light of the enlargement of the European Union, the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance were amended to increase the number of Judges comprising the Grand Chamber from 11 to 13 (OJ 2004 L 127, p. 108).
Poslovnik Sodišča prve stopnje je bil z ozirom na širitev Evropske unije spremenjen, tako da se je število sodnikov, ki tvorijo veliki senat, z enajst povečalo na trinajst (UL 2004, L 127, str. 108).
The provisions relating to the language of a case were also amended: since 1 May 2004 actions may be brought in 21 languages – the 20 official languages and Irish (OJ 2004 L 132, p. 3).
Spremenjene so bile tudi določbe, ki se nanašajo na jezik postopka: od 1. maja 2004 se tožbe lahko vložijo v 21 različnih jezikih – v 20 uradnih jezikih in irščini (UL 2004, L 132, str. 3).
The organisation and operation of the Court of First Instance were adapted to respond to the needs resulting from the increased number of Judges.
Organizacija in delovanje Sodišča prve stopnje sta se prilagodila novim potrebam, ki izhajajo iz večjega števila sodnikov.
Initially, for the period from 1 May to 31 August 2004, the new Judges joined the five existing Chambers of three Judges.
Najprej se je za obdobje od 1. maja do 31. avgusta 2004 deset novih sodnikov pridružilo petim obstoječim sejam treh sodnikov.
Each of the Chambers of three Judges was therefore supplemented by two Judges, and formed in that way the Chamber in its extended composition.
Vsaka izmed sej treh sodnikov je bila torej dopolnjena z dvema sodnikoma in je oblikovala razširjeni senat.
Subsequently, the Court decided to retain for the 2004/05 judicial year the structure entailing five Chambers composed of five Judges.
Nato je Sodišče prve stopnje za leto 2004/2005 odločilo, da obdrži strukturo petih senatov, ki so sestavljeni iz petih sodnikov.
It follows that, during this judicial year, each of the five Chambers sits with three Judges in two distinct and predetermined trial formations that are presided over by the President of the Chamber.
Iz tega sledi, da ima v tem sodnem letu vsak od petih senatov zasedanje s tremi sodniki v dveh različnih in vnaprej določenih sejah pod predsedstvom predsednika senata.
Four of the five Chambers composed of five Judges are presided over by Presidents who were elected by their fellow Judges in September 2004 for a period of three years, namely Mr Jaeger, Mr Pirrung, Mr Vilaras and Mr Legal.
Štirim od petih senatov s petimi sodniki predsedujejo predsedniki, in sicer Jaeger, Pirrung, Vilaras in Legal, ki so jih septembra 2004 za obdobje treh let izvolili člani njihovih senatov.
This election of Presidents of Chambers which on 10 September 2004 took place for the first time, pursuant to Article 15 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, is a consequence of the entry into force on 1 February 2003 of the new Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice (Article 50).
Ta izvolitev predsednikov senatov, ki je bila prvič izvedena dne 10. septembra 2004 v skladu s členom 15 Poslovnika Sodišča prve stopnje, je posledica uveljavitve protokola o Statutu Sodišča, ki je začel veljati 1. februarja 2003 (člen 50).
Also, implementation of the reforms made possible by the Treaty of Nice has begun.
Nato se je začelo izvajanje reform, ki jih je omogočila Pogodba iz Nice.
The EC Treaty, as amended by the Treaty of Nice which entered into force on 1 February 2003, provides in Article 225 that the Court of First Instance is to have jurisdiction to hear and determine at first instance all direct actions with the exception of those assigned to a judicial panel and those reserved in the Statute for the Court of Justice.
Pogodba ES, kot je bila spremenjena s Pogodbo iz Nice, ki je začela veljati 1. februarja 2003, v členu 225 določa, da je Sodišče prve stopnje pristojno za obravnavanje vseh neposrednih tožb na prvi stopnji, z izjemo tistih, ki se dodelijo sodnemu oddelku, in tistih, ki so po statutu pridržane Sodišču.
The Council has (i) amended the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and (ii) adopted provisions for the establishment of a ‘judicial panel’.
Svet je na eni strani spremenil protokol o Statutu Sodišča in na drugi strani določil ustanovitev „sodnega oddelka“.
First, on 26 April 2004 the Council adopted Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice (OJ 2004 L 132, p.
Najprej je dne 26. aprila 2004 Svet sprejel Sklep 2004/407/ES, Euratom o spremembah členov 51 in 54 protokola o Statutu Sodišča (UL L 132, str. 5; popravek UL L 194, str. 3).
As a result of the new division of direct actions between the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, which came into effect on 1 June 2004, actions for annulment and for failure to act brought by a Member State against an act of, or failure to act by, the Commission 1 fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance. The same is true of actions brought by the Member States against:
Kot posledica nove porazdelitve neposrednih tožb med Sodiščem in Sodiščem prve stopnje, ki velja od 1. junija 2004, so ničnostne tožbe in tožbe zaradi nedelovanja, ki jih države članice vložijo zoper akt ali nedelovanje Komisije1, v pristojnosti Sodišča prve stopnje.
– acts of the Council by which it exercises implementing powers;– acts of the European Central Bank.
Enako velja za tožbe, ki jih države članice vložijo zaradi: – sklepov Sveta o državnih pomočeh; – aktov Sveta, sprejetih v skladu z Uredbo Sveta o ukrepih za zaščito trgovine; – aktov Sveta, s katerimi Svet uresničuje izvedbena pooblastila; – aktov Evropske centralne banke.
On account of this new division of jurisdiction for direct actions, cases initially brought before the Court of Justice but in which the written procedure had not yet been brought to a close were transferred to the Court of First Instance; these cases related mostly to State aid and to the European Agriculture Guidance and Guarantee Fund.
Zaradi te nove porazdelitve pristojnosti za direktne tožbe so bile zadeve, ki so bile sprva vložene na Sodišču in v katerih se pisni postopek še ni zaključil, odstopljene Sodišču prve stopnje, predvsem zadeve s področja državnih pomoči in EKUJS.
Second, on 2 November 2004 the Council adopted Decision 2004/752/EC, Euratom establishing the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (OJ 2004 L 333, p. 7).
Drugič, Svet Evropske unije je dne 2. novembra 2004 sprejel Sklep 2004/752/ES, Euratom o ustanovitvi Sodišča za uslužbence Evropske Unije (UL L 333, str. 7).
This reform, likewise made possible by the Treaty of Nice (Articles 220 EC and 225a EC; Articles 136 EA and 140b EA; see also Declaration No 16 annexed to the Treaty of Nice), was keenly desired by the Court of First Instance because of the special nature of this field of litigation and the workload which is anticipated as a result of application of the provisions of the new Staff Regulations.
To reformo, ki jo je prav tako omogočila Pogodba iz Nice (člena 220 ES in 225 A ES; člena 136 ESEA in 140 B ESEA; glej tudi deklaracijo št. 16, priloženo k Pogodbi iz Nice), je Sodišče prve stopnje želelo zaradi posebne narave tega področja sporov in delovne obremenitve, ki se pričakuje kot posledica uporabe določb novih Kadrovskih predpisov.
This new specialised tribunal, consisting of seven judges, will be called on to hear disputes involving the European Union civil
To novo specializirano sodišče, ki ga bo sestavljalo sedem sodnikov, bo odločalo v sporih javne uprave Evropske unije, za katere je trenutno pristojno Sodišče prve stopnje.
With the exception of acts of the Commission that concern enhanced cooperation under the EC Treaty.
Z izjemo aktov Komisije, ki zadevajo okrepljeno sodelovanje v okviru Pogodbe ES.
The number of cases decided, which comes to 361, is close to that of 2003 (339). Of these cases, 76% were decided by Chambers composed of three Judges, 18% by Chambers composed of five Judges and 4% by the Court sitting as a single Judge.
Število rešenih zadev, ki znaša 361, je blizu številu iz leta 2003 (339), pri čemer so 76 % teh zadev rešili senati treh sodnikov, 18 % senati petih sodnikov in 4 % sodnik posameznik Sodišča prve stopnje.
It can be seen that the increase in the number of Judges has not yet enabled the number of cases decided each year to be increased significantly.
Torej je treba ugotoviti, da povečanje števila članov v senatu še ni omogočilo občutnega povečanja števila letno rešenih zadev.
The number of cases pending crossed the critical threshold of 1 000 cases, there being 1 174 such cases as at 31 December 2004.
Število nerešenih zadev je prestopilo kritični prag 1000 zadev in dne 31. decembra 2004 znašalo 1174 zadev.
This number of cases corresponds, as things stand, to more than three years of the Court’s work.
To število zadev po obsegu ustreza več kot trem letom sodne dejavnosti Sodišča prve stopnje.
The average duration of proceedings increased slightly compared with the preceding three years: in 2004 the average duration was 22.6 months for cases other than those falling within the special areas constituted by intellectual property cases and staff cases.
Povprečni čas trajanja postopka se je glede na zadnja tri leta nekoliko podaljšal: v letu 2004 je bil povprečen čas trajanja postopka 22,6 meseca za zadeve, ki se niso nanašale na posebna področja, kot sta intelektualna lastnina in javna uprava Skupnosti.
A very small number of cases have been dealt with under the expedited procedure: 13 such applications were made in the course of the year and two of the cases were accorded expedited treatment.
Zelo omejeno število zadev je bilo obravnavano po hitrem postopku, pri čemer sta bili tega obravnavanja deležni samo dve zadevi od trinajstih predlogov, vloženih v tem letu.
Developments in the case-law are set out in the following account, covering in turn proceedings concerning the legality of measures (I), actions for damages (II) and applications for interim relief (III).
Usmeritve sodne prakse so vsebovane v naslednjem besedilu, ki po vrsti obravnava spore o zakonitosti (I), odškodninske spore (II) in začasne odredbe (III).
Cases which broached the question of the admissibility of actions for annulment (B) will therefore be covered before the essential aspects of substantive law (C to H). The latter are
Okvirni predstavitvi zadev bo sledila obravnava vprašanja o dopustnosti ničnostne tožbe (B) in nato vprašanje o bistvenih vidikih materialnega prava (od C do H).
Court of First Instance grouped according to subject matter.
Slednji vidiki sporov bodo predstavljeni v okviru vsebine, iz katere izhajajo.
Not every field falling within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance is included in the following account, which is therefore not exhaustive. 2
Vsa področja, za katera je pristojno Sodišče prve stopnje, niso povzeta v besedilu, ki sledi, torej to ni izčrpne narave2.
Some issues of a procedural nature will be set out under a specific heading (A), since the clarification of the law provided by certain decisions is worthy of emphasis.
Nekatera vprašanja procesnega reda bodo predstavljena pod posebnim naslovom (A), saj navedbe, ki jih vsebujejo določene odločitve, zaslužijo, da se jih poudari.
Procedural aspects
Postopkovna vprašanja
Default proceedings
Postopek zaradi zamude
The delivery of judgments by default is extremely rare.
Razglasitev zamudne sodbe je skrajno redka.
In order for such a judgment to be delivered, a defendant on whom an application initiating proceedings has been duly served must fail to lodge a defence to the application in the proper form within the time prescribed and the applicant must apply to the Court of First Instance for judgment by default.
Pogoj zanjo je, da pravilno tožena stranka v postopku ne odgovori na tožbo v predpisani obliki in v predpisanih rokih in da tožeča stranka Sodišču prve stopnje predlaga, naj ugodi njenim predlogom.
In particular, this account does not deal with decisions in customs cases since they very largely involve the application to particular cases of solutions that are already well established (inter alia judgments of 12 February 2004 in Case T-282/01 Aslantrans v Commission, of 21 September 2004 in Case T-104/02 Société française de transports Gondrand Frères v Commission, and of 14 December 2004 in Case T-332/02 Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. and Others v Commission, none yet published in the ECR). Nor, for identical reasons, does this account include judgments concerning the annulment of decisions reducing or cancelling Community financial assistance, whether granted under the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) (judgment of 14 September 2004 in Case T-290/02 Ascontex v Commission, not yet published in the ECR) or under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guidance Section (judgment of 28 January 2004 in Case T-180/01 Euroagri v Commission, not yet published in the ECR; under appeal, Case C-153/04 P). 3
Pričujoči prispevek ne zajema odločanja v zvezi s carinskimi spori, predvsem kolikor gre za primere, ko se uporabi že ustaljena rešitev v posebnih situacijah (zlasti sodbe z dne 12. februarja 2004 v zadevi Aslantrans proti Komisiji, T-282/01; z dne 21. septembra 2004 v zadevi Société française de transports Gondrand Frères proti Komisiji, T-104/02, in z dne 14. decembra 2004 v zadevi Nordspedizionieri di Danielis Livio & C. in drugi proti Komisiji,T-332/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil). Na enak način in iz istih razlogov ta prispevek ne obravnava odločitev o razglasitvi ničnosti odločb o znižanju ali odpravitvi finančnih pomoči Skupnosti, ne glede na to, ali jih je dodelil Evropski sklad za regionalni razvoj (ESRR) (sodba z dne 14. septembra 2004 v zadevi Ascontex proti Komsiji, T-290/02, še neobjavljena v Recueil) ali Evropski kmetijski usmerjevalni in jamstveni sklad (EKUJS), oddelek „Usmeritve“ (sodba z dne 28. januarja 2004 v zadevi Euroagri proti Komisiji, T-180/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-153/04 P)). 75
Page 81
Dejavnost
Proceedings on the five banks by the Commission in the annulled decision amounted to more than EUR 100 000 000.
Skupni znesek glob, ki jih je Komisija v nični odločbi naložila petim zadevnim bankam, je znašal več kot 100 milijonov evrov.
The Commission has applied for the setting aside of those judgments, as the relevant provisions allow.
Komisija se je zoper te sodbe pritožila, kot ji to omogočajo uporabljivi pravni viri.
Raising of an absolute bar to proceedings by the Court of its own motion
Upoštevanje javnega reda po uradni dolžnosti
An absolute bar to proceedings may, and even must, be considered by the Community judicature of its own motion.
Sodnik Skupnosti lahko in celo mora po uradni dolžnosti preizkusiti razlog javnega reda.
Such a bar may therefore be pleaded by the parties at any stage in the proceedings, whether it relates to the admissibility of the action or to the legality of the contested measure.
Tak razlog lahko stranke uveljavljajo na vsaki stopnji postopka, pa naj zadeva dopustnost tožbe ali zakonitost napadenega akta.
The Court of First Instance has thus considered of its own motion absolute bars to proceedings, which include bars relating to the timelimit for bringing an action (judgment of 28 January 2004 in Joined Cases T-142/01 and T-283/01 OPTUC v Commission, not yet published in the ECR), to whether the contested measure is of a challengeable nature (orders of 29 April 2004 in Case T-308/02 SGL Carbon v Commission and of 13 July 2004 in Case T-29/03 Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR), to the interest of the applicant in obtaining the annulment of the contested measure (judgment of 28 September 2004 in Case T-310/00 MCI v Commission, not yet published in the ECR) and to standing to bring proceedings (judgments of 7 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-107/01 and T-175/01 Sacilor-Lormines v Commission and of 1 December 2004 in Case T-27/02 Kronofrance v Commission, neither yet published in the ECR).
Sodišče prve stopnje je po uradni dolžnosti preučilo ugovore nedopustnosti iz razloga javnega reda, med katerimi so spoštovanje roka za tožbo (sodba z dne 28. januarja 2004 v zadevi OPTUC proti Komisiji, T-142/01 in T-283/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil), lastnost spornega akta, ki se lahko izpodbija (sklepa z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi SGL Carbon proti Komisiji, T-308/02, in z dne 13. julija 2004 v zadevi Comunidad Autónoma de Andalucía proti Komisiji, T-29/03, še neobjavljena v Recueil), pravni interes tožeče stranke za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijanega akta (sodba z dne 28. septembra 2004 v zadevi MCI proti Komisiji, T-310/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil) ali procesno upravičenje (sodbi z dne 7. julija 2004 v zadevi Sacilor Lormines proti Komisiji, T-107/01 in T-175/01, in z dne 1. decembra 2004 v zadevi Kronofrance proti Komisiji, T-27/02, še neobjavljeni v Recueil).
It has also considered, in so far as it constitutes an absolute bar to proceedings, the bar arising from infringement of essential procedural requirements, which encompasses the lack of a statement of reasons for the contested measure or an inadequate statement of reasons (judgment of 8 July 2004 in Case T-44/00 Mannesmannröhren-Werke v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, paragraphs 126 and 210; under appeal, Case C-411/04 P).
Kolikor gre za razlog javnega reda, je Sodišče prve stopnje preučilo tudi razlog na podlagi kršitve obličnostnih zahtev, kot je pomanjkanje obrazložitve ali nezadostna obrazložitev izpodbijanega akta (sodba z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi Mannesmannröhren-Werke proti Komisiji, T-44/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil, točki 126 in 210; pritožba (zadeva C-411/04 P)).
On the other hand, the Court held that a breach of the rights of the defence, which by its nature is subjective, does not fall within the scope of an infringement of essential procedural requirements and, therefore, is not be raised by the Court of its own motion (judgment of 8 July 2004 in Joined Cases T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 and T-78/00 JFE Engineering and Others v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, paragraph 425; under appeal, Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P).
Nasprotno je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da kršitev pravic obrambe, ki je po svoji naravi kršitev osebnostne pravice, ni kršitev obličnostnih zahtev in je zato ni mogoče upoštevati po uradni dolžnosti (sodba z dne 8. julija 2004 v zadevi JFE Engineering in drugi proti Komisiji, T-67/00, T-68/00, T-71/00 in T-78/00, še neobjavljena v Recueil, točka 425; pritožba (zadeve C 403/04 P, C 405/04 P in C-405/04 P)).
Page 82
Stroški
In an order of 28 June 2004 in Case T-342/99 DEP Airtours v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, the Court observed that the sum which Airtours sought to recover from the Commission amounted to more than GBP 1 700 000.
Sodišče prve stopnje v sklepu z dne 28. junija 2004 v zadevi Airtours proti Komisiji (T-342/99 DEP, še neobjavljena v Recueil) poudarja, da je bil znesek, katerega povračilo je od Komisije zahteval Airtours, ocenjen na več kot 1,7 milijona britanskih funtov (GBP).
The Commission, for its part, had assessed initially at GBP 130 000, and then at GBP 170 000, the costs incurred by Airtours.
Komisija je bila sprva stroške, ki jih je priglasil Airtours, ocenila na 130.000 GBP, nato pa na 170.000 GBP.