natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 308 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, such prior communication would be liable to jeopardise the effectiveness of the freezing of funds and resources imposed by that regulation.
Kot je navedlo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 308 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, bi lahko namreč tak�no predhodno obvestilo ogrozilo učinkovitost ukrepov zamrznitve sredstev in finančnih virov, ki jih nalaga ta uredba.
In order to attain the objective pursued by that regulation, such measures must, by their very nature, take advantage of a surprise effect and, as the Court has previously stated, apply with immediate effect (Möllendorf and Möllendorf­Niehuus, paragraph 63).
Da bi dosegli cilj, ki ga zasleduje ta uredba, morajo tak�ni ukrepi imeti učinek presenečenja, in kot je že navedlo Sodi�če, morajo se izvesti s takoj�njim učinkom (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Möllendorf in Möllendorf-Niehuus, točka 63).
Nor were the Community authorities bound to hear the appellants before their names were included for the first time in the list set out in Annex I to that regulation, for reasons also connected to the objective pursued by the contested regulation and to the effectiveness of the measures provided by the latter.
Iz enakih razlogov, ki prav tako izhajajo iz cilja, ki ga zasleduje izpodbijana uredba, in učinkovitosti ukrepov, ki jih določa, organi Skupnosti tudi niso bili zavezani, da pritožnika zasli�ijo pred prvo vključitvijo njunih imen na seznam v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
In addition, with regard to a Community measure intended to give effect to a resolution adopted by the Security Council in connection with the fight against terrorism, overriding considerations to do with safety or the conduct of the international relations of the Community and of its Member States may militate against the communication of certain matters to the persons concerned and, therefore, against their being heard on those matters.
Nujni preudarki – kar zadeva akt Skupnosti, katerega namen je izvajanje resolucije, ki jo je sprejel Varnostni svet v okviru boja proti terorizmu – ki se nana�ajo na varnost ali vodenje mednarodnih odnosov Skupnosti in držav članic, lahko nasprotujejo temu, da se zainteresirane obvesti o določenih okoli�činah in da se jih zasli�i glede teh elementov.
However, that does not mean, with regard to the principle of effective judicial protection, that restrictive measures such as those imposed by the contested regulation escape all review by the Community judicature once it has been claimed that the act laying them down concerns national security and terrorism.
Vendar pa to za spo�tovanje načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva ne pomeni, da omejevalni ukrepi, kakr�ni so tisti, ki jih nalaga izpodbijana uredba, uidejo vsakr�nemu nadzoru s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti, ker je to potrdilo, da se akt, ki jih določa, nana�a na nacionalno varnost in terorizem.
In such a case, it is none the less the task of the Community judicature to apply, in the course of the judicial review it carries out, techniques which accommodate, on the one hand, legitimate security concerns about the nature and sources of information taken into account in the adoption of the act concerned and, on the other, the need to accord the individual a sufficient measure of procedural justice (see, to that effect, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Chahal v. United Kingdom of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, § 131).
Vendar mora sodi�če Skupnosti v tak�nem primeru, v okviru sodnega nadzora, ki ga izvaja, uporabiti načine, ki mu omogočajo uskladiti legitimne skrbi glede varnosti, ob upo�tevanju vrst in virov informacij, ki so bili upo�tevani pri sprejetju zadevnega akta, ter tega, da mora posamezniku v zadostni meri zagotoviti postopkovno varstvo (glej v tem smislu sodbo ESČP z dne 15. novembra 1996 v zadevi Chahal proti Združenemu kraljestvu, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-V, točka 131).
In the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion is, first of all, that neither the contested regulation nor Common Position 2002/402 to which the former refers provides for a procedure for communicating the evidence justifying the inclusion of the names of the persons concerned in Annex I to that regulation and for hearing those persons, either at the same time as that inclusion or later.
V tej zadevi je najprej treba ugotoviti, da niti izpodbijana uredba niti Skupno stali�če 2002/402, na katero se ta sklicuje, ne predvidevata postopka za obve�čanje o okoli�činah, ki utemeljujejo vključitev imen zainteresiranih subjektov v Prilogo I k tej uredbi, in za njihovo zasli�anje, ki bi potekalo sočasno ali po tej vključitvi.
It has next to be pointed out that the Council at no time informed the appellants of the evidence adduced against them that allegedly justified the inclusion of their names for the first time in Annex I to the contested regulation and, consequently, the imposition of the restrictive measures laid down by the latter.
Nato je treba navesti, da Svet ni nikoli obvestil pritožnikov o obremenilnih okoli�činah, ki bi utemeljevali prvo vključitev njunih imen v Prilogo I k izpodbijani uredbi ter posledično uvedbo predvidenih omejevalnih ukrepov, ki jih slednja določa.
Because the Council neither communicated to the appellants the evidence used against them to justify the restrictive measures imposed on them nor afforded them the right to be informed of that evidence within a reasonable period after those measures were enacted, the appellants were not in a position to make their point of view
Ker Svet pritožnikov ni obvestil o obremenilnih dokazih, s katerimi je utemeljil omejevalne ukrepe, uvedene zoper njiju, in jima ni dodelil pravice, da bi se z njimi seznanila v razumnem roku po uvedbi teh ukrepov, pritožnika nista bila v položaju,
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION in that respect known to advantage.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI da bi v svojo korist predstavila svoj pogled na to.
Therefore, the appellants’ rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard, were not respected.
Zato pravice obrambe, ki jih imata pritožnika, zlasti pravica do izjave, niso bile spo�tovane.
In addition, given the failure to inform them of the evidence adduced against them and having regard to the relationship, referred to in paragraphs 336 and 337 above, between the rights of the defence and the right to an effective legal remedy, the appellants were also unable to defend their rights with regard to that evidence in satisfactory conditions before the Community judicature, with the result that it must be held that their right to an effective legal remedy has also been infringed.
Poleg tega, ker pritožnika nista bila obve�čena o obremenilnih okoli�činah, in ob upo�tevanju razmerij, navedenih že v točkah 336 in 337 te sodbe, ki obstajajo med pravicami obrambe in pravico do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva, pritožnika pred sodi�čem Skupnosti glede na te okoli�čine prav tako nista mogla braniti svojih pravic v zadovoljivih pogojih, tako da obstaja tudi kr�itev pravice do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva.
Last, it must be stated that that infringement has not been remedied in the course of these actions.
Nazadnje je treba ugotoviti, da v okviru teh tožb ta kr�itev ni bila odpravljena.
Indeed, given that, according to the fundamental position adopted by the Council, no evidence of that kind may be the subject of investigation by the Community judicature, the Council has adduced no evidence to that effect.
Ker v skladu s temeljnim stali�čem Sveta nobena okoli�čina te vrste ne more biti predmet preverjanja s strani sodi�ča Skupnosti, ta v ta namen ni navedel nobene okoli�čine.
The Court cannot, therefore, do other than find that it is not able to undertake the review of the lawfulness of the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the appellants, with the result that it must be held that, for that reason too, the fundamental right to an effective legal remedy which they enjoy has not, in the circumstances, been observed.
Sodi�če lahko zato le odloči, da ne more opraviti nadzora zakonitosti izpodbijane uredbe, v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika, tako da je treba skleniti, da temeljna pravica pritožnikov do učinkovitega pravnega sredstva prav zaradi tega razloga v tem primeru ni bila spo�tovana.
It must, therefore, be held that the contested regulation, in so far as it concerns the appellants, was adopted without any guarantee being given as to the communication of the inculpatory evidence against them or as to their being heard in that connection, so that it must be found that that regulation was adopted according to a procedure in which the appellants’ rights of defence were not observed, which has had the further consequence that the principle of effective judicial protection has been infringed.
Zato je treba presoditi, da je bila izpodbijana uredba sprejeta v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika, ne da bi bilo zagotovljeno kakr�no koli jamstvo, da bosta seznanjena z obremenilnimi okoli�činami oziroma zasli�ana v zvezi s tem, tako da je treba skleniti, da je bila ta uredba sprejeta po postopku, v katerem pravice obrambe niso bile spo�tovane, kar je imelo prav tako za posledico kr�itev načela učinkovitega sodnega varstva.
According to settled caselaw, the right to property is one of the general principles of Community law.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se lastninska pravica uvr�ča med splo�na načela prava Skupnosti.
It is not, however, absolute, but must be viewed in relation to its function in society.
Vendar to načelo ni absolutno in ga je treba obravnavati glede na vlogo, ki jo ima v družbi.
Consequently, the exercise of the right to property may be restricted, provided that those restrictions in fact correspond to objectives of public interest pursued by the Community and do not constitute, in relation to the aim pursued, a disproportionate and intolerable interference, impairing the very substance of the right so guaranteed (see, in particular, Regione autonoma Friuli­Venezia Giulia and ERSA, paragraph 119 and caselaw cited; see also, to that effect in the context of a system of restrictive measures, Bosphorus, paragraph 21).
Torej je mogoče izvr�evanje lastninske pravice omejiti, če te omejitve dejansko ustrezajo ciljem v splo�nem interesu, ki jih Skupnost zasleduje, in glede na zasledovane cilje ne pomeni nesorazmernega in nedopustnega ukrepa, ki bi ogrožal bistvo tako zagotovljene pravice (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia in ERSA, točka 119 in navedeno sodno prakso; v tem smislu, v okviru režima omejevalnih ukrepov, glej tudi zgoraj navedeno sodbo Bosphorus, točka 21).
In order to assess the extent of the fundamental right to respect for property, a general principle of Community law, account is to be taken of, in particular, Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, which enshrines that right.
Da bi določili obseg temeljne pravice spo�tovanja lastnine, ki je splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, je treba upo�tevati zlasti člen 1 Dodatnega protokola �t. 1 k EKČP, v katerem je ta pravica določena.
That freezing measure constitutes a temporary precautionary measure which is not supposed to deprive those persons of their property.
Ta ukrep je varstveni ukrep, katerega namen ni prikraj�ati navedenih posameznikov za njihovo lastnino. Vendar ta ukrep neizpodbitno vsebuje omejitev uveljavljanja lastninske pravice Y. A.
In this respect, according to the caselaw of the European Court of Human Rights, there must also exist a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.
V tej zvezi mora v skladu s sodno prakso Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice obstajati primeren odnos sorazmernosti med uporabljenimi sredstvi in ciljem, ki se mu sledi.
The Court must determine whether a fair balance has been struck between the demands of the public interest and the interest of the individuals concerned.
Preučiti je torej treba, ali je bilo ohranjeno ravnotežje med zahtevami splo�nega interesa in interesa zadevnih posameznikov.
As the Court has already held in connection with another Community system of restrictive measures of an economic nature also giving effect to resolutions adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, the importance of the aims pursued by a Community act is such as to justify negative consequences, even of a substantial nature, for some operators, including those who are in no way responsible for the situation which led to the adoption of the measures in question, but who find themselves affected, particularly as regards their property rights (see, to that effect, Bosphorus, paragraphs 22 and 23).
Kot je Sodi�če že presodilo v okviru druge Skupnostne ureditve gospodarskih omejevalnih ukrepov, ki prav tako izvajajo resolucije Varnostnega sveta, sprejete na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, se s pomenom ciljev, ki jih zasleduje akt Skupnosti, kot je izpodbijana uredba, utemelji negativne, celo precej�nje posledice za določene subjekte, vključno s tistimi, ki nikakor niso odgovorni za okoli�čino, ki je privedla do sprejetja zadevnih ukrepov, vendar se zlasti vpliva na njihovo lastninsko pravico (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Bosphorus, točki 22 in 23).
In the case in point, the restrictive measures laid down by the contested regulation contribute to the implementation, at Community level, of the restrictive measures decided on by the Security Council against Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban and other individuals, groups, undertakings and entities associated with them.
V tem primeru omejevalni ukrepi, določeni v izpodbijani uredbi, prispevajo k izvajanju omejevalnih ukrepov na ravni Skupnosti, ki jih je določil Varnostni svet proti Osami bin Ladnu, mreži Al Kaida, talibanom ter drugim posameznikom, skupinam, podjetjem in subjektom, ki so z njimi povezani.
With reference to an objective of general interest as fundamental to the international community as the fight by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, against the threats to international peace and security posed by acts of terrorism, the freezing of the funds, financial assets and other economic resources of the persons identified by the Security Council or the Sanctions Committee as being associated with Usama bin Laden, members of the Al-Qaeda organisation and the Taliban cannot per se be regarded as inappropriate or disproportionate (see, to that effect, Bosphorus, paragraph 26, and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, § 167).
Glede na cilj splo�nega interesa, ki je za mednarodno Skupnost enako pomemben kot boj, skladno z Ustanovno listino Združenih narodov, z vsemi sredstvi zoper grožnje miru in mednarodni varnosti, ki jih predstavljajo teroristična dejanja, ukrep zamrznitve sredstev, finančnega premoženja in drugih gospodarskih virov posameznikov, ki jih je Varnostni svet ali sankcijski odbor opredelil za povezane z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in s talibani, ne more biti neprimeren ali nesorazmeren (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Bosphorus, točka 26, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo ESČP Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi (Bosphorus Airways) proti Irski, točka 167).
On this point, it is also to be taken into consideration that the contested regulation, in the version amended by Regulation No 561/2003, adopted following Resolution 1452 (2002), provides, among other derogations and exemptions, that, on a request made by an interested person, and unless the Sanctions Committee expressly objects, the competent national authorities may declare the freezing of funds to be inapplicable to the funds necessary to cover basic expenses, including payments for foodstuffs, rent, medicines and medical treatment, taxes or public utility charges.
V zvezi s tem je treba prav tako upo�tevati to, da izpodbijana uredba, ki je bila spremenjena z Uredbo �t. 561/2003 in sprejeta po Resoluciji Varnostnega sveta 1452(2002), med drugimi odstopanji in izjemami določa, da nacionalni organi na zahtevo zainteresiranih oseb, razen z izrecnim nasprotovanjem sankcijskega odbora, določijo, da zamrznitev sredstev ne vključuje sredstev, potrebnih za osnovne stro�ke, zlasti za hrano, stanarino, zdravni�ke stro�ke, davke ali komunalne storitve.
In addition, funds necessary for any ‘extraordinary expense’ whatsoever may be unfrozen, on the express authorisation of the Sanctions Committee.
Poleg tega se lahko sredstva, potrebna za kateri koli „izredni izdatek“, na podlagi izrecnega dovoljenja sankcijskega odbora odmrznejo.
It is further to be noted that the resolutions of the Security Council to which the contested regulation is intended to give effect provide for a mechanism for the periodic re-examination of the general system of measures they enact and also for a procedure enabling the persons concerned at any time to submit their case to the Sanctions Committee for re-examination, by means of a request that may now be made direct to the Committee at what is called the ‘focal’ point.
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ki jih izvaja izpodbijana uredba, določajo mehanizem rednega ponovnega preizkusa splo�ne ureditve teh ukrepov in postopek, ki zainteresiranim osebam omogoča, da svoj primer na podlagi predloga, ki se ga od sedaj naprej lahko naslovi na ta odbor neposredno prek „informacijske točke“, v vsakem trenutku predložijo v ponovni preizkus sankcijskemu odboru.
It must therefore be found that the restrictive measures imposed by the contested regulation constitute restrictions of the right to property which might, in principle, be justified.
Treba je ugotoviti, da so omejevalni ukrepi, ki jih določa izpodbijana uredba, omejitve lastninske pravice, ki bi načeloma lahko bile utemeljene.
It is to be borne in mind in this respect that the applicable procedures must also afford the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of putting his case to the competent authorities.
V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da je treba v postopkih, ki se uporabijo, zadevni osebi nuditi tudi ustrezno priložnost, da predstavi svojo zadevo pristojnim organom.
In order to ascertain whether this condition, which constitutes a procedural requirement inherent in Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the ECHR, has been satisfied, a comprehensive view must be taken of the applicable procedures (see, to that effect, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Jokela v. Finland of 21 May 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-IV, § 45 and caselaw cited, and § 55).
Da se zagotovi spo�tovanje tega pogoja, ki je zahteva, neločljivo povezana s členom 1 Dodatnega protokola �t. 1 k EKČP, je treba postopke, ki se uporabijo, upo�tevati abstraktno (v tem smislu glej zlasti sodbo ESČP z dne 21. maja 2002 v zadevi Jokela proti Finski, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 2002-IV, točka 45 in navedena sodna praksa ter točka 55).
It follows from all the foregoing that the contested regulation, so far as it concerns the appellants, must be annulled.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega izhaja, da je treba izpodbijano uredbo razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika.
Furthermore, in so far as it follows from this judgment that the contested regulation must be annulled so far as concerns the appellants, by reason of breach of principles applicable in the procedure followed when the restrictive measures introduced by that regulation were adopted, it cannot be excluded that, on the merits of the case, the imposition of those measures on the appellants may for all that prove to be justified.
Ker iz te sodbe izhaja, da je treba izpodbijano uredbo razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika, zaradi kr�itve načel, ki se uporabijo v okviru postopka po sprejetju omejevalnih ukrepov, ki jih določa ta uredba, se ne more izključiti, da se lahko po temelju naložitev tak�nih ukrepov zoper pritožnika vendarle izkaže za utemeljeno.
Having regard to those considerations, the effects of the contested regulation, in so far as it includes the names of the appellants in the list forming Annex I thereto, must, by virtue of Article 231 EC, be maintained for a brief period to be fixed in such a way as to allow the Council to remedy the infringements found, ’ rights and freedoms.
Glede na navedeno je treba v skladu s členom 231 ES učinke izpodbijane uredbe, kolikor so imena pritožnikov vključena na seznam, ki sestavlja njeno Prilogo I, ohraniti za kratko obdobje, ki ga je treba določiti tako, da Svetu omogoči odpravo ugotovljene kr�itve ter da tudi skrbno upo�teva pomembno posledico, ki jo imajo zadevni omejevalni ukrepi za pravice in svobo�čine pritožnikov.
In those circumstances, Article 231 EC will be correctly applied in maintaining the effects of the contested regulation, so far as concerns the appellants, for a period that may not exceed three months running from the date of delivery of this judgment.
V teh okoli�činah je treba ustrezno uporabiti člen 231 ES, in sicer tako, da se ohrani učinke izpodbijane uredbe v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnike, v obdobju, ki ne sme biti dalj�e od treh mesecev od dneva razglasitve te sodbe.
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is well founded and the Court of Justice itself gives final judgment in the case, it is to make a decision as to costs.
Člen 122, prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika določa, da če je pritožba utemeljena in če Sodi�če samo dokončno odloči v sporu, odloči tudi o stro�kih.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) tega poslovnika, ki se uporabi v postopku s pritožbo na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
The first paragraph of Article 69(4) provides that the Member States which have intervened in the proceedings are to bear their own costs.
Člen 69(4), prvi pododstavek, določa, da države članice in institucije, ki se kot intervenientke udeležijo postopka, nosijo svoje stro�ke.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to bear its own costs both at first instance and in the appeals.
Združeno kraljestvo nosi svoje stro�ke v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in pritožbenem postopku.
The Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands are to bear their own costs relating to the appeals.
Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika in Kraljevina Nizozemska nosijo svoje stro�ke, ki izhajajo iz pritožbenega postopka.
Sets aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 21 September 2005 in Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission and Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission;
Sodbi Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi Kadi proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-315/01) ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-306/01) se razveljavita.
Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs both at first instance and in these appeals;
Združeno kraljestvo Velika Britanija in Severna Irska nosi svoje stroške, ki so nastali v postopku na prvi stopnji in v pritožbenem postopku.
Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Kingdom of the Netherlands to bear their own costs.
Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika in Kraljevina Nizozemska nosijo svoje stroške.
Joined Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P
Združeni zadevi C-120/06 P in C-121/06 P