natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
73); Council Decision 2000/803/CFSP of 14 December 2000 implementing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in South Ossetia (OJ 2000 L 326, p.
73); Sklep Sveta (2000/803/SZVP) z dne 14. decembra 2000 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 1999/34/SZVP ob prispevku Evropske unije za boj proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in �irjenju osebnega in lahkega orožja v Južni Osetiji (UL L 326, str.
1); Council Decision 2001/200/CFSP of 12 March 2001 implementing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OJ 2001 L 72, p.
1); Sklep Sveta 2001/200/SZVP z dne 12. marca 2001 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 1999/34/SZVP ob prispevku Evropske unije za boj proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in �irjenju osebnega in lahkega orožja v Latinski Ameriki in na Karibih (UL L 72, str.
1); and Council Decision 2001/850/CFSP of 29 November 2001 implementing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons in Albania (OJ 2001 JO L 318, p. 1).
1) in Sklep Sveta 2001/850/SZVP z dne 29. novembra 2001 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 1999/34/SZVP ob prispevku Evropske unije za boj proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in �irjenju osebnega in lahkega orožja v Albaniji (UL L 318, str. 1).
The first interventions could be focused on … West Africa (ECOWAS), where significant progress has been made and frameworks for combating small arms proliferation have been developed and agreed.’ 85In order to ensure a coordinated and complementary approach, the Council also asked for the coherence of European Union activities to be ensured at the Community level in relation to small arms, particularly with respect to the CFSP. 86
Prve intervencije bi se lahko nanašale na […] Zahodno Afriko (ECOWAS)), kjer je bil opažen znaten napredek in je bil začrtan in sprejet okvir za dejavnost proti širjenju orožja malega kalibra“ 85. Svet je prav tako, z namenom zagotovitve koordiniranega in dopolnilnega pristopa, zahteval, naj se na ravni Skupnosti zagotovi skladnost dejavnosti Evropske unije glede orožja malega kalibra, zlasti z vidika SZVP 86.
It also seems to me that Article 11(3) of the Cotonou Agreement, the interpretation and scope of which have been much debated among the parties to the present dispute, although not explaining the distribution of competences between the Community and the Member States, cannot be interpreted as meaning that any Community action aiming to support the ‘fight against … an excessive and uncontrolled … accumulation of small arms and light weapons’ is ruled out.
Prav tako se mi zdi, da člena 11(3) Sporazuma iz Cotonouja, o razlagi in obsegu katerega se je veliko razpravljalo med strankami tega spora, čeprav ne govori o delitvi pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami, vendarle ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi bil izključen vsak ukrep Skupnosti, ki se nana�a na podporo „dejavnosti proti prekomernemu in nenadzorovanemu kopičenju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja“.
On the other hand, as the Commission concedes, the mere mention of that matter in the Cotonou Agreement does not mean either that the European Union does not possess any competence to adopt measures and actions to fight against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
Po drugi strani, kot priznava Komisija, le navedba tega področja v Sporazumu iz Cotonouja tudi ne pomeni, da Evropska unija nima nobene pristojnosti za sprejetje ukrepov, ki bi se nana�ali na dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra.
In the light of those documents drawn up by the Council, it seems inconsistent to argue, like the Council and the governments intervening before the Court, with the exception of the Netherlands Government, that combating the proliferation of small arms and light weapons under no circumstances
Program iz leta 1997 in resolucija Sveta z dne 21. maja 1999 ponazarjata, da Svet ni izključil, da bi lahko Skupnost izvajala ukrepe, ki se nana�ajo na dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, v mejah pristojnosti, ki so ji dodeljene na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
85 — Point 7 of the resolution (italics added).86 — Point 9 of the resolution.
85 – Točka 7 resolucije (moj poudarek).86 – Točka 9 resolucije.
The delimitation between the respective competences of the Community and the European Union therefore goes in the
Razmejitev med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in Evropske unije se bo torej dokončno določila z opredelitvijo namena zadevnega
COMMISSION v COUNCIL final analysis through the identification of the purpose of the measure in question according to whether it pursues the exclusive or principal objective of preserving peace and/or strengthening international security, thus falling within the scope of the CFSP, or of social and economic development, in which case it is covered by the Community development cooperation policy.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU ukrepa, glede na to, ali zasleduje izključni ali glavni cilj ohranitve miru in/ali krepitve mednarodne varnosti in tako sodi v SZVP ali cilj socialnogospodarskega razvoja, pri čemer v tem primeru sodi v skupnostno politiko razvojnega sodelovanja.
This approach is also borne out by the explanatory notes to the CFSP chapter of the general budget of the European Union for 2004, which, although they are only a guide, show that both the Community and the European Union, the latter acting by virtue of Title V of the EU Treaty, are capable of adopting actions, according to their respective competence, to combat the accumulation of small arms and light weapons.
Ta pristop prav tako potrjujejo pojasnjevalne opombe k poglavju SZVP o splo�nem proračunu Evropske unije za leto 2004, ki kljub temu, da gre le za smernice, kažejo, da Skupnost in Evropska unija, pri čemer ta deluje v skladu s Naslovom V Pogodbe EU, v skladu s pristojnostmi lahko sprejemata ukrepe za dejavnost proti kopičenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra.
Article 3(2) lists the areas to which technical and financial assistance applies.
Njegov odstavek 2 določa področja, na katera se nana�a navedena tehnična in finančna pomoč.
In that connection, the first indent of Article 3(2)(i) refers to ‘support for measures to address, within the framework of Community cooperation policies and their objectives, the impact on the civilian population of the illicit use of and access to firearms; such support shall be limited to survey activities, victim assistance, raising public awareness and the development of legal and administrative expertise and good practice’.
Člen 3(2)(i), prvi pododstavek, se v zvezi s tem nana�a na „podporo ukrepom, ki se v okviru politike sodelovanja Skupnosti in njenih ciljev nana�ajo na vpliv nezakonite uporabe in dostopa do strelnega orožja na prebivalstvo. Taka podpora je omejena na raziskovalne dejavnosti, pomoč žrtvam, dvigovanje ozave�čenosti javnosti in razvoj pravnega ter upravnega strokovnega znanja in dobrih praks“.
The second indent of Article 3(2)(i), which is emphasised by the French Government, adds that ‘[a]ssistance shall be provided only to the extent necessary to re-establish the conditions for social and economic development of the populations concerned, in a situation of crisis or emerging crisis as referred to in paragraph 1.
Drugi pododstavek te določbe, pri katerem vztraja francoska vlada, določa, da „se pomoč zagotovi le do mere, ki je potrebna za ponovno vzpostavitev pogojev za družbeni in gospodarski razvoj zadevnih prebivalcev v kriznih razmerah ali razmerah porajajoče se krize iz odstavka 1.
It shall not include support for measures to combat the proliferation of arms’.
Ne vključuje podpore ukrepom za boj proti �irjenju orožja“.
In addition, contrary to what was said by the French Government at the hearing, I do not think that, in the present case, the systematic exclusion of the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons from the ambit of the Community policy on development cooperation can be inferred from Article 3 of Regulation No 1717/2006. 87
Poleg tega, v nasprotju s trditvijo francoske vlade na obravnavi, ne menim, da bi bilo v tej zadevi mogoče iz člena 3 zgoraj navedene Uredbe �t. 1717/2006 izpeljati sistematično izključitev dejavnosti proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra s področja skupnostne politike razvojnega sodelovanja 87.
87 — It should be noted that such an argument, even though it was only presented at the hearing and relates to a Community act adopted after the application was lodged, had to be ruled admissible because it seeks to dispute the Community’s competence to adopt measures in the area of the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which is a question of public policy and may therefore be raised by the Community court of its own motion.
87 – Opozoriti je treba, da bi bilo treba tako utemeljitev, čeprav je bila navedena le na obravnavi in se nana�a na akt Skupnosti, ki je bil sprejet po vložitvi tožbe, razglasiti za dopustno, ker zadeva izpodbijanje pristojnosti Skupnosti za sprejemanje ukrepov na področju dejavnosti proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, kar je vpra�anje javnega reda, zaradi česar lahko sodi�če Skupnosti nanj pazi po uradni dolžnosti.
However, it must be observed that when the regulation, which came into force on 1 January 2007, was adopted, the Council and the Commission adopted a joint statement to the effect that those institutions agreed that ‘nothing in [Regulation No 1717/2006] shall be construed as prejudging positions taken in Case [C-]91/05’ and that ‘[u]ntil such time as the Court of Justice rules on that case
Vendar je treba opozoriti, da sta Svet in Komisija ob sprejetju tega akta, ki je začel veljati 1. januarja 2007, sprejela skupno izjavo, v skladu s katero sta se ti instituciji med drugim dogovorili, da se nobene določbe Uredbe [�t. 1717/2006] ne sme „razlagati, kot da posega v stali�ča, sprejeta
Now it is necessary to examine the lawfulness of the contested decision and the contested Joint Action.
Zdaj je treba obravnavati zakonitost izpodbijanega sklepa in spornega skupnega ukrepa.
Lawfulness of the contested decision and the contested Joint Action
Zakonitost izpodbijanega sklepa in sporni skupni ukrep
In any case, if it were necessary to interpret the second indent of Article 3(2)(i) of Regulation No 1717/2006, it appears to exclude support for measures to combat the proliferation of arms only in relation to Community assistance in response to situations of crisis or emerging crisis, but not with regard to any Community measure contributing to the social and economic objectives of development cooperation, since, in particular, the assistance envisaged by Regulation No 1717/2006 is to be provided, as Article 2(1) states, only to the extent that it cannot be provided under other Community instruments for external assistance, which necessarily include geographical development cooperation instruments such as the Cotonou Agreement.
V vsakem primeru, če bi bilo člen 3(2)(i), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 1717/2006 treba razlagati tako, da bi ta izključeval podporo ukrepom, ki se nana�ajo na boj proti �irjenju orožja, bi to veljajo le glede skupnostne pomoči v odgovor na krizne razmere ali porajajočo se krizo, ne pa glede vseh skupnostnih ukrepov, ki prispevajo k uresničitvi socialnogospodarskih ciljev razvojnega sodelovanja, saj se, med drugim, pomoč na podlagi Uredbe �t.
As stated above, that agreement does not rule out the adoption by the Community of measures to contribute to the fight against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
1717/2006 v skladu z njenim členom 2(1) izvaja le, če je ni mogoče izvajati v okviru drugih instrumentov Skupnosti, ki so namenjeni zunanji pomoči in ki nujno zajemajo geografske instrumente za razvojno sodelovanje, kot je sporazum iz Cotonouja.
In the light of the judgment in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council and, as already stated, in order to determine whether, in adopting the contested decision, the Council encroached on the Commission’s competence in the field of development cooperation, in breach of Article 47 EU, it is necessary to ascertain whether, having regard to its purpose and content, that decision had development cooperation at least as its main object.
Zlasti glede na zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 13. septembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu in kot je bilo že navedeno, da bi se ugotovilo, ali je Svet s sprejetjem izpodbijanega sklepa posegel v pristojnosti, dodeljene Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, ob kr�itvi člena 47 EU, je treba preveriti, ali je bil vsaj glavni predmet tega sklepa, glede na njegov namen in vsebino, razvojno sodelovanje.
With regard to the purpose of the contested decision, it must be observed that its first recital states that the excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons poses a threat to peace and security and reduces the prospects for sustainable development.
Glede namena izpodbijanega sklepa je treba spomniti, da njegova prva uvodna izjava določa, da prekomerno in nenadzorovano kopičenje in �irjenje lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra pomeni grožnjo miru in varnosti ter zmanj�uje možnosti trajnostnega razvoja.
national forums, and in a regional context as appropriate, for the realisation of the following principles and measures to prevent the further destabilising accumulation of small arms’. 89 The principles and measures referred to in Article 3 include ‘(a) a commitment by all countries to import and hold small arms only for their legitimate security needs’, ‘(b) a commitment by exporting countries to supply small arms only to governments … in accordance with appropriate international and regional restrictive arms export criteria’, ‘(c) a commitment by all countries to produce small arms only for holdings as outlined in (a) or exports as outlined in (b)’, and ‘(e) the establishment of confidencebuilding measures, including measures to promote increased transparency and openness, through regional registers on small arms, and regular exchanges of available information on exports, imports, production and holdings of small arms, and on national weapons legislation, and through consultations between the relevant parties on the information exchanged’.
so pod točko (a) „[z]aveza vseh držav, da orožje malega kalibra uvažajo in razpolagajo z njim samo za zadovoljevanje svojih legitimnih varnostnih in samoobrambnih potreb […]“, pod točko (b) „zaveza držav izvoznic, da orožje malega kalibra po�iljajo samo vladam v skladu z mednarodnimi in regionalnimi omejitvenimi merili“, pod točko (c) „[z]aveza vseh držav, da orožje malega kalibra proizvajajo samo za namene, navedene [pod točko] (a) ali glede izvoza, kakor je navedeno [pod točko] (b)“ in pod točko (e) „[v]zpostavitev ukrepov za krepitev zaupanja, vključno z ukrepi za izbolj�anje večje preglednosti in odprtosti z vodenjem regionalnih registrov o orožju malega kalibra in z redno izmenjavo razpoložljivih informacij o izvozu, uvozu, proizvodnju in hranjenju orožja malega kalibra ter o nacionalni zakonodaji v zvezi z orožjem, kakor tudi s posvetovanji med zadevnimi strankami o izmenjanih informacijah“.
The second recital in the preamble to the contested decision states that the European Union envisages operating within the relevant international forums to promote confidencebuilding measures.
Druga uvodna izjava izpodbijanega sklepa določa, da Evropska unija predvideva delovanje v okviru pristojnih mednarodnih organov za spodbujanje ukrepov, ki gradijo zaupanje.
It points out that ‘[t]his Decision is accordingly intended to implement the [contested] Joint Action’.
Poudarja, da je „v tem smislu ta sklep namenjen izvedbi navedenega skupnega ukrepa“, ki je sporen.
This recital must be read in the light of the single citation in the preamble to the contested decision, which refers to Article 3 of the contested Joint Action, which also mentions the establishment of confidencebuilding measures.
To uvodno izjavo je treba razlagati glede na edino uvodno navedbo izpodbijanega sklepa, ki se sklicuje na člen 3 spornega skupnega ukrepa, pri čemer gre za določbo, ki med drugim navaja ukrepe, ki gradijo zaupanje.
It must be borne in mind that the Commission in no way disputes that Article 3 of the contested Joint Action, like most of the other provisions of Title I of that act, fall within the scope of the CFSP. 90
Opozoriti je treba, da Komisija nikakor ne prereka, da člen 3 spornega skupnega ukrepa, kot večina drugih določb Naslova I navedenega akta, sodi na področje SZVP 90.
89 — Italics added.
89 – Moj poudarek.
Note that the expression ‘small arms’ in the body of the contested Joint Action includes ‘light weapons’ (see point 9 above).
Naj opomnim, da izraz „orožje malega kalibra“ uporabljen v spornem skupnem ukrepu zajema „lahka orožja in orožja malega kalibra“.
90 — See point 59 above.
90 – Glej točko 59 zgoraj.
It will also be recalled that the assistance given by the European Union pursuant to the contested decision concerns essentially the conversion of the ECOWAS moratorium on light weapons into a binding regional convention.
Znova je treba opozoriti, da se pomoč, ki jo je Evropska unija predvidela v izpodbijanem sklepu, v bistvu nana�a na preoblikovanje moratorija ECOWAS na lahko orožje v zavezujočo regionalno konvencijo.
The moratorium in question, adopted by ECOWAS in October 1998, concerns the importation, exportation and manufacture of light weapons in Member States of ECOWAS.
Zadevni moratorij, ki ga je oktobra 1998 sprejel ECOWAS, se nana�a na uvoz, izvoz in proizvodnjo lahkega orožja v državah članicah ECOWAS.
The preamble to the moratorium stresses that the proliferation of light weapons is a destabilising factor for the Member States of ECOWAS and a threat to the peace and security of their peoples. 91
V preambuli moratorija je poudarjeno, da promet z lahkim orožjem pomeni destabilizirajoč dejavnik za države članice ECOWAS in grožnjo miru in varnosti ljudi 91.
However, contrary to what the Commission suggests, the mere statement in the first recital in the preamble to the contested decision that the excessive and uncontrolled accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons reduces the prospects for sustainable development does not mean that the contested decision seeks to support a project that aims directly and/or mainly to improve the living conditions and/or social and economic conditions of the populations of the African States concerned.
s predlogom Komisije le ugotovitev iz prve uvodne izjave izpodbijanega sklepa, da kopičenje in prekomerno in nenadzorovano �irjenje lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra zmanj�uje možnosti za trajnostni razvoj, ne pomeni, da bi izpodbijani sklep podpiral projekt, ki se nana�a neposredno in/ali predvsem na izbolj�anje člove�kih in/ali socialnogospodarskih pogojev populacij zadevnih afri�kih držav.
In supporting the conversion of that political initiative of ECOWAS into a binding regional convention, the contested decision thus gives its support, in accordance with Article 3 of the contested Joint Action, to the prevention of a new accumulation of small arms and light weapons in West Africa likely to destabilise (even further) that region.
Izpodbijani sklep s podpiranjem preoblikovanja te politične pobude ECOWAS v zavezujočo regionalno konvencijo tako prispeva k preprečevanju ponovnega kopičenja lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra v Zahodni Afriki, ki bi lahko (�e naprej) destabiliziralo to regijo, na podlagi člena 3 spornega skupnega ukrepa.
On the contrary, the latter objective appears rather remote and, in any case, indirect and secondary by comparison with that
Ravno nasprotno, ta zadnji cilj se zdi prej oddaljen in v vsakem primeru posreden
The contested decision therefore aims, in a practical and direct way, to support the efforts of ECOWAS to combat the insecurity
Izpodbijani sklep se torej dejansko in neposredno nana�a na podpiranje prizade-
92 — As also noted at points I and III of the European Union Strategy to combat illicit accumulation and trafficking of small arms and light weapons and their ammunition, referring to the European Security Strategy adopted by the European Council in December 2003.
92 – Kot je med drugim poudarjeno v točkah I in III zgoraj navedene strategije Evropske unije boja proti kopičenju in nezakonitemu prometu z lahkim orožjem in orožjem malega kalibra s pripadajočim strelivom, ob sklicevanju na Evropsko varnostno strategijo, ki je bila sprejeta na Evropskem svetu decembra 2003.
91 — Second recital of the Declaration of a Moratorium on Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Light Weapons in West Africa.
91 – Druga uvodna izjava deklaracije moratorija na uvoz, izvoz in izdelavo orožja malega kalibra in lahkega orožja v Zahodni Afriki.
COMMISSION v COUNCIL of preserving the regional security of the Member States of ECOWAS.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU in postranski glede na cilj ohranjanja regionalne varnosti držav članic ECOWAS.
the Commission itself admits this, and past decisions of the European Union provide numerous instances of it. 93
uporabe finančnega instrumenta ali tehnične pomoči v okviru Naslova V Pogodbe EU.
With regard to the content of the contested decision, it must be observed that it fixes a financial contribution and technical assistance amounting to EUR 515 000 for a term of 12 months to set up the Light Weapons Unit within the ECOWAS Technical Secretariat and to convert the ECOWAS moratorium on the importation, exportation and manufacture of small arms into a legally binding convention.
Glede vsebine izpodbijanega sklepa je treba opozoriti, da ta določa finančni prispevek in tehnično pomoč v vi�ini 515.000 eurov za dvanajst mesecev za ustanovitev enote za lahko orožje v okviru tehničnega sekretariata ECOWAS in za spremembo zgoraj navedenega moratorija na prodajo in proizvodnjo lahkega orožja ECOWAS v pravno zavezujočo konvencijo.
Generally speaking, it seems to me that, in a situation where a decision lays down a financial contribution and technical assistance to a third State or, as in the present case, to a regional cooperation organisation, the examination of the content of the decision, unlike that of a measure of a legislative nature, is largely subordinated to the verification of the objective pursued by that decision.
Na splo�no se mi zdi, da je v okoli�činah, v katerih se sprejema odločitev o finančnemu prispevku in tehnični pomoči tretji državi ali, kot je v tem primeru, regionalni organizaciji za sodelovanje, obravnava te odločitve, v nasprotju z odločitvijo o normativnem ukrepu, zelo močno podrejena preverjanju cilja, ki ga zasleduje navedena odločitev.
It is true that, as the Commission points out, a financial contribution and technical assistance are typical instruments used in the context of development aid.
Res je, kot poudarja Komisija, da sta finančni prispevek in tehnična pomoč značilna instrumenta, ki se uporabljata pri razvojni pomoči.
In themselves, financial contributions and technical assistance are neutral and, in my view, it is only in the light of the aims they pursue that they can fall within the scope of development cooperation or of the CFSP.
Finančni prispevek in tehnična pomoč sta namreč sama po sebi nevtralna in lahko po mojem mnenju, glede na cilj, ki ga zasledujeta, sodita le na področje razvojnega sodelovanja ali SZVP.
As we have found, the purpose of the contested decision, in the light of the contested Joint Action, is, at least mainly, of a security nature.
Kot sem ugotovil, je namen, ki ga zasleduje izpodbijani sklep, glede na sporni skupni ukrep, vsaj v bistvenem, varnost.
Moreover, the fact that, as the Commission submits, the contested decision makes a contribution to institutional strengthening, in particular by setting up a
Poleg tega dejstvo, da, kot navaja Komisija, izpodbijani sklep prispeva k institucionalni okrepitvi zlasti z ustanovitvijo enote za lahko orožje