natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Accordingly, the Commission upholds the idea of a ‘fixed’ boundary between the Community and the European Union acting in the framework of the CFSP.
Tako Komisija zagovarja stali�če „fiksne“ meje med Skupnostjo in Evropsko unijo, kadar deluje v okviru SZVP.
Second, the measure based on the EU Treaty must encroach on a competence conferred upon the Community by preventing or limiting the exercise of that competence.
Drugič, akt, ki temelji na Pogodbi EU, mora posegati v pristojnost, dodeljeno Skupnosti, s tem da preprečuje ali omejuje njeno izvr�evanje.
This pre-emptive effect is impossible in an area such as development cooperation, where the Community has concurrent competences.
Vendar naj bi bil tak učinek prekluzije izključen na področju, kot je razvojno sodelovanje, kjer ima Skupnost podobne pristojnosti.
In a sphere where there are concurrent competences, the mere fact that the Community has exercised its competence does not prevent the European Union from exercising its competence.
Na področju podobnih pristojnosti naj samo dejstvo, da Skupnost izvr�uje svojo pristojnost, Evropski uniji ne bi preprečevalo izvr�evanja njene pristojnosti.
The only constraint which there would then be on the European Union is the obligation of consistency laid down in Article 3 EU.
Edino oviro bi za Evropsko unijo pomenila obveznost doslednosti, ki je določena v členu 3 EU.
In contrast, the United Kingdom Government upholds a model which could be described as ‘dualist’ by treating the boundary between the competences of the Community and those of the European Union as the same as the boundary separating the Community and its Member States.
Po drugi strani vlada Združenega kraljestva zagovarja model, ki ga je mogoče imenovati „dualističen“, s tem da mejo med pristojnostmi Skupnosti in pristojnostmi Evropske unije obravnava kot mejo, ki loči Skupnost in njene države članice.
In other words, according to that approach, an action of the European Union under Title V of the EU Treaty pursuing one of the objectives laid down in Article 11(1) EU, including the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international security, would never encroach on the competences of the Community in the area of development cooperation, even if that action had a similar content to the action of the Community, because, like its Member States, the Union
Z drugimi besedami, s tem pristopom naj ukrep Evropske unije na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, ki zasleduje cilje iz člena 11(1) EU, med drugim ohranitev miru in krepitev mednarodne varnosti, nikoli ne bi posegel v pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, tudi če bi imel ta ukrep podobno vsebino kot ukrep, ki naj bi ga sprejela Skupnost, saj naj bi po zgledu držav članic Unija izvr�evala
would be exercising concurrent competences with those of the Community, thus rendering recourse to Article 47 EU pointless. 33
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU pristojnosti, ki so vzporedne pristojnostim Skupnosti, pri čemer bi bilo sklicevanje na člen 47 EU brezpredmetno 33.
As a general observation, it will be observed first of all that the United Kingdom Government does not claim that the European Union could adopt an action on the basis of the CFSP pursuing a socioeconomic development cooperation objective without infringing Article 47 EU.
S splo�nega vidika je treba najprej opozoriti, da vlada Združenega kraljestva ne trdi, da bi Evropska unija lahko sprejela ukrep na podlagi SZVP, pri čemer bi sledila socialnoekonomskemu cilju razvojnega sodelovanja, ne da bi kr�ila člen 47 EU.
The Government appears to accept, following the express position of the Council on this point, that the European Union could not pursue such an objective in the framework of Title V of the EU Treaty.
Ta vlada naj bi namreč po zgledu izrecnega stali�ča Sveta o tem vpra�anju priznala, da Evropska unija ne bi smela zasledovati takega cilja v okviru Naslova V Pogodbe EU.
In any case, both the Council and the United Kingdom Government submit that the contested decision and the contested Joint Action pursue an objective within the scope of the CFSP.
V vsakem primeru, in Svet in vlada Združenega kraljestva trdita, da izpodbijani sklep in sporni skupni ukrep zasledujeta cilj, ki sodi v SZVP.
On the face of it this may appear an academic question in so far as neither the Commission nor the United Kingdom Government denies that the examination which the Court should carry out in order to determine whether Article 47 EU has been infringed must rest on an assessment of the objective and the content of the contested decision in the light of the contested Joint Action.
Na prvi pogled se zdi, da gre za retorično razpravo, ker niti Komisija niti vlada Združenega kraljestva ne zanikata, da bi moral preizkus, ki bi ga moralo opraviti Sodi�če, da bi preverilo morebitno kr�itev člena 47 EU, temeljiti na presoji cilja in vsebine izpodbijanega sklepa glede na sporni skupni ukrep.
However, it is also clear from the pleadings of the United Kingdom Government that its argument means that the action should be dismissed without an examination of the content of the contested decision because, in reality, only the objective pursued by the action of the European Union is truly relevant for finding an infringement of Article 47 EU in the present case.
Vendar prav tako iz pisanj vlade Združenega kraljestva jasno izhaja, da njeno stali�če pomeni, da bi bilo treba tožbo zavrniti, brez obravnave vsebine izpodbijanega sklepa, ker naj bi bil v tem primeru za ugotovitev kr�itve člena 47 EU dejansko upo�teven samo resnični cilj, ki ga zasleduje Evropska unija.
In spite of the subtlety of the analysis offered by the United Kingdom Government, it seems to me that its argument is based on certain erroneous premises concerning the interpretation of Article 47 EU developed by
Kljub subtilnosti analize, ki jo je ponudila vlada Združenega kraljestva, se mi zdi, da njena utemeljitev temelji na nekaterih na -pačnih premisah glede razlage člena 47 EU, kot izhaja iz sodb Sodi�ča, kar bi lahko pripeljalo do zavrnitve njenega stali�ča.
33 — See points 70 to 72 of the statement in intervention of the United Kingdom Government.
33 – Glej �e posebej točke od 70 do 72 intervencijske vloge vlade Združenega kraljestva.
On the other hand, the United Kingdom Government maintains that, because of the concurrent competences, the Community is never prevented from adopting an action by way of development cooperation even where the European Union has, in the framework of the CFSP, adopted an action which has a similar content (namely, in the present case, financial and/or technical assistance to an African regional organisation) but pursues one of the aims of Article 11(1) EU, in the present case, preserving peace and strengthening international security.
Po drugi strani vlada Združenega kraljestva vztraja, da zaradi vzporednih pristojnosti Skupnosti nikoli ni preprečeno sprejetje ukrepa na podlagi razvojnega sodelovanja, tudi če je Evropska unija v okviru SZVP sprejela ukrep, katerega vsebina naj bi bila podobna (in sicer v tem primeru finančna in/ali tehnična pomoč regionalni afri�ki organizaciji), ampak naj bi zasledovala enega izmed ciljev iz člena 11(1) EU, v tem primeru ohranitev miru in krepitev mednarodne varnosti.
This argument rests in part on the premise that, by virtue of the Court’s caselaw, two independent conditions must be satisfied in order to find an infringement of Article 47 EU: first, the Community must be competent to adopt an
To stali�če deloma temelji na premisi, da morata biti v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča izpolnjena dva neodvisna pogoja, da bi se ugotovila kr�itev člena 47 EU: prvič,
37 act whose content and, more importantly, objective are similar to those of the measure adopted by the European Union and, second, there must be an encroachment on the competences of the Community.
Skupnost bi morala biti pristojna za sprejetje akta, katerega vsebina in predvsem cilj bi bila podobna vsebini in cilju akta, ki ga je sprejela Evropska unija, drugič, poseganje v pristojnosti Skupnosti.
First of all, it must be recalled that, under Article 47 EU, no provision of the EC Treaty can be affected by a provision of the EU Treaty. 34
Najprej je treba spomniti, da na podlagi člena 47 EU nobena določba Pogodbe o Evropski uniji ne bi smela vplivati na določbe Pogodbe ES 34.
The Court went on to add that ‘[i]n those circumstances, the entire framework decision, being indivisible, infringes Article 47 EU as it encroaches on the powers which Article 175 EC confers on the Community’. 38
Sodi�če dalje pojasnjuje, da „v teh okoliščinah okvirni sklep, s tem da posega v pristojnosti, ki jih člen 175 ES dodeljuje Skupnosti, zaradi svoje nedeljivosti v celoti kr�i člen 47 EU“ 38.
The function of Article 47 EU is to protect the competences which the provisions of the EC Treaty confer on the Community against any encroachment by acts which are claimed by the Council to fall within the scope of Titles V and VI of the EU Treaty. 35
Namen člena 47 EU je za�čititi pristojnosti, ki jih določbe Pogodbe ES dajejo Skupnosti, pred vsakr�nim poseganjem v okviru aktov, za katere Svet trdi, da sodijo pod naslova V in VI Pogodbe EU 35.
Contrary to what is suggested by the United Kingdom Government, those passages in the judgment in Case C-176/03 do not indicate that the existence of an encroachment on the powers of the Community may constitute a condition independent of that which includes examination of the content and purpose of the contested act.
V nasprotju s tem, kar predlaga vlada Združenega kraljestva, razlogi iz sodbe z dne 13. septembra 2005 ne nakazujejo, da bi lahko dejstvo poseganja v pristojnosti Skupnosti bilo pogoj, ki ni odvisen od tistega, ki vključuje obravnavo vsebine in namena spornega akta.
On the contrary, it appears that, by beginning paragraph 53 of that judgment with the words ‘in those circumstances’, the Court derived the encroachment on the powers of the Community and thus the infringement of Article 47 EU from its preceding examination of the aim and the content of the Council’s
Ravno nasprotno, zdi se, da je Sodi�če v točki 53 te sodbe z izrazom „v teh okoli�činah“ poseganje v pristojnosti Skupnosti in zato kr�itev člena 47 EU izpeljalo iz njegove predhodne obravnave cilja in vsebine
It will also be recalled that, in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council, the Court allowed the Commission’s action for the annulment of Council Framework Decision 2003/80/JHA, adopted under Title VI of the EU Treaty, on the protection of the environment through criminal law, 36 by finding that, on account of both their aim and their content, Articles 1 to 7 of the framework decision had as their main purpose the protection
Prav tako je treba opozoriti, da je Sodi�če v sodbi z dne 13. septembra 2005 v zgoraj navedeni zadevi Komisija proti Svetu ugodilo ničnostni tožbi, ki jo je vložila Komisija zoper okvirni sklep Sveta 2003/80/PNZ, sprejet na podlagi Naslova VI Pogodbe EU
36 — This framework decision was published in OJ 2003 L 29, p. 55.
36 – Ta okvirni sklep je že objavljen v Uradnem listu (UL L 29, str. 55).
38 — Idem (paragraph 53) (italics added).
38 – Ibidem (točka 53) (moj poudarek).
Kingdom Government admit, pursue a development cooperation objective which has not been assigned to it by the EU Treaty. 40 framework decision.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU priznavata Svet in vlada Združenega kraljestva, ne more zasledovati cilja razvojnega sodelovanja, ki ga Uniji ne nalaga nobena določba Pogodbe EU 40.
So it was on the basis of that examination that the Court was able to find that Article 47 EU had been infringed, and there was no need further to ascertain whether an alleged additional condition of encroachment on the Community’s powers was fulfilled.
okvirnega sklepa Sveta. Zato je Sodi�če �ele na koncu te obravnave lahko ugotovilo, da je bil kr�en člen 47 EU, pri čemer mu ni bilo treba preveriti, ali je izpolnjen zatrjevani dodatni pogoj glede poseganja v pristojnosti Skupnosti.
Next it is necessary to examine the argument of the United Kingdom Government that, because of the concurrent or complementary nature of the Community’s competences by comparison with those of the Member States in the field of development cooperation, 39an action of the European Union pursuing a CFSP objective could never encroach on the Community’s powers in the field of development cooperation.
Dalje, preučiti je treba trditev vlade Združenega kraljestva, da zaradi vzporednosti ali komplementarnosti pristojnosti, dodeljenih Skupnosti glede na pristojnosti držav članic na področju razvojnega sodelovanja 39, ukrep Evropske unije, ki zasleduje cilj SZVP, nikoli ne more posegati v pristojnosti Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
Second, it must be noted that Article 47 EU makes no gradation in the protection it confers on the provisions of the EC Treaty according to the distribution of competences between the Member States and the Community and hence the nature of the competences assigned to the Community.
Drugič, opozoriti je treba, da člen 47 EU ne vsebuje nobenega stopnjevanja za�čite določb Pogodbe ES glede na delitev pristojnosti med državami članicami in Skupnostjo, torej glede na naravo pristojnosti, dodeljenih Skupnosti.
Article 47 EU therefore appears to rest on the presumption that all the competences given to the Community, irrespective of the distribution that exists between the Community and the Member States, deserve to be protected against any encroachment on the part of the European Union by adopting a measure based on Titles V and/or VI of the EU Treaty.
Člen 47 EU torej temelji na domnevi, da bi morale biti vse pristojnosti, dodeljene Skupnosti, neodvisno od njihove delitve, ki obstaja med Skupnostjo in državami članicami, varovane pred morebitnim poseganjem Evropske unije pri sprejemanju akta, ki temelji na naslovih V in/ali VI Pogodbe EU.
On that point it must be observed, first, that this general approach remains at least subject to examination by the Court of the authentic nature of the CFSP objective pursued by the European Union by virtue of Title V of the EU Treaty because the Union cannot, as the Council and the United
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, prvič, da ta splo�ni pristop ostaja vsaj predmet obravnave Sodi�ča glede verodostojnosti cilja SZVP, ki ga zasleduje ukrep Evropske unije na podlagi Naslova V Pogodbe EU, ker ta, kot
It is also clear from Case C-170/96 Commission v Council and Case C-176/03 Commission v Council that the Court examined the possible infringement of Article 47 EU by measures adopted by the European Union in areas (visas and environmental
Prav tako iz zgoraj navedenih sodb z dne 12. maja 1998 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu in z dne 13. septembra 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Svetu izhaja, da je Sodi�če obravnavalo morebitno kr�itev člena 47 EU, ki naj bila storjena z ukrepi Evropske unije na področjih
39 — It should be borne in mind, for what it may be worth, that Article I-12 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 2004 C 310, p.
39 – Za kakr�en koli koristni namen je treba spomniti, da člen I-12 osnutka Pogodbe o Ustavi za Evropo [UL (2004), C 310, str.
1) distinguishes between three ‘categories’ of competences of the Union (fused with the Community), namely exclusive competence, competence shared with the Member States in a specific area in which they exercise their competence ‘to the extent that the Union has not exercised, or has decided to cease exercising, its competence’, and (undefined) competence in certain areas ‘to carry out actions to support, coordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States, without thereby superseding their competence in these areas’.
1] razlikuje med tremi „kategorijami“ pristojnosti Unije (združenih s Skupnostjo), in sicer izključno pristojnost, deljeno pristojnost z državami članicami na določenem področju, pri čemer te svojo pristojnost izvajajo „če Unija svoje pristojnosti ne izvaja ali se je odločila da jo bo prenehala izvajati“ in pristojnost (neopredeljena) na določenih področjih „za izvajanje ukrepov za podporo, uskladitev ali dopolnitev ukrepov držav članic, ne da bi s tem namesto držav članic imela pristojnost na teh področjih“.
Member States shall coordinate their policies on development cooperation and shall consult each other on their aid programmes’ and ‘may undertake joint action’.
(politika vizumov in okoljska politika), ki ne sodijo v izključno pristojnost Skupnosti, ampak pa na področje deljenih pristojnosti med Skupnostjo in državami članicami, in ki jih Skupnost �e ni izvr�evala.
The first paragraph of Article 181 adds that ‘[w]ithin their respective spheres of competence, the Community and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations’, while the second paragraph states that the Community’s competence in that sphere ‘shall be without prejudice to Member States’ competence to negotiate in international bodies and to conclude international agreements’.
sodelovanja in se med seboj posvetujejo o programih pomoči“ in „lahko sprejemajo skupne ukrepe“. Člen 181, prvi odstavek, ES dodaja, da „[v] okviru svojih pristojnosti Skupnost in države članice sodelujejo s tretjimi državami in pristojnimi mednarodnimi organizacijami“, medtem ko drugi odstavek določa, da pristojnost Skupnosti na tem področju ne „posega v pristojnost držav članic glede pogajanj v mednarodnih organih in glede sklepanja mednarodnih sporazumov“.
This appears to be evidence that the nature of the competence given to the Community and the distribution of competences between it and the Member States are immaterial for the purpose of applying Article 47 EU, provided that competence exists.
Ti elementi pomenijo dokaz brezpredmetnosti narave pristojnosti, dodeljene Skupnosti, in razdelitve pristojnosti med njo in državami članicami pri uporabi člena 47 EU, če ta pristojnost obstaja.
However, it cannot be denied that Community competence in the field of development cooperation exists, as shown by the provisions of Title XX of the EU Treaty.
Pristojnost Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja pa nedvomno obstaja, to potrjujejo določbe Naslova XX Pogodbe ES.
There is thus no doubt that, as the Court had already held in a judgment of 2 March 1994 — which was delivered after the EU Treaty entered into force but the facts of which were prior to that date — in that sphere the Community’s competence is not exclusive.
Torej ni dvoma, kot je Sodi�če ugotovilo že v sodbi z dne 2. marca 1994 – razgla�eni po začetku veljavnosti Pogodbe EU, katere dejstva pa so nastala pred navedenim začetkom veljavnosti –, da na tem področju pristojnost Skupnosti ni izključna 41.
41Furthermore, the Court confirmed that assessment after the entry into force of the EU Treaty in the case of Portugal v Council. 42
Sodi�če je to presojo poleg tega potrdilo po začetku veljavnosti Pogodbe EU v sodbi Portugalska proti Svetu 42.
To be sure, it is true that, as the United Kingdom Government submits, the Community’s competence for development cooperation complements that of the Member States.
Gotovo je res, kot trdi vlada Združenega kraljestva, da pristojnost Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja dopolnjuje pristojnost držav članic.
In Case C-316/91 Parliament v Council the Court concluded, from the finding that
V zgoraj navedeni sodbi Parlament proti Svetu je Sodi�če na podlagi ugotovitve,
However, the Court made it clear that the Community had specific competence to conclude agreements with nonmember countries in the sphere of development cooperation.
I-6177, točka 36). Sodi�če je vendarle pojasnilo, da je imela Skupnost posebno pristojnost za sklenitev sporazumov s tretjimi državami na področju razvojnega sodelovanja.
The Community’s policy in the sphere of development cooperation, referred to in Article 3(1)(r) EC and in Title XX of the EC Treaty, is, in the words of Article 177(1) EC, ‘complementary to the policies pursued by the Member States’.
Opozoriti je namreč treba, da politika Skupnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja iz člena 3(1)(r) ES in Naslova XX Pogodbe ES v smislu člena 177(1) ES „dopolnjuje politike držav članic“.
Article 180(1) EC provides also that ‘[t]he Community and the
Člen 180(1) ES tudi določa, da „Skupnost in države članice usklajujejo svoje politike razvojnega
COMMISSION v COUNCIL competence in the field of humanitarian aid, and that consequently the Member States were not precluded from exercising their competence in that regard collectively in the Council or outside it.
KOMISIJA PROTI SVETU da pristojnost Skupnosti ni bila izključna, sklepalo, da so se lahko države članice same zavezale nasproti tretjim državam, skupaj ali posamično, celo skupaj s Skupnostjo 43.
46 the Community’s competence was not exclusive, that the Member States were entitled to enter into commitments themselves vis-à-vis nonmember States, either collectively or individually, or even jointly with the Community. 43
da pristojnost Skupnosti na področju humanitarne pomoči ni bila izključna in da so države članice zato lahko, v okviru ali zunaj Sveta, skupaj izvajale pristojnosti na tem področju 46.
It follows that, contrary to what is suggested by the Commission in its pleadings, in the sphere of development cooperation the Member State are not prevented from exercising their own competence, even where the Community has exercised its own in the sphere in question. 47
Iz tega sledi, da države članice na področju razvojnega sodelovanja, v nasprotju s tem, kar v pisanjih navaja Komisija, lahko izvajajo svojo pristojnost, tudi če je Skupnost na zadevnem področju izvajala svojo pristojnost 47.
Although the Court did not make a positive assessment of the competence exercised by the Community, it must be noted that, following Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in that case, the Court rejected all the Parliament’s arguments claiming in particular that, as the Community had exercised its competence, the Member States could no longer exercise theirs.
Čeprav Sodi�če ni pozitivno presodilo pristojnosti, ki jo izvaja Skupnost, je treba navesti, da je Sodi�če, kot je v sklepnih predlogih, predstavljenih v tisti zadevi, navajal generalni pravobranilec H. G.
Any other interpretation of the provisions of Title XX of the EC Treaty would render totally ineffective the obligation laid down in Article 180 EC for the Community and the Member States to coordinate their policies on development cooperation and to consult each other on their aid programmes.
Drugačna razlaga določb Naslova XX Pogodbe ES bi obveznosti iz člena 180 ES, ki zavezuje Skupnost in države članice, da usklajujejo politike na področju razvojnega sodelovanja in se posvetujejo o programih pomoči, odvzela polni učinek. Na podlagi
46 — Joined Cases C-181/91 and C-248/91 Parliament v Council and Commission [1993] ECR I-3685, paragraph 16 (italics added).
46 – Sodba z dne 30. junija 1993 v združenih zadevah Parlament proti Svetu in Komisiji (C-181/91 in C-248/91, Recueil, str.
In a judgment from the same period, cited several times by the parties to the present action, in which the question arose of whether the decision challenged by the European Parliament was a challengeable act within the meaning of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), the Court also observed that the Community did not have exclusive
Sodi�če je v nedavni sodbi, ki jo večkrat navajajo stranke v obravnavanem sporu, v kateri se je postavilo vpra�anje, ali je sklep, ki ga je izpodbijal Parlament, pomenil izpodbojni akt v smislu člena 173 Pogodbe ES (po spremembi člen 230 ES), prav tako opozorilo,
47 — Of course, the existence of concurrent competences in development cooperation does not mean that, in exercising their own competence, the Member States are not subject to the obligation of loyal cooperation arising from Article 10 EC.
47 – Seveda obstoj vzporednih pristojnosti na področju razvojnega sodelovanja ne pomeni, da se države članice pri izvr�evanju svojih pristojnosti izognejo obveznosti lojalnega sodelovanja, kot izhaja iz člena 10 ES.
In addition, that obligation is defined by the need to coordinate Community and national policies on development cooperation laid down in Article 180(1) EC.
Ta obveznost se med drugim odraža v nujnosti usklajevanja skupnostnih in nacionalnih politik razvojnega sodelovanja, ki je določena v členu 180(1) ES.