natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the event that they do, it is of little importance whether or not the contested directive is the last element of the necessary legislation, as the lists of safe countries could be adopted pursuant to a secondary legal basis according to a simplified procedure such as that chosen by the Council. However, the Parliament submits specifically that the naming of the safe countries comes under the competence of the Community legislature.
Če bi bili, ne bi bilo pomembno, ali je sporna direktiva zadnji del potrebne zakonodaje ali ne, saj bi bili lahko seznami varnih držav sprejeti na izvedeni pravni podlagi po poenostavljenem postopku, kot je ta, ki ga je uporabil Svet.
balance, must be subject to review by the Court, whose task it is to safeguard that institutional balance.
torej zlasti obseg sodelovanja Parlamenta pri postopku odločanja, ki torej vpliva na institucionalno ravnovesje, je samoumevno, da mora nad njegovo razlago in uporabo imeti nadzor Sodi�če, katerega naloga je ohranjati tako institucionalno ravnovesje.
9An examination of the merits of the pleas of lack of competence and infringement of the Treaty submitted by the Parliament does not, however, mean that the respective arguments have to be dealt with by determining whether the establishment or even the amendment of the lists of safe countries forms part of the necessary legislation or whether the contested directive constitutes its culmination.
9Vendar pa za preizkus utemeljenosti tožbenih razlogov, ki se nana�ajo na nepristojnost in kr�itev Pogodbe, ki jih zatrjuje Parlament, ni potrebna zavrnitev njihovih utemeljitev z ugotovitvijo, ali sprejetje oziroma celo sprememba seznamov varnih držav spada pod potrebno zakonodajo ali pa sporna direktiva pomeni njen zaključek.
It suffices to point out that in any event the contested secondary legal bases provide for a decision-making process which derogates from that laid down in Article 67(5) EC, irrespective of the situation.
Zadostuje namreč poudariti, da izpodbijane izvedene pravne podlage vsekakor določajo postopek odločanja, ki odstopa od postopka, določenega v členu 67(5) ES, ne glede na situacijo.
The contested provisions provide for decisions to be taken by the Council by a qualified majority after consultation of the Parliament.
Izpodbijane odločbe urejajo odločanje Sveta s kvalificirano večino po posvetovanju s Parlamentom.
Article 67(5) EC for its part lays down that the necessary legislation is to be adopted unanimously by the Council after consulting the Parliament and, once that legislation has been laid down, it provides for co-decision in respect of the adoption of subsequent acts.
Člen 67(5) ES določa, da Svet po posvetovanju s Parlamentom soglasno sprejme potrebno zakonodajo, in tedaj ko je ta sprejeta, je za sprejetje poznej�ih aktov določeno soodločanje.
Consequently, if the contested directive is considered to constitute the final stage of the necessary legislation, the naming the safe countries should take place by way of co-decision; if that is not the case and the naming of the safe countries still forms part of the necessary legislation, this should be done by the Council acting unanimously after consulting the Parliament.
Zato je treba – ob predpostavki, da je sporna direktiva zadnja stopnja potrebne zakonodaje – varne države poimensko določiti po postopku soodločanja; če to ni tako in je poimenska določitev varnih držav �e vedno del potrebne zakonodaje, mora o tem soglasno odločiti Svet po posvetovanju s Parlamentom.
Does the naming of safe countries not fall under the heading of executive rather than legislative matters?
Ali ne spada poimenska določitev varnih držav bolj na izvr�ilno področje kot na zakonodajno?
Measures which set out the ‘basic elements of the matter to be dealt
Znano je, da so zakonodajni ukrepi tisti, ki določajo „bistvene elemente
In other words, the only important question is that of establishing whether the Council may lawfully, in a legislative measure which it adopts in compliance with the
Drugače povedano, edino pomembno je ugotoviti, ali lahko Svet z zakonodajnim
10 — Subject to certain conditions, see points 20 and 21 below of this Opinion.
10 – S pridržkom spo�tovanja določenih pogojev: glej točki 20 in 21 teh sklepnih predlogov.
11 — See to that effect for example Case C-303/94 Parliament v Council [1996] ECR I-2943, paragraph 23.
9 – Glej sodbo z dne 22. maja 1990 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (C-70/88, Recueil, str. I-2041, točke od 21 do 23).
9 — See Case C-70/88 Parliament v Council [1990] ECR I-2041, paragraphs 21 to 23.
11 – V tem smislu glej na primer sodbo z dne 18. junija 1996 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (C-303/94, Recueil, str. I-2943, točka 23).
In so far as the naming of safe countries must be carried out in accordance with the criteria laid down in the contested directive, more specifically in Annex II thereto so far as concerns the identification of safe third countries and in Article 36(2) thereof as regards the determination of European safe countries, can it still be considered to be one of ‘the basic elements of the matter to be dealt with’, that is, one of the basic elements of the minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting or withdrawing refugee status within the meaning of Article 63(1)(d) EC?
Če je treba varne države poimensko določiti ob uporabi meril, določenih v sporni direktivi, natančneje v njeni prilogi II za določitev varnih tretjih držav in v njenem členu 36(2) za varne evropske države, ali lahko menimo, da to �e spada pod „bistvene elemente področja, ki ga je treba urediti“, to pomeni bistvene elemente minimalnih pravil o postopku podelitve ali odvzema statusa begunca v smislu člena 63, prvi odstavek, točka 1(d), ES?
Even if all the parties to the proceedings before the Court agree to regard the lists of safe countries as measures of a legislative nature, there may be cause for hesitation.
Čeprav se vse stranke v postopku pred Sodi�čem strinjajo, da se seznami varnih držav zdijo kot zakonodajni akti, pa vseeno obstajajo razlogi za oklevanje.
In support of categorisation as implementing measures, it must be pointed out that both in the Commission’s initial
V utemeljitev opredelitve kot izvr�ilni ukrepi bom poudaril, da je tako v prvotnem predlogu Komisije 13kot tudi v njegovem spremenjenem predlogu 14naloga držav
14 proposal and in its amended proposal, it fell to the Member States to designate the safe countries on the basis of the criteria laid
12 – Sodba z dne 17. decembra 1970 v zadevi Köster (25/70, Recueil, str.
12 — Case 25/70 Köster [1970] ECR 1161, paragraph 6; see also Case C-240/90 Germany v Commission [1992] ECR I-5383, paragraph 36.
1161, točka 6); glej dalje sodbo z dne 27. oktobra 1992 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-240/90, Recueil, str. I-5383, točka 36).
down in the directive.
članic, da na podlagi meril iz Direktive določijo varne države.
The Member States are in principle responsible for the implementation of Community law.
Vendar pa so države članice načeloma zadolžene za izvr�evanje prava Skupnosti.
Conversely, although the criteria for designation appear in the directive, the fact that the Council finally decided to adopt common lists of safe countries for the purpose of approximating the existing national lists and providing national legal systems which have not yet adopted measures to that effect with minimum lists militates in favour of categorisation as a legislative measure.
Čeprav so merila za določitev navedena v Direktivi, pa nasprotno v prid opredelitvi kot zakonodajni akt govori dejstvo, da se je Svet končno izrekel za sprejetje skupnih seznamov varnih držav; učinek tega je bil, da so se obstoječi nacionalni seznami približali in da so bili minimalni seznami dani nacionalnim pravnim redom, ki ukrepov v tem smislu �e niso sprejeli.
The fact that the Council wished initially to incorporate the lists of safe countries in the contested directive and abandoned that idea only on account of the difficulty of reaching an agreement on those lists without delaying overmuch the adoption of the directive also militates in favour of that categorisation.
V prid tej opredelitvi je tudi dejstvo, da je Svet prvotno želel vključiti seznama varnih držav v sporno direktivo in je to namero samo zaradi težav pri doseganju soglasja o teh seznamih opustil, da ne bi preveč zavlekel sprejetja te direktive.
15Finally, the scope of the consequences attached to those lists supports that view.
15V prid temu je tudi obseg posledic, ki se navezujejo na te sezname.
In the context of asylum application procedures, the use of those lists determines the way in which the national authorities will deal with a large part of the applications and decides the extent of the procedural guarantees provided for by the directive.
V okviru postopkov za pro�nje za azil uporaba teh seznamov določa način, kako nacionalni organi obravnavajo veliko pro�enj, in odloča o obsegu postopkovnih jamstev, določenih v Direktivi.
Pursuant to Article 25 of the directive, Member States may consider an application for asylum inadmissible and, therefore, are not required to examine whether the applicant qualifies as a refugee if that applicant comes from a safe third country; that presumption of the safety of that country is however rebuttable if the applicant presents serious counter-indica-tions.
V skladu s členom 25 lahko namreč države članice �tejejo pro�njo za azil za nedopustno in zato niso dolžne preveriti, ali prosilec izpolnjuje pogoje, ki so potrebni, da se mu prizna status begunca, če ta prosilec prihaja iz tretje države; vendar se ta domneva varnosti te države lahko zavrne, če prosilec predloži resne nasprotne dokaze.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 36 of the directive, Member States may carry out no, or no full, examination of the asylum application where the applicant has entered or is seeking to enter illegally into its territory from a European safe third country.
Poleg tega se v skladu s členom 36 države članice lahko izognejo obravnavanju pro�nje za azil ali jo obravnavajo le delno, kadar je prosilec nezakonito vstopil ali posku�a nezakonito vstopiti na njihovo ozemlje iz varne tretje evropske države.
Moreover, the Council justifies consultation of the European Parliament, first, in respect of the establishment and amendment of the lists of safe third countries, on the ground
Svet utemeljuje posvetovanje z Evropskim parlamentom po eni strani glede sprejetja in spremembe seznamov varnih tretjih držav s „političnim pomenom takega postopka in �e posebej s posledicami ocene spo�tovanja človekovih pravic v izvorni državi in vpliva take ocene na politiko Evropske unije na področju zunanjih zadev“ in po drugi strani glede označitve
13 — See Articles 21 and 30 of the Proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status of 20 September 2000, OJ 2001 C 62 E, p. 231.
13 – Glej člena 21 in 30 predloga Direktive Sveta z dne 20. septembra 2000 o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah (UL 2001, C 62 E, str. 231).
14 — See Articles 27 and 30 of the amended Proposal for a Council directive on minimum standards on procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status of 3 July 2002, OJ 2002 C 291 E, p. 143.
14 – Glej člena 27 in 30 spremenjenega predloga Direktive Sveta z dne 3. julija 2002 o minimalnih standardih glede postopkov za priznanje ali odvzem statusa begunca v državah članicah (UL C 291 E, str. 142).
15 — See paragraphs 9 to 11 of its defence.
15 – Glej točke od 9 do 11 odgovora na tožbo.
18 That is borne grounds for such a decision’.
Svet „pridrži, da neposredno izvaja svoje pristojnosti izvr�evanja le v posebnih primerih, pri čemer mora to odločitev podrobno obrazložiti“.
16 in specific and substantiated cases where the basic instrument reserves to the Council the right to exercise directly certain implementing powers itself, such powers shall be conferred on the Commission in accordance with the relevant provisions in the basic instrument’.
„[so ta pooblastila] razen v posebnih in utemeljenih primerih, kadar si Svet v skladu s temeljnim aktom pridrži pravico, da določena izvedbena pooblastila neposredno uresničuje sam, […] podeljena Komisiji v skladu z ustreznimi določbami temeljnega akta“.
In other words, the Council ‘must properly explain’ the reservation of implementing power ‘by reference to the nature and content of the basic instrument to be implemented or amended’.
Z drugimi besedami, Svet je „dolžan natančno utemeljiti“ pridržek pri izvr�evanju „glede na naravo in vsebino temeljnega akta, ki ga izvaja ali spreminja“.
20It must therefore show that the nature and content of the implementing power are specific in character, so that it may reserve the right to exercise that power as an exception to the principle that the Commission has the relevant competence. 21
20 Dokazati mora torej, da sta narava in vsebina pristojnosti za izvr�evanje tako posebni, da si lahko pridrži izvajanje z izjemo od načelne pristojnosti Komisije na tem področju. 21
It is true that, in view of Case C-257/01 Commission v Council, one may well wonder whether the designation of safe countries as far as asylum is concerned constitutes a specific case which may be the subject of a reservation of implementing powers.
Seveda bi se ob upo�tevanju zadeve Komisija proti Svetu z dne 18. januarja 2005 lahko vpra�ali, ali označitev varnih držav na področju azila pomeni poseben primer, za katerega bi lahko veljal pridržek izvr�evanja.
If, in fact, the contested provisions should be regarded as a reservation of implementing powers, it would be evident that there was
V primeru, v katerem bi bilo treba v
18 — Ibid., paragraph 50; see Case 16/88 Commission v Council [1989] ECR 3457, paragraph 10.
18 – Ibid., točka 50; glej sodbo z dne 24. oktobra 1989 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (16/88, Recueil, str. 3457, točka 10).
It is, however, not necessary to resolve that question in the present case.
Vendar pa v obravnavanem primeru ni treba odločiti.
Even if the naming of safe countries were not to constitute part of the ‘basic elements of the matter to be dealt with’ and the contested provisions were to be regarded as a reservation of implementing powers, it must be agreed that they do not comply with the conditions governing legality.
Ob predpostavki, da poimenska določitev varnih držav ni del „bistvenih elementov področja, ki ga je treba urediti“ in da izpodbijane določbe preučimo kot pridržek pristojnosti izvajanja, bi se bilo treba strinjati, da ta ne spo�tuje pogojev za zakonitost.
Since the amendments made to Article 145 EC (now Article 202 EC) by the Single European Act, under the third indent of Article 202 EC, read in conjunction with the fourth indent of Article 211 EC, there is a ‘rule that, under the system established by the Treaty, when measures implementing a basic instrument need to be taken at Community level, it is the Commission which, in the normal course of events, is responsible for exercising that power’.
Po spremembah, ki jih je prinesel Enotni evropski akt k členu 145 ES (ki je postal člen 202 ES), naj spomnim, da iz člena 202, tretja alinea, ES v povezavi s čle -nom 211, četrta alinea, ES izhaja „pravilo, po katerem je v sistemu Pogodbe naloga Komisije, da po navadi izvaja to pristojnost, ko je treba na ravni Skupnosti sprejeti ukrepe za izvajanje temeljnega akta“.
17Together with the general obligation to state reasons laid down by Article 253 EC, this means that the Council ‘may reserve the right to exercise implementing powers directly only in specific cases, and it must state in detail the
17 Ob združitvi s splo�no obveznostjo obrazložitve, določeno v členu 253 ES, iz tega sledi, da si lahko
19 — Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (OJ 1999 L 184, p. 23).
19 – Sklep Sveta z dne 28. junija 1999 o določitvi postopkov za uresničevanje Komisiji podeljenih izvedbenih pooblastil, UL L 184, str. 23.
20 — Commission v Council, paragraph 51.
20 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Komisija proti Svetu, točka 51.
16 — Recitals 19 and 24 in the preamble to Directive 2005/85.
16 – Devetnajsta in �tiriindvajseta uvodna izjava Direktive 2005/85.
17 — Case C-257/01 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-345, paragraph 51.
21 – Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec Léger, mora biti v obrazložitvi navedeno, „zakaj je pomembno, da [Svet], in ne Komisija, izjemoma izvr�uje“ zadevno pooblastilo za izvajanje (sklepni predlogi k zgoraj navedeni sodbi Komisija proti Svetu, točka 54).
a clear failure to provide any justification.
izpodbijanih določbah videti pridržek izvedbenih pooblastil, bi bilo vseeno treba ugotoviti to, da ni nobene obrazložitve.
Recitals 19 and 24 in the preamble to the contested directive are not conducive in any way to justifying such a reservation, but on the contrary, as I stated above, 22give grounds for consultation of the Parliament in respect of the establishment of the lists and the amendments to be made to them.
Razlogi, opisani v devetnajsti in �tiriindvajseti uvodni izjavi sporne direktive, nikakor ne utemeljujejo podobnega pridržka, temveč nasprotno, kot sem že poudaril, 22 utemeljujejo posvetovanje s Parlamentom o sprejetju seznamov in o njihovih spremembah.
Is it possible to adopt legislative measures on a legal basis which is provided for, not in the original legislation, but in secondary legislation, following a procedure laid down by the latter which is simplified in relation to that provided for by the former?
Ali je mogoče sprejeti zakonodajne akte na pravni podlagi, ki ni določena v primarnem, temveč v sekundarnem pravu, po postopku, ki ga ta določa in ki je poenostavljen glede na postopek, ki ga določa primarno pravo?
That is the fundamental legal issue in this case.
Tak je bistveni pravni problem te zadeve.
The issue is none other than that of the permissibility, under the Community institutional system, of delegations of legislative power.
To vpra�anje se ne razlikuje od vpra�anja o dopustnosti prenosa zakonodajnih pooblastil v institucionalnem sistemu Skupnosti.
It could, indeed, still be contended that even if the naming of safe countries does fall under the heading of executive matters, the Council had no intention, by the contested provisions, of reserving to itself implementing power.
Seveda je res, da bi bilo mogoče �e vedno nasprotovati, da ob predpostavki, da poimenska določitev varnih držav spada na izvr�ilno področje, Svet nikakor ni imel namena, da bi si z izpodbijanimi določbami pridržal pristojnost za izv�evanje.
On the contrary, it wished to raise that matter qua legislator in order to deal with it under a simplified procedure founded on a secondary legal basis.
Nasprotno naj bi želel načeti to vpra�anje kot zakonodajalec, da bi ga obravnaval po poenostavljenem postopku na podlagi izvedene pravne podlage.
While some national legal systems acknowledge the possibility that the legislature may encroach upon the executive sphere, others, conversely, grant to the executive power an exclusive and protected sphere of competence, just as they ensure that the law has its own sphere.
Znano je, da je v nekaterih nacionalnih pravnih redih priznana možnost poseganja zakonodajalca na izvr�ilno področje, medtem ko je v drugih, nasprotno, izvr�ilni oblasti podeljena izključna in varovana pristojnost, tako kot so lahko tudi z zakonom urejena samo določena področja.
The Community institutional system does not in principle prohibit the legislature from going beyond regulation of the basic elements of a matter and adopting provisions that are executive in nature.
Institucionalni sistem Skupnosti a priori ne prepoveduje, da gre zakonodajalec preko urejanja bistvenih elementov na nekem področju in sprejema izvr�ilne določbe.
However, it is again not necessary to comment here on whether it is permissible under Community law for the legislature to encroach on executive matters.
Vendar tu ni treba zavzeti stali�ča o dopustnosti v pravu Skupnosti, da zakonodajalec posega na izvr�ilno področje.
Even if it were necessary to analyse
Ob predpostavki, da bi bilo namreč treba �teti izpodbijane določbe za
22 — See above, point 19 of this Opinion.
22 – Glej zgoraj točko 19 teh sklepnih predlogov.
Some national legal systems sanction the possibility of delegating legislative power.
Nekateri nacionalni pravni sistemi določajo možnost prenosa zakonodajnih pooblastil.
Such is, for example, the case of France with Article 38 of the Constitution of 4 October 1958 27or of Italy with Article 76 of the Constitution of 27 December 1947.
Tako je na primer v Franciji prenos opravljen s členom 38 ustave z dne 4. oktobra 1958 27in Italiji s členom 76 ustave z dne 27. decembra 1947.
It must, however, be emphasised that very often such delegation can relate only to certain legislative matters, as is illustrated by Article 82 of the Spanish Constitution of 27 December 1978 or Articles 164 and 165 of the Portuguese Constitution of 2 April 1976.
Vseeno pa je treba poudariti, da pogosto taki prenosi lahko veljajo le za določena zakonodajna področja, kot npr. člen 82 �panske ustave z dne 27. decembra 1978 ali člena 164 in 165 portugalske ustave z dne 2. aprila 1976.
Council on the basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 37 EC), provided in Article 19 thereof for the adoption by the Council by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the Commission, of the general rules for a beef-labelling system to apply as from 1 January 2000.
820/97 z dne 21. aprila 1997 o uvedbi sistema za identifikacijo in registracijo govedi ter označevanju govedine in izdelkov iz govedine, 24 ki jo je Svet sprejel na podlagi člena 43 Pogodbe ES (ki je po spremembi postal člen 37 ES), je v členu 19 določala, da Svet s kvalificirano večino na predlog Komisije sprejme splo�na pravila označevanja govedine, ki veljajo od 1. januarja 2000.
On that basis, the Council had adopted a regulation, which was challenged by the Parliament on the ground of the illegality of the secondary legal basis; this the Council claimed, permitted the adoption, by means of a simplified decision-making procedure which did not provide for consultation of the European Parliament, not of an implementing measure, but of a legislative act within the context of the common agricultural policy, ignoring Article 37 EC.
Na tej podlagi je Svet sprejel uredbo, ki jo je Parlament izpodbijal zaradi nezakonitosti izvedene pravne podlage, po kateri je bilo mogoče po poenostavljenem postopku odločanja, ki ne predvideva posvetovanja z Evropskim parlamentom, sprejeti zakonodajni akt v okviru skupne kmetijske politike, in ne izvedbenega ukrepa, ne glede na člen 37 ES.
Pointing out that the contested regulation did not contain general rules for a compulsory beef-labelling system but aimed to prolong the optional labelling system beyond 31 December 1999, the Court concluded that this was not covered by the powers conferred by the basic regulation and that the regulation sought in fact to amend that basic regulation.
Poudarjajoč, da izpodbijana uredba ni vsebovala splo�nih pravil obveznega sistema označevanja govedine, ampak je bil njen namen podalj�anje prostovoljnega sistema označevanja po 31. decembru 1999, je Sodi�če iz tega sklepalo, da zanjo ne velja pooblastilo, ki ga daje temeljna uredba, in da v resnici namerava slednjo spremeniti.
It held that the basic regulation ‘could only be amended on a legal basis equivalent to that on which it had been adopted, that is to say, on the basis of the Treaty itself, and in conformity with the decision-making process provided for by the Treaty’.
Presodilo je, da se sprememba temeljne uredbe „lahko uvede samo na temelju pravne podlage, ki je enakovredna tisti, na temelju katere je bila sprejeta, to pomeni na temelju same Pogodbe in ob spo�tovanju postopka odločanja, ki je v njej določen“.