natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, from 1 July 2006, members of staff were recruited to work in the two new language units in the Translation Directorate.
Poleg tega je Sodišče od 1. julija 2006 začelo zaposlovati osebje za delo v dveh novih jezikovnih enotah Direktorata za prevajanje.
As regards the organisation of judicial work, the Court decided, in view of the forthcoming accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and of Romania, to create an additional chamber of five judges and an additional chamber of three judges.
Na organizacijski ravni sodnega dela se je Sodišče z vidika pristopa Republike Bolgarije in Romunije odločilo ustanoviti nov senat petih sodnikov in nov senat treh sodnikov.
The Court now has four five-judge chambers (the First, Second, Third and Fourth Chambers) and four three-judge chambers (the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Chambers).
Sodišče zdaj zaseda v štirih senatih petih sodnikov (prvi, drugi, tretji in četrti senat) in v štirih senatih treh sodnikov (peti, šesti, sedmi in osmi senat).
Each five-judge chamber is composed of six judges, and each three-judge chamber of five judges, who sit in rotation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure 1.
Vsak senat petih sodnikov sestavlja šest sodnikov in vsak senat treh sodnikov sestavlja pet sodnikov, ki zasedajo po sistemu rotacije v skladu z upoštevnimi določbami Poslovnika1.
Thus, 2006 was the first full calendar year in which this new body has operated, and it delivered its first judgment on 26 April 2006.
Tako je bilo leto 2006 prvo celotno koledarsko leto delovanja tega novega sodišča, ki je prvo sodbo izdalo 26. aprila 2006.
Chapter III of this Report contains a detailed account of the Civil Service Tribunal’s work, while Part C of that chapter sets out all the statistics concerning its first year of judicial activity.
Bralec bo v tretjem poglavju tega poročila našel podroben opis dejavnosti Sodišča za uslužbence in v točki C istega poglavja vse sodne statistike o njegovem prvem letu delovanja.
Once the Bulgarian and Romanian Judges arrive, the Second and Third Chambers will comprise seven judges, while the Sixth and Seventh Chambers will each be composed of six judges.
Po prihodu bolgarskega sodnika in romunske sodnice bo drugi in tretji senat sestavljalo sedem sodnikov, šesti in sedmi senat pa bo vsak sestavljen iz šestih sodnikov.
In response to the Presidency Conclusions of the Brussels European Council of 4 and 5 November 2004, the Court of Justice and the political organs of the European Union began consideration of the measures which could be adopted in order to ensure the expeditious handling of references for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice.
Razvoj in dejavnost za zagotovitev hitrega obravnavanja predlogov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v zvezi z območjem svobode, varnosti in pravice.
On 25 September 2006, the Court of Justice submitted an initial discussion paper on the treatment of questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the area of freedom, security and justice 2.
V tem okviru je Sodišče 25. septembra 2006 predložilo prvi dokument za razmislek o obravnavanju vprašanj za predhodno odločanje v zvezi z območjem svobode, varnosti in pravice2.
In this document, the Court noted in particular that existing procedures, including the accelerated procedure under Article 104a of the Rules of Procedure, are not capable of ensuring that this category of cases is dealt with suciently expeditiously and states that it would be wise to contemplate a new type of procedure, which might be called ‘the emergency preliminary ruling procedure’.
Sodišče v tem dokumentu zlasti ugotavlja, da obstoječi postopki, vključno s hitrim postopkom iz člena 104a Poslovnika, ne morejo zagotoviti dovolj hitrega obravnavanja te skupine zadev, in navaja, da bi bilo pametno predvideti novo vrsto postopka, ki bi ga lahko imenovali„nujni postopek predhodnega odločanja“.
The Court put forward two options for this type of procedure.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče za to vrsto postopka predstavilo dve možnosti.
On 14 December 2006, the Court submitted to the Council of the European Union a supplement to that discussion paper, which contains a more detailed analysis of the two procedural options 3. This legislative process which is now under way will lead to the adoption of the necessary amendments to the Statute of the Court of Justice and its Rules of Procedure, so that the Court may deal with this type of case with maximum eciency.
Sodišče je 14. decembra 2006 Svetu Evropske unije predložilo dodatek k temu dokumentu za razmislek, ki vsebuje natančnejšo analizo obeh postopkovnih možnosti3.Ta zakonodajni postopek, ki zdaj poteka, bo privedel do sprejetja potrebnih sprememb Statuta in Poslovnika Sodišča, tako da bo slednje lahko kar najbolj učinkovito obravnavalo te spore.
The statistics concerning the Court’s judicial activity in 2006 reveal a considerable improvement, for the third year in a row.
Iz sodnih statistik Sodišča za leto 2006 je razvidno precejšnje izboljšanje, in to že tretje leto zapored.
The reduction in the duration of proceedings before the Court should be noted, as should the decrease in the number of cases pending despite a signicant increase in new cases.
V tej zvezi je treba opozoriti na skrajšanje trajanja postopkov pred Sodiščem in na zmanjšanje števila nerešenih zadev kljub znatnemu povečanju vloženih zadev.
In particular, the Court completed 503 cases in 2006 (net figure, that is to say, taking account of the joinder of cases).
Predvsem je Sodišče leta 2006 zaključilo 503 zadeve (neto številka, upoštevajoč združitve).
Of those cases, 351 were dealt with by judgments and 151 gave rise to orders.The number of judgments delivered and orders made in 2006 is not far from the number in 2005 (362 judgments and 150 orders), despite the constant decrease in pending cases over the preceding three years (974 cases on 31 December 2003, 840 on 31 December 2004, 740 on 31 December 2005).
V 351 med njimi je odločilo s sodbo, v 151 pa s sklepom. Pripominjamo, da se število razglašenih sodb in sklepov leta 2006 ne razlikuje veliko od števila sodb in sklepov, razglašenih leta 2005 (362 sodb in 150 sklepov), in to kljub stalnemu zmanjševanju nerešenih zadev v preteklih treh letih (974 zadev na dan 31. decembra 2003, 840 na dan 31. decembra 2004, 740 na dan 31. decembra 2005).
The Court had 537 new cases brought before it, representing an increase of 13.3 % compared with the number of new cases in 2005 (474 cases, gross figure).
Na Sodišče je prispelo 537 novih zadev, kar pomeni 13,3-odstotno povečanje v primerjavi s številom zadev, vloženih leta 2005 (474 zadev, bruto številka).
The number of cases pending on 31 December 2006 was 731 (gross figure).
Na dan 31. decembra 2006 je bilo 731 nerešenih zadev (bruto številka).
The reversal, already observed in 2004 and 2005, of the trend of increasingly lengthy proceedings was consolidated in 2006.
Preobrat težnje po podaljševanju postopkov, ki je bil opažen že v letih 2004 in 2005, se je leta 2006 utrdil.
As concerns references for a preliminary ruling, the average duration of proceedings was 19.8 months as against 23.5 months in 2004 and 20.4 months in 2005.
Povprečno trajanje postopkov za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je bilo 19,8 meseca, medtem ko je bilo leta 2004 23,5 meseca in leta 2005 20,4 meseca.
A comparative analysis from 1995 onwards reveals that the average time taken to deal with references for a preliminary ruling reached its shortest in 2006. The
V preteklem letu je Sodišče uporabilo različne instrumente, ki jih ima na voljo za pospešitev postopka v določenih zadevah (prednostno obravnavanje zadeve, hitri postopek, skrajšani postopek in možnost odločanja brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca).
This document is available on the Court’s website (http://curia.europa.eu/fr/instit/txtdocfr/index_projet.htm).
Ta dokument je dostopen na spletni strani Sodišča na naslovu: http://curia.europa.eu/sl/instit/txtdocfr/index_projet.htm
In the course of the past year the Court has made use to diering degrees of the various instruments at its disposal to expedite the handling of certain cases (priority treatment, the accelerated or expedited procedure, the simplied procedure, and the possibility of giving judgment without an Opinion of the Advocate General).
Sodišče s prakso, uvedeno leta 2004, predsednik Sodišča z obrazloženim sklepom ugodi ali zavrne predloge za odločanje po hitrem postopku.
The Court continued to use the simplied procedure laid down in Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure to answer certain questions referred to it for a preliminary ruling.
Poleg tega je Sodišče še naprej odločalo tudi po skrajšanem postopku iz člena 104(3) Poslovnika, da bi odgovorilo na določena vprašanja, ki so bila nanj naslovljena v postopkih za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
It made 16 orders on the basis of that provision, bringing a total of 21 cases to a close.
Na podlagi te določbe je bilo namreč izdanih 16 sklepov, s katerimi je bilo skupno zaključenih 21 zadev.
In addition, the Court made fairly frequent use of the possibility oered by Article 20 of the Statute of determining cases without an Opinion of the Advocate General where they do not raise any new point of law.
Ob tem je Sodišče precej pogosto uporabilo možnost, ki jo ima na voljo v členu 20 Statuta, da odloči brez sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca, če zadeva ne odpira novega pravnega vprašanja.
About 33 % of the judgments delivered in 2006 were delivered without an Opinion (compared with 35 % in 2005).
Omenimo naj, da je bilo tako leta 2006 brez sklepnih predlogov razglašenih okoli 33 % sodb (v primerjavi s 35 % leta 2005).
As regards the distribution of judgments between the various formations of the Court, it may be noted that the Grand Chamber and the full Court dealt with nearly 13 %, chambers of five judges with 63 %, and chambers of three judges with 24 %, of the cases brought to a close in 2006.
Kar zadeva porazdelitev sodb po različnih sestavah Sodišča, naj opozorimo, da je bilo v velikem senatu in na občni seji odločeno skoraj 13 % zadev, zaključenih v letu 2006, v senatih petih sodnikov 63 % in v senatih treh sodnikov 24 %.
Compared with the previous year, the number of cases dealt with by five-judge chambers increased signicantly (54 % in 2005), the number decided by the Grand Chamber remained stable (13 % in 2005), and the number disposed of by three-judge chambers decreased markedly (33 % in 2005).
V primerjavi s prejšnjim letom ugotavljamo znatno povečanje števila zadev, ki so jih obravnavali senati petih sodnikov (54 % leta 2005), ustalitev števila zadev, v katerih je odločal veliki senat (13 % leta 2005), in precejšnje zmanjšanje števila zadev, v katerih je razsodil senat treh sodnikov (33 % leta 2005).
For further information regarding the statistics for the 2006 judicial year, reference should be made to Part C of this chapter.
Drugi statistični podatki za sodno leto 2006 so zbrani v točki C tega poglavja.
This section presents the main developments in the case-law, arranged by subject as follows: constitutional or institutional issues; European citizenship; free movement of goods; agriculture; free movement of persons, services and capital; visas, asylum and immigration; competition rules; approximation and harmonisation of laws; trade marks; taxation; social policy; cooperation in civil and judicial matters; police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters. Quite frequently, however, a judgment which, on the basis of the main issue addressed by it, comes under a given subject, also broaches questions of great interest concerning another subject.
Ta oddelek vsebuje poglavitne razvojne težnje, razvrščene po področjih: ustavna ali institucionalna vprašanja; državljanstvo Unije; prosti pretok blaga; kmetijstvo; prosto gibanje oseb, prosti pretok storitev in kapitala; vizumi, azil in priseljevanje; pravila o konkurenci; približevanje zakonodaje; znamke; obdavčitev; socialna politika; sodelovanje na civilnem in sodnem področju; policijsko in sodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah, pri čemer pripominjamo, da sodba, ki se glede na glavno problematiko, ki jo obravnava, uvršča na določeno področje, zelo pogosto odpira vprašanja, ki so zelo pomembna na drugem področju.
Constitutional or institutional issues
Ustavna ali institucionalna vprašanja
In Opinion 1/03 [2006] ECR I-1145, the Court ruled, at the Council’s request, on whether the European Community has exclusive competence, or only shared competence with the Member States, to conclude the new Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters intended to replace the Lugano Convention.
S strnitvijo načel, ki jih je mogoče izpeljati iz sodne prakse na področju sklenitve mednarodnih sporazumov s Skupnostjo, je Sodišče najprej opozorilo, da je treba – da bi lahko, kadar ni izrecnih določb Pogodbe, ugotovili obstoj izključne pristojnosti Skupnosti, ki ima zgolj dodeljene pristojnosti, na podlagi konkretne analize razmerja, ki obstaja med načrtovanim sporazumom in veljavnim pravom Skupnosti – dokazati, da bi sklenitev takega sporazuma lahko vplivala na predpise Skupnosti. Sodišče je nato izvedlo tak preizkus tako glede predpisov o pristojnosti sodišč kot glede predpisov o priznavanju in
The Court then conducted an examination of that kind as regards both the rules governing the jurisdiction of courts and the rules concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Razvoj in dejavnost izvrševanju sodnih odločb v civilnih in gospodarskih zadevah.
After the Court had (i) established that, by virtue of the very existence of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, which provides for a unied and coherent system of rules on jurisdiction, any international agreement also establishing a unied system of rules on conict of jurisdiction such as that established by that regulation is capable of aecting those rules of jurisdiction, (ii) specically veried that that is indeed the case with the agreement envisaged despite the inclusion in it of a disconnection clause providing that the agreement does not aect the application by the Member States of the relevant provisions of Community law and (iii) stated that the same finding may be made with regard to the provisions envisaged regarding the recognition and enforcement of judgments, it reached the conclusion that the new Lugano Convention falls entirely within the sphere of exclusive competence of the Community.
Sodišče je po ugotovitvi, da bi zgolj zaradi Uredbe št. 44/2001, ki določa splošen in povezan sistem pravil o pristojnosti, vsak mednarodni sporazum, ki prav tako uvaja obsežen sistem pravil o izogibanju sporov o pristojnosti sodišč, kot ga je razvila že ta uredba, lahko vplival na navedena pravila o pristojnosti, nato konkretno preverilo, da to velja v primeru načrtovanega sporazuma, čeprav se vanj vključi klavzula o neposeganju, na podlagi katere sporazum ne vpliva na uporabo upoštevnih določb prava Skupnosti s strani držav članic, in na koncu pojasnilo, da isto ugotovitev lahko uporabimo glede načrtovanih predpisov s področja priznavanja in izvrševanja sodnih odločb, ter sklenilo, da je sklenitev nove Luganske konvencije v celoti v izključni pristojnosti Skupnosti.
In response to the French Republic’s submissions that the reformulation by the Commission of the European Communities during the procedure of the complaints against it amounted to a new claim, so as to render the action inadmissible, the Court held that the requirement that the subject-matter of the proceedings is circumscribed by the pre-litigation procedure cannot go so far as to mean that in every case the operative part of the reasoned opinion and the form of order sought in the application must be exactly the same, provided that the subject-matter of the proceedings has not been extended or altered but simply limited.
V odgovor na trditve Francoske republike, da dejstvo, da je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti med postopkom spremenila očitke, pomeni nov predlog, zaradi česar naj tožba ne bi bila dopustna, je Sodišče odločilo, da zahteva, da je predmet tožbe opredeljen s predhodnim postopkom, ne more segati tako daleč, da bi se v vsakem primeru zahtevala popolna istovetnost med izrekom obrazloženega mnenja in tožbenimi predlogi, kadar predmet spora ni bil razširjen ali spremenjen, temveč le zožen.
It is accordingly permissible for the Commission to limit the extent of the failure to full obligations which it asks the Court to find, so as to take account of partial measures to comply adopted in the course of the proceedings.
Zato lahko Komisija omeji obseg neizpolnitve obveznosti, katere ugotovitev predlaga, tako da upošteva delne ukrepe za izvršitev, sprejete med trajanjem postopka.
After establishing that the failure on the part of the French Republic to full obligations still subsisted at the date of the Court’s examination of the facts, the Court examined the Commission’s proposal of a periodical penalty payment.
Po ugotovitvi, da je neizpolnitev, očitana Francoski republiki, na dan, ko je Sodišče preučilo dejansko stanje, še trajala, je slednje obravnavalo predlog Komisije za naložitev denarne kazni.
It recalled first of all that Article 228 EC has the objective of inducing a Member State to comply with a judgment establishing a failure to full obligations, and thereby of ensuring that Community law is in fact applied; such a penalty payment and a lump sum are both intended to place the Member State concerned under economic pressure inducing it to put an end to the infringement and are decided upon according to the degree of persuasion needed for the Member State to alter its conduct.
Sodišče najprej opozarja, da je cilj postopka iz člena 228 ES spodbuditi državo članico k izvršitvi sodbe zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti in s tem zagotoviti učinkovito uporabo prava Skupnosti ter da je namen obeh, denarne kazni in pavšalnega zneska, izvesti ekonomski pritisk na zadevno državo članico in jo s tem spodbuditi k odpravi neizpolnitve obveznosti, in da sta torej določena glede na stopnjo prepričljivosti, ki je potrebna za to, da taka država spremeni ravnanje.
It is for the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, to set a penalty payment in the light of the basic criteria which are, in principle, the duration of the infringement, the seriousness of the infringement and the ability of the Member State to pay.
V tej zvezi Sodišče navaja, da čeprav smernice, kot so te, vsebovane v obvestilih, ki jih objavi Komisija, dejansko lahko povečajo zagotovitev transparentnosti, predvidljivosti in pravne varnosti postopka, ki ga vodi ta institucija, izvedba pooblastil, ki jih Sodišču daje člen 228(2) ES, vendarle ni pogojena s tem, da Komisija sprejme taka pravila, ki v nobenem primeru Sodišča ne morejo zavezovati.
In Case C-459/03 Commission v Ireland [2006] ECR I-4635, which was an action for failure to full obligations brought by the Commission, the Court declared that, by instituting disputesettlement proceedings against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX plant located at Sellaeld (United Kingdom), Ireland had failed to full its obligations under various provisions of the EC and EA Treaties.
Irska s tem, da je v okviru Konvencije Združenih narodov o pomorskem mednarodnem pravu začela postopek za reševanje sporov proti Združenemu kraljestvu Velika Britanija in Severna Irska glede tovarne MOX na območju Sellaeld (Združeno kraljestvo), ni izpolnila obveznosti iz različnih členov pogodb ES in AE.
The reasoning followed by the Court in reaching that conclusion comprised several stages.
Sklepanje Sodišča, da je to ugotovilo, vključuje več stopenj.
First, given the fact that the Commission alleged that Ireland had infringed Article 292 EC, by virtue of which Member States undertake not to submit a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of the Treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for in the Treaty, the Court considered whether the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea alleged by Ireland before the arbitral tribunal to have been infringed by the United Kingdom were to be regarded as provisions of Community law, the infringement of which by a Member State falls within the procedure for failure to full obligations set up by Article 226 et seq. EC.
Ob upoštevanju dejstva, da je Komisija Irski očitala neizpolnitev člena 292 ES, ki določa, da se države članice obvezujejo, da bodo spore glede razlage ali uporabe te pogodbe reševale le na načine, določene v tej pogodbi, se je Sodišče najprej spraševalo o tem, ali je določbe konvencije o pomorskem mednarodnem pravu, katerih kršitev Irska v arbitražnem postopku očita Združenemu kraljestvu, treba šteti za določbe prava Skupnosti, katerih kršitev s strani države članice se ugotavlja v postopku zaradi neizpolnitve obveznosti, ki je vzpostavljen s členom 226 ES in naslednjimi.
After reasoning involving the rules governing the conclusion of international agreements by the Community, the relevant Community legislation and a specic examination of the provisions alleged by Ireland to have been infringed, the Court reached the conclusion that the provisions of the Convention relied on by Ireland in the dispute relating to the MOX plant which was submitted to the arbitral tribunal are rules which form part of the Community legal order.
Na podlagi sklepanja, izvedenega hkrati v zvezi s pravili o sklenitvi mednarodnih sporazumov s Skupnostjo in upoštevnimi predpisi Skupnosti, in po konkretnem preizkusu določb, katerih kršitev je prijavila Irska, je Sodišče sklenilo, da določbe navedene konvencije, ki jih je Irska navedla v okviru spora o tovarni MOX, predloženega arbitražnemu sodišču, sestavljajo pravila, ki so del pravnega reda Skupnosti.
Therefore the Court has jurisdiction to deal with disputes relating to the interpretation and application of those provisions and to assess a Member State’s compliance with them, and it is the Court which, by virtue of Article 292 EC, has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with a dispute such as that brought by Ireland before the arbitral tribunal.
Zato je Sodišče pristojno za reševanje sporov o razlagi in uporabi navedenih določb in za presojo, ali jih država članica spoštuje, in je torej samo Sodišče na podlagi člena 292 ES izključno pristojno za reševanje spora, kot je ta, ki ga je Irska predložila arbitražnemu sodišču.
However, Ireland’s failure to full obligations did not end there.
Vendar se spor o neizpolnitvi obveznosti Irske ni zaključil pred tem sodiščem.
It also failed to full its Community obligations by submitting Community measures for examination by the arbitral tribunal, in particular various directives adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty or the EA Treaty; this constituted a further breach of the obligation resulting from Articles 292 EC and 193 EA to respect the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court to interpret and apply provisions of Community law.
Navedena država namreč prav tako ni izpolnila obveznosti Skupnosti s tem, ko je navedenemu sodišču predložila v preizkus akte Skupnosti, zlasti različne direktive, sprejete na podlagi Pogodbe ES ali Pogodbe AE, kar pomeni drugo kršitev obveznosti spoštovanja izključne pristojnosti Sodišča za razlago in uporabo določb prava Skupnosti, ki izhaja iz členov 292 ES in 193 AE.
Furthermore, Ireland failed to comply with its duty to cooperate in good faith under Articles 10 EC and 193 EA by bringing proceedings under the disputesettlement procedure laid down in the Convention on the Law of the Sea without having first informed or consulted the competent Community institutions.
Irska niti ni izpolnila dolžnosti lojalnega sodelovanja, ki jo predvidevata člena 10 ES in 192 AE, ko je začela postopek v okviru sistema reševanja sporov, ki ga določa Konvencija o mednarodnem pomorskem pravu, ne da bi predhodno obvestila pristojne institucije Skupnosti in se posvetovala z njimi.