natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, in order to consider the condition regarding the independence of the body making the reference as met, the caselaw requires, inter alia, that dismissals of members of that body should be determined by express legislative provisions (see, to that effect, Köllensperger and Atzwanger, paragraph 21, and Case C-516/99 Schmid [2002] ECR I-4573, paragraph 41).
Da bi �teli, da je pogoj v zvezi z neodvisnostjo predložitvenega organa izpolnjen, se v sodni praksi v zvezi s tem zahteva zlasti, da so primeri odstavitve članov tega organa določeni z izrecnimi zakonodajnimi določbami (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Köllensperger in Atzwanger, točka 21, in sodbo z dne 30. maja 2002 v zadevi Schmid, C-516/99, Recueil, str. I-4573, točka 41.
In this case, it is clear, first, from reading the 1859 Decree and from the observations submitted to the Court that the members of the Industrial Tribunals are subject, at least for some of their activities, to supervision by the administration.
V obravnavanem primeru izhaja po eni strani iz besedila dekreta iz leta 1859 in stali�č, predloženih Sodi�ču, da so člani ribi�kega razsodi�ča vsaj glede nekaterih dejavnosti podvrženi nadzoru uprave.
It is explicit from Article 17(1) of the 1859 Decree that the Members of the Industrial Tribunals carry out a series of duties ‘under the authority of the Commissioner for Maritime Registration’.
V členu 17(1) dekreta iz leta 1859 je namreč izrecno navedeno, da člani ribi�kega razsodi�ča opravljajo vrsto funkcij „pod nadzorom komisarja službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev“.
A member of that same administration is also responsible, under Article 27 of that decree, for resolving possible jurisdictional disputes between Industrial Tribunals for Matters relating to Fishing.
Član iste uprave je na podlagi člena 27 tega dekreta prav tako pristojen za odločanje o morebitnih sporih o pristojnosti med več ribi�kimi razsodi�či.
Moreover, it should be pointed out that Article 18 of that decree requires the Members of the Industrial Tribunals to swear an oath in which they promise, inter alia, to ‘comply with the orders which they are given by their superiors’.
Poudariti je treba, da se v skladu s členom 18 tega dekreta zahteva celo, da člani ribi�kega razsodi�ča prisežejo zlasti, da „bodo delovali v skladu z navodili njihovih predstojnikov.“
Thus, in accordance with Article 22 of the 1859 Decree, the Members of the Industrial Tribunals can be dismissed by the Director of Maritime Registration after a simple preliminary investigation, without that provision, or any other provision of that decree, specifying the grounds on which a dismissal might be decided upon.
Tako lahko v skladu s členom 22 dekreta iz leta 1859 direktor službe za vpis poklicnih mornarjev odstavi člane ribi�kega razsodi�ča samo po predhodni preiskavi, ne da bi ta določba ali kak drug člen tega dekreta pojasnil razloge za morebitno odstavitev.
In those circumstances, the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues cannot be regarded as meeting the condition as to the independence of the body making a reference, as defined in the caselaw set out in paragraphs 23 and 24 of this Order.
V teh okoli�činah ni mogoče �teti, da prud’homie de pêche de Martigues izpolnjuje pogoja o neodvisnosti predložitvenega organa, ki je določen v sodni praksi, navedeni v točkah 23 in 24 tega sklepa.
It follows from the foregoing that the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues is not a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da prud’homie de pêche de Martigues ni sodi�če v smislu člena 234 ES.
Accordingly, it must be held, applying Articles 92(1) and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that the Court clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred.
Zato je treba uporabiti člena 92(1) in 103(1) Poslovnika in ugotoviti, da Sodi�če očitno ni pristojno za odločanje o postavljenih vpra�anjih.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues, the decision on costs is a matter for that body.
Ker je ta postopek za stranki v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred prud’homie de pêche de Martigues, to odloči o stro�kih.
On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby orders:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (prvi senat) sklenilo:
The Court of Justice of the European Communities clearly has no jurisdiction to rule on the questions referred by the prud’homie de pêche de Martigues by decision of 17 December 2006.
Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti očitno ni pristojno, da bi odgovorilo na vprašanji, ki ju je postavilo prud’homie de pêche de Martigues z odločbo z dne 17. decembra 2006.
Case C-442/04
Zadeva C-442/04
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 31 January 2008 . . . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 31. januarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plea of illegality — Incidental nature (Arts 230, fifth para., EC and 241 EC)
Ugovor nezakonitosti – Posrednost (člena 230, peti odstavek, ES in 241 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-442/04
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-442/04
Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — System for the management of fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources
Ribištvo – Ohranjevanje ribolovnih virov – Sistem upravljanja ribolovnega napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi območji in viri Skupnosti
in respect of an earlier judgment if the Court did not rule in that judgment on the legality of provisions of the regulation covered by the plea of illegality but rejected the pleas on the basis of which annulment of those articles was sought on the ground that they were inadmissible.
sodbo, če Sodi�če v njej ni odločalo o zakonitosti določb navedene uredbe, na katere se nana�a ugovor nezakonitosti, temveč je zavrglo predloge za njihovo razglasitev ničnosti, ker so bili nedopustni.
The principle of res judicata extends only to matters of fact and law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question.
Načelo pravnomočnosti se namreč nana�a zgolj na dejanska in pravna vpra�anja, ki so bila dejansko ali nujno obravnavana v zadevni sodni odločbi.
A Member State may, in the course of legal proceedings, challenge the legality of a regulation against which it has not brought an action for annulment before the expiry of the timelimits laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Država članica lahko v primeru spora izpodbija zakonitost uredbe, zoper katero ni vložila ničnostne tožbe pred iztekom roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES.
Whereas, to be admissible, such a plea of illegality should, in principle, have been raised in the application, it will also be admissible if it is raised expressly only in the reply, without any pleas in law not already put forward in the application being introduced in support thereof, if it was already implicitly but clearly contained in the application.
Medtem ko je treba tak ugovor nezakonitosti načeloma podati v tožbi, da bi bil dopusten, je izrecno sklicevanje nanj le v repliki, brez navedbe drugih tožbenih razlogov v podporo navedenemu ugovoru, razen tistih, ki so že bili navedeni v tožbi, prav tako dopustno, če je že bil implicitno, toda jasno, vsebovan v tožbi.
(see paras 22-24)
(Glej točke od 22 do 24.)
A plea of illegality raised by a Member State in regard to a regulation does not infringe the principle of res judicata
Ugovor nezakonitosti neke uredbe, na katerega se sklicuje država članica, ne kr�i načela pravnomočnost, ki velja za
The principle of nondiscrimination, as laid down in Article 34(2) EC, requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently and that different situations must not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified.
Načelo enakega obravnavanja, kot je določeno v členu 34(2) ES, zahteva, naj se primerljivi položaji ne obravnavajo različno in naj se različni položaji ne obravnavajo enako, razen če je tako obravnavanje objektivno utemeljeno.
SPAIN v COUNCIL on an objective criterion, namely the fishing effort actually exerted by each Member State in the areas and fisheries concerned during a recent period of five years, and, on the other hand, the purpose of the arrangements is to conserve fisheries resources in order to ensure, according to the fourth recital in the preamble to the regulation, that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU z navedeno uredbo, je objektivno utemeljeno, ker po eni strani določa metodo ocenjevanja ribolovnega napora, ki temelji na objektivnih podatkih, in sicer na ribolovnemu naporu, ki ga dejansko opravi vsaka država članica v zadevnih območjih in za zadevne vrste ribi�tva v obdobju zadnjih petih let, in ker je po drugi stran namen tega režima prispevati k ohranjanju ribolovnih virov, tako da v skladu s četrto uvodno izjavo navedene uredbe ne pride do povečanja v skupnem obsegu obstoječega ribolovnega napora.
(see paras 35, 36, 40, 41)
(Glej točke 35, 36, 40 in 41.)
The provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 on the management of the fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources are applicable in an identical manner to all Member States. In particular, the reference period from 1998 to 2002, which serves, pursuant to those provisions, for the assessment and then for the allocation of levels of fishing effort for the fisheries and areas covered by them is the same for the whole of the European Community.
O aktu, pri katerem so bila zlorabljena pooblastila, je mogoče govoriti le takrat, kadar je na podlagi objektivnih, upo�tevnih in skladnih dejstev mogoče sklepati, da je bil njegov izključni ali vsaj odločilni namen doseči drugačne cilje, kot so tisti, ki jih navaja, ali izogniti se postopku, ki je posebej predviden s Pogodbo ES za obravnavanje okoli�čin predmetne zadeve.
Making a Member State which found itself in a different situation from the other Member States at the time that Regulation No 1954/2003 was adopted subject to the same arrangements for management of the fishing effort as the other Member States, laid down in the said regulation appears to be objectively justified inasmuch as, on the one hand, those arrangements lay down a method for assessing fishing effort which is based
1954/2003 v drugačnem položaju kot druge države članice, velja isti režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, kot je režim, ki velja za druge države članice in ki je bil določen
Neither the fact that technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine
Okoli�čina, da tehnični ukrepi za za�čito nedoraslih morskih organizmov lahko
SUMMARY — CASE C-442/04 fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-442/04 napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi območji in viri Skupnosti.
organisms may also fall within another regulation nor the fact that there may be other biologically sensitive areas shows that there has been a misuse of powers on the part of the Council in the adoption of specific fishing effort management arrangements for a biologically sensitive area in Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 on the management of the
prav tako izhajajo iz druge uredbe, in dejstvo, da lahko obstajajo druga biolo�ko občutljiva območja, ne dokazujeta, da je Svet zlorabil pooblastila s sprejetjem posebnega režima upravljanja ribolovnega napora za biolo�ko občutljivo območje v členu 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 o upravljanju ribolovnega
(see paras 49, 50)
(Glej točki 49 in 50.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALBOT delivered on 31 January 2008 1 tion was inadmissible and that the action had consequently to be dismissed. 5
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 31. januarja 2008 1 je Sodi�če s to sodbo razsodilo, da je predlog za razglasitev ničnosti dela te uredbe, ki ga je podala Kraljevina Španija, nedopusten in da je torej treba tožbo zavreči 5.
In the present action, the Kingdom of Spain is seeking the annulment of Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1415/2004 of 19 July 2004 fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for certain fishing areas and fisheries. 2
S to tožbo Kraljevina Španija predlaga razglasitev ničnosti členov od 1 do 6 Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 1415/2004 z dne 19. julija 2004 o določitvi največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za nekatera ribolovna območja in vrste ribi�tva 2.
On 2 March 2005, pending judgment in that case, the Court decided to stay proceedings in the present case.
Sodi�če je 2. marca 2005 odločilo, da prekine postopek v tej zadevi do razglasitve zgoraj navedene sodbe.
Following delivery of judgment in Spain v Council, the Kingdom of Spain applied to have the stay of proceedings lifted.
Po razglasitvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Španija proti Svetu je Kraljevina Španija predlagala, naj se postopek nadaljuje.
3 The Court dismissed the latter action by judgment of 30 March 2006 in Spain v Council. 4
2027/95 3, ki jo je Sodi�če zavrglo s sodbo z dne 30. marca 2006 v zadevi Španija proti Svetu 4.
In support of its action in the present case, the Kingdom of Spain has raised a plea of illegality, pursuant to Article 241 EC, in regard of Regulation No 1954/2003.
Kraljevina Španija se na podlagi člena 241 ES v utemeljitev te tožbe sklicuje na ugovor nezakonitosti zoper Uredbo �t. 1954/2003.
In that judgment, the Court decided that the contested provisions were not severable from the rest of Regulation No 1954/2003, that the claim submitted by the Kingdom of Spain for partial annulment of that regula-
Ker izpodbijanih določb ni bilo mogoče ločiti od preostanka Uredbe �t. 1954/2003,
In this Opinion, I will explain, first, why that plea of illegality should, in my opinion,
V teh sklepnih predlogih bom najprej razložil, zakaj menim, da je treba ta ugovor
5 — Spain v Council, paragraph 21.
5 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu (točka 21).
Regulation No 1954/2003 is one such measure.
1954/2003 predstavlja enega od takih ukrepov.
According to Article 1 thereof, that regulation ‘establishes the criteria and procedures for a system relating to the management of fishing effort in ICES areas V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X and CECAF divisions 34.1.1, 34.1.2 and 34.2.0’.
V skladu s členom 1 ta uredba „določa merila in postopke za sistem, povezan z upravljanjem ribolovnega napora v območjih ICES V, VI, VII, VIII, IX in X ter razdelkih CECAF 34.1.1, 34.1.2 in 34.2.0“.
Under Article 2(b) of Regulation No 1954/2003, ‘“fishing effort” means the product of the capacity and the activity of a fishing vessel; for a group of vessels it means the sum of fishing effort exerted by each vessel of the group’.
V skladu s členom 2(b) iste uredbe je „‚ribolovni napor‘ […] rezultat zmogljivosti in aktivnosti ribi�kega plovila; za skupino plovil je to vsota ribolovnega napora vseh plovil v skupini“.
A — Regulation No 1954/2003
A – Uredba št. 1954/2003
The second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1954/2003 states that ‘[t]he regime of access to certain areas and resources defined in Articles 156 to 166 and Articles 347 to 353 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal 7has expired on 31 December 2002.
Druga uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 določa, da je „[r]ežim dostopa do nekaterih območij in virov, opredeljen v členih od 156 do 166 in v členih od 347 do 353 Akta o pristopu Španije in Portugalske[ 7], […] prenehal veljati 31. decembra 2002.
Under Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy, 6‘the Council shall establish Community measures governing access to waters and resources and the sustainable pursuit of fishing activities’.
Na podlagi člena 4(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES) �t. 2371/2002 z dne 20. decembra 2002 o ohranjevanju in trajnostnem izkori�čanju ribolovnih virov v okviru skupne ribi�ke politike 6„Svet sprejme ukrepe Skupnosti za urejanje dostopa do voda in virov in trajnostno zasledovanje ribolovnih aktivnosti“.
Specifically, Article 4(2)(f) of that regulation mentions measures ‘limiting fishing effort’.
V odstavku 2(f) tega člena so med drugim navedeni ukrepi za „omejevanje ribolovnega napora“.
7 — Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ 1985, L 302, p. 23, in particular, p.
7 – Akt o pogojih pristopa Kraljevine Španije in Portugalske republike ter o prilagoditvah pogodb (UL 1985, L 302, str.
69 et seq.; ‘the Act of Accession’).
69 in naslednje, v nadaljevanju: Akt o pristopu).
8 — Regulation of 27 March 1995 (OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5).
8 – Uredba z dne 27. marca 1995 (UL L 71, str. 5).
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-442/04 relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources 9need to be adapted to the new legal situation’.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU ribolovnega napora v zvezi z nekaterimi ribolovnimi območji in viri Skupnosti[ 9] prilagoditi novemu pravnemu položaju“.
Within that chapter, Article 3 of the regulation, entitled ‘Measures concerning the catching of demersal species and certain molluscs and crustaceans’, is drafted in the following terms:
V tem poglavju je v členu 3, z naslovom „Ukrepi v zvezi z lovljenjem pridnenih vrst ter nekaterih mehkužcev in rakov“, določeno:
Except for the area defined in Article 6(1), Member States shall:
Razen za območje, navedeno v členu 6(1), države članice:
Those provisions are important for fisheries management and should be maintained’.
2027/95 […] vzpostavitev splo�nega sistema za upravljanje ribolovnega napora, da bi preprečili povečanje ribolovnega napora, in niso povezane z [Aktom o pristopu].
In that perspective, the fourth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1954/2003 states that ‘[i]n order to ensure that there is no increase in the overall levels of existing fishing effort, it is necessary to establish a new fishing effort management regime in [the areas set out in Article 1 of the regulation].
Četrta uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 v tem smislu določa: „Da a bi zagotovili, da ne pride do povečanja v skupnem obsegu obstoječega ribolovnega napora, je treba oblikovati nov režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora v območjih, [na�tetih v členu 1 te uredbe].
This regime shall limit fishing effort on the basis of the fishing effort deployed in these fisheries during the period 1998 to 2002’.
Ta režim omejuje ribolovni napor na podlagi ribolovnega napora, opravljenega v teh ribolovnih območjih v obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002.“
(a) assess the levels of fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or more than 15 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002, in each of the ICES areas and CECAF divisions referred to in Article 1 for demersal fisheries, excluding demersal fisheries, those covered by Council Regulation (EC) No 2347/2002 of 16 December 2002 establishing specific access requirements and associated conditions applicable to fishing for deep-sea stocks 10and fisheries for scallops, edible crab and spider crab, as laid down in the Annex to this Regulation.
(a) ocenijo obseg ribolovnega napora plovil, ki imajo celotno dolžino 15 metrov ali več, v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 v vsakem od območij ICES in razdelkov CECAF iz člena 1 v zvezi z ribi�tvom pridnenih vrst, razen ribi�tva pridnenih vrst, zajetega v Uredbi Sveta (ES) �t. 2347/2002 z dne 16. decembra 2002 o posebnih zahtevah za dostop in pogojih, povezanih s tem, ki veljajo za ribolov globokomorskih staležev[ 10], in v zvezi z ribi�tvom […] pokrovač, velikih rakovic in morskih pajkov, kakor je določeno v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
For the calculation of fishing effort the fishing capacity of a vessel shall be measured as the installed power expressed in kilowatts (kW);
Za izračun ribolovnega napora se ribolovna zmogljivost plovila izmeri glede na vgrajeno moč, izraženo v kilovatih (kW);
9 — Regulation of 15 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 199, p.
9 – Uredba z dne 15. junija 1995 (UL L 199, str.
1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 149/1999 of 19 January 1999 (OJ 1999 L 18, p. 3).
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 149/1999 z dne 19. januarja 1999 (UL L 18, str. 3).
SPAIN v COUNCIL level of fishing effort thus assessed for each of those fisheries’.
(b) razporedijo obseg ribolovnega napora, ocenjen v skladu s pododstavkom (a), v vsakem območju ICES ali razdelku CECAF glede na vsako od vrst ribi�tva, navedenih v pododstavku (a).
(b) allocate the level of fishing effort assessed conforming to [point] (a) in each ICES area or CECAF division, with regard to each of the fisheries mentioned in [point] (a).
2347/2002, in v zvezi z lovljenjem pokrovač, velikih rakovic in morskih pajkov ter razporedijo obseg ribolovnega napora, ocenjenega na ta način, glede na vsako od teh vrst ribi�tva“.
Finally, Article 11(1) of Regulation No 1954/2003 provides that on the basis of the information to be communicated to the Commission of the European Communities, the latter ‘shall submit to the Council … a proposal for a Regulation fixing the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for each area and fishery defined in Articles 3 and 6’.
Nazadnje, člen 11(1) Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 določa, da Komisija Evropskih skupnosti na podlagi podatkov, ki jih prejme od držav članic, „predloži Svetu […] predlog za uredbo o določitvi največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za vsako državo članico ter za vsako območje in vrsto ribi�tva, navedene v členih 3 in 6“.
In addition, Regulation No 1954/2003 lays down a specific effort regime for a biologically sensitive area situated off the Irish coast.
Uredba �t. 1954/2003 poleg tega določa poseben režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora za biolo�ko občutljivo območje, ki je določeno ob irski obali.
The seventh recital in the preamble to the regulation states that ‘[a]n area to the South and West of Ireland has been identified as an area of high concentration of juvenile hake.
Sedma uvodna izjava te uredbe v zvezi s tem določa, da je „[b]ilo […] ugotovljeno, da je na območju južno in zahodno od Irske visoka koncentracija nedoraslih osličev.
This area has been made subject to special restrictions on the use of demersal gear.
Na tem območju veljajo posebne omejitve glede uporabe pridnenega orodja.
For the same conservation purpose it should also be subject to specific effort limitation requirements within the general system described above …’.
Zaradi ohranitve je treba za to območje uvesti tudi posebne zahteve glede omejitve napora v okviru splo�nega sistema, opisanega zgoraj […]“.
Under the first subparagraph of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 1954/2003, ‘[t]he Council, acting by qualified majority on the proposal from the Commission, shall … decide on the maximum annual fishing effort referred to in paragraph 1’.
Na podlagi člena 11(2), prvi pododstavek, navedene uredbe „Svet določi na predlog Komisije s kvalificirano večino […] največjo dovoljeno letno količino ribolovnega napora iz odstavka 1“.
The specific effort regime which applies in that biologically sensitive area — which is precisely deflimited in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1954/2003 — is laid down in Article 6(2), which provides that ‘Member States shall assess the levels of fishing effort exerted by vessels equal to or more than 10 metres in length overall, as an annual average of the period 1998 to 2002, for demersal fisheries, excluding those covered by Regulation … No 2347/2002, and fisheries for scallops, edible crab and spider crab, and allocate the
Poseben režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, ki se uporablja za to biolo�ko občutljivo območje, ki je natančno določeno v členu 6(1) Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, je opredeljen v odstavku 2 istega člena, ki določa, da „države članice ocenijo obseg ribolovnega napora plovil celotne dolžine 10 metrov ali več v obliki letnega povprečja za obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 v zvezi z ribolovom
On the basis of that provision, the Council adopted Regulation No 1415/2004, which is the subject of the present action for annulment.
Svet je na podlagi te določbe sprejel Uredbo �t. 1415/2004, ki je predmet te ničnostne tožbe.