natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A Member State could not, for example, in the framework of its bilateral policy maintain or renew a development aid programme for a third State for which the Community had decided to suspend its own contributions on the ground of, in particular, a serious breach of human rights in that State.
Država članica torej ne sme, na primer v okviru dvostranske politike, ohraniti ali obnoviti programa razvojnih pomoči v korist tretjim državam, za katerega naj bi Skupnost odločila, da ukine svoje prispevke, med drugim zaradi hude kr�itve človekovih pravic v navedeni tretji državi.
43 — Idem.44 — Paragraph 42 of the Opinion in Case C-316/91.45 — See paragraphs 44 and 50 of the Opinion.
45 – Glej zlasti točki 44 in 50 zgoraj navedenih sklepnih predlogov.
The interpretation put forward by the Commission would also make it difficult to understand the option given to the Community and the Member States to undertake joint actions pursuant to Article 180(1) EC.
razlage, ki jo zagovarja Komisija, prav tako ni mogoče povsem razumeti možnosti, ki jo imajo Skupnost in države članice, da sprejemajo skupne ukrepe v skladu s čle -nom 180(1) ES.
If the High Contracting Parties had had the intention of delimiting the scope of Article 47 EU according to the distribution of competences between the Community and the Member States, that article would certainly not have been worded in such a way that, apart from the provisions expressly referred to by Article 47 EU, ‘nothing’ in the EU Treaty ‘shall affect’ the EC Treaty.
Če bi imele visoke pogodbenice namen omejiti obseg člena 47 EU glede na delitev pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami, ta člen, razen izrecnih določb, ki so navedene v členu 47 EU, gotovo ne bi določal, da „nobena“ določba Pogodbe EU „ne vpliva“ na Pogodbo ES.
Article 25 of that Agreement provides that neither the agreement nor any action taken thereunder is in any way to affect the powers of the Member States of the Communities to undertake bilateral activities with India in the framework of economic cooperation or to conclude, where appropriate, new economic cooperation agreements with India.
V skladu s členom 25 tega sporazuma namreč niti navedeni sporazum niti noben ukrep, sprejet v tem okviru, ne vpliva na pristojnost držav članic pri dvostranskih dejavnostih z Republiko Indijo v okviru gospodarskega sodelovanja ali na morebitno sklepanje novih sporazumov o gospodarskem sodelovanju.
The Court concluded from that provision that ‘the mere inclusion [in the agreement] of provisions for cooperation in a specific field … does not … predetermine the allocation of spheres of competence between the Community and the Member States or the legal basis of Community acts for implementing cooperation in such a field’. 49
Sodi�če je zlasti na podlagi te določbe sklepalo, da „le vključitev [v sporazum] določb o sodelovanju na posebnem področju […] ne določa vnaprej […] razdelitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami niti pravne podlage skupnostnih aktov za sodelovanje na takem področju“ 49.
The fact that the Member States are free to act collectively does not appear to be
Dejstvo, da države članice lahko svobodno delujejo skupaj, ni nasprotju z
Nevertheless, the distribution of spheres of competence between the Community and the Member States must be distinguished from the distribution of spheres of competence governed by Article 47 EU
Ostaja dejstvo, da je treba delitev pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami
50 — See to that effect, point 58 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mazák in Case C-440/05 Commission v Council, pending.
50 – Glej v tem smislu točko 58 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Mazaka, predstavljenih 28. junija 2007 (zadeva Komisija proti Svetu, C-440/05; postopek �e poteka).
51 — With the exception of the exclusive competence of the Community and the situation where the Community has exercised its competence in an area where it shares concurrently competence with the Member States.
51 – Izjema je izključna pristojnost Skupnosti in situacija, v kateri Skupnost izvaja svojo pristojnost na področju, na katerem deli pristojnost z državami članicami.
35.49 — Judgment cited above (paragraph 47).
35.49 – Zgoraj navedena sodba (točka 47).
COMMISSION v COUNCIL inconsistent with the fact that the European Union is itself prevented from undertaking any action pursuant to Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty which may fall within the scope of the Community’s competences.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU dejstvom, da Evropska unija sama ne more sprejeti ukrepov na podlagi naslovov V in VI Pogodbe EU, ki bi lahko sodili v pristojnosti Skupnosti.
cooperation policy, the interpretation and scope of Article 47 EU should depend on the distribution of competences between the Community and the Member States pursuant to the EC Treaty.
okviru razmerij med Naslovom V Pogodbe EU in skupnostno politiko razvojnega sodelovanja odvisna od delitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami ob uporabi Pogodbe ES.
As already outlined above, Article 47 EU aims to keep watertight, so to speak, the primacy of Community action under the EC Treaty over actions undertaken on the basis of Title V and/or Title VI of the EU Treaty, so that if an action could be undertaken on the basis of the EC Treaty, it must be undertaken by virtue of that Treaty. 53
Kot je bilo že zgoraj navedeno, je namen člena 47 EU skoraj hermetično za�čititi primarnost skupnostnega ukrepa na podlagi Pogodbe ES pred ukrepi, sprejetimi na podlagi Naslova V in/ali Naslova VI Pogodbe EU, tako da če bi bilo mogoče sprejeti ukrep v skladu s Pogodbo ES, mora biti ta v skladu z navedeno Pogodbo 53.
The safeguarding of Community action also follows from several other provisions of the EU Treaty.
Za�čita ukrepov Skupnosti izhaja tudi iz več drugih določb Pogodbe EU.
Apart from the fact that, as the Commission submits and as admitted by the Council and the United Kingdom Government, the Member States do not exercise their competence collectively when an action is adopted by an act of the Council by virtue of Title V of the EU Treaty, still less when that act, like the contested decision, can be adopted by a qualified majority, 52the judgments in Case C-170/96 Commission v Council and Case C-176/03 Commission v Council did not exclude a possible infringement of Article 47 EU by the European Union acting in the framework of Title VI of the EU Treaty — the later judgment even finding, as we have already seen, that there was an encroachment on the powers of the Community — even where the Community had not yet acted in the areas in question and, therefore, the Member States in principle retained the competence to act in those areas.
Namreč, poleg dejstva, da države članice, kot trdi Komisija in potrjujeta Svet in vlada Združenega kraljestva, ne izvajajo svojih pristojnosti skupaj, kadar ukrep sprejme Svet na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, to velja �e toliko bolj, kadar ta akt, kot je izpodbijani sklep, lahko sprejme s kvalificirano večino 52, saj zgoraj navedeni sodbi z dne 12. maja 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu in z dne 13. septembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu nista izključili morebitne kr�itve člena 47 EU, ki naj bi jo storila Evropska unija z delovanjem v okviru Naslova VI Pogodbe EU – ob tem da je bilo v drugi sodbi, kot smo že videli, celo ugotovljeno, da je nastalo poseganje v pristojnosti Skupnosti –, medtem ko Skupnost �e ni delovala na zadevnih področjih in so zato države članice načeloma ohranile pristojnost delovati na navedenih področjih.
I see no reason why, in the context of the relationship between Title V of the EU Treaty and the Community development
Ne vidim razloga, zakaj bi morala biti delitev pristojnosti in obseg člena 47 EU v
It is true that, in relation to external activity, Article 11(1) of the EU Treaty confers on the CFSP a scope ‘covering all areas of foreign and security policy’, a term which is broad enough to include the Community policy on development cooperation.
Res je sicer, da člen 11(1) Pogodbe EU na področju zunanjega delovanja SZVP dodeljuje področje uporabe „ki zajema vsa področja zunanje in varnostne politike“; to je dovolj �iroka dikcija, ki med drugim zajema skupnostno politiko razvojnega sodelovanja.
However, that provision, which is in Title V of the EU Treaty, cannot be read in isolation, but must be interpreted in the light of the common and final provisions of that Treaty, which refer to the European Union as a ‘façade’ of the three pillars.
Vendar te določbe iz Naslova V Pogodbe EU ni mogoče razumeti le v njenem okviru, ampak jo je treba nasprotno razlagati glede na skupne in končne določbe navedene Pogodbe, ki se sklicujejo na Evropsko unijo kot na „fasado“ treh stebrov.
within the competence of the Community, such as the common commercial policy or the development cooperation policy, irrespective of the distribution of competences between the Member States and the Community.
politike“, razen oblik zunanje politike, ki sodijo v pristojnost Skupnosti, kot je skupna trgovinska politika ali politika razvojnega sodelovanja, ne glede na delitev pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo.
This approach appears to be the only one which ensures overall coherence of the provisions of the EU Treaty.
Izkaže se, da le ta pristop zagotavlja skladnost vseh določb Pogodbe EU.
Thus it will be noted that, as well as Article 47 EU, Article 1 EU states that the policies and forms of cooperation established by that Treaty, in particular the CFSP, supplement the European Communities, while Article 2 EU adds that the European Union has as an objective ‘to maintain in full the acquis communautaire and build on it’, this being repeated in a slightly different form in the first paragraph of Article 3 EU.
Tako je treba poudariti, da poleg člena 47 EU člen 1 EU določa, da politike in oblike sodelovanja, ki jih uvaja navedena Pogodba, zlasti SZVP, dopolnjujejo Evropske skupnosti, medtem ko člen 2 EU določa, da je cilj Evropske unije zlasti „ohraniti pravni red Skupnosti in ga nadgrajevati“, pri čemer je ta v nekoliko spremenjeni obliki povzet v členu 3, prvi odstavek, EU.
This argument is borne out, a contrario, by the only bridge specifically established by the Maastricht Treaty and retained in the current version of the EU Treaty, in accordance with Article 47 EU, 54 between Community activity involving economic sanctions under Articles 60 EC and 301 EC and the objectives of the EU Treaty specified in Article 11(1) concerning external relations.
To stali�če a contrario potrjuje edina povezava, ki je bila vzpostavljena s pogodbo iz Maastrichta in je ohranjena v sedanji različici Pogodbe EU v skladu s členom 47 EU, 54in sicer med ukrepom Skupnosti, ki se nana�a na gospodarske sankcije na podlagi členov 60 ES in 301 ES, in cilji Pogodbe EU, določenimi v členu 11(1) EU na področju zunanjih odnosov.
These provisions, which are quite special provisions of the EC Treaty, 55expressly envisage that the European Union, acting pursuant to Title V of the EU Treaty, may provide for action by the Community aiming at interrupting or reducing, entirely or in part, economic relations with one or more third countries, thus rendering Community action subordinate to that decided on in the framework of the CFSP.
Te posebne določbe Pogodbe ES 55namreč izrecno določajo, da lahko Evropska unija, kadar deluje na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, predvidi ukrepanje Skupnosti, ki se nana�a na prekinitev ali omejitev, v celoti ali delno, gospodarskih odnosov z eno ali več tretjimi državami, pri čemer je ukrep Skupnosti podrejen ukrepu, o katerem se je odločilo v okviru SZVP.
Therefore it is indeed a matter of protecting the Community’s areas of activity, so that the European Union must refrain from interfering in those areas by using forms of cooperation less integrated than those provided for by the EC Treaty, namely those provided for under Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty.
Gre torej za za�čito področij, na katerih lahko Skupnost sprejema ukrepe, tako da Evropska unija ne sme posegati na ta področja s tem, da bi uporabila manj integrirane oblike sodelovanja od tistih, določenih v Pogodbi ES, in sicer pod naslovoma V in VI Pogodbe EU.
Although, from an objective viewpoint, the reference to the concept of acquis communautaire remains imprecise, it undoubtedly encompasses all the competences conferred upon the Community.
Čeprav z objektivnega vidika sklicevanje na pojem pravni red Skupnosti ostaja nedoločen, nedvomno zajema pristojnosti, ki so dodeljene Skupnosti.
54 — If, as provided by that article, no provision of the EU Treaty affects the EC Treaty, that is only ‘subject to the provisions amending the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community with a view to establishing the European Community’.
54 – Namreč, če – kot je določeno v tem členu – nobena določba Pogodbe EU ne vpliva na Pogodbo ES, je to le „ob upo�tevanju določb, ki spreminjajo Pogodbo o ustanovitvi Evropske gospodarske skupnosti z namenom ustanoviti Evropsko skupnost“.
55 — See Case T-306/01 Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3533, paragraph 160, and Case T-315/01 Kadi v Council and Commission [2005] ECR II-3649, paragraph 124.
55 – Glej sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 21. septembra 2005 v zadevi Yusuf in Al Barakaat International Foundation proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-306/01, ZOdl., str. II-3533, točka 160) in v zadevi Kadi proti Svetu in Komisiji (T-315/01, ZOdl., str.
It should be noted that appeals have been lodged against both those judgments.
II-3649, točka 124). Opozoriti je treba, da je bila vsaka izmed teh sodb predmet pritožbe.
The appeals, which are at present pending, have been registered under case numbers C-415/05 P and C-402/05 P.
Te pritožbe, v zvezi s katerimi postopek �e poteka, so vpisane pod referenčnimi �tevilkami C-415/05 P in C-402/05 P.
In the final analysis, it might be suggested that the CFSP covers ‘all areas of foreign and security policy’, with the exception of the forms of foreign policy which fall
Na koncu bi lahko navedli, da SZVP zajema „vsa področja zunanje in varnostne
Treaty is liable to encroach on the Community’s powers in relation to development cooperation.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, posegel v pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
Furthermore, I doubt whether an action of the European Union under Title V of the EU Treaty could ever encroach on the Community’s competence in relation to development cooperation, contrary to the allegation of the United Kingdom Government.
Poleg tega v nasprotju s trditvijo vlade Združenega kraljestva dvomim, da ukrep Evropske unije na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU ne bi mogel nikoli poseči v pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
It follows that the interpretation and the scope of Article 47 EU cannot be a function of the distribution of competences between the Community and the Member States by virtue of the EC Treaty.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da razlaga in obseg člena 47 EU nista odvisna od delitve pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami na podlagi Pogodbe ES.
In that connection, it will be recalled that the United Kingdom Government itself concedes that encroachment could be ruled out only if the European Union action pursues a CFSP objective under Title V of the EU Treaty.
V zvezi s tem je treba že zdaj opozoriti, da vlada Združenega kraljestva sama priznava, da bi bilo poseganje izključeno le, če bi ukrep Evropske unije na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU zasledoval cilj SZVP.
However, as I have already said, the authentic nature of such an aim must nevertheless always be verified by the Court in order to rule out an alleged infringement of Article 47 EU.
Vendar mora, kot je navedeno zgoraj, verodostojnost takega cilja vseeno vedno preveriti Sodi�če, da bi lahko izključilo domnevno kr�itev člena 47 EU.
Therefore the question to be examined by the Court in the present case is whether, by virtue of the competences conferred upon the Community in relation to development cooperation, the contested decision, having regard to its objective and its content, and in the light of the contested Joint Action which it aims to implement, could have been adopted by the Commission under Title XX of the EC Treaty.
Vpra�anje, ki ga mora Sodi�če obravnavati v tem primeru, je torej, ali bi izpodbijani sklep, v skladu s pristojnostmi, dodeljenimi Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, glede na njegov cilj in vsebino ter glede na sporni skupni ukrep, s katerim naj bi se izvr�il, lahko sprejela Skupnost na podlagi Naslova XX Pogodbe ES.
In addition, the very cautious wording of Article 8 of the contested Joint Action, which states that the Council ‘notes that the Commission intends to direct its action towards achieving the objectives and the priorities of [the contested] Joint Action, where appropriate by pertinent Community measures’, 56 shows clearly that the Council is well aware that, in general, an action which it adopts pursuant to Title V of the EU
Poleg tega pozorna obravnava člena 8 spornega skupnega ukrepa, v katerem Svet „opozarja, da je imela Komisija namen ukrepati tako, da bi dosegla cilje in prioritete […] [spornega] skupnega ukrepa, glede na okoli­ščine primera z upoštevnimi skupnostnimi ukrepi“ 56, jasno kaže, da se Svet vsekakor zaveda, da bi lahko na splo�no ukrep, sprejet
However, the Court’s examination depends on the question, also fiercely disputed between the parties, whether the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons falls outside the competence of the Community as such.
Vendar je ta obravnava odvisna od vpra�anja, o katerem je med strankami potekala burna razprava, in sicer ali dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra kot taka ne sodi v pristojnost Skupnosti.
If that were the case, in principle the action would have to be dismissed.
Če bi bilo tako, bi bilo treba tožbo načeloma zavrniti.
56 — Italics added.
56 – Moj poudarek.
Relationship between the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons and Community competence
Razmerje med dejavnostjo proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra ter pristojnostmi Skupnosti a) Trditve strank razvojnega sodelovanja, potrjujeta njegova umestitev v planiranje na podlagi okvirnega regionalnega programa za Zahodno Afriko z dne 19. februarja 2003 in vključitev postavke, namenjene financiranju ukrepov, ki se med drugim nana�ajo na dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in proti nezakoniti trgovini z orožjem, „če taki ukrepi niso zajeti že s Sporazumom iz Cotonouja, ki določa isto vrsto ukrepov v državah AKP“, v splo�ni proračun Evropske unije za leto 2004 v okviru poglavja SZVP.
According to the Commission and the Parliament, in so far as the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons has become an integral part of the policy of development cooperation, that campaign falls within the scope of the competences conferred on the Community in that field.
Po mnenju Komisije in Parlamenta sodi dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in malega kalibra v delu, v katerem je postala sestavni del politike razvojnega sodelovanja, med pristojnosti, ki jih ima na tem področju Skupnost.
The connection between the development cooperation policy and the destabilising accumulation of small arms and light weapons has moreover been recognised by the Council itself and by the international community.
Povezavo med politiko razvojnega sodelovanja in destabilizirajočim kopičenjem lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra naj bi med drugim priznala sam Svet in tudi mednarodna skupnost.
In its reply to the statements in intervention, the Commission points out that this does not exclude the possibility that certain aspects of the campaign against small arms and light weapons may fall within the scope of the CFSP, depending on their purpose and their content.
Komisija v odgovoru na intervencijske vloge pojasnjuje, da to ne izključuje, da lahko določeni vidiki dejavnosti proti lahkemu orožju in orožju malega kalibra, glede na njihov cilj in vsebino, sodijo v SZVP.
Cooperation in the longterm development of a country can be effective only where there is a minimum degree of stability and democratic legitimacy.
Dolgoročno razvojno sodelovanje države bi bilo namreč lahko učinkovito le, če bi obstajala minimalna stopnja stabilnosti in demokratične legitimnosti.
As part of that aim of stability, the policy of mine clearance and decommissioning of small arms and light weapons is an indispensable means of achieving the objectives of the development cooperation policy.
Politika odstranjevanja min in uničevanja lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra, ki je del tega cilja stabilnosti, naj bi pomenila bistveno sredstvo za dosego ciljev politike razvojnega sodelovanja.
The Commission claims that the integration of the campaign against small arms and light weapons into the Community policy
Komisija zatrjuje, da je bila dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra v skupnostno politiko razvojnega sodelovanja vključena v okviru Sporazuma iz Cotonouja, čeprav gre za me�ani sporazum.
The Council, supported by all the intervening governments, considers that the campaign against small arms and light weapons does not fall within the competences assigned to the Community.
Svet, ki ga podpirajo vse vlade intervenientov, meni, da dejavnost proti lahkemu orožju in orožju malega kalibra ne sodi med pristojnosti, dodeljene Skupnosti.
Neither the campaign against the proliferation of small arms and light weapons nor the more general objectives of preserving peace and strengthening security appear among the objectives of the Community listed in Articles 2 EC and 3 EC, and instead they fall exclusively within the ambit of the EU Treaty, in particular the CFSP.
Niti dejavnost proti �irjenju lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra niti splo�nej�i cilji za ohranitev miru in okrepitev varnosti ne sodijo med cilje Skupnosti, navedene v členih 2 ES in 3 ES, ampak so izključno predmet Pogodbe EU, zlasti SZVP.
On the other hand, according to Article 177(1) EC, the main aim of the Community policy of development cooperation is the reduction of poverty.
Po drugi strani naj bi bil v skladu s čle -nom 177(1) ES glavni cilj skupnostne politike razvojnega sodelovanja zmanj�anje rev�čine.
The provisions of the EC Treaty cannot be interpreted broadly so as to undermine the coexistence of the Union and the Community as legal orders which are integrated but distinct, like the constitutional architecture of the pillars.
Določbe Pogodbe ES naj se ne bi razlagale �iroko na način, ki bi omajal soobstoj Unije in Skupnosti kot integriranih, a različnih pravnih sistemov, in ustavno arhitekturo stebrov.
(i) Introductory remarks
b) Analiza i) Uvodne ugotovitve
The Council, supported by the French, Netherlands and United Kingdom Governments, considers that the fact that the proliferation of small arms and light weapons may incidentally affect the prospects for longterm development does not mean that the whole of that area falls within Community competences.
Svet, ob podpori francoske in nizozemske vlade ter vlade Združenega kraljestva, meni, da dejstvo, da bi lahko �irjenje lahkega orožja in orožja malega kalibra sicer vplivalo na vidike trajnostnega razvoja, ne pomeni, da to celotno področje sodi med pristojnosti Skupnosti.
The Council and the United Kingdom Government stress that, if the Commission’s argument were accepted, the CFSP would be of no practical effect at all.
Svet in vlada Združenega kraljestva trdita, da če se sprejme sklepanje Komisije, SZVP ne bi imel nikakr�nega učinka.
Two introductory remarks are required with regard to the Commission’s arguments.
V zvezi z utemeljitvijo Komisije se postavljata dve uvodni ugotovitvi.
First, it must be noted that, in the course of the present proceedings, the Commission has significantly modified its
Prvič, opozoriti je treba, da je Komisija v obravnavanem postopku občutno spremenila svoje stali�če glede povezave, ki po