natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the appellants seek fair compensation for the unreasonable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnici nazadnje predlagata, naj se jima dodeli pravična od�kodnina zaradi nerazumnega trajanja postopka na prvi stopnji.
Fedon’s request can be dismissed easily on the basis of Article 112(1)(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice on the ground of inadmissibility, being devoid of any statement of grounds.
Predlog družbe FEDON je mogoče na podlagi člena 112(1)(c) Poslovnika Sodi�ča enostavno zavrniti zaradi nedopustnosti, ker v njem niso navedeni nobeni razlogi.
OPINION OF MR POIARES MADURO — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P require that the breach of procedure before the Court of First Instance be of such consequence in order for it to be raised; it merely requires that it ‘adversely affects the interests of the appellant’.
Sodi�čem prve stopnje takega obsega, da bi se jo lahko očitalo, zahteva le, da „�koduje interesom pritožnika“.
That indeed appears to be the case, as the length of the proceedings contributed to increasing the size of the appellant’s debt.
Kot kaže, je tako v tem primeru, saj je dolžina sojenja prispevala k temu, da se je dolg pritožnice povečal.
Although in the case of a procedural irregularity based on the excessive length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance the condition that the appellant’s interests be adversely affected has sometimes been interpreted as requiring that the irregularity have an impact on the outcome of the dispute, that has occurred solely where the plea based on that irregularity was raised in support of claims for the setting aside of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
In čeprav se je včasih, ko je �lo za kr�itev postopka zaradi predolgega sojenja Sodi�ča prve stopnje, pogoj glede �kodovanja interesov pritožnika razlagal, kot da zahteva, da je ta kr�itev vplivala na re�itev spora, pa je bilo to vsekakor le takrat, kadar je bilo pritožbeno sredstvo zaradi te kr�itve navajano v utemeljitev predlogov z namenom razveljavitve sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
82In the present case, this plea is raised only in order to obtain fair compensation.
82V obravnavanem primeru pa je to pritožbeno sredstvo navajano z namenom pridobitve pravične od�kodnine.
There remains the request from FIAMM, which states that the Court of First Instance took almost five years and nine months to deliver judgment in its case, and hence alleges infringement of the right to a judicial decision within a reasonable period, which is a constituent of the right to fair legal process enshrined in Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights and safeguarded in the Community legal system as a general principle of law.
Ostane predlog družbe FIAMM, ki ob navajanju, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje potrebovalo skoraj pet let in devet mesecev, da je o njeni zadevi odločilo, zatrjuje kr�itev pravice do sojenja v razumnem roku, ki je del pravice do po�tenega sojenja, opredeljene v členu 6(1) Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin in zagotovljene v pravnem redu Skupnosti kot splo�no pravno načelo.
The appellant relies for that purpose on Baustahlgewebe v Commission, 81in which the Court of Justice recognised that right to be applicable to cases before the Court of First Instance and, as a consequence, agreed to hear on appeal a plea claiming irregularity of the procedure before the Court of First Instance in view of the proceedings’ allegedly unreasonable duration.
Pritožnica se v ta namen opira tudi na sodbo Baustahlgewebe 81, v kateri je Sodi�če priznalo veljavo te pravice v postopkih Sodi�ča prve stopnje in zato sprejelo, da na podlagi pritožbe odloči o pritožbenem razlogu glede kr�itve postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, ki se nana�a trajanje, ki naj bi bilo nerazumno.
It considers the period to judgment to be excessive, given the clarity of the questions of fact, the fact that the conduct of none of the parties had contributed to prolonging the procedure and the fact that the Court of First Instance did not have to deal with exceptional circumstances.
Meni, da je trajanje sojenja predolgo, če se upo�teva jasnost dejanskega stanja, okoli�čine, da nobena od strank ni zavlačevala postopka, in dejstva, da se Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni bilo treba ukvarjati z izjemnimi okoli�činami.
The appellant maintains that this procedural irregularity has harmed its interests in that, as a result of the loans raised to pay the increased customs duties, it is now heavily in debt and has been forced to negotiate the sale of the majority of its share capital to an investment fund in exchange for the assumption of its bank debt.
Zaradi te kr�itve postopka naj bi nastala kr�itev njenih interesov, ker je bila zaradi sklenjenih posojil, da bi plačala dodatne carinske dajatve, od tedaj zelo zadolžena in prisiljena pogajati se za odstop večine kapitala investicijskemu skladu v zameno za prevzem dolga pri bankah.
In contrast, claims seeking fair compensation must be treated as demanding reparation of the damage due to the unreasonable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
V nasprotju s tem pa je treba na predloge, katerih namen je pridobitev pravične od�kodnine, gledati kot na zahtevo za povračilo �kode, nastalo zaradi nerazumnega trajanja postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
The claim made by the appellant in Baustahlgewebe v Commission for a reduction in the fine imposed by the Commission and confirmed by the Court of First Instance — a claim based on the unreasonable time taken to reach judgment in that case before the Court of First Instance — was indeed also treated as a request for compensation.
Sicer pa je to tako kot od�kodninski zahtevek, kjer se je analiziral zahtevek tožeče stranke v zadevi Baustahlgewebe, katerega namen je bil znižanje zneska globe, ki jo je naložila Komisija in jo je potrdilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, zahtevek, ki je temeljil na nerazumnem trajanju sojenja pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
83 Although ‘for reasons of economy of procedure and in order to ensure an immediate and effective remedy regarding
83In čeprav je „zaradi sistematike postopka in da bi se zagotovila takoj�nja in
In defence, the Commission again pleads first that the plea is inadmissible and, to that end, states in particular that the alleged procedural irregularity had no effect on the outcome of the dispute.
V obrambo se Komisija tudi tu sklicuje najprej na nedopustnost pritožbenega sredstva in v ta namen zlasti zatrjuje, da zatrjevana kr�itev postopka ni vplivala na re�itev spora.
However, Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not
Vendar pa člen 58 Statuta Sodi�ča ne zahteva, da mora biti kr�itev postopka pred
82 — See Baustahlgewebe v Commission, paragraph 49, and the order in Case C-39/00 P SGA v Commission [2000] ECR I-11201, paragraph 46.
82 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji (točka 49) in sklep z dne 13. decembra 2000 v zadevi SGA proti Komisiji (C-39/00 P, Recueil, str. I-11201, točka 46).
83 — See the analysis by Advocate General Léger in his Opinion in Baustahlgewebe v Commission, points 46 to 76.
83 – Glej analizo generalnega pravobranilca Légerja v sklepnih predlogih v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji (točke od 46 do 76).
81 — Case C-185/95 P [1998] ECR I-8417.
81 – Sodba z dne 17. decembra 1998 (C-185/95 P, Recueil, str. I-8417).
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION a procedural irregularity of that kind’ 84the Court of Justice nevertheless upheld the appellant’s submissions and agreed to deduct the amount of compensation from the fine, it is sufficient to note that in any case such a set-off is not possible in the present case.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI učinkovita pomoč za tako kr�itev postopka“ 84Sodi�če vseeno ugodilo predlogom pritožnice in dopustilo, da se od zneska kazni od�teje znesek od�kodnine, pa zadostuje ugotovitev, da taka logika nadomestila v obravnavanem primeru nikakor ni mogoča.
The claims for fair compensation therefore had to be made before the Court of Justice 85in an action for noncontractual liability based on Articles 235 EC and 288 EC, which has to be brought against the institution or institutions whose conduct caused the damage.
Predlogi za dodelitev pravične od�kodnine bi torej morali biti predloženi Sodi�ču 85 v okviru tožbe zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti na podlagi členov 235 ES in 288 ES, ki mora biti vložena proti instituciji ali
84 — Baustahlgewebe v Commission, paragraph 48.
84 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji (točka 48).
85 — I endorse the arguments presented by Advocate General Léger (Opinion in Baustahlgewebe v Commission, points 66 to 71) as regards the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice to hear such an action, and not the Court of First Instance.
86 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Werhahn Hansamühle in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji (točka 7).
86 — See Werhahn Hansamühle and Others v Council and Commission, paragraph 7.
85 – Glede pristojnosti Sodi�ča in ne Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da odloča o taki tožbi, se pridružujem trditvam, ki jih je predstavil generalni pravobranilec Léger (sklepni predlogi v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Baustahlgewebe proti Komisiji točke od 66 do 71).
In the light of all the grounds I have just stated, I propose that the Court should:
Ob upo�tevanju razlogov, ki sem jih predstavil, predlagam Sodi�ču:
— set aside the judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 FIAMM and FIAMM Technol­ogies v Council and Commission and Case T-135/01 Fedon & Figli and Others v I - 6547
– da razveljavi sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 14. decembra 2005 v zadevi FIAMM in FIAMM Technologies proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-69/01) in Fedon & Figli in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-135/01) zaradi nepravilne I - 6547
Council and Commission on the ground that they are vitiated by an error of law consisting in a misinterpretation of the concept of unusual damage and refer the cases back to the Court of First Instance; and
POIARESA MADURA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P uporabe prava, ker je bil pojem neobičajne �kode napačno razložen, in da zadevi vrne v odločanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje, in
(FIAMM Technologies) and of Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. seeking fair compensation are inadmissible. I - 6548
(FIAMM Technologies) ter Fedon & Figli SpA in Fedon America Inc. za pridobitev pravične od�kodnine razglasi za nedopustne. I - 6548
9 September 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 9. septembra 2008 *
TWO APPEALS under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 24 and 27 February 2006 respectively,
V združenih zadevah C-120/06 P in C-121/06 P, zaradi dveh pritožb na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki sta ju 24. in 27. februarja 2006 vložili
JUDGMENT OF 9. 9.
SODBA Z DNE 9. 9.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the other parties to the proceedings being:
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI druge stranke v postopku so
Kingdom of Spain, represented by M. Muñoz Pérez, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, intervener on appeal (C-121/06 P),
Kraljevine Španije, ki jo zastopa M. Muñoz Pérez, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, intervenientka v pritožbenem postopku (C-121/06 P),
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 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 3 July 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 February 2008, gives the following
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 3. julija 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 20. februarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
By their appeals, Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC (together referred to as ‘FIAMM’) and Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. (together referred to as ‘Fedon’) respectively request the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 December 2005 in Case T-69/00 FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commis­sion [2005] ECR II-5393 (Case C-120/06 P) and the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2005 in Case T-135/01 Fedon & Figli and Others v Council and Commission (Case C-121/06 P). By those judgments (‘the FIAMM judgment’ and ‘the Fedon judgment’ respectively or, together, ‘the judgments under appeal’), the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions brought by FIAMM and Fedon seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by them on account of the increased customs duty which the Dispute Settlement Body (‘the DSB’) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) authorised the United States of America to levy on imports of their products, following a finding by the DSB that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with the agreements and understandings annexed to the Agreement establishing the WTO. I - 6552
Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA in Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC (v nadaljevanju skupaj: FIAMM), na eni strani, ter Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA in Fedon America, Inc. (v nadaljevanju skupaj: Fedon), na drugi strani, s pritožbama zahtevajo razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 14. decembra 2005 v zadevi FIAMM in FIAMM Technologies proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-69/00, ZOdl., str. II-5393) (zadeva C-120/06 P) in razveljavitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 14. decembra 2005 v zadevi Fedon & Figli in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-135/01) (zadeva C-121/06 P). S tema sodbama (v nadaljevanju: sodba FIAMM oziroma sodba Fedon, ali skupaj: izpodbijani sodbi) je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo tožbi družb FIAMM in Fedon za povračilo �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpeli zaradi dodatnih carinskih dajatev, ki so jih uvedli ameri�ki organi na uvoz njihovih proizvodov in jih je odobril organ za re�evanje sporov (v nadaljevanju: ORS) Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO), potem ko je ORS ugotovil, da skupnostna ureditev uvoza banan ni združljiva s sporazumi in dogovori, priloženimi k sporazumu o ustanovitvi STO. I - 6552
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 8 August 2006, the Kingdom of Spain was granted leave to intervene in support of the forms of order sought by the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities in Case C-121/06 P.
S sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 8. avgusta 2006 je bilo Kraljevini Španiji dovoljeno, da intervenira v podporo predlogom Sveta Evropske unije in Komisije Evropskih skupnosti v zadevi C-121/06 P.
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 12 April 2007, Cases C-120/06 P and C-121/06 P were joined for the purposes of the oral procedure and the judgment.
Zadevi C-120/06 P in C-121/06 P sta bili s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 12. aprila 2007 združeni za namene ustnega postopka in izdaje sodbe.
The WTO agreements
Sporazumi STO
By Decision 94/800/EC of 22 December 1994 concerning the conclusion on behalf of the European Community, as regards matters within its competence, of the agreements reached in the Uruguay Round multilateral negotiations (1986-94) (OJ 1994 L 336, p.
Svet je s Sklepom 94/800/ES z dne 22. decembra 1994 o sklenitvi sporazumov, doseženih v Urugvajskem krogu večstranskih pogajanj (1986–1994) v imenu Evropske skupnosti v zvezi z zadevami, ki so v njeni pristojnosti (UL L 336, str.
1), the Council approved the Agreement establishing the WTO and the agreements in Annexes 1 to 4 to that agreement (‘the WTO agreements’).
1), odobril Sporazum o ustanovitvi STO ter sporazume v prilogah 1, 2, 3 in 4 tega sporazuma (v nadaljevanju: sporazumi STO).
Article 3(2) and (7) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (‘the DSU’), which forms Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, provides:
Člen 3(2) in (7) Dogovora o pravilih in postopkih za re�evanje sporov (v nadaljevanju: DPPRS), ki je del priloge 2 k Sporazumu o ustanovitvi STO, določa:
The dispute settlement system of the WTO is a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system.
Sistem za re�evanje sporov v [STO] je osrednja prvina pri zagotavljanju varnosti in napovedljivosti večstranskega trgovinskega sistema. Članice priznavajo, da je
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P that it serves to preserve the rights and obligations of Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P namenjen ohranjanju pravic in obveznosti članic po zajetih sporazumih ter pojasnjevanju obstoječih določb teh sporazumov v skladu z običajnimi pravili razlage mednarodnega javnega prava.
Recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.
Priporočila in sklepi [ORS] ne morejo povečati ali zmanj�ati pravic in obveznosti, določenih v zajetih sporazumih.
Before bringing a case, a Member shall exercise its judgement as to whether action under these procedures would be fruitful.
Pred predložitvijo zadeve članica presodi, ali bi bilo ukrepanje po teh postopkih uspe�no.
The aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to secure a positive solution to a dispute.
Namen mehanizma za re�evanje sporov je zagotoviti pozitivno re�itev spora.
A solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and consistent with the covered agreements is clearly to be preferred.
Jasno je, da je najbolj�a re�itev tista, ki je sprejemljiva za vse stranke v sporu skupaj in je skladna z zajetimi sporazumi.
In the absence of a mutually agreed solution, the first objective of the dispute settlement mechanism is usually to secure the withdrawal of the measures concerned if these are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of any of the covered agreements.
Če medsebojno dogovorjene re�itve ni, je običajno prvi cilj mehanizma za re�evanje sporov zagotoviti umik določenih ukrepov, če se ugotovi, da niso v skladu z določbami katerega koli od zajetih sporazumov.
The provision of compensation should be resorted to only if the immediate withdrawal of the measure is impracticable and as a temporary measure pending the withdrawal of the measure which is inconsistent with a covered agreement.
Zagotovitev nadomestila naj bo samo sredstvo v sili, če takoj�nji umik ukrepa ni izvedljiv, ter samo kot začasni ukrep do umika ukrepa, ki ni v skladu z zajetim sporazumom.
The last resort which this Understanding provides to the Member invoking the dispute settlement procedures is the possibility of suspending the application of concessions or other obligations under the covered agreements on a discriminatory basis vis-à-vis the other Member, subject to authorisation by the DSB of such measures.’
Zadnje sredstvo, ki ga članici, ki uveljavlja postopke za re�evanje spora, ta sporazum zagotavlja, je možnost začasnega prenehanja uporabe koncesij ali izpolnjevanja drugih obveznosti napram drugi članici na podlagi zajetih sporazumov na diskriminacijski podlagi, vendar take ukrepe dovoli [ORS].“
Article 7 of the DSU provides that panels established at the request of a complaining party are to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making recommendations or in giving rulings on the matters submitted to that body.
Na podlagi člena 7 DPPRS ugotovitveni sveti, ustanovljeni na zahtevo tožeče stranke, sprejmejo ugotovitve, ki ORS pomagajo pri sprejemanju priporočil ali pri odločanju o vpra�anjih, ki so predložena temu organu.
Under Article 12(7) of the DSU, where the parties to the dispute do not manage to develop a mutually satisfactory solution, the panel is to submit its findings in the form of a written report to the DSB.
Člen 12(7) DPPRS določa, da če strankam v sporu ne uspe priti do skupno zadovoljive re�itve, ugotovitveni svet svoje ugotovitve v obliki pisnega poročila predloži ORS.
Under Article 16(4) of the DSU, within 60 days after the date of circulation of a panel report to WTO members, the report is to be adopted at a DSB meeting unless a party to the dispute formally notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report.
Iz člena 16(4) DPPRS izhaja, da če stranka v sporu ORS formalno ne obvesti o svoji odločitvi o pritožbi ali pa se ORS s konsenzom odloči, da poročila ne sprejme, se
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI poročilo sprejme na zasedanju ORS v 60 dneh po razpo�iljanju poročila ugotovitvenega sveta članicam.
Article 17 of the DSU provides for the establishment of a standing Appellate Body responsible for hearing appeals from panel cases.
Člen 17 DPPRS določa ustanovitev stalnega pritožbenega organa, ki razpravlja o pritožbah glede zadev ugotovitvenih svetov.
Under Article 17(6), an appeal is limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the panel.
V skladu z odstavkom 6 navedenega člena se pritožba omeji na pravna vpra�anja, zajeta v poročilu ugotovitvenega sveta, in pravne razlage, ki jih je pripravil ugotovitveni svet.
As is apparent from Article 17(13), in the report which it is called upon to provide the Appellate Body may uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of the panel.
Kot izhaja iz odstavka 13 istega člena, lahko pritožbeni organ potrdi, spremeni ali razveljavi pravne ugotovitve in sklepe ugotovitvenega sveta.
Article 17(14) of the DSU provides:
Člen 17(14) DPPRS določa:
‘An Appellate Body report shall be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body report within 30 days following its circulation to the Members….’
„Poročilo pritožbenega organa potrdi [ORS], stranke v sporu pa ga brezpogojno sprejmejo, če [ORS] v 30 dneh po razpo�iljanju poročila pritožbenega organa članicam s konsenzom ne odloči, da ga ne potrdi. […]“
Article 19(1) of the DSU states:
Člen 19(1) DPPRS določa:
‘Where a panel or the Appellate Body concludes that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement, it shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure into conformity with that agreement.
„Kadar ugotovitveni svet ali pritožbeni organ ugotovi, da ukrep ni v skladu z zajetim sporazumom, določeni članici priporoči, da ukrep uskladi s sporazumom.
In addition to its recommendations, the panel or Appellate Body may suggest ways in which the Member concerned could implement the recommendations.’
Poleg svojih priporočil ugotovitveni svet ali pritožbeni organ določeni članici lahko predlaga načine izvajanja priporočil.“
Article 21 of the DSU, which is headed ‘Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations and Rulings’, provides:
Člen 21 DPPRS, z naslovom „Nadzorovanje izvajanja priporočil in sklepov“ ORS, določa:
Prompt compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.
Takoj�nje ravnanje v skladu s priporočili ali sklepi [ORS] je bistveno za zagotovitev učinkovitega re�evanja sporov v korist vseh članic.
At a DSB meeting held within 30 days after the date of adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, the Member concerned shall inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Na zasedanju [ORS] v 30 dneh po potrditvi poročila ugotovitvenega sveta ali pritožbenega organa določena članica obvesti [ORS] o svojih namenih v zvezi z izvajanjem priporočil in sklepov [ORS].
If it is impracticable to comply immediately with the recommendations and rulings, the Member concerned shall have a reasonable period of time in which to do so.
Če pravočasno izpolnjevanje priporočil in sklepov ni izvedljivo, se članici določi razumno obdobje, v katerem jih izvede.