natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It simply means that the weight to be given to the different interests which are always to be balanced in the application of the fundamental rights at issue may be different as a consequence of the specific needs arising from the prevention of international terrorism.
Pomeni le, da je teža različnih interesov, ki jih je treba pri uporabi zadevnih temeljnih pravic vedno tehtati, različna zaradi posledic posebnih potreb, nastalih zaradi preprečevanja mednarodnega terorizma.
The terrorists fight against the law, while violating it.
Teroristi se bojujejo zoper pravo in ga pri tem kr�ijo.
The appellant contends that, regarding the sanctions at issue, no such safeguards are in place.
Pritožnik zatrjuje, da ob upo�tevanju spornih sankcij, taki za�čitni ukrepi ne obstajajo.
In this context, the appellant seeks to rely on the right to be heard by the administrative authorities, as well as on the right to effective judicial review by an independent tribunal.
V tem smislu se pritožnik sklicuje na pravico biti zasli�an s strani upravnih organov, kot tudi na pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora neodvisnega sodi�ča.
The problem facing the appellant is that its financial interests within the Community have been frozen for several years, without limit of time and in conditions where there appear to be no adequate means for the appellant to challenge the assertion that it is involved in supporting terrorism.
Težava pritožnika je, da so bila njegova finančna sredstva v Skupnosti zamrznjena za več let, ne da bi bil določen časovni rok, in v pogojih, v katerih pritožnik nima na voljo ustreznih pravnih sredstev za izpodbijanje trditve, da je vpleten v podpiranje terorizma.
The appellant has invoked the right to property, the right to be heard, and the right to effective judicial review.
Pritožnik je navedel lastninsko pravico, pravico do zasli�anja in pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora.
The consequences for the person or entity concerned are potentially devastating, even where arrangements are made for basic expenses.
Posledice za zadevno osebo ali subjekt so lahko morebiti uničujoče, tudi kadar so sklenjeni sporazumi za osnovne stro�ke.
The Commission rightly points out that the prevention of international terrorism may justify restrictions on the right to property.
Komisija pravilno poudarja, da lahko preprečevanje mednarodnega terorizma utemelji omejitve lastninske pravice.
However, that does not ipso facto relieve the authorities of the requirement to demonstrate that those restrictions are justified in respect of the person or entity concerned.
Vendar ipso facto to organov ne oprosti zahteve, da dokažejo, da so te omejitve v primeru zadevne osebe ali subjekta utemeljene.
In the absence of those safeguards, the freezing of assets for an indefinite period of time infringes the right to property.
Kadar taki za�čitni ukrepi ne obstajajo, pomeni zamrznitev sredstev za nedoločeno obdobje kr�itev lastninske pravice.
According to settled caselaw, ‘observance of the right to be heard is, in all proceedings initiated against a person which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any rules governing the proceedings in question … That principle requires that the addressees of decisions which significantly affect their interests should be placed in a position in which they may effectively make known their views’. 50As to the right to effective judicial review, the Court has held: ‘The European Community is … a community based on the rule of law in which its institutions are subject to judicial review of the compatibility of their acts with the Treaty and with the general principles of law which include fundamental rights. …
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso je „spo�tovanje pravice do obrambe v vseh postopkih, ki se uvedejo zoper osebo in ki lahko vodijo do akta, s katerim se posega v njen položaj, temeljno načelo prava Skupnosti in mora biti zagotovljeno tudi, če ni nobenih posebnih pravil. […] To načelo zahteva, da se naslovnike odločb, ki znatno posegajo v njihove interese, postavi v položaj, v katerem lahko učinkovito izrazijo stali�ča.“ 50Sodi�če je v zvezi s pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora razsodilo, da je „Evropska skupnost […] namreč pravna skupnost, v kateri so institucije podvržene nadzoru skladnosti njihovih aktov s Pogodbo ES in splo�nimi pravnimi načeli, katerih del so temeljne pravice. […] Zato morajo imeti posamezniki možnost učinkovitega sodnega varstva pravic, ki jih imajo po pravnem redu Skupnosti, pri čemer je pravica do takega varstva del splo�nih pravnih načel, ki izhajajo
50 — Case C-32/95 P Lisrestal and Others [1996] ECR I-5373, paragraph 21.
50 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 24. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Lisrestal in drugi, C-32/95 P, Recueil, str.
See also Article 41(2) of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
I-5373, točka 21. Glej tudi člen 41(2) Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION in respect of the specific situation of the appellant.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI iz skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic.“ 51Poleg tega iz iste sodne prakse izhaja, da
Individuals are therefore entitled to effective judicial protection of the rights they derive from the Community legal order, and the right to such protection is one of the general principles of law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States’.
Sodi�ču omogočila izvedbo nadzora v zvezi s posebnim položajem pritožnika.
51 Moreover, it follows from the same caselaw that both natural persons and legal persons enjoy the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review.
imajo tako fizične kot pravne osebe pravico do obrambe in pravico do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora.
Suffice it to say that, although certain restrictions on that right may be envisaged for public security reasons, in the present case the Community institutions have not afforded any opportunity to the appellant to make known its views on whether the sanctions against it are justified and whether they should be kept in force.
Zadostuje, da navedem, da čeprav je mogoče predvideti določene omejitve te pravice iz razlogov javne varnosti, v obravnavani zadevi institucije Skupnosti pritožniku niso dale nobene možnosti, da bi predložil svoja stali�ča v zvezi s tem, ali so sankcije proti njemu utemeljene in ali bi jih bilo treba ohraniti.
That procedure allows petitioners to submit a request to the Sanctions Committee or to their government for removal from the list.
Ta postopek predlagateljem omogoča, da sankcijskemu odboru ali svoji vladi predložijo predlog za izbris s seznama.
52Yet, the processing of that request is purely a matter of intergovernmental consultation.
52Vendar je obravnavanje tega predloga le predmet medvladnega posvetovanja.
Moreover, the de-listing procedure does not provide even minimal access to the information on which the decision was based to include the petitioner in the
Dostop do takih informacij je namreč zavrnjen ne da bi se upo�teval kakr�enkoli utemeljen predlog, kot je potreba po zaupnosti. Eden od temeljnih razlogov,
The respondents argue, however, that in so far as there have been restrictions on the right to be heard and the right to effective judicial review, these restrictions are justified.
Vendar tožene stranke trdijo, da kolikor obstajajo omejitve pravice do zasli�anja in pravice do učinkovitega pravnega nadzora, so te omejitve utemeljene.
They maintain that any effort on the part of the Community or its Member States to provide administrative or judicial procedures for challenging the lawfulness of the sanctions imposed by the contested regulation would contravene the underlying Security Council resolutions and therefore jeopardise the fight against international terrorism.
Zatrjujejo, da bi bilo vsako prizadevanje s strani Skupnosti ali njenih držav članic, da bi zagotovile upravne ali sodne postopke za izpodbijanje zakonitosti sankcij, ki so naložene z izpodbijano uredbo, v nasprotju z osnovnimi resolucijami Varnostnega sveta in bi zato ogrožalo boj zoper mednarodni terorizem.
In consonance with that view, they have not made any submissions that would enable this Court to exercise review
V skladu z njihovim mnenjem niso podale nobenih stali�č, ki bi
The appellant has been listed for several years in Annex I to the contested regulation and still the Community institutions refuse to grant the appellant an opportunity to dispute the grounds for its continued inclusion on the list.
Ime pritožnika je bilo več let vpisano na seznamu v prilogi I k izpodbijani uredbi, vendar institucije Skupnosti pritožniku �e vedno zavračajo možnost izpodbijanja razlogov, zaradi katerih je �e naprej vpisan na seznamu.
They have, in effect, levelled extremely serious allegations against the appellant and have, on that basis, subjected the appellant to severe sanctions.
Zoper pritožnika so namreč podale zelo resne obtožbe in so mu zaradi tega naložile stroge sankcije.
The Court has no way of knowing whether that is the case in reality, but the mere existence of that possibility is anathema in a society that respects the rule of law.
Sodi�če nima nobenih sredstev, da bi izvedelo, ali je to dejansko res, vendar sam obstoj te možnosti pomeni izključitev v družbi, ki spo�tuje pravno državo.
As the European Court of Human Right held in Klass and Others, ‘the rule of law implies, inter alia, that an interference by the executive authorities with an individual’s rights should be subject to an effective control which should normally be assured by the judiciary, at least in the last resort, judicial control offering the best guar-
Kot je ESČP odločilo v sodbi Klass in drugi proti Nemčiji, „pravna država med drugim pomeni, da bi moralo biti poseganje izvr�ilnih organov v pravice posameznika predmet učinkovitega nadzora, ki ga mora običajno zagotoviti sodstvo, vsaj na zadnji
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION cannot dispense with proper judicial review proceedings when implementing the Security Council resolutions in question within the Community legal order.
AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI izogniti ustreznim postopkom sodnega nadzora, ko izvajajo sporne resolucije Varnostnega sveta v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
As the Commission and the Council themselves have stressed in their pleadings, the decision whether or not to remove a person from the United Nations sanctions list remains within the full discretion of the Sanctions Committee — a diplomatic organ.
Kot sta Komisija in Svet sama poudarila v stali�čih, odločitev, ali se ime osebe izbri�e s seznama Združenih narodov, ostaja v popolni diskreciji Varnostnega sveta – diplomatskega organa.
As a consequence, the Community institutions
Institucije Skupnosti se zato ne morejo
(1) set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 21 September 2005 in Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission;
Razveljavi Sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji, T-306/01, in;
(2) annul, in so far as it concerns the appellant, Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001
v delu, v katerem se nana�a na pritožnika, razglasi za nično Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 881/2002 z dne 27. maja 2002 o posebnih omejevalnih ukrepih za
3 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 3. septembra 2008 *
In Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P,
V združenih zadevah C-402/05 P in C-415/05 P, katerih predmet sta pritožbi na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vloženi 17. in 21. novembra 2005,
JUDGMENT OF 3. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 3. 9.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P the other parties to the proceedings being:
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P druga stranka v postopku je
Kingdom of Spain, represented by J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
Kraljevine Španije, ki jo zastopa J. Rodríguez Cárcamo, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu,
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P generalni pravobranilec: M.
Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro,Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 2 October 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 January 2008 (C-402/05 P) and 23 January 2008 (C-415/05 P), gives the following
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 2. oktobra 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavah 16. januarja 2008 (C-402/05 P) in 23. januarja 2008 (C-415/05 P) izreka naslednjo
KADI AND AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (OJ 2002 L 139, p.
KADI IN AL BARAKAAT INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI prepovedi izvoza nekaterega blaga in storitev v Afganistan, o poostritvi prepovedi poletov in podalj�anju zamrznitve sredstev in drugih finančnih virov talibanov iz Afganistana (UL L 139, str.
9, ‘the contested regulation’), in so far as that act relates to them.
9, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana uredba), v delu, v katerem se ta akt nana�a nanju.
Under Article 1(1) and (3) of the Charter of the United Nations, signed at San Francisco (United States of America) on 26 June 1945, the purposes of the United Nations are inter alia ‘[t]o maintain international peace and security’ and ‘[t]o achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion’.
V skladu s členom 1(1) in (3) Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, podpisane v San Franciscu (Združene države Amerike) 26. junija 1945, so cilji Združenih narodov „varovati mednarodni mir in varnost“ ter „uresničevati mednarodno sodelovanje s tem, da se re�ujejo mednarodni problemi ekonomske, socialne, kulturne ali človekoljubne narave, kakor tudi s tem, da se razvija in spodbuja spo�tovanje človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin za vse ljudi, ne glede na raso, spol, jezik ali vero“.
Under Article 24(1) and (2) of the Charter of the United Nations:
V členu 24(1) in (2) Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov je določeno:
In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf.
Da bi se zagotovila takoj�nja in učinkovita akcija Organizacije [združenih narodov (OZN)] nalagajo njeni člani Varnostnemu svetu [Združenih narodov (v nadaljevanju: Varnostni svet)] prvenstveno odgovornost za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti in so soglasni s tem, da Varnostni svet pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti na temelju te odgovornosti dela v njihovem imenu.
In discharging these duties the Security Council shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
Pri opravljanju teh dolžnosti dela Varnostni svet v skladu s cilji in načeli Združenih narodov.
The specific powers granted to the
Posebne pravice, ki so Varnostnemu svetu podeljene za opravljanje teh dolžnosti, so navedene v VI., VII., VIII. in XII. poglavju.“
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P
Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that ‘[t]he Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter’.
V skladu s členom 25 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov „[č]lani Združenih narodov sogla�ajo v tem, da sprejemajo in izvr�ijo odločbe Varnostnega sveta v skladu s to Ustanovno listino“.
Articles 39, 41 and 48 of the Charter of the United Nations form part of Chapter VII thereof, headed ‘Action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression’.
Členi 39, 41 in 48 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov so del VII. poglavja, z naslovom „Akcija v primeru ogrožanja miru, kr�itve miru in agresivnih dejanj“.
‘The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.’
„Varnostni svet ugotavlja, ali obstoji kak�no ogrožanje miru, kr�itev miru ali agresivno dejanje, in daje priporočila ali pa odloči, kaj je treba ukreniti v skladu z 41. in 42. členom, da se ohranita ali vzpostavita mednarodni mir in varnost.“
‘The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures.
„Varnostni svet sme odločiti, katere ukrepe, ki ne vključujejo uporabe oborožene sile, je treba izvajati, zato da bi se izvr�ile njegove odločbe, in sme pozvati člane Združenih narodov, naj izvedejo te ukrepe.
These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.’
Med te ukrepe lahko sodijo popolna ali delna prekinitev ekonomskih odnosov in železni�kih, pomorskih, zračnih, po�tnih, telegrafskih, radijskih in drugih komunikacijskih sredstev ter pretrganje diplomatskih odnosov.“
By virtue of Article 48(2) of the Charter of the United Nations, the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security ‘shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members’.
Na podlagi člena 48(2) Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov „[č]lani Združenih narodov izvr�ijo [odločbe Varnostnega sveta za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti] neposredno in s svojo dejavnostjo v ustreznih mednarodnih ustanovah, katerih člani so“.
Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations states that ‘[i]n the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail’.
Člen 103 Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov določa, „[č]e je navzkrižje med obveznostmi članov Združenih narodov po tej Ustanovni listini in med njihovimi obveznostmi po katerem koli drugem meddržavnem dogovoru, prevladujejo njihove obveznosti po tej Ustanovni listini“.
Background to the disputes
Dejansko stanje
The background to the disputes has been set out in paragraphs 10 to 36 of Kadi and in paragraphs 10 to 41 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat.
Dejansko stanje je bilo predstavljeno v točkah od 10 do 36 v izpodbijani sodbi Kadi ter v točkah od 10 do 41 v izpodbijani sodbi Yusuf in Al Barakaat.
For the purposes of this judgment it may be summarised as follows.
Za to sodbo ju je mogoče povzeti, kot sledi.
On 15 October 1999 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1267 (1999), in which it, inter alia, condemned the fact that Afghan territory continued to be used for the sheltering and training of terrorists and planning of terrorist acts, reaffirmed its conviction that the suppression of international terrorism was essential for the maintenance of international peace and security and deplored the fact that the Taliban continued to provide safe haven to Usama bin Laden and to allow him and others associated with him to operate a network of terrorist training camps from territory held by the Taliban and to use Afghanistan as a base from which to sponsor international terrorist operations.
Varnostni svet Združenih narodov je 15. oktobra 1999 sprejel Resolucijo 1267(1999), s katero je zlasti obsodil dejstvo, da se na afganistanskem ozemlju �e naprej sprejema in usposablja teroriste ter pripravlja teroristična dejanja, ponovno potrdil svoje prepričanje, da je zatiranje mednarodnega terorizma nujno za ohranjanje miru in krepitev mednarodne varnosti, ter izrazil obžalovanje, da talibani �e naprej nudijo pribežali�če Osami bin Ladnu, kar njemu in njegovim sodelavcem na njihovem ozemlju omogoča, da upravljajo mrežo tabori�č za usposabljanje teroristov in uporabljajo Afganistan kot bazo za podpiranje mednarodnih terorističnih dejavnosti.
In the second paragraph of the resolution the Security Council demanded that the Taliban should without further delay turn Usama bin Laden over to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice.
V odstavku 2 te resolucije je Varnostni svet zahteval, naj talibani brez odla�anja neposredno ali posredno izročijo Osamo bin Ladna pristojnim organom v državi, v kateri je bil obdolžen, oziroma pristojnim organom v državi, v kateri mu bo odvzeta prostost in mu bo sojeno.
In order to ensure compliance with that demand, paragraph 4(b) of Resolution 1267 (1999) provides that all the States must, in particular, ‘freeze funds and other financial resources, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Taliban, or by any undertaking owned or controlled by the Taliban, as designated by the Committee established by paragraph 6 below, and ensure that neither they nor any other funds or financial resources so designated are made available, by their nationals or by any persons within their territory, to or for the benefit of the Taliban or any undertaking owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Taliban, except as may be authorised by the Committee on a case-by-case basis on the grounds of humanitarian need’.
Da bi se zagotovilo spo�tovanje te določbe, odstavek 4(b) te resolucije določa, da morajo vse države članice „[z]amrzniti sredstva in druge finančne vire, ki izhajajo zlasti iz dobrin, ki so v lasti talibanov ali jih ti neposredno ali posredno nadzirajo, ali ki pripadajo ali so pod nadzorom podjetij v lasti talibanov ali pod njihovim nadzorom, kot jih je določil odbor, ustanovljen ob uporabi odstavka 6 iz naslednje točke, in paziti, da njihovi državljani ali vsaka druga oseba, ki se nahaja na njihovem ozemlju, tako odkritih sredstev in drugih finančnih virov ne da na voljo talibanom ali podjetjem v njihovi lasti ali pod njihovim neposrednim ali posrednim nadzorom ali jih ne uporabi v njihovo korist, razen če odbor iz humanitarnih razlogov ni dal nasprotnega pooblastila za posamezni primer“.
In paragraph 6 of Resolution 1267 (1999), the Security Council decided to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a committee of the Security Council composed of all its members (‘the Sanctions Committee’), responsible in particular for ensuring that the States implement the measures imposed by paragraph 4, designating the funds or other financial resources referred to in paragraph 4 and considering requests for exemptions from the measures imposed by paragraph 4.
V odstavku 6 te resolucije je Varnostni svet odločil, da se v skladu s členom 28 njegovega začasnega poslovnika ustanovi odbor Varnostnega sveta (v nadaljevanju: sankcijski odbor), ki bo, sestavljen iz vseh njegovih članov, zadolžen zlasti, da pazi na izvr�evanje ukrepov, ki jih je državam naložil odstavek 4 te resolucije, da navede sredstva ali druge finančne vire, ki jih omenja ta odstavek 4, in da preizkusi predloge za odstopanja od ukrepov, ki jih je naložil ta odstavek.