natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, the Court of First Instance referring, by analogy, to Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others [1972] ECR 1219, paragraph 18, in particular, held that, in so far as under the EC Treaty the Community has assumed powers previously exercised by Member States in the area governed by the Charter
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje, ob analognem sklicevanju zlasti na točko 18 sodbe z dne 12. decembra 1972 v zadevi International Fruit Company in drugi (od 21/72 do 24/72, Recueil, str. 1219), presodilo, da če je Skupnost na podlagi Pogodbe ES sprejela pristojnosti, ki so jih prej izvr�evale države članice na področju uporabe
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P of the United Nations, the provisions of that Charter have the effect of binding the Community (Kadi, paragraph 203, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 253).
Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, določbe te listine Skupnost zavezujejo (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 203, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 253).
In the following paragraph in those judgments, the Court of First Instance concluded, first, that the Community may not infringe the obligations imposed on its Member States by the Charter of the United Nations or impede their performance and, second, that in the exercise of its powers it is bound, by the very Treaty by which it was established, to adopt all the measures necessary to enable its Member States to fulfil those obligations.
V naslednji točki teh zadnjih sodb je Sodi�če prve stopnje sklenilo, da Skupnost ne more kr�iti obveznosti svojih držav članic iz Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov ne ovirati njihovega izvr�evanja in da je vezana na podlagi pogodbe, s katero je bila ustanovljena, da pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti sprejme vse potrebne določbe, da omogoči svojim državam članicam izvr�itev teh obveznosti.
Being thus called upon, in the second place, to determine the scope of the review of legality, especially in the light of fundamental rights, that it must carry out concerning Community measures giving effect to resolutions of the Security Council, such as the contested regulation, the Court of First Instance first recalled, in Kadi, paragraph 209, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 260, that, according to caselaw, the European Community is based on the rule of law, inasmuch as neither its Member States nor its institutions can avoid review of the question whether their acts are in conformity with the basic constitutional charter, the EC Treaty, which established a complete system of legal remedies and procedures designed to enable the Court of Justice to review the legality of acts of the institutions.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je, drugič, določalo obseg nadzora zakonitosti predvsem glede temeljnih pravic, ki ga izvr�uje nad akti Skupnosti, ki dajejo učinek resolucijam Združenih narodov, kot je izpodbijana uredba, ter v točki 209 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi in točki 260 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat najprej opomnilo, da je v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Evropska skupnost pravna skupnost, ker njene države članice in njene institucije ne uidejo nadzoru skladnosti njihovih aktov z ustavno listino, Pogodbo ES, ter da je ta oblikovala popoln sistem pravnih sredstev in postopkov, ki Sodi�ču omogočajo nadzor nad zakonitostjo aktov institucij.
In Kadi, paragraph 212, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 263, the Court of First Instance considered, however, that the question arising in the cases before it was whether there exist any structural limits, imposed by general international law or by the EC Treaty itself, on that judicial review.
Vendar je v točki 212 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 263 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da je vpra�anje, ki se je pojavilo v teh zadevah, v katerih je odločalo, ali za omenjeni sodni nadzor obstajajo strukturne omejitve, ki jih nalaga splo�no mednarodno pravo ali Pogodba ES.
In that connection the Court of First Instance recalled, in Kadi, paragraph 213, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 264, that the contested regulation, adopted in the light of Common Position 2002/402, constitutes the implementation at Community level of the obligation placed on the Member States of the Community, as Members
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 213 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 264 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat opomnilo, da pomeni izpodbijana uredba, sprejeta v skladu s Skupnim stali�čem 2002/402, izvajanje na ravni Skupnosti obveznosti držav članic Skupnosti, ki so članice OZN, da s pomočjo akta Skupnosti
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION of the United Nations, to give effect, if appropriate by means of a Community act, to the sanctions against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaeda network and the Taliban and other associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities, which have been decided and later strengthened by several resolutions of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI uresničijo sankcije, ki so bile določene proti Osami bin Ladnu, mreži Al Kaida in talibanom ter drugim osebam, skupinam, podjetjem in povezanim subjektom ter nato poostrene z več resolucijami Varnostnega sveta, sprejetimi na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
In that situation, the Community acted, according to the Court of First Instance, under circumscribed powers leaving it no autonomous discretion in their exercise, so that it could, in particular, neither directly alter the content of the resolutions at issue nor set up any mechanism capable of giving rise to such alteration (Kadi, paragraph 214, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 265).
V tem smislu je Skupnost, po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ravnala na podlagi omejene pristojnosti, ki ji pri njenem izvr�evanju ni dajala nobene možnosti neodvisne presoje, zlasti ker ni mogla niti neposredno spremeniti vsebine zadevnih resolucij niti uvesti sistema, ki bi omogočil tako spremembo (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 214, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 265).
The Court of First Instance inferred therefrom that the applicants’ challenging of the internal lawfulness of the contested regulation implied that the Court of First Instance should undertake a review, direct or indirect, of the lawfulness of the resolutions put into effect by that regulation in the light of fundamental rights as protected by the Community legal order (Kadi, paragraphs 215 and 216, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 266 and 267).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je iz navedenega sklepalo, da ugovor tožečih strank glede notranje zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe vključuje, da Sodi�če prve stopnje izvede neposredni ali posredni nadzor zakonitosti resolucij, ki jih izvr�uje ta uredba, glede temeljnih pravic, kot jih varuje pravni red Skupnosti (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točki 215 in 216, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točki 266 in 267).
In paragraphs 217 to 225 of Kadi, drawn up in terms identical to those of paragraphs 268 to 276 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, the Court of First Instance held as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 217 do 225 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, ki je identična izpodbijani sodbi Yusuf in Al Barakaat v točkah od 268 do 276, presodilo:
The institutions and the United Kingdom ask the Court as a matter of principle to decline all jurisdiction to undertake such indirect review of the lawfulness of those resolutions which, as rules of international law binding on the Member States of the Community, are mandatory for the Court as they are for all the Community institutions.
„217 Institucije in Združeno kraljestvo pozivajo Sodi�če prve stopnje, naj načelno odkloni pristojnost za izvedbo takega posrednega nadzora zakonitosti teh resolucij, ki so kot pravila mednarodnega prava zavezujoča za države članice Skupnosti, naložena tako njemu kot vsem institucijam Skupnosti.
Those parties are of the view, essentially, that the Court’s review ought to be confined, on the one hand, to ascertaining whether the rules on formal and procedural requirements
Te stranke v bistvu menijo, da bi moral biti nadzor Sodi�ča prve stopnje omejen na preverjanje spo�tovanja obličnostnih in postopkovnih pravil in pravil o pristojnosti, ki so v tem primeru naložena institucijam, in na preverjanje ustreznosti in soraz-
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P and jurisdiction imposed in this case on the Community institutions were observed and, on the other hand, to ascertaining whether the Community measures at issue were appropriate and proportionate in relation to the resolutions of the Security Council which they put into effect.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P mernosti zadevnih ukrepov Skupnosti v razmerju do resolucij Varnostnega sveta, ki jih izvajajo.
As has already been explained, the resolutions of the Security Council at issue were adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.
Poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
In these circumstances, determining what constitutes a threat to international peace and security and the measures required to maintain or re-establish them is the responsibility of the Security Council alone and, as such, escapes the jurisdiction of national or Community authorities and courts, subject only to the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence mentioned in Article 51 of the Charter.
V tem smislu je določitev vsebine grožnje mednarodnemu miru in varnosti in ukrepov, potrebnih za njuno ohranitev ali ponovno vzpostavitev, izključno odgovornost Varnostnega sveta in se izogne pristojnosti nacionalnih organov in sodi�č ter organov in sodi�č Skupnosti, s pridržkom naravne pravice do individualne ali kolektivne samoobrambe, ki jo vsebuje člen 51 navedene listine.
Where, acting pursuant to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council, through its Sanctions Committee, decides that the funds of certain individuals or entities must be frozen, its decision is binding on the members of the United Nations, in accordance with Article 48 of the Charter.
Poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, po svojem sankcijskem odboru odločil, da je treba sredstva nekaterih posameznikov zamrzniti, je njegova odločba v skladu s členom 48 listine obvezna za vse člane Združenih narodov.
In light of the considerations set out in paragraphs 193 to 204 above, the claim that the Court of First Instance has jurisdiction to review indirectly the lawfulness of such a decision according to the standard of protection of fundamental rights as recognised by the Community legal order, cannot be justified either on the basis of international law or on the basis of Community law.
221 Glede na stali�ča, izražena v zgornjih točkah od 193 do 204, potrditev, naj pristojnost Sodi�ča prve stopnje za [posredni] nadzor zakonitosti take odločbe glede na standard varstva temeljnih pravic, kot so priznane v pravnem redu Skupnosti, ne bi bila upravičena ne na podlagi mednarodnega prava ne na podlagi prava Skupnosti.
First, such jurisdiction would be incompatible with the undertakings of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations, especially Articles 25, 48 and 103 thereof, and also with Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [concluded in Vienna on 25 May 1969].
222 Na eni strani bi bila taka pristojnost nezdružljiva z obveznostmi držav članic iz Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, zlasti iz njenih členov 25, 48 in 103, ter s členom 27 Dunajske konvencije o pogodbenem pravu [ki je bila podpisana na Dunaju 23. maja 1969].
Second, such jurisdiction would be contrary to provisions both of the EC Treaty, especially Articles 5 EC, 10 EC, 297 EC and the first paragraph of Article 307 EC, and of the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 5 EU, in accordance with which the Community judicature is to exercise its powers on the conditions and for the purposes provided for by the provisions of the EC Treaty and the Treaty on European Union.
223 Na drugi strani bi bila taka pristojnost v nasprotju z določbami Pogodbe ES, zlasti s členi 5 ES, 10 ES, 297 ES in s členom 307, prvi pododstavek, ES, in z določbami Pogodbe EU, zlasti s členom 5 EU, v skladu s katerim sodnik Skupnosti izvr�uje svoja pooblastila v pogojih in s cilji, določenimi z določbami Pogodb ES in EU.
It must therefore be considered that the resolutions of the Security Council at issue fall, in principle, outside the ambit of the Court’s judicial review and that the Court has no authority to call in question, even indirectly, their lawfulness in the light of Community law.
225 Ugotoviti je treba, da se zadevne resolucije Varnostnega sveta načeloma izognejo sodnemu nadzoru Sodi�ča prve stopnje in da to ni poobla�čeno izpodbijati njihove zakonitosti glede na pravo Skupnosti, čeprav je to izpodbijanje le postransko.
On the contrary, the Court is bound, so far as possible, to interpret and apply that law in a manner compatible with the obligations of the Member States under the Charter of the United Nations.’
Nasprotno, Sodi�če prve stopnje je dolžno, kolikor je le možno, razlagati in uporabiti to pravo tako, da bo združljivo z obveznostmi držav članic iz Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.“
In Kadi, paragraph 226, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 277, the Court of First Instance found that it was, none the less, empowered to check, indirectly, the lawfulness of the resolutions of the Security Council in question with regard to jus cogens, understood as a body of higher rules of public international law binding on all subjects of international law, including the bodies of the United Nations, and from which no derogation is possible.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 226 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi in v točki 277 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat presodilo, da je bilo kljub temu poobla�čeno posredno nadzorovati zakonitost zadevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta, glede na ius cogens, pojmovan kot mednarodni javni red, ki je obvezen za vse subjekte mednarodnega prava, vključno z organi OZN, in od katerega ni mogoče odstopati.
In paragraphs 227 to 231 of Kadi, drawn up in terms identical to those of paragraphs 278 to 282 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, the Court of First Instance held as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v tej zvezi v točkah od 227 do 231 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, ki so identične s točkami od 278 do 282 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, presodilo:
In this connection, it must be noted that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which consolidates the customary international law and Article 5 of which provides that it is to apply “to any treaty which is the constituent instrument of an international organisation and to any treaty adopted within an international organisation”, provides in Article 53 for a treaty to be void if it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens), defined as “a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character”.
„227 Glede tega je treba navesti, da Dunajska konvencija o pogodbenem pravu, ki uzakonja mednarodno običajno pravo (in katere člen 5 določa, da se uporablja ‚za vsako pogodbo, ki je ustanovni [ustavni] akt [posamezne] mednarodne organizacije, in za vsako pogodbo, ki je sprejeta znotraj mednarodne organizacije‘), v členu 53 določa ničnost pogodb v nasprotju z obveznim pravilom [imperativno normo] splo�nega mednarodnega reda [prava] (ius cogens), ki je določeno kot ‚pravilo, ki ga mednarodna skupnost držav v celoti sprejema in priznava kot pravilo, ki ne dovoljuje nobene izjeme in ki ga lahko spremeni le novo pravilo splo�nega mednarodnega prava z enakimi lastnostmi‘.
Similarly, Article 64 of the Vienna Convention provides that: “If a new peremptory norm of general international law emerges, any existing treaty which is in conflict with that norm becomes void and terminates”.
Člen 64 Dunajske konvencije določa, da če se sprejme novo obvezno pravilo [imperativna norma] splo�nega mednarodnega prava, vsaka obstoječa pogodba, ki je v nasprotju s tem pravilom, postane nična in se razveljavi [preneha veljati].
In the preamble to the Charter, the peoples of the United Nations declared themselves determined to “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person”.
V preambuli listine so ljudstva Združenih narodov odločena, da ‚potrdijo [svojo …] vero v temeljne človekove pravice, v dostojanstvo in vrednost člove�ke osebnosti‘.
In addition, it is apparent from Chapter I of the Charter, headed “Purposes and Principles”, that one of the purposes of the United Nations is to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms.
Iz prvega poglavja listine, imenovanega ‚Cilji in načela‘, izhaja, da je cilj Združenih narodov spodbujati spo�tovanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin.
Thus, under Article 24(2) of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council, in discharging its duties under its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, is to act “in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations”.
V skladu s členom 24(2) Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov mora Varnostni svet pri izvr�evanju nalog, ki mu jih nalaga glavna odgovornost ohranjanja mednarodnega miru in varnosti, ravnati ‚v skladu s cilji in načeli Združenih narodov‘.
The Security Council’s powers of sanction in the exercise of that responsibility must therefore be wielded in compliance with international law, particularly with the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Pooblastila za sankcije, ki jih ima Varnostni svet pri izvr�evanju te odgovornosti, mora torej [zato] uporabiti ob spo�tovanju mednarodnega prava in zlasti ciljev in načel Združenih narodov.
If they fail to do so, however improbable that may be, they would bind neither the Member States of the United Nations nor, in consequence, the Community.
V nasprotnem naj ne bi vezale držav članic OZN in torej tudi ne Skupnosti.
The indirect judicial review carried out by the Court in connection with an action for annulment of a Community act adopted, where no discretion whatsoever may be exercised, with a view to putting into effect a resolution of the Security Council may therefore, highly exceptionally, extend to determining whether the superior rules of international law falling within the ambit of jus cogens have been observed, in particular, the mandatory provisions concerning the universal protection of human rights, from which neither the Member States nor the bodies of the United Nations may derogate because they constitute “intransgressible principles of international customary law” (Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996, The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Reports 1996, p.
231 Postranski [posredni] sodni nadzor Sodi�ča prve stopnje v okviru ničnostne tožbe zoper sprejeti akt Skupnosti, brez izvr�evanja kakr�nega koli pooblastila za odločanje po prostem preudarku, z namenom izvedbe resolucije Varnostnega sveta, lahko torej [zato] [zelo izjemoma] raz�iri preverjanje spo�tovanja vi�jih pravil mednarodnega prava, ki zadevajo ius cogens, in zlasti nujna pravila za splo�no za�čito človekovih pravic, ki jih ne morejo kr�iti ne države članice ne organi OZN, ker tvorijo ‚načela mednarodnega običajnega prava‘ (posvetovalno mnenje Mednarodnega sodi�ča z dne 8. julija 1996, Zakonitost grožnje ali uporabe jedrskega orožja, Recueil, str.
226, paragraph 79; see also, to that effect, Advocate General Jacobs’s Opinion in Case C-84/95 Bosphorus [1996] ECR I-3953, paragraph 65).’
226, točka 79; v tem smislu glej tudi sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Jacobsa v zadevi Bosphorus, sodba z dne 30. julija 1996, C-84/95, Recueil, str. I-3953, točka 65).“
Firstly, with particular regard to the alleged breach of the fundamental right to respect for property, the Court of First Instance considered, in Kadi, paragraph 237, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 288, that it fell to be assessed whether the freezing of funds provided for by the contested regulation, as amended by Regulation
Zlasti glede, prvič, zatrjevane kr�itve temeljne pravice do spo�tovanja lastnine je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 237 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 288 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat menilo, da je treba ugotoviti, ali zamrznitev sredstev, ki jo določa izpodbijana uredba, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo �t. 561/2003, in
No 561/2003, and, indirectly, by the resolutions of the Security Council put into effect by those regulations, infringed the applicant’s fundamental rights.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P posredno resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ki jih te uredbe izvajajo, kr�i temeljne pravice tožeče stranke.
In Kadi, paragraph 238, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 289, the Court of First Instance decided that such was not the case, measured by the standard of universal protection of the fundamental rights of the human person covered by jus cogens.
V točki 238 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 289 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat je Sodi�če prve stopnje menilo, da to glede na standard splo�nega varstva temeljnih pravic člove�ke osebnosti, ki spada v ius cogens, ne drži.
In Kadi, paragraphs 239 and 240, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 290 and 291, the Court of First Instance held that the exemptions to and derogations from the obligation to freeze funds provided for in the contested regulation as a result of its amendment by Regulation No 561/2003, itself putting into effect Resolution 1452 (2002), show that it is neither the purpose nor the effect of that measure to submit the persons entered in the summary list to inhuman or degrading treatment.
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 239 do 240 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točkah 290 in 291 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat presodilo, da izjeme in odstopanja od obveznosti zamrznitve sredstev, predvidene v izpodbijani uredbi po njeni spremembi z Uredbo �t. 561/2003, ki izvaja Resolucijo 1452(2002), jasno kažejo, da nečlove�ko ali ponižujoče obravnavanje teh oseb, vpisanih na konsolidirani seznam, nista namen in učinek tega ukrepa.
In Kadi, paragraphs 243 to 251, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraphs 294 to 302, the Court of First Instance held, in addition, that the freezing of funds did not constitute an arbitrary, inappropriate or disproportionate interference with the right to private property of the persons concerned and could not, therefore, be regarded as contrary to jus cogens, having regard to the following facts:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 243 do 251 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točkah od 294 do 302 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat dalje presodilo, da zamrznitev sredstev ni samovoljna, neustrezna ali nesorazmerna glede na pravico do zasebne lastnine zainteresiranih oseb in je zato ni mogoče �teti, da je v nasprotju z ius cogens glede na te okoli�čine:
— the measures in question pursue an objective of fundamental public interest for the international community, that is to say, the campaign against international terrorism, and the United Nations are entitled to undertake protective action against the activities of terrorist organisations;
– zadevni ukrepi zasledujejo cilj v temeljnem splo�nem interesu mednarodne skupnosti, namreč boj proti mednarodnemu terorizmu, in OZN lahko legitimno ukrepa za za�čito pred delovanjem terorističnih organizacij;
— freezing of funds is a temporary precautionary measure which, unlike confiscation, does not affect the very substance of the right of the persons concerned to property in their financial assets but only the use thereof;
– zamrznitev sredstev je varstveni ukrep, ki v nasprotju z zasegom ne ogroža bistva lastninske pravice na finančnih sredstvih zainteresiranih oseb, ampak le njihovo uporabo;
— the resolutions of the Security Council at issue provide for a means of reviewing, after certain periods, the overall system of sanctions;
– zadevne resolucije Varnostnega sveta določajo sistem rednega ponovnega preizkusa splo�ne ureditve sankcij;