natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— those resolutions set up a procedure enabling the persons concerned to present their case at any time to the Sanctions Committee for review, through the Member State of their nationality or that of their residence.
– te resolucije urejajo postopek, ki zainteresiranim osebam omogoča, da svoj primer v vsakem trenutku predložijo v ponovni preizkus sankcijskemu odboru, in sicer s posredovanjem države članice svojega državljanstva ali svojega stalnega prebivali�ča.
As regards, secondly, the alleged breach of the right to be heard, and more particularly, first, the applicants’ alleged right to be heard by the Community institutions before the contested regulation had been adopted, the Court of First Instance held as follows in paragraph 258 of Kadi, to which paragraph 328 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat corresponds, mutatis mutandis:
Drugič, glede zatrjevane kr�itve pravice do izjave, zlasti pa, po eni strani, domnevne pravice tožečih strank, da se izjavijo pred institucijami Skupnosti pred sprejetjem izpodbijane uredbe, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 258 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, ki ustreza mutatis mutandis točki 328 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, presodilo:
‘In this instance, as is apparent from the preliminary observations above on the relationship between the international legal order under the United Nations and the Community legal order, the Community institutions were required to transpose into the Community legal order resolutions of the Security Council and decisions of the Sanctions Committee that in no way authorised them, at the time of actual implementation, to provide for any Community mechanism whatsoever for the examination or re-examination of individual situations, since both the substance of the measures in question and the mechanisms for re-examination (see paragraphs 262 et seq. …) fell wholly within the purview of the Security Council and its Sanctions Committee.
„V tem primeru, kot izhaja iz zgoraj navedenih uvodnih ugotovitev o odnosu med mednarodnim pravnim redom Združenih narodov in pravnim redom Skupnosti, so bile institucije Skupnosti dolžne v pravni red Skupnosti prenesti resolucije Varnostnega sveta in odločbe sankcijskega odbora, ki jih nikakor niso poobla�čale, da z njihovo konkretno izvedbo določijo tudi kakr�en koli mehanizem Skupnosti za preizkus ali ponovni preizkus posamičnih položajev, ker so bili jedro zadevnih ukrepov in mehanizmi ponovnega preizkusa (glej zgoraj točko 262 in naslednje) v celoti pristojnost Varnostnega sveta in njegovega sankcijskega odbora.
As a result, the Community institutions had no power of investigation, no opportunity to check the matters taken to be facts by the Security Council and the Sanctions Committee, no discretion with regard to those matters and no discretion either as to whether it was appropriate to adopt sanctions vis-à-vis the applicants.
Posledično institucije Skupnosti niso imele nobenega pooblastila za preiskavo, ne možnosti nadzora nad dejstvi, ki sta jih potrdila Varnostni svet in sankcijski odbor, ne polja za odločanje po prostem preudarku o teh dejstvih in o možnosti spreje[tja] sankcij za tožečo stranko. Načelo prava Skupnosti v zvezi s pravico do zasli�anja naj se ne bi
The principle of Community law relating to the right to be heard cannot apply in such circumstances, where to hear the person concerned could not in any case lead the institution to review its position.’
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P uporabilo v okoli�činah, v katerih zasli�anje zainteresiranih oseb v nobenem primeru ne bi moglo pripeljati institucije do ponovnega preizkusa svojega stali�ča.“
The Court of First Instance concluded in Kadi, paragraph 259, that the Council was not obliged to hear the applicant on the subject of his inclusion in the list of persons and entities affected by the sanctions, in the context of the adoption and implementation of the contested regulation and, in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 329, that the Council was not obliged to hear the applicants before the contested regulation was adopted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 259 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ugotovilo, da Svet ni bil zavezan s pravico do izjave tožeče stranke v zvezi z ohranjanjem njenega imena na seznamu oseb in subjektov, na katere se nana�ajo sankcije, v kontekstu sprejetja in izvr�evanja izpodbijane uredbe, v točki 329 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat pa, da Svet pred sprejetjem izpodbijane uredbe ni bil zavezan s pravico do izjave tožečih strank na prvi stopnji.
With regard, second, to breach of the applicants’ alleged right to be heard by the Sanctions Committee in connection with their inclusion in the summary list, the Court of First Instance held in paragraph 261 of Kadi and paragraph 306 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat that no such right was provided for by the Security Council’s resolutions at issue.
Po drugi strani je Sodi�če prve stopnje glede kr�itve domnevne pravice do izjave tožečih strank pred sankcijskim odborom v kontekstu njihovega vpisa na konsolidirani seznam v točkah 261 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 306 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat ugotovilo, da zadevne resolucije Varnostnega sveta take pravice ne določajo.
It further held in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 307, that no mandatory rule of public international law requires a prior hearing for the persons concerned in circumstances such as those of the case in point.
Nadalje je v točki 307 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat presodilo, da nobeno obvezno pravilo iz mednarodnega javnega prava ne zahteva predhodnega zasli�anja zainteresiranih oseb v okoli�činah, kot so v tem primeru.
The Court of First Instance observed, moreover, that although the resolutions of the Security Council concerned and the subsequent regulations that put them into effect in the Community do not provide for any right of audience for individual persons, they nevertheless set up a mechanism for the re-examination of individual cases, by providing that the persons concerned may address a request to the Sanctions Committee, through their national authorities, in order either to be removed from the summary list or to obtain exemption from the freezing of funds (Kadi, paragraph 262, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 309).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega navedlo, da zadevne resolucije Varnostnega sveta in poznej�e uredbe, ki so te resolucije izvedle v Skupnosti, čeprav ne določajo pravice do izjave, vendarle uvajajo mehanizem ponovnega preizkusa posamičnih položajev, tako da omogočajo, da se lahko zainteresirane osebe s posredovanjem svojih nacionalnih organov obrnejo na sankcijski odbor, da bi dosegle svoj umik s konsolidi -ranega seznama oseb ali izjemo zamrznitve sredstev (izpodbijana sodba Kadi, točka 262, ter sodba Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 309).
Referring, in Kadi, paragraph 264, and in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 311, to the ‘Guidelines of the [Sanctions] Committee for the conduct of its work’, as adopted by that committee on 7 November 2002 and amended on 10 April 2003 (‘the Sanctions Committee’s Guidelines’), and, in Kadi, paragraph 266, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 313, to various resolutions of the Security Council, the Court of First Instance noted, in those paragraphs, the importance attached by the Security Council, in so far as possible, to the fundamental rights of the persons entered in the list, and especially to their right to be heard.
Ob sklicevanju, v točki 264 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 311 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat na „Navodila za delo sankcijskega odbora“, sprejeta 7. novembra 2002 in spremenjena 10. aprila 2003 (v nadaljevanju: navodila sankcijskemu odboru), in v točki 266 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 313 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat na različne resolucije Varnostnega sveta, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v teh točkah ugotavljalo pomembnost, ki jo Varnostni svet v največji mogoči meri pripisuje temeljnim pravicam oseb, vpisanih na konsolidirani seznam, zlasti pa pravicam obrambe.
In Kadi, paragraph 268, and in Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 315, the Court of First Instance found that the fact, noted in the previous paragraph of both judgments, that the re-examination procedure confers no right directly on the persons concerned themselves to be heard by the Sanctions Committee — the only authority competent to give a decision, on a State’s petition, on the re-examination of their case — with the result that those persons are dependent, essentially, on the diplomatic protection afforded by the States to their nationals, is not to be deemed improper in the light of the mandatory prescriptions of the public international order.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 268 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 315 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat presodilo, da naj glede na obvezna pravila mednarodnega javnega prava ne bi bilo nesprejemljivo dejstvo – navedeno v teh predhodnih točkah vsake od navedenih sodb –, da postopek ponovnega preizkusa zainteresiranim osebam neposredno ne daje pravice do izjave pred sankcijskim odborom, ki je edini pristojni organ, da se na zahtevo države izreče glede ponovne preučitve njihovega položaja, tako da so ti odvisni predvsem od diplomatske za�čite, ki jo države članice zagotavljajo svojim državljanom.
The Court of First Instance added that it is open to the persons involved to bring an action for judicial review based on domestic law, indeed even directly on the contested regulation and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council which it puts into effect, against any wrongful refusal by the competent national authority to submit their cases to the Sanctions Committee for re-examination (Kadi, paragraph 270, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 317).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dodalo, da imajo zainteresirane osebe na podlagi notranjega prava ter celo neposredno na podlagi izpodbijane uredbe in upo�tevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta, ki jih izvaja uredba, možnost vložiti tožbo zoper morebitno zlorabno zavrnitev pristojnega nacionalnega organa, da njihov primer predloži v ponovni preizkus sankcijskemu odboru (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 270, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 317).
The Court of First Instance held, in addition, that in circumstances such as those of the cases in point, in which what is at issue is a temporary precautionary measure restricting the availability of the applicants’ property, observance of the fundamental rights of the persons concerned does not require the facts and evidence adduced against them to be communicated to them, once the Security Council or its Sanctions Committee is of the view that there are grounds concerning the international community’s security that militate against it (Kadi, paragraph 274, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 320).
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da v okoli�činah, kot so v tem primeru, pri katerem gre za varstveni ukrep, ki zainteresiranim osebam omejuje razpolaganje z dobrinami, spo�tovanje njihovih temeljnih pravic ne zahteva, da se jim posredujejo dejstva in dokazi, ki jih bremenijo, kadar Varnostni svet ali njegov sankcijski odbor menita, da temu nasprotujejo razlogi, ki zadevajo varnost mednarodne skupnosti (izpodbijani sodbi Kadi, točka 274, ter Yusuf in Al Barakaat, točka 320).
Having regard to those considerations, the Court of First Instance held in Kadi, paragraph 276, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 330, that the applicants’ plea alleging breach of the right to be heard must be rejected.
Iz zgoraj navedenega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 276 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 330 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat odločilo, da je treba zavrniti tožbeni razlog kr�itve pravice do izjave, ki ga navajajo tožeče stranke.
Lastly, with regard to the plea alleging breach of the right to effective judicial review, the Court of First Instance found as follows in paragraphs 278 to 285 of Kadi, drawn up in terms essentially identical to those of paragraphs 333 to 340 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat:
Tretjič, glede tožbenega razloga kr�itve pravice do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 278 do 285 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, ki so po vsebini identične točkam od 333 do 340 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, presodilo tako:
In the circumstances of this case, the applicant has been able to bring an action for annulment before the Court of First Instance under Article 230 EC.
„278 V tem primeru je tožeča stranka na Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko vložila ničnostno tožbo na podlagi člena 230 ES.
In dealing with that action, the Court carries out a complete review of the lawfulness of the contested regulation with regard to observance by the institutions of the rules of jurisdiction and the rules of external lawfulness and the essential procedural requirements which bind their actions.
279 V okviru tega postopka Sodi�če prve stopnje izvr�uje popolni nadzor zakonitosti [izpodbijane] uredbe glede spo�tovanja institucij Skupnosti pravil o pristojnosti in o notranji zakonitosti in bistveni obličnosti, ki so predpisana za njihovo delovanje.
The Court also reviews the lawfulness of the contested regulation having regard to the Security Council’s regulations which that act is supposed to put into effect, in particular from the viewpoints of procedural and substantive appropriateness, internal consistency and whether the regulation is proportionate to the resolutions.
280 Sodi�če prve stopnje nadzira tudi zakonitost [izpodbijane] uredbe glede na resolucije Varnostnega sveta, ki jih ta uredba izvaja, zlasti glede formalne in materialne skladnosti, notranje skladnosti in sorazmernosti uredbe glede na resolucije.
Giving a decision pursuant to that review, the Court finds that it is not disputed that the applicant is indeed one of the natural persons entered in the summary list on 19 October 2001.
281 Sodi�če prve stopnje, ki je odločalo na temelju takega nadzora, meni, da se ne izpodbija, da je tožeča stranka res ena od fizičnih oseb, ki so bile 19. oktobra 2001 vpisane na seznam […].
In this action for annulment, the Court has moreover held that it has jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the contested regulation and, indirectly, the lawfulness of the resolutions of the Security Council at issue, in the light of the higher rules of international law falling within the ambit of jus cogens, in particular the mandatory prescriptions concerning the universal protection of the rights of the human person.
282 V okviru te ničnostne tožbe se je Sodi�če prve stopnje razglasilo za pristojno za nadzor zakonitosti [izpodbijane] uredbe in posredno zakonitosti zadevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta, v razmerju do vi�jih pravil [norm] mednarodnega prava, ki spadajo v ius cogens, zlasti imperativnih pravil [norm] za univerzalno varstvo pravic člove�ke osebnosti.
On the other hand, as has already been observed in paragraph 225 above, it is not for the Court to review indirectly whether the Security Council’s resolutions in question are themselves compatible with fundamental rights as protected by the Community legal order.
283 Kot je bilo že navedeno v zgornji točki 225, Sodi�če prve stopnje ni dolžno neposredno nadzorovati skladnosti zadevnih resolucij Varnostnega sveta s temeljnimi pravicami, kot jih varuje pravni red Skupnosti.
Nor does it fall to the Court to verify that there has been no error of assessment of the facts and evidence relied on by the Security Council in support of the measures it has taken or, subject to the limited extent defined in paragraph 282 above, to check indirectly the appropriateness and proportionality of those measures.
284 Sodi�če prve stopnje ni dolžno preveriti odsotnosti napačne presoje dejstev in dokazov, ki jih je Svet potrdil v podporo sprejetih ukrepov, ne posredno nadzorovati primernosti in sorazmernosti teh ukrepov, razen v okviru omejitev, določenih v zgornji točki 282.
It would be impossible to carry out such a check without trespassing on the Security Council’s prerogatives under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations in relation to determining, first, whether there exists a threat to international peace and security and, second, the appropriate measures for confronting or settling such a threat.
Takega nadzora ne bi bilo mogoče izvr�evati brez poseganja v posebne pravice Varnostnega sveta na podlagi VII. Poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov na področju določitve, prvič, grožnje mednarodnemu miru in varnosti, in, drugič, primernih ukrepov proti tej grožnji ali za njeno odpravo.
Moreover, the question whether an individual or organisation poses a threat to international peace and security, like the question of what measures must be adopted vis-à-vis the persons concerned in order to frustrate that threat, entails a political assessment and value judgments which in principle fall within the exclusive competence of the authority to which the international community has entrusted primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Vpra�anje, ali posameznik ali organizacija pomenita grožnjo mednarodnemu miru in varnosti, in vpra�anje, katere ukrepe je treba sprejeti glede zainteresiranih oseb, da bi se uprlo tej grožnji, vključujeta politično presojo in presojo vrednostnih sodb, ki sta načeloma zgolj pristojnost organa, ki mu je mednarodna skupnost zaupala glavno odgovornost za ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti.
It must thus be concluded that, to the extent set out in paragraph 284 above, there is no judicial remedy available to the applicant, the Security Council not having thought it advisable to establish an independent international court responsible for ruling, in law and on the facts, in actions brought against individual decisions taken by the Sanctions Committee.’
285 Treba je ugotoviti, da tožeča stranka nima na voljo nobenega pravnega sredstva, kot je bilo pravkar navedeno v zgornji točki 284, ker Varnostni svet ni menil, da bi bilo smotrno ustanoviti neodvisno mednarodno sodi�če, ki bi pravno in dejansko odločalo o sporih proti posamičnim odločbam sankcijskega odbora.“
In Kadi, paragraph 268, and Yusuf and Al Barakaat, paragraph 315, the Court of First Instance held that any such lacuna in the judicial protection available to the applicant is not in itself contrary to jus cogens.
V točki 286 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 341 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat je Sodi�če prve stopnje presodilo, da taka pravna praznina v sodnem varstvu tožečih strank ni v nasprotju z načelom ius cogens.
In this respect, the Court of First Instance found as follows in paragraphs 288 to 290 of Kadi, drawn up in terms essentially identical to those of paragraphs 343 to 345 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v tej zvezi v točkah od 288 do 290 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, ki so po vsebini identične točkam od 343 do 345 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, navedlo:
In this instance, the Court considers that the limitation of the applicant’s right of access to a court, as a result of the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed as a rule, in the domestic legal order of the Member States of the United Nations, by resolutions of the Security Council adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant principles of international law (in particular Articles 25 and 103 of [that] Charter), is inherent in that right as it is guaranteed by jus cogens.
Poglavja Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov, v notranjem pravnem redu držav članic Združenih narodov, v skladu z upo�tevnimi načeli mednarodnega prava (zlasti členoma 25 in 103 [te] listine), ni skladna s pravico dostopa do sodi�ča, kot jo zagotavlja ius cogens.
In the circumstances of this case, the applicant’s interest in having a court hear his case on its merits is not enough to outweigh the essential public interest in the maintenance of international peace and security in the face of a threat clearly identified by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
V okoli�činah tega primera interes tožeče stranke, da bi jo sodi�če zasli�alo o temelju v njeni zadevi, ne zadostuje, da bi prevladal nad splo�nim bistvenim interesom, da se zaradi jasne grožnje, ki jo je določil Varnostni svet, ohranita mednarodni mir in varnost, v skladu z določbami Ustanovne listine Združenih narodov.
In this regard, special significance must attach to the fact that, far from providing for measures for an unlimited period of application, the resolutions successively adopted by the Security Council have always provided a mechanism for re-examining whether it is appropriate to maintain those measures after 12 or 18 months at most have elapsed …
Glede tega je treba, ne da bi ukrepe določili za neomejen in nedoločen čas uporabe, dodeliti poseben pomen okoli�čini, da so resolucije, ki jih je zaporedno sprejel Varnostni svet, vedno določale mehanizem ponovnega preizkusa možnosti ohranitve teh ukrepov po časovnem obdobju 12 ali najpozneje 18 mesecev […]
Last, the Court considers that, in the absence of an international court having jurisdiction to ascertain whether acts of the Security Council are lawful, the setting-up of a body such as the Sanctions Committee and the opportunity, provided for by the legislation, of applying at any time to that committee in order to have any individual case re-examined, by means of a procedure involving both the “petitioned government” and the “designating government” …, constitute another reasonable method of affording adequate protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights as recognised by jus cogens.’
290 Končno Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, v odsotnosti mednarodnega sodi�ča, pristojnega za nadzor zakonitosti aktov Varnostnega sveta, da uvedba organa, kot je sankcijski odbor, in možnost, ki jo določajo akti, da se je v vsakem trenutku mogoče obrniti nanj zaradi ponovnega preizkusa vsakega posamičnega primera, s pomočjo formaliziranega mehanizma, ki vključuje ‚vlado, naslovnico zahteve‘ in ‚vlado predlagateljico‘ […], pomenita drugačno in razumno pot, da se ustrezno za�čitijo temeljne pravice tožeče stranke, kot jih priznava ius cogens.“
Consequently the Court of First Instance dismissed the pleas alleging breach of the right to effective judicial review and, as a result, the actions in their entirety.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato zavrnilo tožbene razloge glede kr�itve pravice do učinkovitega sodnega nadzora in zaradi tega tudi tožbo v celoti.
Forms of order sought by the parties to the appeal
Predlogi pritožnikov
— set aside in whole the judgment in Kadi;
– v celoti razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v zadevi Kadi;
— declare the contested regulation null and void, and
– razglasi izpodbijano uredbo za nično ter
— order the Council and/or the Commission to pay the costs in this appeal and those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
– naloži Svetu in/ali Komisiji plačilo stro�kov tega pritožbenega postopka in postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
By its appeal, Al Barakaat claims that the Court should:
Al Barakaat s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— set aside the judgment in Yusuf and Al Barakaat;
– razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v zadevi Yusuf in Al Barakaat;
— order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs relating to the present appeal and to the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
– naloži Svetu in Komisiji plačilo stro�kov postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem.
The Council contends in both cases that the Court should reject the appeal and order the appellant to pay the costs.
Svet predlaga zavrnitev pritožbe v obeh zadevah in naložitev plačila stro�kov pritožnikom.
In Case C-402/05 P the Commission contends that the Court should:
Komisija Sodi�ču predlaga, naj v zadevi C-402/05 P:
— declare that none of the grounds of appeal put forward by the appellant is capable of impugning the operative part of the judgment in Kadi, and replace the grounds of that judgment with those proposed in its response;
– ugotovi, da nobeden od pritožbenih razlogov, ki jih navaja pritožnik, ni tak, da bi ovrgel izrek izpodbijane sodbe Kadi, pri čemer naj obrazložitev izpodbijane sodbe spremeni tako, kot predlaga v svojem odgovoru na pritožbo;
— in consequence, reject the appeal; and
– posledično pritožbo zavrne in
— order the appellant to pay the costs.
– pritožniku naloži plačilo stro�kov pritožbenega postopka.