natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
51 But as FIAMM and Fedon rightly point out, the reasonable period that the Community had been allowed to comply with the DSB decision had expired on 1 January 1999 and, in a decision of 19 April 1999, the DSB had found that on 1 January the Community legislation continued to be incompatible with the rules of the WTO.
51Vendar natančno tako, kot družbi FIAMM in FEDON pravilno poudarjata, je razumni rok, ki je bil določen za Skupnost, da se uskladi s Sklepom ORS, potekel 1. januarja 1999 in s sklepom z dne 19. aprila 1999 je ORS ugotovil, da je tega 1. januarja obstajala nezdružljivost zakonodaje Skupnosti s pravili STO.
Hence, they contend, since no
51 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Biret International proti Svetu (točka 62).
In order to assess whether the appellants’ arguments are well founded, it is necessary to return to the basis of the very principle that WTO law cannot be relied on before the courts.
Presoja utemeljenosti trditev pritožnic zahteva vrnitev k temeljem samega načela nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravo STO.
It should again be remembered that the possibility of relying on the WTO agreements as a whole has been categor ically refused in principle, given their nature and structure, and that there can be room for application of the WTO rules by the courts only in so far as that would affect neither the scope for negotiations that the WTO agreements accord to contracting parties, even in the event of a dispute, nor the reciprocity and balance in the application of the commitments undertaken with regard to the WTO; in short, only in so far as that would not restrict the political freedom that the nature and structure of the WTO agreements allow
Ponovno naj opozorim, da je bila sporazumom STO ob upo�tevanju njihove narave in sistematike načeloma v celoti zavrnjena vsaka možnost sklicevanja in da je sporna uporaba pravil STO mogoča le takrat, kadar to ne vpliva niti na možnosti pogajanj, ki jih sporazumi STO določajo za stranke pogodbenice celo v primeru spora, niti na vzajemnost in ravnovesje pri uporabi s pogodbo sprejetih obveznosti iz naslova STO, to na kratko pomeni, kadar to ne omejuje politične svobode, ki jo narava in sistematika sporazumov STO dajeta pogodbenim strankam v zvezi z uporabo določb teh sporazumov.
51 — Biret International v Council, paragraph 62.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, ali bi v posebnih okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve možnost, priznano pritožnicama, da se sklicujeta na
Justice has already noted 54 and the Court of First Instance recalled in the contested judgments, 55 even at the expiry of the period satisfactory compensation had been agreed during the 20 days following the date of expiry of the reasonable period of time — a possibility provided for in Article 22(2) of the DSU — the Community could no longer seek negotiated solutions.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI je Sodi�če že poudarilo 54 in kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje opomnilo v izpodbijanih sod -bah 55 – tudi po poteku roka, določenega za uskla- - k re�itvam, ki jih doseže s pogajanji.
It had no choice but to comply with the DSB decision or to lay itself open to retaliatory measures by refusing to do so.
Ni imela druge izbire, kot da se uskladi s sklepom ORS ali pa da je izpostavljena povračilnim ukrepom, če tega ne stori.
As we can see, the debate hinges ultimately on the binding force of the DSB decision: does the DSU require the rulings and recommendations of the DSB to be implemented in full?
Razprava se, kot vidimo, na koncu nana�a na obvezujočo moč sklepa ORS: ali MRS določa izvajanje sklepov in priporočil ORS v celoti?
To be frank, I do not share the appellants’ analysis on this point.
Naj jasno povem, da se na tej točki ne strinjam z analizo pritožnic.
52It is true that allowed to bring the measure declared to be incompatible with the WTO rules into conformity and even after the authorisation and adoption of retaliatory measures, an important place continues to be reserved at all events for negotiation between the parties to the dispute.
52 Seveda člen 22(1) ditev ukrepa, razgla�enega za nezdružljivega, s pravili STO, in tudi po dovoljenju in sprejetju povračilnih ukrepov ostajajo v vsakem primeru pogajanja med strankami v sporu pomembna.
Article 22(8) of the DSU thus emphasises the temporary nature of the suspension of concessions and stipulates that the suspension shall only be applied ‘until such time as the measure found to be inconsistent with a covered agreement has been removed, or the Member that must implement recommendations or rulings provides a solution to the nullification or impairment of benefits, or a mutually satisfactory solution is reached’, subject to the sole condition, enunciated in Article 3(5) of the DSU, that that solution be compatible with the WTO agreements.
V členu 22(8) MRS sta tako poudarjena začasnost prekinitve koncesij in omejeno trajanje „do ukinitve ukrepa, za katerega je bilo ugotovljeno, da ni združljiv z zadevnim sporazumom, ali dokler članica, ki mora uresničiti priporočila ali sklepe, ne zagotovi re�itve glede izničenja ali zmanj�anja koristi ali se ne doseže medsebojno zadovoljiva re�itev“, z edinim pridržkom, ki je določen v členu 3(5) MRS, da je ta re�itev združljiva s sporazumi STO.
Moreover, by the successive amendments to the Community regime for banana imports that had been found to be incompatible with the WTO rules, the Council and the Commission did not seek to remove the provisions ruled to be unlawful; they attempted at one and the same time to take account of the findings of the DSB, to honour the commitments they had made towards the other signatories to the Fourth Lomé Convention and to safeguard the objectives of the COM for bananas; and it was by concluding an agreement with the United States on 19 April 2001 that the dispute was finally laid to rest.
V preostalem, z zaporednimi spremembami skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan, glede katere je bila ugotovljena nezdružljivost s pravili STO, Svet in Komisija nista sku�ali ukiniti določb, ki so bile ugotovljene za nasprotne; hkrati sta sku�ali upo�tevati ugotovitve ORS, spo�tovati obveznosti, prevzete nasproti drugim podpisnicam Četrte konvencije iz Lomeja, in ohraniti cilje SUT za banane; spor je bil nazadnje končan s sklenitvijo sporazuma z Združenimi državami 19. aprila 2001.
It could admittedly be objected that the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot be avoided, and that such a negotiated solution is yet another way of
Seveda bi bilo mogoče ugovarjati, da se ne bi bilo mogoče izogniti izvedbi priporočil in sklepov ORS in da podobna re�itev, dosežena s pogajanji,
Article 22(1) of the DSU gives preference to full implementation of a recommendation to bring a measure into conformity with the WTO agreements and, under Article 3(7), in the absence of a solution that is mutually agreed between the parties and compatible with the agreements, the first objective of the DSU is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures found to be incompatible.
MRS daje prednost doslednemu izvajanju priporočila za uskladitev ukrepa s sporazumi STO in v skladu s členom 3(7) je prvi cilj MRS ponavadi – če ni re�itve, sklenjene vzajemno med strankami, ki bi bila združljiva z zadevnimi sporazumi – umik ukrepov, za katere se ugotovi, da so neskladni.
However, it cannot be concluded from this that, to adopt the wording of the caselaw, 53the DSU determines the appropriate legal means of ensuring that the DSB decision, and hence the WTO rules which the DSB has found to have been infringed, is applied in good faith in the legal order of the contracting parties.
Vendar pa ni mogoče sklepati, da – če povzamemo sodno prakso 53– MRS določa načine za zagotavljanje dobrovernega izvajanja sklepa ORS v notranjem pravnem redu pogodbenih strank in posledično pravil STO, za katera je ugotovila, da so kr�ena.
The Community remains free to make the political choice to lay itself open initially to retaliatory measures authorised by the DSB under Article 22(2) of the DSU.
Skupnost ohranja svobodo politične izbire, da se najprej izpostavi povračilnim ukrepom, ki jih bo dovolil ORS na podlagi člena 22(2) MRS.
Furthermore, as the Court of
Poleg tega – kot
54 — See Van Parys, paragraphs 42 to 51.
54 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Van Parys (točke od 42 do 51).
See also Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission, paragraph 164.
Glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Chiquita Brands in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 164).
55 — See the FIAMM judgment, paragraphs 125 to 129, and the Fedon judgment, paragraphs 118 to 123.
55 – Glej sodbi Fiamm (točke od 125 do 129) in Fedon (točke od 118 do 123).
53 — See Portugal v Council, paragraph 41.
53 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Portugalska proti Svetu (točka 41).
implementing the DSB decision. 56 However, whether one views the perennial possibility of reaching a negotiated solution to the dispute as a freedom limited to the choice of the means of implementing DSB decisions or as the freedom to prefer an alternative to implementation of the decision, it still constitutes freedom of choice.
ali se na trajno možnost re�itve spora, ki se jo doseže s pogajanji, gleda kot na omejeno svobodo izbire načinov izvedbe sklepov ORS ali na svobodo, da se raje izbere alternativa izvedbe tega sklepa.
Here too, the appellants’ arguments fail to convince me.
Tudi tu me trditve tožečih strank ne prepričajo.
It is true that a determination by the Community courts in an action for damages that Community legislation found by the DSB to be incompatible with WTO law is unlawful does not lead formally to either the annulment or the invalidation of that legislation, which thus remains an integral part of the legal order and theoretically applicable.
Seveda nezakonitost – ki jo ugotavlja sodi�če Skupnosti v okviru od�kodninske tožbe – zakonodaje Skupnosti, katere nezdružljivost s pravom STO je ugotovil ORS, ne vodi formalno niti do njene razglasitve ničnosti niti do razveljavitve. Ta ureditev torej ostaja sestavni del pravnega reda in ostaja teoretično veljavna.
The finding of unlawfulness by the Community court nevertheless constitutes res judicata.
Ugotovitev nezakonitosti s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti ni nič manj pravnomočna.
Hence, the political organs of the Community could not allow such unlawfulness to persist, short of disregarding the principle of a Community based on the rule of law.
Zato politični organi Skupnosti ne morejo dopustiti, da ta nezakonitost traja, razen če ne bi upo�tevali načela pravne skupnosti.
They would be under an obligation to eliminate that unlawfulness by repealing or withdrawing the legislation concerned.
Dolžni bi bili odpraviti to nezakonitost, tako da bi razveljavili ali umaknili zadevno zakonodajo.
It would therefore become impossible for them to seek a negotiated solution that would enable them to achieve an optimum balance between the different interests involved, as they did in the present instance by means of the last legislative amendments to the Community regime for banana imports.
Zato bi bilo zanje nemogoče, da bi s pogajanji poiskali re�itev, ki bi jim omogočila, da bi bolje uravnovesili različne interese, ki so v igri, tako kot so to storili v obravnavanem primeru z zadnjimi normativnimi spremembami skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan.
Their scope for political manoeuvre would thus undeniably be jeopardised.
Njihov politični manevrski prostor bi bil torej nesporno postavljen pod vpra�aj.
Hence, would the political freedom that the Community in any event enjoys within the legal framework of the WTO be undermined if, for the purpose of invoking the fault-based liability of the Community, it were possible to rely on WTO rules which a DSB decision has found to have been infringed?
Ali bi bila nemožnost sklicevanja na pravila STO, katerih kr�itev je bila ugotovljena s sklepom ORS, v namene prevzemanja krivdne odgovornosti Skupnosti taka, da bi poslab�ala politično svobodo, ki jo ima Skupnost v vsakem primeru v pravnem okviru STO?
Put another way, would that freedom be restricted if, in an action for damages, the Community courts found the conduct of the Community to be unlawful, a finding that recognition of an ability to rely on the WTO rules would permit?
Drugače povedano, ali naj bi to, da je sodi�če Skupnosti v primeru od�kodninske tožbe ugotovilo nezakonitost ravnanja Skupnosti, kar naj bi omogočilo priznavanje podobne nemožnosti sklicevanja, omejilo to svobodo? Pritožnici očitata Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da jo je potrdilo.
57They claim that the purpose of a finding of unlawfulness is not to have the Community measure contrary to WTO law declared invalid or to have it annulled, as in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling as to validity illustrated by the Van Parys case or in that of an action for annulment; such a judicial ruling would undoubtedly affect the ability of the Community’s legislative and executive organs to seek a negotiated solution, since it would oblige the institutions to remove the measure declared invalid or annulled from the legal order of the Union.
57Navajata, da namen ugotovitve nezakonitosti ni doseči – kakor v okviru predloga za predhodno odločanje za presojo veljavnosti, ki ga ponazarja zadeva Van Parys, ali v okviru tožbe za razglasitev ničnosti – da je ukrep Skupnosti, ki je v nasprotju s pravom STO, razgla�en za neveljavnega ali ničnega; ta sodna odločba bi bila nedvomno taka, da bi vplivala na možnost zakonodajnih in izvr�ilnih organov Skupnosti, da bi poiskali re�itev, ki se jo doseže s pogajanji, saj bi prisilila institucije, da bi ponovno preučile ukrep, ki je bil razgla�en za neveljavnega ali ničnega v pravnem redu Unije.
According to the appellants, the finding of unlawfulness in the
Ugotovitev nezakonitosti naj bi se v obravnavanem primeru nana�ala le na to, da bi zadostila enemu
56 — See, to that effect, the Opinion of Advocate General Alber in Biret International v Council, points 74 to 88, and that of Advocate General Tizzano in Van Parys, points 56 and 57.
56 – Glej v tem smislu sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Albera v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Biret International proti Svetu (točke od 74 do 88) in sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Tizzana v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Van Parys (točki 56 in 57).
57 — See the FIAMM judgment, paragraphs 130 to 135, and the Fedon judgment, paragraphs 123 to 128.
57 – Glej sodbi Fiamm (točke od 130 do 135) in Fedon (točke od 123 do 128).
Moreover, a finding of fault-based liability on the part of the Community would give all undertakings affected either by the Community measure that is incompatible with the WTO rules or by the retaliatory measures the opportunity to bring actions
Poleg tega bi priznanje krivdne odgovornosti Skupnosti ponudilo možnost vsem podjetjem, ki so bila prizadeta bodisi z ukrepom Skupnosti, ki ni združljiv s pravili same STO, bodisi s povračilnimi ukrepi, da s pomočjo tožbe v celoti dosežejo povračilo
B — Liability of the Community in the absence of fault and obtain compensation for the entire damage they have suffered.
�kode, ki je nastala pri njih.
The prospect of such a financial burden would likewise force the political organs of the Community to eliminate the Community measure held incompatible with the WTO rules and hence restrict the freedom of conduct they are permitted by the legal order of the WTO.
Namen take finančne obremenitve bi bil tudi, da bi prisilil politične organe Skupnosti, da bi umaknili ukrep Skupnosti, za katerega je bilo presojeno, da ni združljiv s pravili STO, in bi torej omejili svobodo ravnanja, ki jim je dopu�čena v pravnem okviru STO.
Lastly, the appellants object that acceptance of the possibility of reliance on the DSB decision to obtain compensation for the damage caused by the retaliatory measures adopted as a result of the failure to implement the decision would no longer have any effect on the political freedom of the Community organs, since Fedon’s claim for compensation was lodged after the trade dispute had been settled, and FIAMM’s was at least examined after it had been resolved.
Pritožnici nazadnje ugovarjata, da priznanje možnosti sklicevanja na sklep ORS zaradi povračila �kode, nastale zaradi povračilnih ukrepov, sprejetih na podlagi neizvr�itve tega sklepa, ne bi imelo nobenega vpliva več na politično svobodo organov Skupnosti, od tedaj ko bil je v obravnavanem primeru od�kodninski zahtevek vložen po re�itvi trgovskega spora v zadevi Fedon ali vsaj preučen po zadevi Fiamm.
However, establishing the principle of liability for unlawful conduct by the Community by reason of its failure to comply with a DSB decision within the reasonable period of time allowed would be a sword of Damocles hanging in future over the freedom of the political organs of the Community within the WTO sphere.
Določitev načela odgovornosti za nezakonito ravnanje Skupnosti, ki naj se v določenem razumnem roku ne bi uskladila s sklepom ORS, naj bi bila vendar kot Damoklejev meč, ki naj bi visel nad prihodnostjo svobode političnih organov Skupnosti znotraj STO.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that one cannot but uphold the refusal of the Court of First Instance to conduct in the actions for damages a review going beyond the Fediol and Nakajima exceptions of the legality of the conduct of the defendant institutions in the light of the WTO rules which the DSB had found to have been infringed by the Community.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je mogoče le potrditi zavrnitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da v okviru od�kodninske tožbe, kadar ne gre za izjemi Fediol in Nakajima, nadzira zakonitost ravnanja toženih institucij v zvezi s pravili STO, za katera je ORS ugotovil, da jih je Skupnost kr�ila.
The appellants complain that the Court of First Instance adopted an erroneous definition of unusual damage, which led it wrongly to deny that such damage exists in the present cases.
Pritožnice očitajo Sodi�ču prve stopnje, da je napačno ugotovilo pomen neobičajne �kode, zaradi česar je v obravnavanem primeru nepravilno ni priznalo.
In defence, the Council, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain endorse the analysis of the Court of First Instance that the damage suffered by the appellants was not unusual and thus express their satisfaction with the operative part of the contested judgments rejecting any no-fault liability on the part of the Community, but they criticise the Court of First Instance for having established the very principle of liability for a lawful act, for having acknowledged its applicability to the cases at issue, for having set insufficiently restrictive conditions for it and for having wrongly accepted that some of those conditions were met, in particular the one relating to the direct causal link.
Obramba pa, čeprav se Svet, Komisija in Kraljevina Španija strinjajo z analizo Sodi�ča prve stopnje o neobstoju neobičajnosti �kode, ki sta jo utrpeli pritožnici, in so torej zadovoljni z izrekom izpodbijanih sodb, ki zavrača vsakr�no krivdno odgovornost Skupnosti, Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da je določilo samo načelo odgovornosti za zakoniti akt, da ga je priznalo za veljavnega v obravnavanem primeru, da je zanj postavilo pogoje, ki niso dovolj strogi, in da je nepravilno priznalo, da so nekateri med njimi, zlasti ta, ki se nana�a na neposredno vzročno zvezo, izpolnjeni.
They therefore suggest that the Court of Justice should replace some of the grounds of the contested judgments, and even, in the case of the Council and the Kingdom of Spain which lodged crossappeals to that effect, set aside the contested judgments in part.
Tako predlagajo Sodi�ču, naj spremeni obrazložitve izpodbijanih sodb, celo – kar zadeva Svet in �pansko vlado, ki sta v ta namen vložila pritožbi – da delno razveljavi izpodbijane sodbe.
I shall assess the merits of the arguments of the various parties by examining in succession the question of the principle of no-fault Community liability, that of its field of application and finally that of the conditions in which it is incurred.
Presodil bom upo�tevnost trditev različnih strank, tako da bom zapovrstjo preučil vpra�anje o načelu objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti, njeno področje uporabe in na koncu vpra�anje pogojev, ki morajo biti zanjo podani.
The principle of no-fault Community liability noncontractual liability to be incorporated into Community law only if it is shared by all of the Member States?
Načelo objektivne odgovornosti Skupnosti
The Council, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain dispute the existence — in their view, affirmed by the Court of First Instance without stating adequate reasons — of a principle of Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct of its organs as a general principle common to the laws of the Member States; they maintain that well under half of the Member States have enshrined such a principle in their legal systems and the number even falls to two if the act giving rise to the damage is a legislative act.
Svet, Komisija in Kraljevina Španija izpodbijajo, da je načelo odgovornosti Skupnosti – ki ga je potrdilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, po njihovem mnenju brez zadostne obrazložitve – kadar ne gre za nezakonito ravnanje njenih organov, splo�no načelo, ki je skupno pravnim ureditvam držav članic. Precej manj kot polovica držav članic naj bi uzakonila tako načelo v njihovih pravnih redih in njihovo �tevilo naj bi se omejilo le na dve, kadar je akt, zaradi katerega nastane �koda, zakonodajni akt.
It is true that the Court of First Instance, without excessive concern to prove the point, confined itself to basing the principle of Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct on the statement that ‘[n]ational 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’.
Res je, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, brez pretiranih skrbi zaradi predstavitve, utemeljilo načelo odgovornosti Skupnosti, kadar ni nezakonitega ravnanja njenih organov, le na trditvi, da „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“.
58The second paragraph of Article 288 EC requires that reparation by the Community for damage caused by its institutions comply with ‘the general principles common to the laws of the Member States’.
58 Člen 288, drugi odstavek, ES pa določa, da mora biti nadomestilo �kode s strani Skupnosti, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije, v skladu s „splo�nimi načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic“.
But should the second paragraph of Article 288 EC be read as authorising an approach regarding the public authorities’
Vendar ali je treba člen 288, drugi odstavek, ES razumeti tako, da v pravu Skupnosti ne dopu�ča sprejetja re�itve na
58 — The FIAMM judgment, paragraph 159, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 152.
58 – Sodbi Fiamm (točka 159) in Fedon (točka 152).
For a reiteration of this approach and identical grounds, see Case T-279/03 Galileo International Technology and Others v Commission [2006] ECR II-1291, paragraphs 144 to 147.
Za ponovno uporabo te re�itve in enakih razlogov glej sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2006 v zadevi Galileo International Technology in drugi proti Komisiji (T-279/03, ZOdl., str. II-1291, točke od 144 do 147).
59 — Likewise, Advocate General Roemer rejected the application of the ‘rule of the lowest limit’ that would result if it were decided to adopt only rules existing in all the Member States (Opinion in Case 5/71 Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt v Council [1971] ECR 975, especially 989).
59 – Enako je generalni pravobranilec Roemer zavrnil uporabo „načela spodnje meje“, ki naj bi izhajala iz odločitve, da se izberejo le pravila, ki obstajajo v vseh državah članicah (sklepni predlogi v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt proti Svetu, sodba z dne 2. decembra 1971, 5/71, Recueil, str. 975, zlasti str. 991).