natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In regard to a measure which is truly of general application, the annulment of which they cannot, in principle, directly apply for, ordinary applicants cannot be accused of a lack of care and in consequence they have a right to challenge the measure incidentally. 24
V primeru pravega splo�nega akta, glede katerega neprivilegirane tožeče stranke načeloma ne morejo neposredno predlagati razglasitve ničnosti, tem tožečim strankam ni mogoče očitati, da niso ravnale skrbno in torej imajo pravico do inci­denter izpodbijanja 24.
Indeed, since the Member States and the Community institutions have almost unlimited access to the action for annulment, such a line of reasoning — which makes the admissibility of a plea of illegality conditional upon it being impossible to bring an action directly before the Community Courts — would inevitably have the effect of denying privileged applicants any right to challenge a measure incidentally.
Glede na to, da imajo države članice in institucije Skupnosti skoraj neomejen dostop do ničnostne tožbe, bi tako razlogovanje, ki dopustnost ugovora nezakonitosti pogojuje z neobstojem neposrednega dostopa do sodi�ča Skupnosti, privilegiranim tožečim strankam prav gotovo odreklo pravico do incidenter izpodbijanja 25.
25 That would constitute an obvious infringement of the terms of Article 241 EC which, it should not be forgotten, gives any party the right to invoke the inapplicability of a regulation before the Court, notwithstanding the fact that the timelimits laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC have expired. 26
To bi pomenilo očitno kr�itev besedila člena 241 ES, ki – če spomnim – vsaki stranki ne glede na potek roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES daje pravico, da se pred Sodi�čem sklicuje na neuporabljivosti uredbe 26.
It is certainly because of the ‘insuperable’ nature of the wording of that provision 27 that the Court, prompted by a number
Sodi�če je prav gotovo zaradi nepremostljivosti tega dobesednega razumevanja 27
25 — See L. Coutron, op. cit., p. 393.
25 – Glej Coutron, L., str. 393.
That reasoning seems to me to be consistent with the logic informing the system of legal remedies in Community law and compatible with the terms of Article 241 EC, which permits any party to raise incidentally the inapplicability of a regulation.
Menim, da je tako razlogovanje koherentno glede na sistematiko pravnih sredstev Skupnosti in je združljivo z besedilom člena 241 ES, ki vsaki stranki omogoča, da se incidenter sklicuje na neuporabljivost uredbe.
By thus confirming that an ordinary applicant may challenge, incidentally, a measure of general application, the Court’s caselaw reconciles with the terms of Article 241 EC the logic of the principle that legal remedies should be mutually compensatory.
S tem, da sodna praksa Sodi�ča potrjuje možnost incidenter izpodbijanja splo�nega akta s strani neprivilegirane tožeče stranke, Sodi�če usklajuje logiko nadome�čanja pravnih sredstev z besedilom člena 241 ES.
26 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Slynn in Case 181/85 France v Commission [1987] ECR 689.
26 – V zvezi s tem glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Slynna v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba Francija proti Komisiji z dne 12. februarja 1987 (181/85, Recueil, str. 689).
24 — See, to that effect, Case C-241/95 Accrington Beef and Others [1996] ECR I-6699, paragraphs 15 and 16).
27 – Prevzem izraza, ki ga je uporabil generalni pravobranilec Mancini na strani 5343 njegovih sklepnih predlogov v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba Grčija proti Svetu z dne 27. septembra 1988 (204/86, Recueil, str. 5323).
27 — To adopt the expression used by Advocate General Mancini at p.
24 – V tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 12. decembra 1996 v zadevi Accrington Beef in drugi (C-241/95, Recueil, str. I-6699, točki 15 in 16).
of its Advocates General, 28 has progressively accepted that a privileged applicant may, in the course of an action for annulment, raise an objection of illegality in regard to a regulation. 29
BOTA – ZADEVA C-442/04 na pobudo več svojih generalnih pravobranilcev 28 postopoma sprejelo, da se privilegi- rana tožeča stranka v okviru ničnostne tožbe lahko sklicuje na ugovor nezakonitosti zoper uredbo 29.
If the terms of Article 241 EC prevent the lack of care of a privileged applicant, which has not brought an action for the annulment of a regulation within the time-limits, from being relied on against it in order to declare inadmissible a plea of illegality raised in regard to the same measure, I think that the same must, a fortiori, apply where a Member State has brought an action within the timelimits but that action has been dismissed on the ground that its claim for partial annulment was inadmissible.
Če namreč besedilo člena 241 ES nasprotuje temu, da bi bilo privilegirani tožeči stranki, ki zoper uredbo ni vložila ničnostne tožbe v določenih rokih, mogoče očitati pomanjkanje skrbnosti z namenom, da se ugovor nezakonitosti zoper tak akt razglasi za nedopustnega, potem menim, da a fortiori ista re�itev velja, ko je tožeča stranka ničnostno tožbo vložila pravočasno, pa je bila slednja zavržena zaradi nedopustnosti tožbenih predlogov za razglasitev delne ničnosti.
It is thus irrelevant to argue, as the Council and the Commission do, that the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain in regard to Regulation No 1954/2003 is inadmissible inasmuch as that Member State could have brought a direct action for the annulment of that regulation.
Zato ni mogoče trditi, kot trdita Svet in Komisija, da je ugovor nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, nedopusten, ker je ta država članica imela možnost, da neposredno predlaga razglasitev ničnosti te uredbe.
In my view, that argument must be rejected all the more forcefully where a privileged applicant has exercised its right of action, but the action has been dismissed on
Menim, da je to argumentacijo treba �e toliko bolj utemeljeno zavrniti, če je privilegirana tožeča stranka uporabila svojo pravico do tožbe, pa je bila slednja zavržena zaradi nedopustnosti tožbenih predlogov za razglasitev delne ničnosti.
In short, I do not find it consistent with the Court’s caselaw on the admissibility of pleas of illegality to penalise more severely — that is to say, by declaring its action out of time — a privileged applicant which has exercised a degree of care that could be described as imperfect (as is the case of the Kingdom of Spain in the present proceedings) than one whose conduct could be characterised as evincing a lack of care.
Če sklenem, menim, da glede na sodno prakso Sodi�ča na področju dopustnosti ugovora nezakonitosti ni primerna strožja sankcija – to je ugasnitev pravice – privilegirane tožeče stranke, ki je dokazala svojo skrbnost, ki jo sicer lahko, kot v primeru Kraljevine Španije v tem postopku, označimo za nepopolno v primerjavi z ravnanjem tiste privilegirane tožeče stranke, ki ga lahko razumemo kot neskrbno.
28 — See, in particular, p.
28 – Glej zlasti str.
414 of the Opinion of Advocate General Roemer in Case 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389; p.
600 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Roemerja v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena sodba Italija proti Svetu in Komisiji z dne 13. julija 1966 (32/65, Recueil, str. 563); str.
See also the same line of reasoning in paragraphs 36 to 54 of the Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi in Case C-91/05 Commission v Council, still pending before the Court.
V zvezi z istimi smernicami razlogovanja glej tudi točke od 36 do 54 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Mengozzija, predstavljenih 19. septembra 2007 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu (C-91/05), ki �e poteka pred Sodi�čem.
29 — Several judgments only implicitly recognise the right of privileged applicants to challenge a regulation indirectly in the course of an action for annulment (see Italy v Council and Commission, France v Commission and Greece v Council).
29 – Več sodb zgolj implicitno priznava pravico privilegiranih tožečih strank do incidenter izpodbijanja uredbe v okviru ničnostne tožbe (glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Italija proti Svetu in Komisiji; Francija proti Komisiji in Grčija proti Svetu).
I conclude from those considerations that the terms of Article 241 EC permit, to a very large degree, a Member State to invoke the inapplicability of a regulation, even, in my opinion, where it has already brought an action for the partial annulment of the regulation, but that action has been declared inadmissible.
Ugotavljam, da se na podlagi člena 241 ES država članica v veliki meri lahko sklicuje na neuporabljivost uredbe tudi takrat, ko je že vložila ničnostno tožbo zoper tako uredbo, ki pa je bila razgla�ena za nedopustno.
Whether or not the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain was out of time in his reply, 33unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure, in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. 34
Prepoznost ali pravočasnost ugovora nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija v svoji repliki 33, razen če to izhaja iz pravnih in dejanskih okoli�čin, ki so se pojavile med postopkom, v skladu s členom 42(2), prvi pododstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča 34.
It should also be pointed out that the Court has decided that although that provision allows an applicant, in exceptional circumstances, to introduce new pleas in law in support of the form of order sought in the application, it does not in any way provide for the possibility of an applicant’s changing the form of order sought. 35
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da Sodi�če meni, da čeprav ta določba tožeči stranki omogoča, da se izjemoma sklicuje na nove tožbene razloge v utemeljitev svojih tožbenih predlogov, nikakor ne določa možnosti, da tožeča stranka navaja nove tožbene predloge 35.
Thus, a plea of illegality which is not accompanied by a summary of the plea and which does not include a statement of reasons must be declared inadmissible. 31
Tako je treba razglasiti za nedopustnega ugovor nezakonitosti, h kateremu ni priložen povzetek tožbenih razlogov in ki ni obrazložen 31.
In the light of those requirements, the Community judicature has already accepted that a plea of illegality may be raised implicitly.
Glede na te zahteve je sodi�če Skupnosti že sprejelo, da se je na ugovor nezakonitosti mogoče sklicevati implicitno.
The ‘essential arguments in law’ must therefore be mentioned in the application and may thus, where appropriate, be developed in the reply. 32
Nujno je torej, da so „bistveni elementi pravne utemeljitve“ v tožbi navedeni, kar omogoča, če je to potrebno, oblikovanje replike 32.
Moreover, the prohibition on introducing new pleas in law in the course of proceedings prevents an applicant from raising a plea of illegality for the first time
Poleg tega navajanje novih razlogov med postopkom tožeči stranki preprečuje, da bi se na ugovor nezakonitosti prvič sklicevala
30 — See, on that subject, L. Coutron, op. cit., pp. 102 to 104.
30 – V zvezi s tem glej Coutron, L., str. od 102 do 104.
33 — The Court has also decided that the subjectmatter of the dispute is to be stated in the application and a plea of illegality is inadmissible at the stage of the reply (Joined Cases 87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 and 10/84 Salerno and Others v Commission and Council [1985] ECR 2523, paragraph 37).
33 – Sodi�če je tako razsodilo, da je okvir spora določen s tožbo in da ugovor nezakonitosti ni dopusten v fazi replike (sodba z dne 11. julija 1985 v združenih zadevah Salerno in drugi proti Komisiji in Svetu (87/77, 130/77, 22/83, 9/84 in 10/84, Recueil, str. 2523, točka 37)).
See also Joined Cases T-134/03 and T-135/03 Common Market Fertilizers v Commission [2005] ECR II-3923, paragraph 51, confirmed in Case C-443/05 P Common Market Fertilizers v Commission [2007] ECR I-7209, paragraphs 106 to 110).
II-3923, točka 51), potrjeno s sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 13. septembra 2007 v združenih zadevah Common Market Fertilizers proti Komisiji (C-443/05 P, ZOdl., str. I-7209, točke od 106 do 110).
34 — See, in particular, Case C-135/92 Fiskano v Commission [1994] ECR I-2885, paragraphs 31 to 33).
34 – Glej zlasti sodbo z dne 29. junija 1994 v zadevi Fiskano proti Komisiji (C-135/92, Recueil, str. I-2885, točke od 31 do 33).
See also Case F-59/05 De Smedt v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-0 and II-0, paragraph 77).
Glej tudi sodbo Sodi�ča za uslužbence z dne 19. oktobra 2006 v zadevi De Smedt proti Komisiji (F-59/05, ZOdl., str.
32 — See X v ECB, paragraphs 115 et seq.
32 – Zgoraj navedena sodba X proti ECB (točka 115 in naslednje).
37 Where that condition
1415/2004, sprejete za izvedbo členov 3 in 6 prve uredbe.
Applying those requirements to the present case, it is clear that, as the Council and the Commission substantially accept, the two main grounds relied upon by the Kingdom of Spain in its application and the arguments on which they are based are intended, in the first place, to challenge, in a precise manner, the legality of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 and then,
Če te zahteve prenesemo v to zadevo, je treba ugotoviti, da je, kot v bistvu priznavata Svet in Komisija, prvi namen očitkov, na katere se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija v svoji tožbi, ter utemeljitve, ki jo navaja, natančno
39 Both parties were thus certain that an implicit plea of illegality had been raised.
Obema strankama je bilo torej jasno, da je bil vložen implicitni ugovor nezakonitosti.
36 — Case T-262/94 Baiwir v Commission [1996] ECR-SC I-A-257 and II-739, paragraph 37).
36 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. junija 1996 v zadevi Baiwir proti Komisiji (T-262/94, RecFP, str. I-A-257 in II-739, točka 37).
In the view of the Court of First Instance, ‘the caselaw makes it possible to consider that a plea of illegality may be raised implicitly in so far as it is relatively clear from the application that the applicant is in fact raising such a plea’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da „sodna praksa �teje, da gre za implicitno sklicevanje na ugovor nezakonitosti, če iz tožbe relativno jasno izhaja, da se tožeča stranka sklicuje na tak očitek“.
It follows that, even if the Kingdom of Spain did not, at the stage of the application,
Iz tega sledi, da čeprav se Kraljevina Španija ob vložitvi tožbe ni izrecno sklice -
See also L. Coutron, op. cit., p. 103.
Glej tudi Coutron, L., str. 103.
For another example of the implicit plea of illegality, see Case T-173/04 Carius v Commission [2006] ECR-SC I-A-0 and II-0, paragraphs 44 to 60).
Za drugi primer implicitnega ugovora nezakonitosti glej sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 25. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Carius proti Komisiji (T-173/04, ZOdl. JU, str. I-A-2-243 in I-A-2-1269, točke od 44 do 60).
38 — Thus, in Spruyt v Commission the Court of First Instance ascertained whether the Commission had been able to defend its position in regard to the implicit plea of illegality during the written procedure (paragraphs 54 to 61).
38 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako z zgoraj navedeno sodbo Spruyt proti Komisiji preverilo, ali Komisija lahko oblikuje svoje stali�če v zvezi z implicitnim ugovorom nezakonitosti med pisnim postopkom (točke od 54 do 61).
39 — See paragraph 34 of this Opinion.
39 – Glej točko 34 teh sklepnih predlogov.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-442/04 expressly indicate that it was raising a plea under Article 241 EC alleging the illegality of Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, the plea of illegality may be regarded as implicitly contained in the application.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU vala na nezakonitost členov 3 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 na podlagi člena 241 ES, je mogoče �teti, da je bil ta ugovor nezakonitosti implicitno vsebovan v tožbi.
partial annulment of a Community act is possible only if the elements the annulment of which is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act 40 — that is to say, the fact that the Community Courts may not rule ultra petita partem where the form of order sought is the partial annulment of a Community act and they find that the contested provisions cannot be severed from the remainder of the act — does not apply in the case of pleas of illegality.
mogoča zgolj takrat, kadar je elemente, katerih ničnost se predlaga, mogoče ločiti od preostalega akta 40, torej nezmožnost sodi�ča Skupnosti, da odloča ultra petita, ko so mu predloženi predlogi za razglasitev delne ničnosti akta Skupnosti in ko ugotovi, da so izpodbijane določbe neločljive od preostalega dela tega akta, ne velja za ugovor nezakonitosti.
In the context of such a remedy, it is possible to claim only that the act incidentally contested is inapplicable, not that it should be annulled.
V okviru tega pravnega sredstva se je namreč mogoče sklicevati zgolj na neuporabljivost incidenter izpodbijanega akta, ni pa mogoče doseči, da se ga razglasi za ničnega.
In my opinion, that circumstance prevents the plea of illegality from being regarded as out of time and declared inadmissible on that ground.
Menim, da ta okoli�čina nasprotuje temu, da bi bilo ta ugovor nezakonitosti mogoče �teti za prepoznega in ga zato razglasiti za nedopustnega.
Nor do I consider that its admissibility should be precluded by the fact that it is an incidental partial challenge to Regulation No 1954/2003.
Poleg tega menim, da dejstvo, da gre za incidenter izpodbijanje dela Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, ne more vplivati na njegovo dopustnost.
I do not therefore consider it appropriate to apply that caselaw by analogy to the plea of illegality.
Menim, da te sodne prakse po analogiji ni mogoče uporabiti pri ugovoru nezakonitosti.
With regard to the requirement that there should be a direct legal link between the measure being principally challenged and the one being incidentally challenged, I do not consider that an applicant can be criticised for establishing the existence of such a link by focusing its submissions in support of a plea of illegality on the precise provisions of the basic legislation which has been implemented by the implementing rules.
Menim, da glede na zahtevo po neposredni pravni zvezi med primarno izpodbijanim aktom in aktom, ki se izpodbija inci­denter, tožeči stranki ni mogoče očitati, da to zvezo izkazuje tako, da svoje očitke v utemeljitev ugovora nezakonitosti usmerja zoper določbe temeljne ureditve, ki predstavljajo natančno tiste določbe, ki se izvajajo z izvedbeno uredbo.
Consistent with the arguments put forward in its application, its submissions remain focused on Articles 3 and 6 of the regulation.
V skladu z utemeljitvami v tožbi njeni očitki namreč ostajajo osredotočeni na člena 3 in 6 te uredbe.
40 — See, in particular, Spain v Council (paragraph 9 and the caselaw cited therein).
40 – Glej zlasti zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Svetu (točka 9 in navedena sodna praksa).
I would add that the principal reason underlying the caselaw to the effect that
Dodajam, da glavni razlog, na katerem temelji sodna praksa, v skladu s katero je razglasitev delne ničnosti akta Skupnosti
With those circumstances in mind, I regard as admissible the Kingdom of Spain’s claim, in support of the present action for annulment, that Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003 are inapplicable.
Ob upo�tevanju teh elementov menim, da se Kraljevina Španija v utemeljitev te ničnostne tožbe lahko sklicuje na neuporabljivost členov 3 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003.
— first, that the reference period 1998-2002 used in Regulation No 1954/2003 as the basis for calculating the fishing effort corresponds to a period during which the Kingdom of Spain, unlike the other Member States, was subject to a restrictive regime by reason of its accession to the European Community; and,
– referenčno obdobje 1998–2000 iz Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 za izračun ribolovnega napora ustreza obdobju, v katerem je za to državo članico za razliko od drugih držav članic veljal restriktiven režim zaradi njenega pristopa k Evropski skupnosti, in
In my opinion, the present action must consequently be regarded as based on a single plea in law, namely, the plea of illegality in regard to Articles 3 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, in support of which the Kingdom of Spain has put forward two principal submissions, namely, infringement of the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality, and misuse of powers.
Menim, da je zato to tožbo treba analizirati tako, kot da temelji na enem tožbenem razlogu, in sicer na ugovoru nezakonitosti členov 3 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, v utemeljitev katerega se Kraljevina Španija sklicuje na dva očitka, in sicer po eni strani na kr�itev načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva, po drugi strani pa na zlorabo pooblastil.
B — Whether the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain is well founded
– določitev biolo�ko občutljivega območja, ki je opredeljeno v členu 6(1) Uredbe �t.
— second, that the delimitation of the biologically sensitive area as defined in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1954/2003, where a specific fishing effort regime applies, coincides with an earlier area known as the ‘Irish Box’, in which the Kingdom of Spain was also subject to a restrictive regime.
1954/2003 in za katerega se uporablja poseben režim ribolovnega napora, sovpada s starim območjem „Irish Box“, v katerem je za Kraljevino Španijo prav tako veljal restriktiven režim.
More generally, the Kingdom of Spain argues that the transitional arrangements to which it was subject by reason of its accession to the Community expired on 31 December 2002 and that the new regulation should
Bolj splo�no, Kraljevina Španija meni, da naj bi prehodni režim, ki je zanjo veljal zaradi pristopa k Skupnosti, prenehal veljati 31. decembra 2002 in da naj nova uredba za referenco ne bi smela vzeti obdobja
More precisely, the Kingdom of Spain claims, in support of the submission alleging infringement of the
Kot sem navedel zgoraj, Kraljevina Španija v utemeljitev očitkov kr�itve načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva in zlorabe pooblastil navaja iste utemeljitve, kot jih je navajala v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-442/04 type of technical measure is governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through technical measures for the protection of juveniles of marine organisms.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU tehničnih ukrepov ureja Uredba Sveta (ES) �t. 850/98 z dne 30. marca 1998 za ohranjanje ribolovnih virov s tehničnimi ukrepi za varovanje nedoraslih morskih organizmov 41.
By using that period in Regulation No 1954/2003 for purposes of assessing fishing effort, the Council continued the discrimination which existed in the legislation preceding that regulation.
1954/2003 to obdobje ohranil za namene ocene ribolovnega napora, ohranil diskriminacijo, ki je obstajala v ureditvi pred to uredbo.
Those two submissions were considered in detail by Advocate General Léger in his Opinion in Spain v Council.
Ta dva očitka je podrobno obravnaval generalni pravobranilec Léger v svojih sklepnih predlogih, ki so bili predstavljeni v okviru zadeve, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu.
The Kingdom of Spain also maintains that the Council failed to take into account the specific situation of the Spanish fleet under the rules of the Act of Accession, which constitutes an infringement of the principle of nondiscrimination on grounds of nationality.
Kraljevina Španija prav tako meni, da Svet ni upo�teval posebnega položaja �panske flote, ki izhaja iz pravil Akta o pristopu, kar naj bi pomenilo kr�itev načela prepovedi diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva.
I agree with his analysis and I would refer the Court to points 41 to 81 of that Opinion.
S to analizo se strinjam in zato Sodi�če opozarjam na točke od 41 do 81 teh sklepnih predlogov.
I will merely note the following points.
Tukaj bom navedel zgolj elemente, ki sledijo.