natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, that argument seems to me to disregard the fact that, to come within the scope of cooperation and aid for development, such instruments must aim precisely at development.
Vendar se mi zdi, da taka utemeljitev ne upo�teva dejstva, da se morajo taki instrumenti, da bi sodili na področje sodelovanja in razvojne pomoči, jasno nana�ati na razvoj.
In other words, the mere fact of having recourse to a financial instrument, such as aid, does not automatically mean that that aid falls within the Community competence for development cooperation, but it must also be classified as ‘development aid’.
Z drugimi besedami, le dejstvo, da je mogoče poseči po finančnem instrumentu, kakr�na je pomoč, ne pomeni avtomatično, da ta pomoč sodi v pristojnost Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, opredeljena mora biti namreč kot „razvojna pomoč“.
In addition, there is nothing in the EU Treaty that forbids the use of a financial instrument or technical assistance in the context of Title V of the EU Treaty. Furthermore,
Poleg tega nobena določba Pogodbe EU ne prepoveduje
93 — See the decisions cited in footnote 83 above,.
93 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeni sklep v opombi 83 zgoraj.
small arms unit in the ECOWAS Technical Secretariat, does not invalidate that assessment, since the strengthening of public administrations, whether national, regional or international, cannot constitute an end in itself but must, in order to fall within development cooperation, pursue a development objective. 94
v okviru tehničnega sekretariata ECOWAS, ne izpodbije te presoje, saj okrepitev organov oblasti, bodisi nacionalnih, regionalnih ali mednarodnih, ni cilj sam po sebi, saj mora, da bi sodil v okvir razvojnega sodelovanja, zasledovati cilj razvoja. 94
In those circumstances, the contested decision does not fall within the scope of development cooperation but pursues, at least principally, the objectives set out in Article 11(1) EU, in particular those of preserving peace and strengthening international security, objectives which, as the Commission concedes, do not correspond to any of the aims assigned to the Community. 95
V teh okoli�činah izpodbijani sklep ne sodi na področje razvojnega sodelovanja, ampak vsaj v bistvenem zasleduje cilje iz člena 11(1) EU, zlasti ohranitev miru in krepitev mednarodne varnosti, pri čemer gre za cilje, ki ne ustrezajo nobenemu izmed ciljev, dodeljenih Skupnosti, česar Komisija ne prereka 95.
It must be noted that the relevant passages of the regional cooperation strategy and the regional indicative programme for West Africa, signed on 19 February 2003 pursuant to the Cotonou Agreement by ECOWAS and the Commission, 96cited by the latter in support of its argument, refer, first, in a merely descriptive way, to the importance of controlling the traffic in small arms in the region, where there is a moratorium on exportation and importation supported by the United Nations, 97 and, second, state that support ‘may be given to back up the United Nations in carrying out priority measures … to place a moratorium on the import, export and production of small arms’. 98
Poudariti je treba, da upo�tevni deli regionalne strategije o sodelovanju in okvirnega regionalnega programa za Zahodno Afriko, podpisani 19. februarja 2003 na podlagi Sporazuma iz Cotonouja zlasti med ECOWAS in Komisijo 96, ki jih je ta navedla v podporo utemeljitvi, le opisno opozarjajo, prvič, na pomen nadzora nad prometom z lahkim orožjem v regiji, v kateri obstaja moratorij na izvoz in uvoz in ga podpirajo Združeni narodi 97, in, drugič, da bo pomoč „predvidena v podporo pomoči Združenih narodov za […] udejanjenje moratorija na uvoz, izvoz in proizvodnjo lahkega orožja“ 98.
Regarding the last point, irrespective of the question of the distribution of competences between the Member States and the Community in relation to the financing of such projects, to envisage support for carrying out the moratorium cannot be
Vendar glede te zadnje točke in neodvisno od vpra�anja delitve pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo glede financiranja teh projektov predvidene
This assessment is not altered by the fact that, according to the Commission, it was envisaging assistance (at first sight) similar to that adopted by the contested decision.
Po mnenju Komisije dejstvo, da je bila pomoč, ki jo je predvidela, (na prvi pogled) podobna pomoči, sprejeti v okviru izpodbijanega sklepa, ne spreminja te presoje.
Apart from the fact that such an initiative does not alter the distribution of competences between the Community and the European Union, the documents cited by the Commission in support of its argument
Poleg tega, da tak predlog ne spreminja delitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in Evropsko unijo, dokumenti, ki jih je Komisija navedla v podporo stali�ču, ne dokazujejo,
The arrangements for preparing and adopting cooperation strategies and indicative programmes are set out in Annex IV to the Cotonou Agreement.
Načini priprave in sprejetja strategij sodelovanja in okvirnih programov so pojasnjeni v Prilogi IV Sporazuma iz Cotonouja.
According to Article 10(2) of the annex, the regional indicative programmes will be adopted by common agreement between the Community and the ACP States concerned.
V skladu s členom 10(2) te priloge okvirne regionalne programe sprejmejo Skupnost in zadevne države AKP v skupnem soglasju.
94 — See to that effect, point 63 of the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-403/05, pending before the Court.
94 – Glej v tem smislu točko 63 sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke Kokottove, predstavljenih 22. maja 2007 (zadeva Parlament proti Komisiji, C-403/05, ki poteka pred Sodi�čem).
95 — See also point 159 above.
95 – Glej tudi točko 159 zgoraj.
COMMISSION v COUNCIL treated as support for the conversion of the moratorium into a legally binding convention.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU pomoči za udejanjenje moratorija ni mogoče primerjati s podporo preoblikovanju tega moratorija v pravno zavezujočo konvencijo.
repeats almost word for word Article 9(1) of the contested Joint Action, and provides that regular reports ‘on the consistency of the European Union’s activities in the field of small arms and light weapons, in particular with regard to its development policies’ are to be submitted by the Presidency of the Union and the Commission. 99
Evropske unije na področju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, zlasti v zvezi z njenimi razvojnimi politikami“ predložita predsedstvo Unije in Komisija 99.
However much, in the context of implementing the moratorium, measures can reasonably be envisaged which may pursue mainly objectives of human and socioeconomic development such as support for local initiatives to promote awareness among the populations concerned of the excessive circulation of arms, contributing to projects aiming to deter the small-scale production of small arms and/or its replacement by the production of consumer goods, or even support for programmes for buying back weapons from local populations or the exchange of food for the surrender of small arms and light weapons, by contrast support for the conversion of a moratorium such as that of ECOWAS into a legally binding convention pursues, as already shown, at least mainly, an objective of strengthening regional and international security.
Namreč, čeprav je v okviru izvr�evanja moratorija mogoče razumno predvideti ukrepe, ki bi zasledovali predvsem cilje člove�kega in socialnogospodarskega razvoja, kot je podpora lokalnim predlogom v zvezi z ozave�čenjem zadevne populacije o prekomernem prometu z orožjem, prispevek k projektom, ki se nana�ajo na preprečevanje domače izdelave lahkega orožja in/ali njeno nadomestitev s proizvodnjo potro�nih dobrin, oziroma podpora programom odkupa orožja pri lokalnemu prebivalstvu ali zamenjava za hrano ob predaji lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, podpora preoblikovanju moratorija, kot je ta, sprejet v okviru ECOWAS, v zavezujočo konvencijo, zasleduje, kot je bilo že navedeno, vsaj v bistvenem cilj krepitve regionalne in mednarodne varnosti.
First, that finding appears to accord with the distribution of competences between the Union and the European Community in the field of combating the accumulation of small arms and light weapons, recognising that, as I concluded above, that sphere may fall within the scope of development cooperation in so far as the measures that are adopted or proposed have the main object of development cooperation, that is to say, they aim at the social and economic development of the populations concerned.
Ta ugotovitev naj bi bila namreč, prvič, v skladu z delitvijo pristojnosti med Unijo in Evropskimi skupnostmi na področju boja proti kopičenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, ob priznanju, da lahko to področje, kot sem navedel zgoraj, sodi na področje uporabe razvojnega sodelovanja, če je glavni namen sprejetih ali načrtovanih ukrepov razvojno sodelovanje, in sicer če se nana�ajo na socialno-gospodarski razvoj zadevnega prebivalstva.
Furthermore, it is in that sense that Article 7(2) of the contested Joint Action must be read, which states that ‘[t]he Council shall decide on the principle, arrangements and financing of such projects … without prejudice to Member States’ bilateral contributions and operation of the Community’, and also Article 8 which states, I repeat, that ‘[t]he Council notes that the Commission intends to direct its action towards achieving the objectives and the
Prav tako je treba v tem smislu razlagati člen 7(2) spornega skupnega ukrepa, ki določa, da „Svet odloči o cilju, podrobnostih in financiranju takih projektov […] ne da bi posegal v bilateralne prispevke držav članic in delovanje Skupnosti“, medtem ko njegov člen 8, v skladu s katerim, spominjam, „Svet opozarja, da ima Komisija namen voditi svojo dejavnost v smeri uresničitve ciljev in prioritet […][spornega] skupnega ukrepa, glede na
The conclusion reached in point 213 above is not contradicted either by Article 4(2) of the contested decision, which
Presoji iz točke 213 zgoraj ne nasprotuje niti člen 4(2) izpodbijanega sklepa, ki skoraj dobesedno povzema člen 9(1) spornega skupnega ukrepa, v skladu s katerim periodična poročila „o doslednosti dejavnosti
99 — Italics added.
99 – Moj poudarek.
Consequently, I propose that the Court dismiss the action.
Zato predlagam, da Sodi�če tožbo zavrne.
V — Costs
V – Stroški
Second, there is no doubt, contrary to what the Commission suggests, that the expressions ‘European Union’ and ‘its development policies’ in Article 4(2) of the contested decision and in Article 9(1) of the contested Joint Action do not designate the European Union acting in the context of Title V of the EU Treaty but, on the contrary, taking account also of the reference to the need to ensure ‘the consistency of the Union’s activities’, constitute an explicit reference to the general obligation formulated in Article 3 EU which, being included in the common provisions of the EU Treaty and therefore addressed to the European Union as the ‘facade’ of the three pillars, requires it to ensure ‘the consistency of its external activities as a whole in the context of its external relations, security, economic and development policies’. 101
Drugič, v nasprotju s tem, kar predlaga Komisija, ni dvoma, da pojma „Evropska unija“ in „njene politike na področju razvoja“ iz člena 4(2) izpodbijanega sklepa in čle -na 9(1) spornega skupnega ukrepa ne določata, da Evropska unija deluje v okviru Naslova V Pogodbe EU, ampak pomenita, nasprotno, ob upo�tevanju tudi potrebe po zagotovitvi „doslednosti dejavnosti“, izrecno napotilo na splo�no obveznost iz člena 3 EU, ki je vključena v skupne določbe Pogodbe EU in torej naslavljata Evropsko unijo kot „fasado“ treh stebrov, ki od nje zahteva, da zagotovi zlasti „doslednost vseh njenih zunanjih dejavnosti v okviru njenih politik na področju zunanjih odnosov, varnosti, gospodarstva in razvoja“ 101.
As the Council seeks an order for costs against the Commission and the Commission must, in my opinion, be unsuccessful, I consider that it must be ordered to pay the costs.
Svet je predlagal, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
For all those reasons I consider that the contested decision could not have been adopted by the Community pursuant to Title XX of the EC Treaty. Furthermore, the
Glede na zgoraj navedeno menim, da Skupnost ne bi smela sprejeti izpodbijanega sklepa na podlagi Naslova XX Pogodbe
100 — Italics added.101 — Italics added.
100 – Moj poudarek.101 – Moj poudarek.
Under Article 69(4) of the Rules of Procedure, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Parliament must bear their own costs.
V skladu s členom 69(4) Poslovnika Kraljevina Danska, Kraljevina Španija, Francoska republika, Kraljevina Nizozemska, Kraljevina Švedska, Združeno kraljestvo ter Evropski parlament nosijo vsak svoje stro�ke.
I therefore propose that the Court rule as follows:
Na podlagi navedenega Sodi�ču predlagam, naj odloči:
JUDGMENT OF 20. 5.
SODBA Z DNE 20. 5.
2008 — CASE C-91/05
2008 – ZADEVA C-91/05
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 20. maja 2008 *
In Case C-91/05,
V zadevi C-91/05, zaradi ničnostne tožbe na podlagi člena 230 ES, vložene 21. februarja 2005,
Kingdom of Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as Agent,
Kraljevine Španije, ki jo zastopa N. Díaz Abad, zastopnica,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by R. Caudwell and E. Jenkinson, acting as Agents, assisted by A. Dashwood, barrister, interveners,
Jenkinson, zastopnici, skupaj z A. Dashwoodom, barrister, intervenienti,
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 5 December 2006, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 19 September 2007, gives the following
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 5. decembra 2006, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 19. septembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
By its action, the Commission of the European Communities asks the Court to annul Council Decision 2004/833/CFSP of 2 December 2004 implementing Joint
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti s tožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj Sklep Sveta 2004/833/SZVP z dne 2. decembra 2004 o izvajanju Skupnega ukrepa 2002/589/SZVP z
Action 2002/589/CFSP with a view to a European Union contribution to ECOWAS in the framework of the Moratorium on Small Arms and Light Weapons (OJ 2004 L 359, p.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU namenom prispevanja Evropske unije ECOWAS-u v okviru moratorija na lahko orožje in orožje malega kalibra (UL L 359, str.
65; ‘the contested decision’) and to declare illegal and hence inapplicable the Council Joint Action 2002/589/CFSP of 12 July 2002 on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons and repealing Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP (OJ 2002 L 191, p.
65, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani sklep) razglasi za ničnega in ugotovi, da se Skupni ukrep Sveta 2002/589/SZVP z dne 12. julija 2002 o prispevku Evropske unije k boju proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in raz�irjanju orožja malega kalibra in lahkega strelnega orožja in o razveljavitvi Skupnega ukrepa 1999/34/SZVP (UL L 191, str.
1; ‘the contested joint action’), in particular Title II thereof.
1, v nadaljevanju: sporni skupni ukrep), zlasti njegov naslov II, zaradi nezakonitosti ne uporablja.
Legal context and background to the dispute
Pravni okvir in dejansko stanje
On 23 June 2000 the Partnership Agreement between the members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (‘the ACP States’) of the one part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other part, was signed in Cotonou, Benin (OJ 2000 L 317, p.
V Cotonouju (Benin) je bil 23. junija 2000 podpisan Sporazum o partnerstvu med članicami skupine afri�kih, karibskih in pacifi�kih držav na eni strani in Evropsko skupnostjo in njenimi državami članicami na drugi strani (UL L 317, str.
3; ‘the Cotonou Agreement’); it was approved on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 2003/159/EC of 19 December 2002 (OJ 2003 L 65, p. 27).
3, v nadalj -evanju: sporazum iz Cotonouja), ki je bil v imenu Skupnosti potrjen s Sklepom Sveta 2003/159/ES z dne 19. decembra 2002 (UL 2003, L 65, str. 27).
It entered into force on 1 April 2003.
Veljati je začel 1. aprila 2003.
Article 1 of the Cotonou Agreement, entitled ‘Objectives of the partnership’, states:
V členu 1 tega sporazuma, naslovljenem „Cilji partnerstva“, je določeno:
‘The Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the ACP States, of the other part, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties” hereby conclude this Agreement
„Skupnost in njene države članice na eni strani ter države (Afrike, Karibov in Pacifika (v nadaljevanju: države AKP)) na drugi, v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚pogodbenice‘, sklepajo
2008 — CASE C-91/05 in order to promote and expedite the economic, cultural and social development of the ACP States, with a view to contributing to peace and security and to promoting a stable and democratic political environment.
2008 – ZADEVA C-91/05 ta sporazum zaradi spodbujanja in pospe�evanja gospodarskega, kulturnega in družbenega razvoja držav AKP, z vidika prispevanja k miru in varnosti ter spodbujanja stabilnega in demokratičnega političnega okolja.
The partnership shall be centred on the objective of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty consistent with the objectives of sustainable development and the gradual integration of the ACP countries into the world economy.
Partnerstvo je usmerjeno k cilju, da se v skladu s cilji trajnostnega razvoja in postopnega vključevanja držav AKP v svetovno gospodarstvo, zmanj�a in sčasoma izkorenini rev�čina.
These objectives and the Parties’ international commitments shall inform all development strategies and shall be tackled through an integrated approach taking account at the same time of the political, economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects of development.
Ti cilji in mednarodne zaveze pogodbenic se upo�tevajo v vseh razvojnih strategijah in se uresničujejo s celovitim pristopom ob sočasnem upo�tevanju političnih, gospodarskih, družbenih, kulturnih in okoljskih vidikov razvoja.
Article 11 of the Cotonou Agreement, entitled ‘Peace-building policies, conflict prevention and resolution’, states:
V členu 11 sporazuma iz Cotonouja, naslovljenem „Politike vzpostavljanja miru, preprečevanje in re�evanje konfliktov“, je določeno:
It shall in particular
Zlasti se osredotoči na regionalno, podregionalno in nacionalno
COMMISSION v COUNCIL focus on building regional, sub-regional and national capacities, and on preventing violent conflicts at an early stage by addressing their root-causes in a targeted manner, and with an adequate combination of all available instruments.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU usposabljanje ter na zgodnje preprečevanje konfliktov, v katerih je prisotno nasilje, z namenskim odpravljanjem njihovih vzrokov in ustrezno kombinacijo vseh razpoložljivih instrumentov.
The activities in the field of peacebuilding, conflict prevention and resolution shall in particular include support for balancing political, economic, social and cultural opportunities among all segments of society, for strengthening the democratic legitimacy and effectiveness of governance, for establishing effective mechanisms for the peaceful conciliation of group interests, for bridging dividing lines among different segments of society as well as support for an active and organised civil society.
Ukrepi na področju vzpostavljanja miru ter preprečevanja in re�evanja konfliktov zajemajo zlasti podporo uravnoteženju političnih, gospodarskih, socialnih in kulturnih priložnosti med vsemi deli družbe, krepitvi demokratične legitimnosti in učinkovitosti upravljanja, vzpostavitvi učinkovitih mehanizmov za mirno spravo med interesnimi skupinami, premostitev ločnic med različnimi deli družbe, pa tudi podporo dejavni in organizirani civilni družbi.
Under Articles 6 to 10 of Annex IV of the Cotonou Agreement, entitled ‘Implementation and Management Procedures’, a regional support strategy and a regional
V skladu s členi od 6 do 10 priloge IV k sporazumu iz Cotonouja, naslovljeni „Izvedbeni in upravljalski postopki“, je bila strategija regionalnega sodelovanja in
2008 — CASE C-91/05 indicative programme were drawn up in a document signed on 19 February 2003 by the Commission, of the one part, and by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU), of the other.
2008 – ZADEVA C-91/05 regionalnega okvirnega programa določena v dokumentu, ki so ga 19. februarja 2003 podpisale Komisija Evropskih skupnosti na eni strani in Gospodarska skupnost zahodnoafri�kih držav (ECOWAS) in Gospodarska in monetarna unija zahodnoafri�kih držav (UEMOA) na drugi strani.
This document highlights, in section 2.3.1, entitled ‘Security and conflict prevention’, ‘the importance of controlling the traffic in small arms’, noting that ‘there is a moratorium on export and import supported by the United Nations’.
V tem dokumentu je v poglavju 2.3.1 z naslovom „Varnost in preprečevanje konfliktov“ poudarjen „pomen nadzorovanja trgovine z orožjem, pri čemer obstaja moratorij na izvoz in uvoz, ki ga podpirajo Združeni narodi“.
Section 6.4.1, entitled ‘Support for a regional policy of conflict prevention and good governance’, refers to support which may be given to back up the United Nations in carrying out priority measures under the action plan to implement a moratorium on the import, export and production of small arms.
V poglavju 6.4.1 z naslovom „Podpora regionalni politiki preprečevanja konfliktov in dobro upravljanje“ navedenega dokumenta je navedeno, da bo predvidena akcija v podporo akciji Združenih narodov pri izvedbi prednostnih ukrepov na podlagi akcijskega načrta za izvr�itev moratorija na uvoz, izvoz in proizvodnjo lahkega orožja.
Following a request from ECOWAS, in 2004 the Commission started preparing a financing proposal for conflict prevention and peacebuilding operations.
Komisija je na predlog ECOWAS-a leta 2004 začela pripravljati predlog o financiranju operacij za preprečevanje konfliktov in za vzpostavitev miru.
According to the Commission, the largest single block of this financing was to be allocated to the ECOWAS Small Arms Control Programme.
Po navedbah Komisije se bo največji del teh finančnih sredstev dodelil programu ECOWAS-a za nadzor nad lahkim orožjem.
The contested joint action
Sporni skupni ukrep
On 12 July 2002, the Council of the European Union adopted, on the basis of Article 14 EU, the contested joint action, which repealed and replaced Council Joint Action 1999/34/CFSP of 17 December 1998, adopted on the basis of Article J.3 of the
Svet Evropske unije je 12. julija 2002 na podlagi člena 14 EU sprejel sporni skupni ukrep, ki je razveljavil in nadomestil Skupni ukrep Sveta 1999/34/SZVP z dne 17. decembra 1998, sprejet na podlagi člena J.3 Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, o prispevku
Treaty on European Union, on the European Union’s contribution to combating the destabilising accumulation and spread of small arms and light weapons (OJ 1999 L 9, p. 1).
Evropske unije k boju proti destabilizirajočemu kopičenju in raz�irjanju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra (UL 1999, L 9, str. 1).
According to Article 1(1) of the contested joint action, ‘[t]he objectives of this Joint Action are:
V skladu s členom 1(1) spornega skupnega ukrepa „[s]o [njegovi] cilji:
— to contribute to the reduction of existing accumulations of these weapons and their ammunition to levels consistent with countries’ legitimate security needs, and
– prispevati k zmanj�anju obstoječega kopičenja tega orožja in streliva na raven, ki je v skladu z legitimnimi varnostnimi potrebami držav, in
— to help solve the problems caused by such accumulations.’
– pripomoči k re�evanju problemov, ki jih povzroča kopičenje takega orožja“.