natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Court of Justice ruling. Having regard to the considerable latitude enjoyed by the Member States in this sphere, it was held, in respect of Article 8 of Directive 80/987 (44), that where the employer is insolvent and the assets of the supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes are insucient, accrued pension rights need not necessarily be funded by the Member States themselves or be funded in full.
Razvoj in dejavnost določba nasprotuje uvedbi različnega obravnavanja delavcev, zaposlenih za določen čas, in delavcev, zaposlenih za nedoločen čas, ki bi bilo upravičeno, le če bi bilo določeno z zakonsko ali drugo določbo države članice ali s kolektivno pogodbo, sklenjeno med sindikati zaposlenih in zadevnim delodajalcem.
In Case C-342/05 Commission v Finland (judgment of 14 June 2007) the Court had to consider whether, as the Commission maintained, by authorising wolf hunting the Republic of Finland had failed to full its obligations under Directive 92/43/ (45).
Obseg nekaterih določb Skupnosti v zvezi s pravicami delavcev in njihovim varstvom je Sodišče opredelilo na podlagi različnih vprašanj za predhodno odločanje.
By virtue of Article 12(1) and of Annex IV(a) to that directive, wolves are one of the animal species in need of strict protection.
Tako je Sodišče v sodbi v zadevi Jouini in drugi (sodba z dne 13. septembra 2007, C-458/05) opredelilo pojem prenosa podjetij, ki je posledica pogodbenega prenosa v smislu Direktive 2001/23/ES43, in je razsodilo, da se slednja nanaša na primer, ko je na eni strani del upravnega osebja in del začasnih delavcev premeščen v drugo podjetje za začasno zaposlovanje, da bi tam opravljali iste dejavnosti za iste stranke, in ko na drugi strani dejavniki, na katere vpliva prenos gospodarske enote, sami zase zadostujejo za opravljanje storitev, ki so značilne za zadevno gospodarsko dejavnost, ne da bi bilo treba uporabiti druga pomembna produkcijska sredstva ali druge dele podjetja, kar pa mora preveriti predložitveno sodišče.
However, Article 16 of the directive provides for exceptional arrangements derogating from those prohibitions.
V sodbi v zadevi Robins in drugi (sodba z dne 25. januarja 2007, C-278/05, ZOdl., str.
By virtue of the provisions of domestic law transposing that article, the Finnish authorities have every year issued wolf-hunting permits by way of derogation.
I-1053) je Sodišče pojasnilo različna vprašanja v zvezi z varstvom delavcev ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca, ki jih je v predlogu za predhodno odločanje postavilo sodišče Združenega kraljestva Velika Britanija in Severna Irska.
The Court noted first of all that it is settled caselaw that even if the applicable national legislation is in itself compatible with Community law, a failure to full obligations may arise due to the existence of an administrative practice which infringes that law, provided that that practice is, to some degree, of a consistent and general nature.
Ob upoštevanju široke diskrecijske pravice, ki jo imajo na tem področju države članice, je Sodišče glede člena 8 Direktive 80/987/EGS44presodilo, da ob plačilni nesposobnosti delodajalca in nezadostnih sredstvih dodatnega pokojninskega podjetniškega ali medpodjetniškega zavarovanja nanciranja priznanih pravic starostne pokojnine ni dolžna obvezno zagotoviti sama država članica in niti ni potrebno, da je to nanciranje popolno.
It then found that Article 16 of the directive, in so far as it provides for an exception, must be interpreted strictly and must impose on the authority taking the decision the burden of proving that the necessary conditions are present for each derogation.
Sodišče je spomnilo tudi na to, da je ob nepravilnem prenosu take določbe Skupnosti odgovornost zadevne države članice odvisna od ugotovitve očitne in hude kršitve diskrecijske pravice s strani države članice.
In those circumstances, the Member States are required to ensure that all action aecting the protected species is authorised only on the basis of decisions containing a clear and sucient statement of reasons which refers to the reasons, conditions and requirements laid down in that article.
V zadevi Komisija proti Finski (sodba z dne 14. junija 2007, C-342/05) je moralo Sodišče preučiti, ali Republika Finska, tako kot je trdila Komisija, z dovolitvijo lova na volkove ni izpolnila obveznosti iz Direktive Sveta 92/43/EGS z dne 21. maja 1992 o ohranjanju naravnih habitatov ter prosto živečih živalskih in rastlinskih vrst.45 Na podlagi člena 12(1) te direktive in njene priloge IV(a) so namreč volkovi živalska vrsta, ki jo je treba strogo varovati.
It is possible that the killing of a limited number of wolves, even if some of them may cause serious damage, may aect that objective.
Na podlagi nacionalnih določb, s katerimi je bila ta direktiva prenesena, so finski organi vsako leto na podlagi odstopanja izdajali dovoljenja za lov na volkove.
The Court concluded that a Member State which authorises wolf hunting on a preventive basis without its being established that the hunting is such as to prevent serious damage has failed to full its obligations under Directive 92/43.
Sodišče je najprej spomnilo na to, da je, tudi če so veljavni nacionalni predpisi združljivi s pravom Skupnosti, lahko v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso neizpolnitev obveznosti iz naslova člena 226 ES posledica obstoja
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 82, p. 16).
Direktiva Sveta z dne 20. oktobra 1980 o približevanju zakonodaje držav članic o varstvu delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti njihovega delodajalca (80/987/EGS) (UL L 283, str. 23).
In the sphere of cooperation in civil and judicial matters attention is drawn first of all to the judgment of 27 November 2007 in Case C-435/06 C, interpreting for the first time the provisions of Regulation No 2201/2003 (46).
Sodišče upravne prakse, ki krši to pravo, če je v določeni meri ustaljena in splošna.
The Court held that that regulation applies to a single decision ordering the immediate taking into care and placement of a child outside the original home in a foster family when that decision was adopted in the context of rules of public law relating to child protection.
Nato je ugotovilo, da je treba člen 16 navedene direktive, ker določa odstopanje, razlagati ozko ter da nalaga breme dokazovanja obstoja zahtevanih pogojev za vsako odstopanje organu, ki o njem odloča.
Such a decision falls within the scope of the regulation for it relates to ‘parental responsibility’ and forms part of the concept of ‘civil matters’, and that latter concept must be interpreted autonomously and may therefore extend to measures which, from the point of view of the legal system of a Member State, fall within the ambit of public law.
V takem primeru morajo države članice zagotoviti, da je vsak poseg, ki zadeva zaščitene vrste, dovoljen le na podlagi odločitev, ki so natančno in ustrezno obrazložene ter v katerih so navedeni razlogi, pogoji in zahteve, določeni v tem členu.
In addition, the Court considered that harmonised national legislation on the recognition and enforcement of administrative decisions on the taking into care and placement of persons, adopted in the context of Nordic cooperation, may not be applied to a decision to take a child into care that falls within the scope of that regulation.
Vendar pa ugodno stanje ohranjenosti navedenih populacij na njihovem naravnem območju razširjenosti določa kot nujen prvi pogoj za odobritev predvidenega odstopanja.
In accordance with Article 59(1) of the regulation, the latter supersedes for the Member States conventions concluded between them and relating to matters governed by it.
Odobritev takih odstopanj je mogoča samo izjemoma, če se ustrezno ugotovi, da ne bi poslabšala neugodnega stanja ohranjenosti ali preprečevala obnovitve ugodnega stanja ohranjenosti omenjenih populacij, kar je cilj člena 16 te direktive.
Cooperation between the Nordic States does not appear amongst the exceptions listed exhaustively in that regulation.
Zato ni mogoče izključiti, da odstrel omejenega števila živali, tudi če bi nekatere med njimi lahko povzročile resno škodo, ne bi vplival na doseganje tega cilja.
According to that declaration, in fact, those States which are members of the Nordic Committee for Cooperation and members of the Union have undertaken to continue that cooperation, in compliance with Community law.
Sodišče je na podlagi tega ugotovilo, da država članica, ki dovoli preventivni lov na volkove, ne da bi bilo ugotovljeno, da se z lovom na volkove lahko prepreči resna škoda, ne izpolni obveznosti na podlagi Direktive 92/43.
That cooperation must therefore observe the principles of the Community legal order.
Pravosodno sodelovanje v civilnih zadevah
Next to be noted is Case C-386/05 Color Drack (judgment of 3 May 2007), in which the Court was led to interpret Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.
Na področju pravosodnega sodelovanja v civilnih zadevah naj najprej omenimo sodbo v zadevi C (sodba z dne 27. novembra 2007, C-435/06), ki vsebuje prvo razlago določb Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1347/2000.46 Sodišče je presodilo, da se ta uredba uporablja za eno samo odločbo, ki odreja takojšen prevzem v varstvo in namestitev otroka v rejniško družino zunaj lastne družine, če je bila sprejeta v okviru pravil javnega prava o zaščiti otrok.
According to that provision, a defendant may be sued, in matters relating to a contract, in the courts for the place of performance of the obligation in question, it being made clear that, in the case of the sale of goods, that place is, unless otherwise agreed, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were or ought to have been delivered.
Za tako odločbo se uporablja uredba, ker se nanaša na „starševsko odgovornost“ in spada med „civilne zadeve“. Pojem „civilne zadeve“ je treba razlagati samostojno in lahko torej zajema ukrepe, ki z vidika prava države članice spadajo na področje javnega prava.
The Court stated that that provision is applicable where there are several places of delivery within a single Member State and that, in such a case, the court having jurisdiction to hear all the claims based on the contract for the sale of goods is that for the principal place of delivery, which must be determined on the basis of economic criteria.
Poleg tega je Sodišče ugotovilo, da se usklajeni nacionalni predpisi o priznavanju in izvrševanju upravnih odločb o prevzemu v varstvo in namestitvi oseb, ki so bili sklenjeni v okviru nordijskega sodelovanja, ne morejo uporabljati za odločbo o prevzemu otroka v varstvo, ki spada na področje uporabe Uredbe št. 2201/2003.
In the absence of determining factors for establishing the principal
Sodelovanje med nordijskimi državami ni navedeno med izjemami, ki so taksativno naštete v tej uredbi.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004 (OJ 2004 L 367, p. 1).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2201/2003 z dne 27. novembra 2003 o pristojnosti in priznavanju ter izvrševanju sodnih odločb v zakonskih sporih in sporih v zvezi s starševsko odgovornostjo ter o razveljavitvi Uredbe (ES) št. 1347/2000, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta št. 2116/2004 z dne 2. decembra 2004 (UL L 367, str. 1).
Joint Declaration No 28 on Nordic Cooperation, annexed to the Treaty concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p.
Skupna izjava št. 28 o nordijskem sodelovanju, ki je priložena Aktu o pogojih pristopa Republike Avstrije, Republike Finske in Kraljevine Švedske ter o prilagoditvah pogodb, na katerih temelji Evropska unija (UL 1994, C 241, str. 21, in UL 1995, L 1, str. 1).
Proceedings
Razvoj in dejavnost v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
Court of Justice place of delivery, the plainti may sue the defendant in the court for the place of delivery of his choice.
Sodišče je navedlo, da se ta določba uporablja, če je več krajev dostave v isti državi članici in da je v takem primeru za odločanje o vseh tožbah, ki izhajajo iz pogodbe o prodaji blaga, pristojno sodišče, v pristojnosti katerega je kraj glavne dostave, ki mora biti določen na podlagi ekonomskih meril.
Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, and combating terrorism
Policijsko in pravosodno sodelovanje v kazenskih zadevah in boj proti terorizmu
In its judgment of 3 May 2007 in Case C-303/05 Advocaten voor de Wereld, the Court found no factor capable of aecting the validity of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (48). The framework decision is not intended to harmonise the substantive criminal law of the Member States: it provides for approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States with regard to judicial cooperation in criminal matters and its purpose is to introduce a simplied system for the surrender, between national judicial authorities, of convicted persons or suspects for the purpose of enforcing judgments or conducting criminal proceedings.
V sodbi z dne 3. maja 2007 v zadevi Advocaten voor de Wereld (C-303/05) je Sodišče presodilo, da ni ugotovilo nobenega dejavnika, ki bi vplival na veljavnost Okvirnega sklepa Sveta 2202/584 o evropskem nalogu za prijetje in postopkih predaje med državami članicami.48Namen tega okvirnega sklepa ni uskladitev materialnega kazenskega prava v državah članicah – določa približevanje zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic v zvezi s pravosodnim sodelovanjem v kazenskih zadevah, njegov predmet pa je uvedba poenostavljenega sistema predaje, med pravosodnimi organi držav članic obsojenih ali osumljenih oseb zaradi kazenskega pregona ali izvršitve kazni.
It was not adopted in a manner contrary to Article 34(2) EU, which lists and denes, in general terms, the dierent types of legal instruments which may be used in the pursuit of the objectives of the Union set out in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, and cannot be construed as meaning that the approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States by the adoption of a framework decision cannot relate to areas other than those mentioned in Article 31(1)(e) EU and, in particular, the matter of the European arrest warrant.
S sprejetjem navedenega sklepa ni bil kršen člen 34(2) EU, ki našteva in določa s splošnimi izrazi različne vrste pravnih instrumentov, ki se lahko uporabijo za „doseganje ciljev Unije“, naštetih v naslovu VI Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, in ki ga ni mogoče razlagati tako, kot da izključuje, da bi približevanje zakonov in drugih predpisov držav članic s sprejetjem okvirnega sklepa lahko zadevalo druga področja od tistih, naštetih v členu 31(e) EU, in zlasti področje evropskega naloga za prijetje.
Nor does Article 34(2) EU establish any order of priority between the dierent instruments listed.
Člen 34(2) EU ne določa niti prednostnega vrstnega reda med različnimi navedenimi instrumenti.
While it is true that the European arrest warrant could equally have been the subject of a convention, it is within the Council’s discretion to give preference to the legal instrument of the framework decision in the case where, as here, the conditions governing the adoption of such a measure are satised.
Čeprav bi bil evropski nalog za prijetje lahko predmet konvencije, ima Svet diskrecijsko pravico dati prednost pravnemu instrumentu okvirnega sklepa, če so, kot v tem primeru, pogoji za sprejetje tega akta izpolnjeni.
This conclusion is not invalidated by the fact that the framework decision was to replace from 1 January 2004, solely in relations between Member States, the corresponding provisions of the earlier conventions on extradition.
Tega sklepa ne ovrže dejstvo, da Okvirni sklep s 1. januarjem 2004 v odnosih med državami članicami nadomesti ustrezne določbe prejšnjih konvencij v zvezi z izročitvijo.
Any other interpretation, unsupported by either Article 34(2) EU or any other provision of the Treaty on European Union, would risk depriving of its essential eectiveness the Council’s recognised power to adopt framework decisions in fields previously governed by international conventions.
Vsaka druga razlaga, ki se ne opira niti na člen 34(2) EU niti na katero koli drugo določbo Pogodbe o Evropski uniji, bi lahko odvzela bistveni del učinkovitosti pristojnosti Sveta, da sprejema okvirne sklepe na področjih, ki so bila prej urejena z mednarodnimi konvencijami.
In Case C-467/05 Dell’Orto (judgment of 28 June 2007), the Court was called upon to rule on the concept of victim for the purposes of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA (49).
Poleg tega je to, da je bilo z Okvirnim sklepom odpravljeno ugotavljanje dvojne kaznivosti za določena kazniva dejanja, skladno z načelom zakonitosti v kazenskem pravu ter načeloma enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije.
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 (UL L 190, str. 1).
This interpretation cannot, according to the Court, be challenged on the ground that it is not in keeping with the provision of Directive 2004/80 (50) relating to compensation to crime victims, for even supposing that the provisions of a directive adopted on the basis of the EC Treaty were capable of having any eect on the interpretation of the provisions of a framework decision based on the Treaty on European Union and that the concept of victim for the purposes of the directive could be interpreted to include legal persons; the directive and the framework decision regulate dierent fields and are not linked in a manner calling for a uniform interpretation of the concept in question.
Presodilo je, da v kazenskem postopku, natančneje v postopku za izvršitev kazni, ki sledi dokončni kazenski sodbi, pojem „žrtve“, ki ga vsebuje Okvirni sklep, ne obsega pravnih oseb, ki so škodo utrpele kot neposredno posledico dejanj ali opustitev, ki kršijo kazensko zakonodajo države članice, ker je zakonodajalec želel zajeti izključno zične osebe, ki so škodo utrpele kot posledico kaznivega dejanja. Po mnenju Sodišča te razlage ne more omajati razlog, da ni v skladu z določbo Direktive 2004/8050 o odškodnini žrtvam kaznivih dejanj, kajti tudi če bi določbe direktive, sprejete na podlagi Pogodbe ES, kakor koli vplivale na razlago določb okvirnega sklepa, ki temelji na Pogodbi o Evropski uniji, in bi bilo pojem žrtve iz Direktive mogoče razlagati tako, da zajema pravne osebe, Direktiva in Okvirni sklep urejata različni področji in nista v takem medsebojnem razmerju, da bi bilo treba zadevni pojem razlagati enotno.
Several of the Court’s judgments relate to the combating of terrorism.
Sodišče je sprejelo več sodb s področja boja proti terorizmu.
In the context of the implementation of Resolution 1373 (2001) of the United Nations Security Council, the Council of the European Union decided in 2002 to include the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) in a list of terrorist organisations, which led to the freezing of its funds.
Leta 2002 je Svet Evropske unije v okviru izvajanja ResolucijeVarnostnega sveta Združenih narodov 1373 (2001) sklenil, da delavsko stranko Kurdistana (PKK) vključi na seznam terorističnih organizacij, kar povzroči zamrznitev denarnih sredstev.
An action challenging that decision was brought by a first applicant on behalf of the PKK and by a second applicant on behalf of the Kurdistan National Congress (KNK).
Zoper ta sklep sta prvi tožnik v imenu PKK in drugi tožnik v imenu kurdistanskega nacionalnega kongresa (KNK) vložila tožbo.
The Court of First Instance having rejected the action as inadmissible, the two applicants lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice.
Ker je Sodišče prve stopnje to tožbo zavrglo kot nedopustno, sta tožnika pri Sodišču vložila pritožbo.
The latter held, in particular, that in respect of the abovementioned regulation, it is especially important for judicial protection to be eective because the restrictive measures laid down by that regulation have serious consequences.
Sodišče je zlasti presodilo, da je glede zgoraj navedene uredbe učinkovitost sodnega varstva toliko pomembnejša, saj imajo omejevalni ukrepi iz zadevne uredbe hude posledice.
Not only are all financial transactions and financial services thereby prevented in the case of a person, group or entity covered by the regulation, but also their reputation and political activity are damaged by the fact that they are classied as terrorists.
Ne le da se osebi, skupini ali organizaciji, na katere se ta uredba nanaša, preprečijo vse nančne transakcije in storitve, temveč sta s tem, da so označene za teroristične, prizadeta tudi njihova ugled in politična dejavnost.
According to Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 (51), read in conjunction with Article 1(4) to (6) of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (52), a person, group or entity can be included in the list of persons, groups and entities to whom and to which that regulation applies only if there is certain reliable information, and the persons, groups or entities covered must be precisely identied. In addition, it is made clear that the names of persons, groups or entities can be kept on the list only if the Council reviews their situation periodically.
Na podlagi člena 2(3) Uredbe št. 2580/200151 v povezavi s členom 1, od (4) do (6), Skupnega stališča 2001/93152je mogoče osebo, skupino ali organizacijo vključiti na seznam oseb, skupin in organizacij, na katere se nanaša ta uredba, le če obstajajo prepričljivi dokazi in pod pogojem natančne identikacije zadevnih oseb, skupin ali organizacij.
All these matters must be open to judicial review.
Poleg tega je natančno navedeno, da se lahko ime osebe, skupine ali organizacije ohrani na navedenem
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specic restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70).
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2580/2001 z dne 27. decembra 2001 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za nekatere osebe in subjekte zaradi boja proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str. 70).
Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 on the application of specic measures to combat terrorism (OJ 2001 L 344, p. 93).
Skupno stališče Sveta 2001/931/SZVP z dne 27. decembra 2001 o uporabi posebnih ukrepov za boj proti terorizmu (UL L 344, str. 93).
Court of Justice by Regulation No 2580/2001, it must be accepted, on grounds of consistency and justice, that that entity continues to have an existence sucient to contest those measures.
Sodišče je iz navedenega sklepalo, da če zakonodajalec Skupnosti meni, da organizacija še naprej obstaja v zadostni meri, da je predmet omejevalnih ukrepov iz Uredbe št. 2580/2001, je treba v skladu z načelom doslednosti in pravičnosti priznati, da ta organizacija še naprej obstaja v zadostni meri, da te ukrepe lahko izpodbija.
The eect of any other conclusion would be that an organisation could be included in the list of terrorist organisations without being able to bring an action challenging its inclusion.
Iz vsakega drugačnega zaključka bi sledilo, da bi bilo mogoče organizacijo vključiti na sporni seznam, ne da bi bilo mogoče zoper to vložiti tožbo.
In consequence, the Court set aside the order of the Court of First Instance in so far as it dismissed the application of the appellant acting on behalf of the PKK.
Sodišče je zato sklep Sodišča prve stopnje razveljavilo v delu, v katerem je bila zavržena tožba tožnika, ki jo je vložil v imenu PKK.