natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The appellants raise identical pleas in support of their actions.
V utemeljitev pritožb pritožnici navajata iste pritožbene razloge.
They claim first that the contested judgments lack reasoning since they fail to address one of their principal arguments, relating to their entitlement to rely on the decision adopted by the DSB to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purpose of their claim for compensation.
Najprej zatrjujeta pomanjkljivo obrazložitev, ker naj z izpodbijanimi sodbami ne bi bilo odgovorjeno na eno od njunih glavnih trditev glede možnosti sklicevanja na sklep ORS, da bi za namen od�kodninske tožbe dokazali nezakonitost ravnanja Skupnosti.
They also allege an error of law in the reasoning which led the Court of First Instance to conclude that the damage was not unusual.
Poleg tega navajata tudi nepravilno uporabo prava pri presoji Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede ugotovitve, da �koda ni neobičajna.
Lastly, they claim fair compensation for the allegedly unreasonable length of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Na koncu predlagata tudi pravično od�kodnino za domnevno nerazumno trajanje postopka na prvi stopnji.
It should also be noted that the Council and the Kingdom of Spain, which maintain that the main appeals should be dismissed, have also lodged crossappeals in which they seek to have the contested judgments set aside on the grounds that the Court of First Instance was wrong to establish that the Community can be liable for a lawful act, to rule that such liability could be incurred where the
Poleg tega je treba opozoriti, da sta Svet in Kraljevina Španija, ki predlagata zavrnitev glavnih pritožb, vložila nasprotni pritožbi, s katerima predlagata razveljavitev izpodbijanih sodb, ker naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno ugotovilo obstoj odgovornosti Skupnosti za zakoniti akt, presodilo, da
In their first plea, the two appellants rely formally on a defect in the reasoning of the contested judgments in that the Court of First Instance did not address their argument that a DSB decision finding against the Community constitutes a different exception from those of the Nakajima and Fediol hypotheses to the principle that the WTO agreements cannot be invoked, enabling an individual to rely on those agreements in order to establish unlawful conduct on the part of the Community for the purpose of
S prvim pritožbenim razlogom se pritožnici formalno sklicujeta na pomanjkljivo obrazložitev izpodbijanih sodb – ker naj Sodi�če prve stopnje ne bi odgovorilo na njuno utemeljevanje – v skladu s katero sklep ORS, s katerim je obsojena Skupnost, pomeni drugačno izjemo – kot sta izjemi iz primerov Nakajima in Fedijol – od načelne nemožnosti sklicevanja na sporazume STO, ki omogoča pravnim upravičencem, da se nanj sklicujejo, da bi za namen priznanja odgovornosti
According to the appellants, the Court of First Instance merely verified whether the two exceptions to the absence of direct effect of the WTO agreements identified in Fediol and Nakajima were applicable in the case in point.
Skupnosti dokazali nezakonitost njenega ravnanja. Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi le preverilo, ali ti dve izjemi od neobstoja neposrednega učinka sporazumov STO, oblikovani v sodbah Fediol in Nakajima, veljata v obravna -vanem primeru.
according to which the effect of an adverse DSB decision can be examined and assessed only as part of a review of whether the conditions for applying the two traditional exceptions to the principle that the WTO rules cannot be relied upon are met.
preuči in presodi le v okviru nadzora nad izpolnjenostjo pogojev za uporabo teh dveh tradicionalnih izjem od načela nemožnosti sklicevanja na pravo STO.
According to the appellants, apart from the exceptions established by Fediol and Nakajima, it should be possible to rely on a DSB decision finding Community law to be incompatible with the WTO rules in order to establish the unlawfulness of the Community’s conduct if the following circumstances are all present: there is unlawful conduct consisting in the Community’s failure to implement that DSB decision within the reasonable period granted for compliance; the unlawful conduct is relied upon in the context of an action for noncontractual liability; and this action for compensation is intended to obtain reparation for the damage suffered as a result of the adoption, by trading partners of the Community, of retaliatory measures authorised by the DSB owing to the failure to implement the DSB decision.
Po mnenju pritožnic bi moralo biti mogoče, razen izjem, ki izhajajo iz re�itev zadev Fediol in Nakajima, sklicevati se na sklep ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena nezdružljivost prava Skupnosti s pravili STO, zaradi ugotovitve nezakonitosti ravnanja Skupnosti v naslednjih kumulativnih okoli�činah: nezakonitost naj bi obstajala, ker naj Skupnost ne bi izvr�ila tega sklepa ORS v razumnem roku, ki je bil določen za uskladitev; nanjo naj bi se sklicevalo v okviru tožbe zaradi nepogodbene obveznosti; namen te od�kodninske tožbe naj bi bil dobiti povračilo �kode, utrpljene zato, ker so trgovski partnerji Skupnosti sprejeli povračilne ukrepe, ki jih je dovolil ORD po navedeni neizvr�itvi.
It would be easy to dismiss this plea on the ground that, far from having constituted the essence of their arguments as to the unlawfulness of the conduct of the Community, that proposition was referred to in only a very ancillary manner before the Court of First Instance, in a footnote to Fedon’s application and in only two of the 177 paragraphs of FIAMM’s application.
Ta pritožbeni razlog je mogoče enostavno zavrniti, ker – daleč od tega, da bi pomenil bistvo njune utemeljitve o nezakonitosti ravnanja Skupnosti – je bila ta trditev pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje omenjena le zelo postransko, v obliki sprotne opombe v pritožbi družbe FEDON in samo v dveh od 177 točk, ki jih vsebuje pritožba družbe FIAMM.
Indeed, ‘although the Court of First Instance is required to give reasons for its decisions, it is not obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by a party’, 10nor to provide an account that follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case.
„Obveznosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da obrazloži svoje odločitve, se ne sme razlagati tako, da vključuje to, da mora podrobno odgovoriti na vsako trditev tožeče stranke“ 10, niti tako, da „mora predložiti natančno obrazložitev, ki bi izčrpno in sistematično sledila vsem utemeljitvam strank v sporu“.
11 Moreover, the Court of First Instance implicitly rejected the applicants’ proposition, because it assessed any effect of a DSB decision only from the point of view of the applicability of the two traditional exceptions to the absence of direct effect of the WTO rules. 12
11 Sodi�če prve stopnje je implicitno zavrnilo trditev tožečih strank, saj je presodilo morebitni vpliv sklepa ORS le glede veljavnosti dveh tradicionalnih izjem od neobstoja neposrednega učinka pravil STO. 12
But in reality, under cover of alleging a formal failure to state adequate reasons, the appellants question the very soundness of this reasoning of the Court of First Instance,
V resnici pa pod pretvezo formalne napake pomanjkljive obrazložitve izpodbijata samo utemeljenost presoje Sodi�ča, v skladu s katero se vpliv sklepa ORS o obsodbi lahko
10 — Case C-197/99 P Belgium v Commission [2003] ECR I-8461, paragraph 81, and the judgment of 11 January 2007 in Case C-404/04 P Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau v Commission, paragraph 90.
10 – Sodbi z dne 11. septembra 2003 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji (C-197/99 P, Recueil, str. I-8461, točka 81) in z dne 11. januarja 2007 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji (C-404/04 P, točka 90).
12 — See the FIAMM judgment, paragraph 115, and the Fedon judgment, paragraph 108.
11 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 7. januarja 2004 v zadevi Aalborg Portland in drugi proti Komisiji (C-204/00 P, C-205/00 P, C-211/00 P, C-213/00 P, C-217/00 P in C-219/00 P, Recueil, str. I-123).
Only by reminding ourselves of the effect of the caselaw and the reasons underlying it will we be able to determine whether it is appropriate to apply it and thus deny the appellants, for the purposes of the claim for compensation and in the specific circumstances of the cases in point, the possibility of relying on the DSB decision finding against the Community.
Šele opozorilo na njen obseg in razloge bo omogočilo ugotovitev, ali jo je treba uporabiti, tako da se za pritožnici v namene od�kodninske tožbe in v posebnih okoli�činah obravnavanih primerov zavrne možnost, da se sklicujeta na sklep ORS o obsodbi Skupnosti.
The caselaw of the Court of Justice on the ability to rely on international agreements
Sodna praksa Sodi�ča o možnosti sklicevanja na mednarodne sporazume.
It seems to me that opposition to it stems at least in part from the fact that it is often poorly understood.
Z drugimi besedami, zunanji sporazumi, sprejeti v skladu s pravom Skupnosti 15, ki zato zavezujejo Skupnosti, pomenijo pravni vir Skupnosti.
Perhaps the following exposition of its solutions will clear up some of the misunderstandings.
Sodi�če je iz tega izrecno izpeljalo njihovo primarnost nad akti sekundarnega prava 16 in priznanje svoje načelne pristojnosti za presojo vpra�anja o veljavnosti akta Skupnosti glede na zunanji sporazum, ki zavezuje Skupnosti. 17
In other words, external agreements which are concluded in accordance with Community law 15and which therefore have binding effect on the Communities constitute a source of Community legality.
Nestrinjanje po mojem mnenju vsaj delno izhaja iz slabega razumevanja.
Hence, the settled caselaw on WTO law, according to which ‘the WTO agreements are not in principle among the rules in the light of which the Court is to review the legality of measures adopted by the Community institutions’, 18may appear contradictory.
Zato je lahko ustaljena sodna praksa v zvezi s pravom STO, v skladu s katero sporazumi STO „v načelu niso med pravili, ki jih Sodi�če upo�teva pri nadzoru zakonitosti aktov institucij Skupnosti“, videti protislovna.
How can an international agreement be a rule of the Community legal system but at the same time not a criterion for reviewing the legality of Community acts?
18Kako lahko namreč mednarodni sporazum hkrati pomeni pravilo pravnega reda Skupnosti in ni parameter nadzora zakonitosti aktov Skupnosti?
These solutions are no more than the application, to the particular case of the WTO agreements, of the solutions developed by the Court on the possibility of relying on international agreements in general in the Community legal system.
Te re�itve so le uporaba sporazumov STO na posebnem primeru izmed tistih re�itev, ki jih je Sodi�če razvilo v zvezi z možnostjo sklicevanja na mednarodne sporazume na splo�no v pravnem redu Skupnosti.
I would point out from the outset that agreements duly concluded by the Community with third countries or international organisations are ‘binding on the institutions of the Community and on Member States’ under the terms of Article 300(7) EC.
Najprej naj opozorim, da sporazumi, ki so veljavno sklenjeni med Skupnostjo in tretjimi državami ali mednarodnimi organizacijami, „zavezujejo institucije in države članice“ v skladu s samim besedilom člena 300(7) ES.
This wording is both a reminder of an agreement’s compulsory nature under international law and a statement of the binding force of these agreements under Community law.
Ta formulacija pomeni hkrati opozorilo na obvezno veljavo sporazuma glede na mednarodno pravo in izjavo o zavezujoči moči teh sporazumov v pravu Skupnosti.
The Court has logically deduced from this that the provisions of such an agreement, 13 just as those of unilateral acts adopted by the organs established by an external agreement with binding
Sodi�če je iz tega logično sklepalo, da določbe takega sporazuma, 13 tako kot tudi določbe enostranskih aktov, ki jih sprejmejo organi, ustanovljeni na podlagi zunanjega sporazuma, ki
16 — See, even recently, Case C-286/02 Bellio F.lli [2004] ECR I-3465, paragraph 33.
I-6079, točka 37) in sodbo z dne 16. junija 1998 v zadevi Racke (C-162/96, Recueil, str.
With regard to the GATT or WTO agreements, see Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, paragraph 52, and International Air Transport Association and Others, paragraph 35.
I-3655, točka 41). Glede sporazumov STO glej zlasti sodbe z dne 10. januarja 2006 v zadevi International Air Transport Association in drugi (C-344/04, ZOdl. str. I-403, točka 36); z dne 30. maja 2006 v zadevi Komisija proti Irski (C-459/03, ZOdl., str. I-4635, točka 82) in z dne 11. septembra 2007 v zadevi Merck Genéricos Produtos Farmacêuticos (C-431/05, ZOdl., str.
17 — See Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others [1972] ECR 1219, paragraphs 6 and 7.
18 – Sodbe z dne 23. novembra 1999 v zadevi Portugalska proti Svetu (C-149/96, Recueil, str.
18 — Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council [1999] ECR I-8395, paragraph 47; Case C-76/00 P Petrotub and Republica [2003] ECR I-79, paragraph 53; Case C-93/02 P Biret Inter­national v Council [2003] ECR I-10497, paragraph 52; Case C-377/02 Van Parys [2005] ECR I-1465, paragraph 39; Case C-351/04 Ikea Wholesale [2007] ECR I-7723, paragraph 29; Case T-18/99 Cordis v Commission [2001] ECR II-913, paragraph 50; and Case T-19/01 Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission [2005] ECR II-315, paragraph 114.
I-8395, točka 47); z dne 9. januarja 2003 v zadevi Petrotub in Republica (C-76/00 P, Recueil, str. I-79, točka 53); z dne 30. septembra 2003 v zadevi Biret International proti Svetu (C-93/02 P, Recueil, str.
13 — See Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, paragraph 5; Case 12/86 Demirel [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 7; Opinion 1/91 [1991] ECR I-6079, paragraph 37; and Case C-162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I-3655, paragraph 41.
I-10497, točka 52); z dne 1. marca 2005 v zadevi Van Parys (C-377/02, ZOdl., str. I-1465, točka 39); z dne 27. septembra 2007 v zadevi Ikea Wholesale (C-351/04, ZOdl., str.
(a) The condition for reliance on international agreements concepts of the direct effect of international agreements and the direct effect of Community law differ.
POIARESA MADURA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P a) Pogoj za možnost sklicevanja na mednarodne sporazume pojma neposrednega učinka mednarodnih sporazumov in neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti razlikujeta.
(i) The concept of the direct effect of an international agreement
i) Pojem neposrednega učinka mednarodnega sporazuma
In order to serve as a yardstick for assessing the legality of a Community act and, in more general terms, in order that application of the provisions of an international agreement can be sought before a court, an international agreement must also be capable of judicial application.
Da bi bil mednarodni sporazum lahko referenčno pravilo, po katerem bi bilo mogoče presojati zakonitost akta Skupnosti in, splo�neje, da se lahko uporaba pogodbenih določb uspe�no predlaga pri sodi�ču, je potrebno tudi, da se lahko ta mednarodni sporazum sodno uporabi.
In other words, it must also be capable of being relied upon before the courts, that is to say ‘be capable of conferring rights on citizens of the Community which they can invoke before the courts’, 19that is to say again to have ‘direct effect’. 20
Drugače povedano, biti mora tak, da se je nanj mogoče sklicevati pri sodi�ču, to pomeni, „tak, da za posameznike iz Skupnosti ustvari pravico, da se nanj sklicujejo pri sodi�ču“ 19, to je, da ima „neposredni učinek“. 20
It may have been thought that this requirement to have direct effect was linked to, and confined to, proceedings for a preliminary ruling as to an act’s validity, the context in which it had initially been laid down.
Lahko bi �teli, da je ta pogoj neposrednega učinka povezan in omejen s postopkom za predhodno odločanje v zvezi s presojo veljavnosti, v okviru katerega je bil prvotno postavljen.
In International Fruit Company and Others the Court had expressly ruled that the condition of direct effect had to be met ‘before invalidity can be relied upon before a national court’.
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi International Fruit Company in drugi je Sodi�če izrecno presodilo pogoj neposredne uporabe, ki se zahteva „v primeru, v katerem se pred nacionalnim sodi�čem sklicuje na neveljavnost“.
21This wording contributed to a degree of confusion between the questions of the possibility of relying on international agreements and of the direct effect of Community law, 22and it undoubtedly explains some of the misunderstandings.
21Ta formulacija, ki je prispevala k zmedi med vpra�anjem možnosti sklicevanja na mednarodne sporazume in vpra�anjem neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti 22, nedvomno razloži nekatere nesporazume.
However, the two
Vendar pa se
The two concepts of the direct effect of international agreements and the direct effect of Community law are assessed differently.
Pojma neposrednega učinka mednarodnih sporazumov in neposrednega učinka prava Skupnosti se različno presojata.
By reason of the object and general scheme of the Treaty establishing the European Community, Community law as a whole has a capacity to produce direct effects, an ability confirmed when the Community provision at issue is clear, precise and unconditional.
Znano je, da iz cilja in sistematike ustanovitvene pogodbe Skupnosti izhaja, da pravo Skupnosti v celoti lahko povzroči neposredni učinek; ta lastnost je potrjena, kadar je zadevno pravilo Skupnosti jasno, nedvoumno in nepogojno.
23Nothing of the kind applies to international agreements binding on the Communities.
23 Nič od tega pa ne velja za mednarodne sporazume, ki zavezujejo Skupnosti.
They may be accorded a direct effect by the signatories to the agreement who have so agreed, just as they may agree the opposite.
Stranke podpisnice sporazuma lahko sporazumu, ki ga sklenejo, priznajo neposredni učinek, lahko pa sklenejo nasprotno.
Indeed, ‘in conformity with the principles of public international law Community institutions which have power to negotiate and conclude an agreement with a nonmember country are free to agree with that country what effect the provisions of the agreement are to have in the internal legal order of the contracting parties’.
„V skladu z načeli mednarodnega prava se namreč lahko institucije Skupnosti, ki so pristojne za pogajanja in sklenitev sporazuma s tretjimi državami, z njimi svobodno sporazumejo o učinkih, ki jih morajo določbe sporazuma imeti v notranjem redu pogodbenih strank“.
24If that question has not been settled explicitly by the agreement, it falls to the courts of each contracting party
24Če to vpra�anje v sporazumu ni izrecno urejeno, je naloga sodi�ča
19 — International Fruit Company and Others, paragraph 8; see also, to the same effect, Joined Cases C-300/98 and C-392/98 Dior and Others [2000] ECR I-11307, paragraph 44; Cordis v Commission, paragraph 46; and Chiquita Brands and Others v Commission, paragraph 114.
19 – Zgoraj navedena sodba International Fruit Company in drugi (točka 7); glej v istem smislu tudi sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi Dior in drugi (C-300/98 in C-392/98, Recueil, str. I-11307, točka 44); zgoraj navedeni sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje Cordis proti Komisiji (točka 46) in Chiquita Brands in drugi proti Komisiji (točka 114).
20 — Dior and Others, paragraph 45.21 — International Fruit Company and Others, paragraph 8.
20 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Dior in drugi (točka 45).
23 — See Case 26/62 van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1. 24 — Portugal v Council, paragraph 34; for an earlier judgment, see Case 104/81 Kupferberg [1982] ECR 3641, paragraph 17.
21 – Zgoraj navedena sodba International Fruit Company in drugi (točka 8).
289, particularly p. 357.
289, zlasti str. 357.
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION the status of the applicant, whether he be an individual or a privileged applicant.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI stranka, posameznik ali privilegirana tožeča stranka.
The Community courts have thus refused to allow the WTO agreements to be relied upon not only in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling as to validity 28but also in an action for annulment 29 or one for compensation.
V zvezi s sporazumi STO je sodi�če Skupnosti zavrnilo možnost sklicevanja nanje vsake pogodbene stranke, da to stori.
30They have refused to to do so. 25It is apparent from the caselaw of the Court that an international agreement has direct effect in the Community legal system only subject to the dual condition that the terms, nature and general scheme of the agreement do not prevent it being relied upon and that the provisions relied upon appear, in the light of both the object and purpose of the agreement and of its context, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, in other words contain a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure.
25Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča torej izhaja, da ima mednarodni sporazum neposredni učinek v pravnem redu Skupnosti le pod dvojnim pogojem, in sicer da njegovi izrazi, narava in sistematika ne ovirajo možnosti sklicevanja nanj in da so določbe, na katere se sklicuje, ob upo�tevanju predmeta in cilja sporazuma ter njegovih okoli�čin videti dovolj nedvoumne in nepogojne, to je, da vključujejo jasno in nedvoumno obveznost, ki glede njene izvedbe ali njenih učinkov ni pogojena s poznej�im aktom. 26 tako v okviru postopka za predhodno odločanje v zvezi s presojo veljavnosti 28 kot tudi ničnostne tožbe 29ali od�kodninske tožbe 30.
26 hear a plea based on infringement of WTO law, whether raised by an individual or by a Member State.
Zavrnilo je presojo tožbenega razloga glede kr�itve prava STO, ki jo je zatrjeval posameznik ali država članica.
(ii) The scope of the condition that international agreements must have direct effect
učinka ii) Obseg pogoja neposrednega mednarodnih sporazumov
The two concepts also differ in scope.
Oba pojma se razlikujeta tudi po njunem obsegu.
It is clear from Germany v Council 27that
Iz te sodbe tudi izhaja, da ta pogoj velja ne glede na to, kdo je tožeča
Although the attribution of such implications to the direct effect of international agreements has often been criticised by some legal writers, it is fully justified.
Čeprav je del teorije pogosto nasprotoval takemu obsegu neposrednega učinka mednarodnih sporazumov, pa je ta popolnoma upravičen.
As guardian of the Community legal order, the Court of Justice must, if a rule deriving from the international legal order is relied upon, define its effects in an all-embracing and uniform manner that is valid for the entire Community legal order.
Kot varuh pravnega reda Skupnosti mora Sodi�če v primeru sklicevanja na pravilo, ki izhaja iz mednarodnega pravnega reda, na splo�no in enako določiti njegove učinke, ki veljajo za celotni pravni red Skupnosti.
It is thus easy to see that the requirement for an international agreement to have a direct effect is necessary whatever the type of action and the status of the applicant, and whether the dispute has been brought before national courts or before the Community courts.
Tako z lahkoto opazimo, da se pogoj neposrednega učinka mednarodnega sporazuma zahteva ne glede na vrsto tožbe in tožeče stranke in ne glede na to, ali je bil spor predložen v odločanje nacionalnemu sodi�ču ali sodi�ču Skupnosti. 31
28 — See Van Parys; with regard to the GATT, see the earlier judgment in International Fruit Company and Others.
28 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Van Parys; glej v zvezi z GATT zgoraj navedeno sodbo International Fruit Company in drugi.
29 — See Portugal v Council.30 — See, for example, Cordis v Commission, paragraphs 44 to 60.
30 – Glej na primer. zgoraj navedeno sodbo Cordis proti Komisiji (točke od 44 do 60).