natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In addition, in a Union composed of 25 Member States this
Poleg tega bi se v Uniji, sestavljeni iz 25 držav članic, ta določba morala razlagati prožno, sicer bi lahko bila neveljavna.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P provision must be interpreted flexibly if it is not to be rendered inapplicable.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P pravnih redov novih držav članic, ker je do ustrezne raz�iritve pri�lo časovno po dejstvih iz obravnavane zadeve.
Fedon further submits that the objection put forward by the Kingdom of Spain relating in particular to the fact that the conduct complained of consists of an omission is inadmissible as it was not raised at first instance.
Očitek Kraljevine Španije, zlasti da naj bi očitano ravnanje pomenilo opustitev, naj bi bil nedopusten, ker ni bil naveden na prvi stopnji.
In any event, the Community can incur liability for both omissions and acts of the institutions.
V vsakem primeru bi se odgovornost Skupnosti lahko uveljavljala tako zaradi opustitve kot zaradi aktov institucij.
In the first plea of their respective cross-appeals, the Council has contended that the FIAMM and Fedon judgments should be set aside, and the Kingdom of Spain that the FIAMM judgment should be set aside, on the ground that the Court of First Instance erred in law in establishing a principle of Community liability in the absence of unlawful conduct attributable to its institutions or, in any event, in holding that such a principle is applicable in the case of conduct such as that at issue in the case in point.
Svet je v prvem pritožbenem razlogu svoje nasprotne pritožbe med drugim predlagal razveljavitev sodb FIAMM in Fedon, Kraljevina Španija pa v prvem pritožbenem razlogu svoje nasprotne pritožbe razveljavitev sodbe FIAMM z obrazložitvijo, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje večkrat napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je uporabilo načelo odgovornosti Skupnosti, ko njeni organi niso ravnali nezakonito, oziroma v vsakem primeru z ugotovitvijo, da se tako načelo uporabi v primeru ravnanja, kot je to, ki se obravnava v tej zadevi.
Without bringing a cross-appeal, the Commission asks the Court to retain the operative parts of the judgments under appeal but to substitute grounds to the same effect.
Komisija je brez vložitve nasprotne pritožbe Sodi�ču predlagala, naj ohrani izrek izpodbijanih sodb, vendar naj z istega vidika nadomesti obrazložitve izreka.
Since the grounds of challenge as so formulated dispute the very existence or very applicability of the liability regime which the judgments under appeal applied, they should be considered first.
Predložene očitke, s katerimi se izpodbija obstoj oziroma sama uporaba sistema odgovornosti, ki je bil uporabljen v izpodbijanih sodbah, je treba v tem primeru prednostno preizkusiti.
Indeed, if the error of law pleaded were proved, there would no longer be any need to rule on the second plea in the main appeals, concerning the unusual nature of
Treba je namreč poudariti, da če se navedena napačna uporaba prava izkaže za resnično, ne bi bilo treba odločati o drugem razlogu za glavno pritožbo glede
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the damage incurred, or on the other two pleas in the cross-appeals, respectively concerning the lack of certainty of the damage and the lack of a causal link, as the liability regime to which those three conditions are supposed to relate would not exist or not be applicable.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI neobičajnosti nastale �kode niti o dveh drugih razlogih za nasprotne pritožbe glede negotovosti �kode in glede neobstoja vzročne zveze, ker sistem odgovornosti, na katerega naj bi se navezovali ti trije pogoji, ne obstaja oziroma se ne uporablja.
The first plea in the crossappeals and the claims seeking the substitution of grounds, according to which a regime of no-fault liability, as established by the judgments under appeal, does not exist
Prvi pritožbeni razlog nasprotne pritožbe in predlogi za nadomestitev obrazložitve, ki izhajajo iz neobstoja sistema odgovornosti brez krivde, kot sta ga uporabili izpodbijani sodbi
It should be pointed out first of all that, in accordance with the settled caselaw noted in paragraph 106 of the present judgment, the second paragraph of Article 288 EC means that the noncontractual liability of the Community and the exercise of the right to compensation for damage suffered depend on the satisfaction of a number of conditions, relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the institutions are accused, the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage complained of.
Najprej je treba poudariti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, navedeno v točki 106 te sodbe, iz člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES izhaja, da sta uveljavljanje nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti in izvajanje pravice do povračila nastale �kode odvisna od izpolnitve vseh pogojev glede nezakonitosti ravnanja, ki se očita institucijam, dejanske �kode in obstoja vzročne zveze med tem ravnanjem in navedeno �kodo.
The Court has also repeatedly pointed out that that liability cannot be regarded as having been incurred without satisfaction of all the conditions to which the duty to make good any damage, as defined in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, is thus subject (Oleifici Mediterranei v EEC, paragraph 17).
Sodi�če je prav tako večkrat opozorilo, da navedene �kode ni mogoče uveljavljati, če niso izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, od katerih je odvisna obveznost povračila �kode, opredeljena v členu 288, drugi odstavek, ES (zgoraj navedena sodba Oleifici Mediterranei proti EGS, točka 17).
The Court has accordingly held that, where the Community courts find that there is no act or omission by an institution of an unlawful nature, so that the first condition for noncontractual Community liability under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC is not satisfied, they may dismiss the application in its entirety without it being necessary for them to examine the other preconditions for such liability, namely the fact of damage and the existence of a causal link between the conduct of the
Sodi�če je tako odločilo, da če ugotovi, da noben akt niti nobena zatrjevana opustitev institucije ni nezakonita, tako da prvi pogoj, od katerega je odvisno uveljavljanje nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti v smislu člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES, ni izpolnjen, sodi�če Skupnosti lahko zavrne tožbo v celoti, ne da bi moralo preizkusiti druge pogoje za to odgovornost, namreč resničnost �kode in obstoj vzročne zveze
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P institutions and the damage complained of (see, in particular, KYDEP v Council and Commission, paragraphs 80 and 81).
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P med ravnanji institucij in navedeno �kodo (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo KYDEP proti Svetu in Komisiji, točki 80 in 81).
The Court’s caselaw enshrining, in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 288 EC, both the existence of the regime governing the noncontractual liability of the Community for the unlawful conduct of its institutions and the conditions for the regime’s application is thus firmly established.
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča, ki na podlagi člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES določa obstoj sistema nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi nezakonitega ravnanja njenih institucij ter pogoje uporabe tega sistema, je torej trdno dokazana.
By contrast, that is not so in the case of a regime governing noncontractual Community liability in the absence of such unlawful conduct.
Vendar pa to ne velja glede sistema nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti, če ne gre za nezakonito ravnanje.
Contrary to what the Court of First Instance stated in the judgments under appeal, it cannot, first of all, be deduced from the caselaw prior to those judgments that the Court of Justice has established the principle of such a regime.
V nasprotju s tem, kar je Sodi�če prve stopnje zatrdilo v izpodbijanih sodbah, iz sodne prakse pred tema sodbama ni mogoče sklepati, da naj bi Sodi�če uporabilo načelo takega sistema.
As the Court of Justice noted in particular in Dorsch Consult v Council and Commis­sion, paragraph 18, a judgment to which the Court of First Instance refers in paragraph 160 of the FIAMM judgment and paragraph 153 of the Fedon judgment, the Court has on the contrary hitherto limited itself, as set out in settled caselaw, to specifying some of the conditions under which such liability could be incurred in the event of the principle of Community liability for a lawful act being recognised in Community law (see also, in similar terms, Case 59/83 Biovilac v EEC [1984] ECR 4057, paragraph 28).
Kot je Sodi�če opozorilo med drugim v točki 18 zgoraj navedene sodbe Dorsch Consult proti Svetu in Komisiji, na katero se sklicuje Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 160 sodbe FIAMM in 153 sodbe Fedon, se je Sodi�če povsem nasprotno doslej v okviru ustaljene sodne prakse omejilo na določitev pogojev, pod katerimi bi se taka odgovornost lahko uveljavljala, če bi bilo treba načelo odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi zakonitega akta priznati v pravu Skupnosti (v podobnem smislu glej tudi sodbo z dne 6. decembra 1984 v zadevi Biovilac proti EGS, 59/83, Recueil, str.
It was solely on that basis that the Court noted in Dorsch Consult v Council and Commission, paragraph 19, that if the principle of such liability came to be recognised, at the very least three conditions, comprising the fact of damage, the existence of a causal link between it and the act concerned and the unusual and special nature of the damage, would all have to be satisfied in order for liability to be incurred.
4057, točka 28). Sodi�če je v zvezi s tem samo v točki 19 zgoraj navedene sodbe Dorsch Consult proti Svetu in Komisiji opozorilo, da če bi bila taka odgovornost načelno priznana, bi zahtevala najmanj izpolnitev treh kumulativnih pogojev, in sicer resničnost �kode, obstoj vzročne zveze med njo in zadevnim aktom ter neobičajnost in posebnost �kode.
Secondly, as regards the liability regime recognised in Community law, the Court, while noting that it is to the general principles common to the laws of the Member States that the second paragraph of Article 288 EC refers as the basis of the noncontractual liability of the Community for damage caused by its institutions or by its servants in the performance of their duties, has held that the principle of the
Sodi�če je glede sistema odgovornosti, ki je priznan v pravu Skupnosti, z opozorilom, da člen 288, drugi odstavek, ES glede nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi �kode, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije oziroma njeni uslužbenci pri izvajanju svojih nalog, napotuje na splo�na načela, ki so skupna pravom držav članic, menilo, da je načelo, ki je tako izrecno utemeljeno s členom 288 ES, o nepogodbeni
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION noncontractual liability of the Community expressly laid down in that article is simply an expression of the general principle familiar to the legal systems of the Member States that an unlawful act or omission gives rise to an obligation to make good the damage caused (Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, paragraphs 28 and 29).
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI odgovornosti Skupnosti le izraz splo�nega načela, ki ga poznajo pravni redi držav članic, v skladu s katerim nezakonito ravnanje ali opustitev povzroči obveznost povrnitve povzročene �kode (zgoraj navedena sodba Brasserie du pêcheur in Factortame, točki 28 in 29).
As regards, more specifically, liability for legislative activity, the Court moreover pointed out at a very early stage that, although the principles in the legal systems of the Member States governing the liability of public authorities for damage caused to individuals by legislative measures vary considerably from one Member State to another, it is however possible to state that the public authorities can only exceptionally and in special circumstances incur liability for legislative measures which are the result of choices of economic policy (Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe and Others v Council and Commission, paragraph 5).
Sodi�če je natančneje glede odgovornosti zaradi zakonodajne dejavnosti poleg tega zelo zgodaj poudarilo, da čeprav so načela, ki v pravnih sistemih držav članic urejajo odgovornost javnih oblasti za �kodo, ki so jo posameznikom povzročile z zakonodajnimi akti, različna od države do države, je kljub temu mogoče ugotoviti, da zakonodajni akti, v katerih se izražajo opcije ekonomske politike, le izjemoma in v posebnih okoli�činah vključujejo odgovornost javnih oblasti (zgoraj navedena sodba Bayerische HNL Vermehrungsbetriebe in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji, točka 5).
First, even where the legality of measures is subject to judicial review, exercise of the legislative function must not be hindered by the prospect of actions for damages whenever the general interest of the Community requires legislative measures to be adopted which may adversely affect individual interests. Second, in a legislative context characterised by the exercise of a wide discretion, which is essential for implementing a Community policy, the Community cannot incur liability unless the institution concerned has manifestly and gravely disregarded the limits on the exercise of its powers (see, in particular, Brasserie du pêcheur and Factortame, paragraph 45).
Sodi�če je poleg tega navedlo, da se ozko razumevanje odgovornosti Skupnosti pri izvajanju njenih normativnih dejavnosti razlaga z ugotovitvijo, da po eni strani izvr�evanja zakonodajne funkcije, tudi če obstaja sodni nadzor zakonitosti aktov, ne sme ovirati možnost od�kodninskih tožb, vsakič ko splo�ni interes Skupnosti narekuje sprejetje zakonodajnih ukrepov, ki lahko neugodno vplivajo na interese posameznikov, po drugi strani pa, da je v normativnem kontekstu, za katerega je značilna �iroka diskrecijska pravica, ki je nepogre�ljiva za izvajanje politike Skupnosti, mogoče vzpostaviti odgovornosti Skupnosti zgolj, če je zadevna institucija očitno in resno prekoračila meje pri izvajanju svojih pooblastil (glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Brasserie du pêcheur in Factortame, točka 45).
Finally, it is clear that, while comparative examination of the Member States’ legal systems enabled the Court to make at a very early stage the finding recalled in paragraph 170 of the present judgment concerning convergence of those legal systems in the establishment of a principle of liability in the case of unlawful action or an unlawful omission of the authority, including of a legislative nature, that is in no way the position as regards the possible existence of a principle of liability in the case of a lawful act or omission of the public authorities, in particular where it is of a legislative nature.
Nazadnje je treba v zvezi s tem ugotoviti, da če primerjalni preizkus pravnih redov držav članic omogoča Sodi�ču, da zelo hitro pride do ugotovitve, navedene v točki 170 te sodbe, glede usmerjenosti teh pravnih redov v potrditev načela odgovornosti, če gre za nezakonit akt oziroma opustitev organa, tudi zakonodajnega, nikakor ne velja isto glede morebitnega obstoja načela odgovornosti, če gre za zakoniti akt oziroma opustitev javnega organa, �e zlasti, če so to zakonodajni akti.
In the light of all the foregoing considerations, it must be concluded that, as Community law currently stands, no liability regime exists under which the Community can incur liability for conduct falling within the sphere of its legislative competence in a situation where any failure of such conduct to comply with the WTO agreements cannot be relied upon before the Community courts.
Glede na zgornje ugotovitve je treba zaključiti, da v sedanjem pravu Skupnosti ne obstaja sistem odgovornosti, ki bi omogočal uveljavljanje odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi ravnanja, ki spada na področje njene zakonodajne pristojnosti, v položaju, v katerem morebitne neskladnosti takega ravnanja s sporazumi STO ni mogoče uveljavljati pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.
In the case in point, the conduct which the appellants allege to have caused them damage comes within the context of establishment of a common organisation of the market and clearly falls within the sphere of legislative activity of the Community legislature.
Treba je torej opozoriti, da v tem primeru ravnanje, za katero tožeče stranke navajajo, da jim je povzročilo �kodo, spada v okvir vzpostavitve skupne ureditve trga in očitno spada na področje zakonodajne dejavnosti zakonodajalca Skupnosti.
Failure on the part of the Community institutions to act can also fall within the legislative function of the Community, including in the context of actions for damages (see, to this effect, Les Grands Moulins de Paris v EEC, paragraph 9).
Nedelovanje institucij Skupnosti lahko namreč izhaja tudi iz zakonodajne funkcije Skupnosti, zlasti v okviru spora o odgovornosti (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo Les Grands Moulins de Paris proti EGS, točka 9).
It follows from all of the foregoing that, in affirming in the judgments under appeal the existence of a regime providing for noncontractual liability of the Community on account of the lawful pursuit by it of its activities falling within the legislative sphere, the Court of First Instance erred in law.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem ko je v izpodbijanih sodbah ugotovilo obstoj sistema nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi njenega zakonitega izvajanja svojih dejavnosti s področja zakonodaje.
However, two further points should be made.
V zvezi s tem sta nujni dve opredelitvi.
First, the finding in paragraph 179 of the present judgment is made without prejudice to the broad discretion which the Community legislature enjoys where appropriate for the purpose of assessing whether the adoption of a given legislative measure justifies, when account is taken of certain harmful effects that are to result from its adoption, the provision of certain forms of compensation (see to this effect, with regard to agricultural policy, Joined Cases C-20/00 and C-64/00 Booker Aquaculture and Hydro Seafood [2003] ECR I-7411, paragraph 85).
Prvič, treba je poudariti, da je ugotovitev iz točke 179 nastala brez poseganja v �iroko diskrecijsko pravico, ki jo ima zakonodajalec Skupnosti, če je potrebno, pri presoji, ali v primeru sprejetja danega zakonodajnega akta upo�tevanje nekaterih �kodnih učinkov, ki morajo izhajati iz tega sprejetja, upravičuje določitev nekaterih oblik nadomestila (glej v tem smislu, na področju kmetijske politike, sodbo z dne 10. julija 2003 v združenih zadevah Booker Aquaculture in Hydro Seafood, C-20/00 in C-64/00, Recueil, str. I-7411, točka 85).
Second, it is to be remembered that it is settled caselaw that fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law the observance of which the Court ensures.
Drugič, treba je opozoriti, da iz ustaljene sodne prakse izhaja, da so temeljne pravice sestavni del splo�nih načel, katerih spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če.
With regard, more specifically, to the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, the Court has long recognised that they are general principles
Zlasti glede lastninske pravice ter pravice do prostega opravljanja poklicne dejavnosti je Sodi�če že davno priznalo, da spadata med splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, vendar
2008 — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P of Community law, while pointing out however that they do not constitute absolute prerogatives, but must be viewed in relation to their social function.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P je pri tem poudarilo, da ta temeljna načela nimajo neomejene veljave, temveč jih je treba upo�tevati v razmerju z njihovo funkcijo v družbi.
It follows that a Community legislative measure whose application leads to restrictions of the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession that impair the very substance of those rights in a disproportionate and intolerable manner, perhaps precisely because no provision has been made for compensation calculated to avoid or remedy that impairment, could give rise to noncontractual liability on the part of the Community.
Iz tega sledi, da bi zakonodajni akt Skupnosti, katerega uporaba vodi k omejitvam lastninske pravice in prostega izvajanja poklicne dejavnosti, kar naj bi nesorazmerno in nesprejemljivo posegalo v sam temelj navedenih pravic – kar velja, če ni predvideno ustrezno nadomestilo za preprečitev ali odpravo navedenega posega – lahko imel za posledico nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti.
Having regard to the features of the present cases, it should also be noted that it follows from the Court’s caselaw that an economic operator cannot claim a right to property in a market share which he held at a given time, since such a market share constitutes only a momentary economic position, exposed to the risks of changing circumstances (see to this effect, in particular, Germany v Council, paragraph 79, and Alessandrini and Others v Commission, paragraph 88).
Glede na posebnosti teh zadev je treba tudi opozoriti, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da noben gospodarski subjekt ne more zahtevati lastninske pravice nad tržnim deležem, ki ga je imel v določenem trenutku v preteklosti, ker tak tržni delež predstavlja zgolj trenuten gospodarski položaj, ki je izpostavljen tveganjem sprememb okoli�čin (glej v tem smislu zlasti zgoraj navedeni sodbi Nemčija proti Svetu, točka 79, in Alessandrini in drugi proti Komisiji, točka 88).
The Court has also stated that the guarantees accorded by the right to property or by the general principle safeguarding the freedom to pursue a trade or profession cannot be extended to protect mere commercial interests or opportunities, the uncertainties of which are part of the very essence of economic activity (Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491, paragraph 14).
Sodi�če je tudi poudarilo, da varstev, danih z lastninsko pravico ali s splo�nim načelom, ki zagotavlja prosto izvajanje poklica, ni mogoče raz�iriti na varstvo preprostih interesov ali trgovske sreče, katerih negotovost je značilna za samo bistvo gospodarske dejavnosti (sodba z dne 14. maja 1974 v zadevi Nold proti Komisiji, 4/73, Recueil, str. 491, točka 14).
An economic operator whose business consists in particular in exporting goods to the markets of nonmember States must therefore be aware that the commercial position which he has at a given time may be affected and altered by various circumstances and that those circumstances include the possibility, which is moreover
Zato se mora gospodarski subjekt, katerega dejavnost je zlasti izvoz na trge tretjih držav, med drugim zavedati dejstva, da na poslovni položaj, ki ga ima v danem trenutku, lahko vplivajo in ga spremenijo različne okoli�čine in da so med njimi mogoči primeri, sicer izrecno določeni in urejeni s členom 22 DPPRS, ko taka
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION expressly envisaged and governed by Article 22 of the DSU, that one of the nonmember States will adopt measures suspending concessions in reaction to the stance taken by its trading partners within the framework of the WTO and will for this purpose select in its discretion, as follows from Article 22(3)(a) and (f) of the DSU, the goods to be subject to those measures.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI tretja država sprejme ukrepe prekinitve koncesij kot odgovor na ravnanje svojih poslovnih partnerjev v okviru STO in da s tem namenom prosto izbere, kot izhaja iz člena 22(3)(a) in (f) DPPRS, blago, na katero se nana�ajo navedeni ukrepi.
That is the case here.
V tej zadevi gre za tak primer.
The Court has held that Community law as it currently stands does not provide for a regime enabling the liability of the Community for its legislative conduct to found an action in a situation where any failure of such conduct to comply with the WTO agreements cannot be relied upon before the Community courts.
Sodi�če je namreč ugotovilo, da pravo Skupnosti v sedanjem stanju ne določa sistema, ki bi omogočal vzpostavitev odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi njenega zakonodajnega ravnanja v položaju, v katerem morebitne neskladnosti takega ravnanja s sporazumi STO ni mogoče uveljavljati pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.