natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, any unlawful delegation of the Council’s powers to the Commission is not such as to engage the Community’s liability (judgment in Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Commission, cited above). It has also been held, by reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice, that infringement of the obligation to state reasons is not such as to give rise to the liability of the Community (judgment in Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Commission and judgment of 25 May 2004 in Case T-154/01 Distilleria F. Palma v Commission, not yet published in the ECR). On the other hand, in its judgment in Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission, the Court of First Instance held that the prohibition on unjust enrichment and the principle of non-discrimination were intended to confer rights on individuals.
Tako je odločilo, da namen pravila o razdelitvi pristojnosti med različnimi institucijami Skupnosti ni poveritev pravic posameznikom, torej bi naj možno nezakonit prenos pristojnosti Sveta na Komisijo ne sprožil nepogodbene obveznosti Skupnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie in Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. Proti Komisiji). S sklicevanjem na sodno prakso Sodišča se je odločilo tudi to, da kršitev obveznosti obrazložitve ne sproži odgovornosti Skupnosti (zgoraj navedena sodba v zadevi Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie in Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. proti Komisiji in sodba z dne 25. maja 2004 v zadevi Distilleria F. Palma proti Komisiji T-154/01, še neobjavljena v Recueil). Nasprotno je Sodišče prve stopnje v svoji zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Cantina sociale di Dolianova in drugi proti Komisiji menilo, da je poveritev pravic posameznikom namen načela o prepovedi neupravičene obogatitve in načela prepovedi diskriminacije.
The breach by the Commission of those principles was held to be sufficiently serious, a conclusion which the Court of First Instance did not reach with regard to any of the other actions for damages in which it ruled in 2004.
Kršitev teh načel s strani Komisije je Sodišče prve stopnje kvalificiralokotdovoljresno,česar pa ni odločilo v zvezi z nobenim drugim odškodninskim zahtevkom, obravnavanim v letu 2004.
Further, in Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie and Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. v Commission, the Court of First Instance outlined the conditions which would give rise to the non-contractual liability of the Community in the event of the principle of such liability as a result of a lawful act being recognised in Community law (see, on that subject, the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Annual Reports). Citing its previous decisions, it thus considered that those three conditions would have to be met, namely the reality of the damage allegedly suffered, the causal link between it and the act on the part of the Community institutions, and the unusual and special nature of that damage, it being specified that damage is ‘special’ when it affects a particular class of economic operators in a disproportionate manner by comparison with other operators, and ‘unusual’ when it exceeds the limits of the economic risks inherent in operating in the sector concerned, the legislative measure that gave rise to the damage pleaded not being justified by a general economic interest. In that case, the Court of First Instance held that damage of that sort was manifestly not established. 121
Med drugim je Sodišče prve stopnje v zgoraj navedeni sodbi v zadevi Afrikanische Frucht-Compagnie in Internationale Fruchtimport Gesellschaft Weichert & Co. proti Komisiji spomnilo na pogoje pogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi zakonitega akta v primeru, v katerem bi tak sistem moral biti priznan v pravu Skupnosti (o tem vprašanju glej tudi Letna poročila za leto 2001, 2002 in 2003). S sklicevanjem na svoje starejše odločitve je menilo, da bi v takem primeru morali biti izpolnjeni trije pogoji, in sicer obstoj domnevno utrpele škode, vzročna zveza med njo in aktom institucije Skupnosti ter nenormalna in posebna narava te škode, s tem, da gre za „posebno“ škodo, kadar je nastala škoda prekoračila meje gospodarskih tveganj, neločljivo povezanih z dejavnostmi v zadevnem sektorju, ne da bi splošni gospodarski interes upravičeval akt, posledica katerega je navedena škoda. V tem primeru je Sodišče prve stopnje menilo, da „kvalificirana“ škoda očitno ni bila dokazana. Končno je pomemben in zanimiv sklep z dne 7. junija 2004 v zadevi Segi in drugi proti Svetu
Finally, the order of 7 June 2004 in Case T-338/02 Segi and Others v Council, not yet published in the ECR (under appeal, Case C-355/04 P) 56 is interesting and important.
(T-338/02, še neobjavljen v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-355/04 P))
Applications for interim relief
57 posebnih ukrepov za boj proti terorizmu
The number of applications for interim relief submitted in 2004 was lower than for the previous year, since 26 were registered, compared with 39 in 2003.
, posodobljenem s Skupnima stališčema 2002/340
See also the order of the same date in Case T-333/02 Gestoras Pro-Amnistía and Others v Council, not yet published in the ECR; under appeal, Case C-354/04 P.
Glej tudi sklep z istega dne v zadevi Gestoras Pro-Amnistía in drugi proti Svetu (T-333/02, še ne objavljen v Recueil; pritožba (zadeva C-354/04 P)).
Common Positions 2002/340/CFSP and 2002/462/CFSP adopted by the Council pursuant to Articles 15 and 34 of the Treaty on European Union of 2 May and 17 June 2002 respectively (OJ 2002 L 116, p.
Skupni stališči Sveta 2002/340/SZVP in 2002/462/SZVP, sprejeti v skladu s členoma 15 in 34 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji dne 2. maja in 17. junija 2002 (UL L 116, str. 75, in UL L 160, str. 32).
Namely, Article 4, according to which the Member States are, through police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters within the framework of Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, to afford each other the widest possible assistance in preventing and combating terrorist acts.
Gre za člen 4, v skladu s katerim si države članice glede na Naslov VI Pogodbe o Evropski uniji s policijskim sodelovanjem in sodelovanjem sodstva v kazenskih zadevah medsebojno ponujajo najširšo možno pomoč pri preprečevanju terorističnih dejanj in v boju proti njim.
The President of the Court of First Instance, in his capacity as judge responsible for granting interim relief, completed 34 interim relief cases. Apart from cases in which provisional measures were ordered for a limited period (orders of 21 January 2004 in Case T-217/03 R FNCBV v Commission and Case T-245/03 R FNSEA and Others v Commission and of 12 May 2004 in Case T-198/01 R III Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, none yet published in the ECR) and the cases in which suspension of operation pending final judgment was granted, the applications with which the President dealt in 2004 were dismissed, in particular the application by the Autonomous Region of the Azores for suspension of the new fisheries rules applicable to Azorean waters (order of 8 July 2004 in Case T-37/04 R Região autónoma dos Açores v Council, not yet published in the ECR) and the application by Microsoft.
Glede zadnje navedene zadeve je predsednik Sodišča prve stopnje dejansko s sklepom z dne 22. decembra 2004 v zadevi Microsoft proti Komisiji (T-201/04 R, še neobjavljen v Recueil) menil, da dokazni elementi, ki jih je navedel Microsoft, niso zadostno dokazali, da bi mu takojšnja izvršitev korektivnih ukrepov, ki mu jih je naložila Komisija, lahko povzročila resno in nepopravljivo škodo.
That case originated in the Commission’s decision of 24 March 2004 60finding that Microsoft had infringed Article 82 EC by abusing its dominant position by engaging in two distinct types of conduct.
Microsoft z zlorabama prevladujočega položaja kršil člen 82 ES.
The Commission also fined Microsoft more than EUR 497 million.
Komisija mu je naložila globo v višini več kot 497 milijonov evrov.
The first type of conduct concerned Microsoft’s refusal to provide its competitors with certain ‘interoperability information’ and to authorise its use in the development and distribution of products competing with its own products on the work group server operating system market during the period October 1998 to the date of adoption of the decision.
Prvo vedenje, ki je bilo kaznovano, je v tem, da je Microsoft zavrnil, da bi svojim konkurentom ponudil „informacijo o medobratovalnosti“ in dopustil njeno uporabo za razvoj in distribucijo konkurenčnih proizvodov operacijskih sistemov za strežnike za delovne skupine za obdobje od meseca oktobra 1998 do dneva sprejema odločbe.
By way of remedy, the Commission ordered Microsoft to disclose the ‘specifications’ for its client-to-server and server-to-server communications protocols to any undertaking wishing to develop and distribute work group server operating systems.
Kot korektivni ukrep je Komisija Microsoftu naložila, naj vsakemu podjetju z željo razvoja in distribucije operacijskih sistemov za strežnike za delovne skupine razkrije „specifikacije“ komunikacijskih protokolov stranka-strežniku in strežnik-strežniku.
The specifications describe certain characteristics of a program and must therefore be distinguished from the program’s ‘source code’, which designates the software code actually run by the computer.
Specifikacijeopisujejonekatere značilnosti programa in se morajo razlikovati od „izvirne kode“ programa, ki označuje informacijsko kodo, ki jo računalnik dejansko izvršuje.
The second type of conduct sanctioned by the Commission was the tying of Windows Media Player with the Windows operating system.
Drugo vedenje, ki ga je kaznovala Komisija, je vezana prodaja multimedijskega predvajalnika Windows Media Player skupaj z operacijskim sistemom Windows. Komisija je menila, da je to ravnanje vplivalo na konkurenco na trgu multimedijskih predvajalnikov.
By way of remedy, the Commission ordered Microsoft to offer for sale a version of Windows without Windows Media Player.
Kot korektivni ukrep je Komisija Microsoftu naložila, naj ponudi v prodajo različico Windows brez Windows Media Playerja.
Microsoft none the less retains the possibility to market Windows with Windows Media Player.
Microsoft je ohranil možnost trženja Windowsa skupaj z Windows Media Playerjem.
On 7 June 2004, Microsoft brought an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the Commission’s decision (Case T-201/04).
Dne 7. junija 2004 je Microsoft na Sodišču prve stopnje vložil ničnostno tožbo zoper odločbo Komisije (zadeva T-201/04).
On 25 June 2004, Microsoft sought suspension of operation of the remedies imposed by that decision.
Dne 25. junija istega leta je Microsoft predlagal odložitev izvršitve korektivnih ukrepov, ki jih je naložila ta odločba.
Following the lodging of that application, the Commission stated that it did not intend to enforce the remedies until a decision had been reached on the application for suspension.
Po vlogi tega predloga je Komisija navedla, da ne namerava zahtevati prisilne izvršitve korektivnih ukrepov, dokler ni odločeno o predlogu za odložitev.
Commission Decision C(2004) 900 final of 24 March 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-37.792 Microsoft).
Odločba Komisije K(2004) 900 končna z dne 24. marca 2004 o postopku uporabe člena 82 ES (zadeva COMP/C-3/37.792).
In his order of 22 December 2004, the President of the Court of First Instance, after examining the circumstances of the case, held that Microsoft had not shown that it might suffer serious and irreparable damage if the contested decision should be enforced.
Predsednik Sodišča prve stopnje je sodil, da pogoj o nujnosti ni izpolnjen, saj Microsoft ni dokazal, da bi mu razkritje informacij, ki so bile do takrat skrivnost, povzročilo resno in nepopravljivo škodo.
Following a factual examination of the actual consequences of disclosure as alleged by Microsoft, the President found, in particular, that disclosure of information thus far kept secret does not necessarily entail serious harm and that, regard being had to the circumstances of the case, such damage had not been demonstrated in the present case.
V skladu z dejanskim preizkusom konkretnih posledic razkritja, takih, kot jih navedel Microsoft, je predsednik ugotovil zlasti to, da razkritje do takrat skrivne informacije ne zajema nujnega nastanka resne škode in da glede na okoliščine v tem primeru taka škoda ni bila dokazana.
Nor had Microsoft demonstrated, first, that the use of the disclosed information by its competitors would have the effect of placing the information in the public domain; second, that the fact that the competing products would remain in distribution channels after annulment of the decision would constitute serious and irreparable damage; third, that Microsoft’s competitors would be able to ‘clone’ its products; fourth, that Microsoft would have to make a fundamental change to its business policy; and, fifth, that the decision would cause an irreversible development on the market.
Microsoft ni dokazal, prvič, da bi uporaba razkritih informacij s strani njegovih konkurentov vodila k temu, da bi te postale dostopne javnosti, drugič, da bi zadržanje konkurenčnih proizvodov v distribucijskih kanalih v primeru morebitne razglasitve ničnosti napadene odločbe povzročilo resno in nepopravljivo škodo, tretjič, da bi konkurenti Microsofta lahko „klonirali“ njegove proizvode, četrtič, da bi moral Microsoft temeljito spremeniti svojo politiko trženja in, petič, da bi odločba povzročila nepovratno spremembo trga.
As regards the tying of Windows and Windows Media Player, the President considered, first of all, that certain of Microsoft’s arguments raised complex issues, such as that of the anticompetitive effect of the tying resulting from ‘indirect network effects’, which it was for the Court of First Instance to resolve in the main action.
O vezani prodaji Windowsa skupaj z Windows Media Playerjem je predsednik menil, najprej, da so nekateri argumenti Microsofta sprožili kompleksna vprašanja, kot je vprašanje protikonkurenčnega učinka vezane prodaje, ki izhaja iz „posrednih učinkov mreže“, ki jih mora razrešiti Sodišče prve stopnje v zadevi v glavni stvari.
The President concluded that the prima facie requirement was satisfied and then considered whether the requested suspension must be ordered as a matter of urgency.
S tem, da je sklenil, da je pogoj fumus boni iuris izpolnjen, je predsednik nato preizkusil nujnost odločitve o predlagani odložitvi.
On the basis of a factual analysis of the alleged damage, the President held that Microsoft had not demonstrated in concrete terms that it might suffer serious and irreparable damage owing to interference with its commercial freedom or harm to its reputation.
Po dejanski analizi navajanih škod je sodil, da Microsoft ni dokazal na konkreten način, da bi lahko utrpel resno in nepopravljivo škodo zaradi oškodovanja njegove svobode trženja in oškodovanja njegovega ugleda.
Costs.............................................................................................................. 81
Stroški..............................................................................................................77 ..............................................................................................................77
– Access to the file ....................................................................................91
– Vpogled v spis..........................................................................................85 ..........................................................................................85
– The scope of the Statement of Objections...............................................91
– Pomen obvestila o ugotovitvi kršitve........................................................86 ........................................................86
– Consequences of an express acknowledgement of the facts during the administrative procedure...................................................................92
– Posledice izrecnega priznanja dejstev v upravni fazi...............................86 ...............................86
– No recognition of an absolute right to silence..........................................92
– Nepriznavanje pravice do popolnega molka............................................87 ............................................87
– Reasonable time......................................................................................93 c) Proof of the infringement of Article 81 EC.................................................. 94
– Razumni rok.............................................................................................88 .............................................................................................88 c) Dokazovanje kršitve člena 81 ES ...............................................................88
Court of First Instance d) Fines...........................................................................................................95
Dejavnost d) Globe ..........................................................................................................89
Gravity......................................................................................................96
Teža kršitve..............................................................................................90 ..............................................................................................90
Duration ...................................................................................................98
Trajanje kršitve.........................................................................................91 .........................................................................................91
Aggravating circumstances......................................................................98
Obtoževalne okoliščine............................................................................91 ............................................................................91
Attenuating circumstances.......................................................................98
Olajševalne okoliščine..............................................................................91 ..............................................................................91
– The Leniency Notice................................................................................98
– Sporočilo o sodelovanju...........................................................................92 ...........................................................................92
– The exercise of unlimitied jurisdiction....................................................100
– Izvrševanje neomejene pristojnosti..........................................................93 ..........................................................93
Regulation No 4064/89................................................................................. 101
Uredba št. 4064/89..........................................................................................94 ..........................................................................................94
Operational continuity of the departments of OHIM..................................... 117
Funkcionalna kontinuiteta med oddelki UUNT ..............................................108
V. Tiili, Judge; J.D. Cooke, President of Chamber; M. Vilaras, President of Chamber; M. Jaeger, President of Chamber; B. Vesterdorf, President of the Court; J. Pirrung, President of Chamber; H. Legal, President of Chamber; R. García-Valdecasas, Judge; P. Lindh, Judge.
Rojena leta 1949; doktorica pravnih znanosti, asistentka za gospodarsko pravo (pred 1989), nato doktorica znanosti, profesorica gospodarskega prava (od leta 1993) na pravni fakulteti Karlove univerze v Pragi; članica vodilnega organa Komisije za vrednostne papirje (1999-2002); odvetnica; članica zakonodajnega sveta češke vlade (1998-2004); sodnica na Sodišču prve stopnje od 12. maja 2004.
O. Czúcz, Judge; F. Dehousse, Judge; N.J. Forwood, Judge; P. Mengozzi, Judge; J. Azizi, Judge; A.W.H. Meij, Judge; M.E. Martins de Nazaré Ribeiro, Judge; E. Cremona, Judge; I. Wiszniewska-Bialecka, Judge.
Rojen leta 1951; doktor pravnih znanosti (Univerza v Bratislavi); sodnik na sodišču prve stopnje v Bratislavi; sodnik na višjem sodišču, pristojen za civilne zadeve in podpredsednik Višjega sodišča v Bratislavi; član oddelka za civilno in družinsko pravo Inštituta za pravo pri ministrstvu za pravosodje; začasni sodnik na Vrhovnem sodišču, zadolžen za zadeve gospodarskega prava; član Evropske komisije za človekove pravice (Strasbourg); sodnik na ustavnem sodišču (2000-2004); sodnik na Sodišču prve stopnje od 12. maja 2004.
H. Jung, Registrar; S.S. Papasavvas, Judge; K. Jürimäe, Judge; D. Šváby, Judge; I. Pelikánová, Judge; V. Vadapalas, Judge; I. Labucka, Judge; V. Trstenjak, Judge.
Rojen leta 1954; doktor pravnih znanosti Univerze v Moskvi; habilitacija iz pravnih znanosti na Univerzi v Varšavi; profesor na Univerzi v Vilni: mednarodno pravo (od leta 1981), človekove pravice (od leta 1991) in pravo Skupnosti (od leta 2000); generalni direktor oddelka vlade za evropsko pravo; profesor evropskega prava na Univerzi v Vilniusu; nosilec katedre Jean Monnet; predsednik litovskega društva za študije o Evropski uniji; predsednik parlamentarne delovne skupine za ustavno reformo, povezano s pristopom Litve; član Mednarodne komisije pravnikov (april 2003); nekdanji strokovnjak Sveta Evrope za vprašanja o skladnosti nacionalne zakonodaje z Evropsko konvencijo o človekovih pravicah; sodnik na Sodišču prve stopnje od 12. maja 2004.
Born 1945; Lawyerlinguist at the Court of Justice; Administrator in the Ministry of Justice; Examining Magistrate; Legal Attaché in the Permanent Representation of Denmark to the European Communities; Temporary Judge at the Østre Landsret (court of appeal); Head of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Division in the Ministry of Justice; Director of a department in the Ministry of Justice; University Lecturer; Member of the Steering Committee on Human Rights at the Council of Europe (CDDH), and subsequently Member of the Bureau of the CDDH; Member of the ‘Ad-hoc committee on judicial training’ at the Academy of European Law, Trier (Germany); Judge at the Court of First Instance since 25 September 1989; President of the Court of First Instance since 4 March 1998.
Rojena leta 1962; doktorica pravnih znanosti Univerze v Ljubljani (1995); profesorica (od leta 1996) teorije države in prava ter zasebnega prava; raziskovalka; doktorski študij na Univerzah v Zürichu, na Dunaju (Inštitut za harmonizacijo prava), na Inštitutu Max Planck za mednarodno zasebno pravo v Hamburgu, na Svobodni univerzi v Amsterdamu; gostujoča profesorica na Univerzi na Dunaju, v Freiburgu (Nemčija) in na Bucerius Law School v Hamburgu; vodja pravne službe (1994-1996) in državna sekretarka na Ministrstvu za znanost in tehnologijo (1996-2000); generalna sekretarka vlade (2000); članica komisije za evropski civilni zakonik; nagrada Zveze pravniških društev Slovenije „pravnik leta 2003“; sodnica na Sodišču prve stopnje od 7. julija 2004.
Born 1942; Doctor of Laws of the University of Helsinki; assistant lecturer in civil and commercial law at the University of Helsinki; Director of Legal Affairs and Commercial Policy at the Central Chamber of Commerce of Finland; Director General of the Office for Consumer Protection, Finland; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 18 January 1995.
Rojen leta 1944; asistent, nato asistent profesor na pravni fakulteti (Berlin); odvetnik (Frankfurt); pravnik prevajalec na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti; strokovni sodelavec predsednika Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti Kutscherja, nato nemški sodnik na Sodišču Evropskih skupnosti; pomožni sodni tajnik Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti; sodni tajnik Sodišča prve stopnje od 10. oktobra 1989.