natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Having regard to that purpose and object, it cannot be considered that the regulation relates specifically to international trade in that it is essentially intended to promote, facilitate or govern trade.
Ob upo�tevanju tega cilja in predmeta ni mogoče �teti, da se ta uredba posebej nana�a na mednarodno menjavo, ker bi bila v bistvu namenjena spodbujanju, olaj�anju ali urejanju trgovinske menjave.
Furthermore, although that regulation may indeed produce effects on international trade, it is plainly not its purpose to give rise to direct and immediate effects of that nature.
Poleg tega, če lahko ta uredba nedvomno vpliva na trgovino ali mednarodno menjavo, njen namen očitno ni ustvarjati tak�nih neposrednih in takoj�njih učinkov.
The contested regulation could not, therefore, be based on the powers of the Community in the sphere of the common commercial policy.
Sporne uredbe se zato ni moglo utemeljiti s pristojnostjo Skupnosti na področju skupne trgovinske politike.
On the other hand, according to the Commission, in so far as the contested regulation prohibits the transfer of economic resources to individuals in third countries, it
Po drugi strani Komisija meni, da izpodbijana uredba, ker prepoveduje prenos gospodarskih sredstev posameznikom v tretjih državah, spada na področje uporabe določb Pogodbe ES v zvezi s prostim pretokom kapitala in plačil.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P falls within the ambit of the provisions of the EC Treaty on free movement of capital and payments.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P
That assertion too must be rejected.
Tudi to trditev je treba zavrniti.
With regard, first of all, to Article 57(2) EC, the restrictive measures imposed by the contested regulation do not fall within one of the categories of measures listed in that provision.
Najprej je treba glede člena 57(2) ES ugotoviti, da omejevalni ukrepi, ki jih določa izpodbijana uredba, ne spadajo v eno izmed kategorij ukrepov, ki so na�teti v tej določbi.
Nor can Article 60(1) EC furnish the basis for the contested regulation, for its ambit is determined by that of Article 301 EC.
Nadalje je treba glede člena 60(1) ES navesti, da se s to določbo prav tako ne more utemeljiti izpodbijane uredbe, ker je njeno področje uporabe določeno s členom 301 ES.
As has earlier been held in paragraph 167 above, that latter provision is not concerned with the adoption of restrictive measures such as those at issue, which are notable for the absence of any link to the governing regime of a third country.
Kot je bilo navedeno že v točki 167 te sodbe, pa določba člena 301 ES ne predvideva sprejetja omejevalnih ukrepov, kakr�ni so v tem primeru in za katere je značilno, da ne izkazujejo nobene vezi z vodstvenim režimom v tretji državi.
As regards, finally, Article 60(2) EC, this provision does not include any Community competence to that end, given that it does no more than enable the Member States to take, on certain exceptional grounds, unilateral measures against a third country with regard to capital movements and payments, subject to the power of the Council to require a Member State to amend or abolish such measures.
Nazadnje je treba glede člena 60(2) ES ugotoviti, da ta določba ne vključuje pristojnosti Skupnosti v ta namen, saj je omejena na to, da državam članicam v določenih izjemnih okoli�činah omogoča sprejetje enostranskih ukrepov proti tretji državi v zvezi s pretokom kapitala in plačili, s pridržkom pristojnosti Sveta, da državi članici naloži, da tak�ne ukrepe spremeni ali odpravi.
In those paragraphs, the Court of First Instance ruled that it was possible for the contested regulation to be adopted on the joint basis of Articles 60 EC, 301 EC and 308 EC, on the ground that, by reason of the bridge explicitly established between Community actions imposing economic sanctions under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, on the one hand, and the objectives of the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, on the other, recourse to Article 308 EC in the particular context envisaged by the two former articles is justified in order to attain such objectives, in this instance the objective of the CFSP pursued by the contested regulation, that is to say, the campaign against international terrorism and its funding.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v teh točkah presodilo, da je bilo izpodbijano uredbo mogoče sprejeti na kombinirani podlagi členov 60 ES, 301 ES in 308 ES, ker je – zaradi posebej predvidenega mostu med dejavnostmi Skupnosti, ki zajemajo gospodarske sankcije na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES ter cilji Pogodbe EU na področju zunanjih odnosov – sklicevanje na člen 308 ES, v posebnih okoli�činah, predvidenih v obeh členih, utemeljeno za doseganje tak�nih ciljev in, v tem primeru, v izpodbijani uredbi določenega cilja SZVP, in sicer boja proti mednarodnemu terorizmu in njegovemu financiranju.
In this regard it must be held that the judgments under appeal are indeed vitiated by an error of law.
V tej zvezi je treba ugotoviti, da v izpodbijanih sodbah pravo dejansko ni bilo uporabljeno pravilno.
In point of fact, while it is correct to consider, as did the Court of First Instance, that a bridge has been constructed between the actions of the Community involving economic measures under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and the objectives of the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, including the CFSP, neither the wording of the provisions of the EC Treaty nor the structure of the latter provides any foundation for the view that that bridge extends to other provisions of the EC Treaty, in particular to Article 308 EC.
Če je pravilno �teti, kot je to storilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, da je bil namreč vzpostavljeni most med dejavnostmi Skupnosti, ki zajemajo gospodarske sankcije na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES, ter cilji Pogodbe EU na področju zunanjih odnosov, med katerimi je SZVP, pa niti besedilo določb Pogodbe ES niti njena struktura ne dajejo podlage za pojmovanje, da bi se ta most raztezal na druge določbe Pogodbe ES, zlasti na člen 308 ES.
With specific regard to Article 308 EC, if the position of the Court of First Instance were to be accepted, that provision would allow, in the special context of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, the adoption of Community measures concerning not one of the
Posebej glede člena 308 ES, če bi se ohranilo stali�če Sodi�ča prve stopnje, bi bilo na podlagi te določbe v posebnem kontekstu členov 60 ES in 301 ES mogoče sprejetje
2008 — JOINED CASES C-402/05 P AND C-415/05 P objectives of the Community but one of the objectives under the EU Treaty in the sphere of external relations, including the CFSP.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-402/05 P IN C-415/05 P aktov Skupnosti, ki se ne nana�ajo na enega od ciljev Skupnosti, temveč na enega od ciljev, ki izhajajo iz Pogodbe EU s področja zunanjih odnosov, med katerimi je SZVP.
Recourse to that provision demands that the action envisaged should, on the one hand, relate to the ‘operation of the common market’ and, on the other, be intended to attain ‘one of the objectives of the Community’.
Sklicevanje na to določbo bi zahtevalo, da se načrtovani ukrep nana�a na „delovanje skupnega trga“ in da stremi k uresničitvi „enega od ciljev Skupnosti“.
Furthermore, the coexistence of the Union and the Community as integrated but separate legal orders, and the constitutional architecture of the pillars, as intended by the framers of the Treaties now in force, referred to by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 120 of Kadi and 156 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, constitute considerations of an institutional kind militating against any extension of the bridge to articles of the EC Treaty other than those with which it explicitly creates a link.
Soobstoj Unije in Skupnosti kot združenih, vendar različnih pravnih redov ter ustavna zgradba stebrov, ki so jih želeli avtorji veljavnih pogodb, kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno navedlo v točki 120 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 156 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, poleg tega pomenita institucionalne preudarke, ki nasprotujejo raz�iritvi tega mostu na druge člene Pogodbe ES in ne na tiste, s katerimi ta vzpostavlja izrecno vez.
In addition, Article 308 EC, being an integral part of an institutional system based on the principle of conferred powers, cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Community powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole and, in particular, by those defining the tasks and the activities of the Community (Opinion 2/94, paragraph 30).
Poleg tega člen 308 ES kot del institucionalnega reda, katerega podlaga je načelo dodeljenih pristojnosti, ne more služiti kot temelj za raz�iritev pristojnosti Skupnosti čez splo�ni okvir, ki izhaja iz celote določb te Pogodbe in zlasti iz določb, ki določajo naloge in ukrepanje Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno mnenje 2/94, točka 30).
Likewise, Article 3 EU, referred to by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 126 to 128 of Kadi and 162 to 164 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, in particular its second paragraph, cannot supply a base for any widening of Community powers beyond the objects of the Community.
Prav tako člen 3 EU, na kateri se sklicuje Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 126 do 128 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točkah od 162 do 164 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, in zlasti njegov drugi odstavek, ne more služiti kot podlaga za raz�iritev pristojnosti Skupnosti onstran ciljev Skupnosti.
The effect of that error in law on the validity of the judgments under appeal will be considered later, after the evaluation of the other claims raised against the explanations given in those judgments concerning the possibility of including Article 308 EC in the legal basis of the contested regulation jointly with Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
Učinke te napačne uporabe prava na veljavnost izpodbijanih sodb se bo nazadnje preučilo v okviru drugih očitkov, navedenih glede na nadaljevanje teh sodb, glede možnosti vključitve člena 308 ES v pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe v kombinaciji s členoma 60 ES in 301 ES.
Those other claims may be divided into two categories.
Te druge očitke je mogoče razvrstiti v dve skupini.
In his submission, those two latter articles cannot form the legal basis, even in part, of the contested regulation because, according to the interpretation given by the Court of First Instance itself, measures directed against persons or entities in no way linked to the governing regime of a third country — the only persons to whom the contested regulation is addressed — do not fall within the ambit of those articles.
Ta člena naj ne bi mogla sestavljati niti delne pravne podlage izpodbijane uredbe, saj v skladu z razlago Sodi�ča prve stopnje ukrepi – ki se nana�ajo na posameznike ali subjekte, ki nimajo nobene zveze z vodstvenim režimom tretje države, ki so edini naslovniki izpodbijane uredbe – ne spadajo na področje uporabe teh členov.
That criticism may be compared with that made by the Commission, to the effect that, if it were to be held that recourse to Article 308 EC could be allowed, it would have to be as the sole legal basis, and not jointly with Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
To kritiko je mogoče približati kritiki, ki jo je izrazila Komisija, in sicer da če bi bilo treba razsoditi, da je sklicevanje na člen 308 ES dopustno, bi to moralo biti kot sklicevanje na edino pravno podlago, ne pa v kombinaciji členov 60 ES in 301 ES.
The second category includes the Commission’s criticisms of the Court of First Instance’s decision, in paragraphs 116 and 121 of Kadi and 152 and 157 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, that, for the purposes of the application of Article 308 EC, the objective of the contested regulation, namely, according to the Court of First Instance, the fight against international terrorism, and more particularly the imposition of economic and financial sanctions, such as the freezing of funds, in respect of individuals and entities suspected of contributing to the funding of terrorism, cannot be made to refer to one of the objects which the EC Treaty entrusts to the Community.
Druga skupina vključuje kritike Komisije zoper odločbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točkah 116 in 121 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točkah 152 ter 157 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, da se v okviru uporabe člena 308 ES cilja izpodbijane uredbe, in sicer po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje boja proti mednarodnemu terorizmu, zlasti pa naložitve gospodarskih in finančnih omejevalnih ukrepov, kakr�ni so zamrznitev sredstev in gospodarskih virov posameznikov ali subjektov, za katere se domneva, da prispevajo k financiranju mednarodnega terorizma, ne more povezati z enim izmed ciljev, ki jih Pogodba ES določa za Skupnost.
The Commission maintains in this respect that the implementing measures imposed by the contested regulation in the area of economic and financial sanctions fall, by their very nature, within the scope of the objects of the Community, that is to say, first, the common commercial policy and, second, the free movement of capital.
Komisija v tej zvezi poudarja, da ukrepi za izvajanje, ki jih določa izpodbijana uredba na področju gospodarskih in finančnih sankcij, po svojih lastnostih izhajajo iz ciljev Skupnosti, in sicer iz skupne trgovinske politike in prostega pretoka kapitala.
With regard to that first category of claims, it is to be borne in mind that Article 308 EC is designed to fill the gap where no specific provisions of the Treaty confer on the Community institutions express or implied powers to act, if such powers appear none the less to be necessary to enable the Community to carry out its functions with a view to attaining one of the objectives laid down by the Treaty (Opinion 2/94, paragraph 29).
Glede prve skupine zgoraj navedenih očitkov je treba spomniti, da je namen člena 308 ES dopolniti neobstoj pooblastil za ukrepanje, ki so jih posebne določbe Pogodbe ES izrecno ali implicitno podelile institucijam Skupnosti, če so tak�na pooblastila vendarle potrebna, da bi Skupnost lahko izvr�evala svoje naloge, da bi dosegla enega od ciljev, ki jih določa ta Pogodba (zgoraj navedeno mnenje 2/94, točka 29).
The Court of First Instance correctly held that Article 308 EC could be included in the legal basis of the contested regulation, jointly with Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je pravilno presodilo, da je bilo člen 308 ES, skupaj s členoma 60 ES in 301 ES, mogoče vključiti v pravno podlago izpodbijanih uredb.
The contested regulation, inasmuch as it imposes restrictive measures of an economic and financial nature, plainly falls within the ambit ratione materiae of Articles 60 EC and 301 EC.
Izpodbijana uredba namreč v delu, v katerem določa restriktivne gospodarske in finančne ukrepe, očitno izhaja s področja uporabe ratione materiae členov 60 ES in 301 ES.
To that extent, the inclusion of those articles in the legal basis of the contested regulation was therefore justified.
V tem okviru je bila zato vključitev teh členov v pravno podlago izpodbijane uredbe upravičena.
Since Articles 60 EC and 301 EC do not, however, provide for any express or implied powers of action to impose such measures on addressees in no way linked to the governing regime of a third country such as those to whom the contested regulation applies, that lack of power, attributable to the limited ambit ratione materiae of those provisions, could be made good by having recourse to Article 308 EC as a legal basis for that regulation in addition to the first two provisions providing a foundation for that measure from the point of view of its material scope, provided, however, that the other conditions to which the applicability of Article 308 EC is subject had been satisfied.
Vendar ker člena 60 ES in 301 ES ne predvidevata posebne ali implicitne pristojnosti ukrepanja, da se naloži tak�ne ukrepe naslovnikom, ki nimajo nobene zveze z vodstvenim režimom tretje države, kot so določeni v izpodbijani uredbi, je bilo zaradi omejitev področja uporabe ratione personae navedenih določb ta neobstoj pristojnosti mogoče nadomestiti s sklicevanjem na člen 308 ES, kot pravno podlago navedene uredbe poleg teh prvih dveh členov, ki akt utemeljujeta z vidika njegovega stvarnega obsega, vendar le če so izpolnjeni drugi pogoji, s katerimi je pogojena uporaba člena 308 ES.
The claims in that first category must therefore be rejected as unfounded.
Zato je treba kot neutemeljene zavrniti očitke, uvr�čene v zgoraj navedeno prvo skupino.
With regard to the other conditions for the applicability of Article 308 EC, the second category of claims will now be considered.
Glede drugih pogojev uporabe člena 308 ES je treba nadalje preučiti drugo skupino zgoraj omenjenih očitkov.
The Commission maintains that, although Common Position 2002/402, which the contested regulation is intended to put into effect, pursues the objective of the campaign against international terrorism, an objective covered by the CFSP, that regulation must be considered to lay down an implementing measure intended to impose economic and financial sanctions.
Komisija poudarja, da čeprav Skupno stali�če 2002/402, katerega izvajanje predvideva izpodbijana uredba, zasleduje cilj boja proti mednarodnemu terorizmu, ki je cilj SZVP, je treba to uredbo upo�tevati, kot da vsebuje ukrep za izvajanje, katerega namen je naložitev gospodarskih in finančnih sankcij.
That objective falls within the scope of the objectives of the Community for the purpose of Article 308 EC, in particular those relating to the common commercial policy and the free movement of capital.
Ta cilj bi spadal med cilje Skupnosti, v smislu člena 308 ES, zlasti med tiste v zvezi s skupno trgovinsko politiko in prostim pretokom kapitala.
The United Kingdom takes the view that the purely instrumental specific objective of the contested regulation, namely, the introduction of coercive economic measures, must be distinguished from the underlying CFSP objective of maintaining international peace and security.
Združeno kraljestvo meni, da je treba cilj, ki je značilen za izpodbijano uredbo in povsem instrumentalen, namreč uvedba prisilnih gospodarskih ukrepov, razlikovati od njenega osnovnega cilja, ki izhaja iz SZVP, in sicer ohranitev mednarodnega miru in varnosti.
That specific objective contributes to the implicit Community objective underlying Articles 60 EC and 301 EC, which is to supply effective means to put into effect, solely by coercive economic measures, acts adopted under the CFSP.
Ta cilj bi prispeval k implicitnemu cilju Skupnosti, ki je utemeljen v členih 60 ES in 301 ES ter je priskrbeti učinkovita sredstva, izključno s prisilnimi gospodarskimi ukrepi, za izvajanje aktov, sprejetih v okviru SZVP.
The objective pursued by the contested regulation is immediately to prevent persons associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network or the Taliban from having at their disposal any financial or economic resources, in order to impede the financing of terrorist activities (Case C-117/06 Möllendorf and Möllendorf­Niehuus [2007] ECR I-8361, paragraph 63).
V tej zvezi je treba spomniti, da je cilj, ki mu sledi izpodbijana uredba, nemudoma preprečiti osebam, povezanim z Osamo bin Ladnom, mrežo Al Kaida in s talibani, razpolaganje z vsemi finančnimi in gospodarskimi viri, da se prepreči financiranje terorističnih dejavnosti (sodba z dne 11. oktobra 2007 v zadevi Möllendorf in Möllen-dorf-Niehuus, C-117/06, ZOdl., str. I-8361, točka 63).
Contrary to what the Court of First Instance held in paragraphs 116 of Kadi and 152 of Yusuf and Al Barakaat, that objective can be made to refer to one of the objects which the EC Treaty entrusts to the Community.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je presodilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 116 izpodbijane sodbe Kadi ter v točki 152 izpodbijane sodbe Yusuf in Al Barakaat, je ta cilj mogoče povezati s cilji, ki jih Pogodba ES določa za Skupnost.
The judgments under appeal are therefore vitiated by an error of law on this point also.
Zato je bilo v zvezi s tem v izpodbijanih sodbah tudi napačno uporabljeno pravo.
In this regard it may be recalled that, as explained in paragraph 203 above, Article 308 EC, being an integral part of an institutional system based on the principle of conferred powers, cannot serve as a basis for widening the scope of Community powers beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole.
V tej zvezi je treba spomniti, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 203 te sodbe, da ker je člen 308 ES sestavni del institucionalnega reda, katerega podlaga je načelo dodeljenih pristojnosti, člen 308 ES zato ne more služiti kot temelj za raz�iritev pristojnosti Skupnosti čez splo�ni okvir, ki izhaja iz celote določb Pogodbe ES.
The objective pursued by the contested regulation may be made to refer to one of the objectives of the Community for the purpose of Article 308 EC, with the result that the adoption of that regulation did not amount to disregard of the scope of Community powers stemming from the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole.
Cilj, ki ga zasleduje izpodbijana uredba, je vendarle mogoče povezati z enim izmed ciljev Skupnosti v smislu člena 308 ES, tako da sprejetje te uredbe ni pomenilo neupo�tevanja področja pristojnosti Skupnosti, kot izhaja iz splo�nega okvira določb Pogodbe ES.
Inasmuch as they provide for Community powers to impose restrictive measures of an economic nature in order to implement actions decided on under the CFSP, Articles 60 EC and 301 EC are the expression of an implicit underlying objective, namely, that of making it possible to adopt such measures through the efficient use of a Community instrument.
Člena 60 ES in 301 ES, kolikor določata pristojnost Skupnosti, da naloži omejevalne gospodarske ukrepe za izvajanje ukrepov, dogovorjenih v okviru SZVP, izražata namreč implicitni in osnovni cilj, in sicer omogočiti sprejetje tak�nih ukrepov z učinkovito rabo instrumenta Skupnosti.
That interpretation is supported by Article 60(2) EC.
Razlaga člena 60(2) ES podpira ta sklep.
Although the first paragraph thereof provides the power, within strict limits, for Member States to take unilateral measures against a third country with regard to capital movements and payments, that power may, as provided for by that paragraph, be exercised only so long as Community measures have not been taken pursuant to paragraph 1 of that article.
Čeprav prvi pododstavek tega odstavka določa strogo uokvirjeno pristojnost držav članic za sprejetje enostranskih ukrepov zoper tretjo državo, ki se nana�ajo na pretok kapitala in plačil, je bilo to pristojnost v okviru istega pododstavka mogoče izvr�evati le, dokler niso bili sprejeti ukrepi Skupnosti na podlagi prvega odstavka tega člena.
Implementing restrictive measures of an economic nature through the use of a Community instrument does not go beyond the general framework created by the provisions of the EC Treaty as a whole, because such measures by their very nature offer a link to the operation of the common market, that link constituting another condition for the application of Article 308 EC, as set out in paragraph 200 above.
Izvajanje gospodarskih omejevalnih ukrepov, določenih v okviru SZVP, z uporabo instrumenta Skupnosti ne presega splo�nega okvira, ki izhaja iz vseh določb Pogodbe ES, ker tak�ni ukrepi izkazujejo vez z delovanjem skupnega trga, pri čemer ta vez pomeni nadaljnji pogoj za uporabo člena 308 ES, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 200 te sodbe.
If economic and financial measures such as those imposed by the contested regulation, consisting of the, in principle generalised, freezing of all the funds and other economic resources of the persons and entities concerned, were imposed unilaterally by every Member State, the multiplication of those national measures might well affect the operation of the common market.
Če bi vsaka država članica naložila gospodarske in finančne ukrepe, kakr�ni so tisti, naloženi z izpodbijano uredbo, torej načeloma splo�na zamrznitev vseh sredstev ter drugih gospodarskih virov posameznikov in subjektov, bi lahko namreč množitev teh nacionalnih ukrepov vplivala na delovanje skupnega trga.