natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, Chronopost and La Poste were precluded from raising that plea before the Court of First Instance.
Družbama Chronopost in La Poste je bilo zato ta tožbeni razlog preprečeno uveljavljati pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
One should then ask whether the Commission itself could have raised such a plea in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
Vpra�anje je torej, ali bi lahko ta tožbeni razlog pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje uveljavljala Komisija.
As to admissibility, I recall that Chronopost and La Poste were interveners supporting the Commission in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
V zvezi z vpra�anjem dopustnosti je treba opozoriti, da sta bili družbi Chronopost in La Poste v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje intervenientki na strani Komisije.
Under Article 48(2) of the Rules of the Court of First Instance, no new plea may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters which come to light in the course of the procedure.
V skladu s členom 48(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje navajanje novih razlogov med postopkom ni dovoljeno, razen če ti izhajajo iz okoli�čin, ki so se pojavile med postopkom.
The Court of First Instance applies an objective test to the question whether the matters have ‘come to light’ during the procedure, namely whether the party had been in a position to be aware of the matters previously. 21
Sodi�če prve stopnje naredi objektivni preizkus, ali so se okoli�čine „pojavile“ med postopkom, in sicer, ali je stranka za okoli�čine vedela že prej. 21
Under Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an intervener may only support the form of order sought by one of the parties.
Intervenient lahko v skladu s členom 40 Statuta Sodi�ča podpira le predloge ene stranke.
The Community Courts have interpreted that limitation as precluding an intervener from raising arguments or pleas that are entirely unconnected with the issues underlying the dispute, as established by the applicant and defendant. 20
Sodi�ča Skupnosti so to omejitev razložila kot prepoved intervenienta, da bi podajal trditve ali tožbene razloge, ki v ničemer niso povezani z bistvom spora, nastalega med tožečo in toženo stranko. 20
The composition of the Chamber of the Court of First Instance to which the case was assigned upon being referred back by the Court is self-evidently a matter which could not have come to light before the proceedings commenced.
Sestava senata Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki mu je zadeva potem, ko jo je Sodi�če vrnilo v novo odločanje, dodeljena, je očitno taka okoli�čina, ki se ni mogla pojaviti pred začetkom postopka.
Under Article 48(2) of the Rules of the Court of First Instance, the Commission would therefore have been en -titled to raise a new plea to challenge it.
Komisija bi zato v skladu s členom 48(2) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje lahko uveljavljala nov tožbeni razlog, da bi jo izpodbila.
21 — See Case T-340/04 France Télécom v Commission [2007] ECR II-573, paragraph 164 and the caselaw cited there.
I-939, točki 23 in 24) in sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 14. decembra 2006 v zadevi Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau proti Komisiji (T-237/02, ZOdl., str.
The latter judgment is currently under appeal (Case C-139/07 P) but not on this point.
II-573, točka 164, in nave -dena sodna praksa).
The Commission would here likewise not be permitted to raise the question of the composition of the Court of First Instance as a ground of appeal.
Tudi v obravnavani zadevi Komisija ne bi mogla uveljavljati trditve v zvezi s sestavo Sodi�ča prve stopnje kot pritožbeni razlog.
The Commission could have objected to the composition of the Chamber before the lower court.
Komisija bi lahko ugovarjala sestavi senata v postopku pred nižjim sodi�čem.
By not so doing, it waived a procedural safeguard and would not now be able to revive the issue.
Ker tega ni storila, se je odpovedala procesnim jamstvom, zato tega vpra�anja ne more več postaviti.
The Commission was, moreover, objectively in a position to do so.
Poleg tega bi Komisija, objektivno gledano, to lahko storila. Stranke so bile obve�čene o sestavi senata, ki mu je bila zadeva dodeljena.
The changes in composition of the Chambers of the Court of First Instance in 2004 were announced in the Official Journal.
Sprememba sestave senatov Sodi�ča prve stopnje leta 2004 je bila objavljena v Uradnem listu.
The composition of the Chambers is also disclosed on the Court’s web site.
Sestava senatov je bila objavljena tudi na spletni strani Sodi�ča.
The name of the Judge-Rapporteur appears on the report for the hearing sent to the parties before the hearing.
Ime sodnika poročevalca je bilo navedeno v poročilu za obravnavo, ki jo bilo posredovano strankam pred obravnavo.
Finally, the composition of the court and the name of the Judge-Rapporteur are clearly shown on the notice listing the case for hearing that is displayed outside the courtroom.
Nazadnje, sestava Sodi�ča prve stopnje in ime sodnika poročevalca sta bila jasno navedena na obvestilu o obravnavi, objavljenem pred razpravno dvorano.
It seems to me that it would be contrary both to the Court’s ruling in Petrides and to Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice if an intervener at first instance were able to raise on appeal a plea which the party it supported had failed to raise before the court below.
Zdi se, da bi bilo v nasprotju tako s sodno prakso sodi�ča v sodbi Petrides kot s členom 40 Statuta Sodi�ča, da bi intervenient na prvi stopnji lahko v pritožbi podal pritožbeni razlog, ki ga v postopku pred nižjim sodi�čem stranka, v podporo katere intervenira, ni uveljavljala.
The Commission was therefore objectively in a position to know, in the course of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, that the Judge-Rapporteur in UFEX I was included in the composition of the court the second time round. However, nothing in the judgment under appeal or the Court’s case file suggests that the Commission raised any objection.
Komisija je tako, objektivno gledano, morala med postopkom pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje vedeti, da je bil sodnik poročevalec iz sodbe UFEX I v sestavi Sodi�ča, ki ji je bila zadeva dodeljena po vrnitvi v novo odločanje Vendar v izpodbijani sodbi ali spisu Sodi�ča ni nikjer navedeno, da naj bi Komisija temu nasprotovala.
In Petrides 22 the Court rejected a ground of appeal alleging infringement of the principle audi alteram partem and the principle of equality of arms because the appellant had not raised the matter before the Court of First Instance in circumstances where it had the opportunity to do so and had thus waived a procedural safeguard.
V sodbi Petrides 22je Sodi�če zavrnilo pritožbeni razlog kr�itev načela audi alteram partem in načela enakosti orožij, ker pritožnik tega pritožbenega razloga ni uveljavljal pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, čeprav bi to lahko storil, in se je s tem odpovedal procesnim jamstvom.
See also point 33 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer.
Glej tudi točko 33 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jaraboja Colomerja.
That conclusion is admittedly based on a rather formal analysis of the position of an intervener.
Ta ugotovitev sicer temelji na formalni analizi položaja intervenienta.
Conceptually, I do not think it can be said that an intervener has no right to a fair trial, even if it is not his own trial.
Vendar ne menim, da je mogoče trditi, da intervenient nima pravice do po�tenega sojenja, čeprav ne gre za njegov postopek.
In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, he necessarily has an interest in the result of a case (otherwise, he would not be permitted to intervene).
V skladu s členom 40 Statuta Sodi�ča ima intervenient nujno interes za re�itev zadeve (v nasprotnem primeru intervencija ne bi bila niti dovoljena).
Moreover, Chronopost and La Poste are no longer interveners, but appellants before this Court.
Poleg tega v obravnavani zadevi družbi Chronopost in La Poste nista več le intervenienta, ampak sta pritožnici pred Sodi�čem.
Article 6(1) ECHR guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial ‘[i]n the determination of
Člen 6(1) EKČP zagotavlja, da ima vsakdo pravico do po�tenega sojenja „o njegovih
CHRONOPOST AND LA POSTE v UFEX AND OTHERS his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him’. 23
CHRONOPOST IN LA POSTE PROTI UFEXU IN DRUGIM civilnih pravicah in obveznostih ali o kakr�nihkoli kazenskih obtožbah zoper njega“. 23
The appellants’ argument is based on caselaw showing that an essential procedural requirement is violated if an administrative authority, such as the Commission, denies interested parties the opportunity to respond or comment before the adoption of an administrative act. 24
Trditev pritožnic temelji na sodni praksi, v skladu s katero gre za bistveno kr�itev postopka, če upravni organ, kot je Komisija, zainteresirani stranki ne omogoči, da pred sprejetjem upravnega akta poda stali�ča. 24
However, it seems to me that, if the Court decides that Chronopost and La Poste could themselves have objected to the composition of the Court of First Instance before that Court even in the absence of an objection from the Commission, they must then be considered, for the reasons given in points 40 to 43 above, to have waived that right.
Vendar menim, da če bi Sodi�če presodilo, da lahko družbi Chronopost in La Poste sami ugovarjata sestavi Sodi�ča prve stopnje pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, čeprav Komisija tega ni storila, bi bilo treba iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 40 do 43, �teti, da sta se tej pravici odrekli.
However, Petrides is clear authority that an applicant which fails, in the course of judicial proceedings, to assert its rights of defence when it has the opportunity to do so cannot invoke those rights later on.
Iz sodbe Petrides vendarle jasno izhaja, da pritožnik, ki ne izkoristi pravic do obrambe v sodnem postopku, ko to možnost ima, teh kasneje ne more več uveljavljati.
The Court in that case did not deem it necessary to consider the applicant’s plea of its own motion.
Sodi�ču se v tej zadevi ni zdelo potrebno, da bi njegov pritožbeni razlog obravnavalo po uradni dolžnosti.
I therefore consider that the first ground of appeal is inadmissible.
Zato menim, da je prvi pritožbeni razlog nedopusten.
The principles alleged by the applicant in Petrides to have been breached are as much an element of the right to a fair trial as the right to an impartial tribunal: indeed, audi alteram partem and nemo judex in sua causa form the two pillars of natural justice.
Načela, ki naj bi bila po navedbah tožnikov v sodbi Petrides kr�ena, so prav toliko element pravice do po�tenega sojenja kot pravice do nepristranskega sodi�ča: načeli audi alteram partem in nemo judex in sua causa tvorita namreč dva stebra naravne pravičnosti.
I therefore see no reason why the Court should adopt a different approach in the present case.
Zato ne vidim razloga, zaradi katerega bi Sodi�če v obravnavani zadevi izbralo drugačen pristop.
As regards the appellants’ argument that their plea must be examined by the Court in any event since it raises a matter of public policy, I do not agree with UFEX that that argument itself constitutes a new plea.
V zvezi s trditvami pritožnic, da mora Sodi�če njun pritožbeni razlog v vsakem primeru preučiti, saj gre za vpra�anje javnega reda, v nasprotju z združenjem UFEX menim, da ne gre za nov pritožbeni razlog.
It was, rather, submitted in reply to UFEX’s objection of inadmissibility.
Ta pritožbeni razlog bi bil prej naveden v odgovor na ugovor nedopustnosti, ki ga je podalo združenje UFEX.
That said, I do not accept the appellants’ argument.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno trditve pritožnic ne sprejemam.
Should the Court nonetheless decide to admit the plea, it should in my view reject it on the substance.
Če bi Sodi�če tožbeni razlog kljub temu sprejelo kot dopustnega, bi ga po mojem mnenju moralo kot neutemeljenega zavrniti.
64330/01, § 43, 31 May 2005, the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6(1) ECHR was applicable in a case where an applicant who had asked for criminal proceedings to be taken up against her former government employer and who participated in those proceedings as an ‘assistente’ had, by that token, demonstrated her interest in the conviction of the accused and in compensation for damages suffered.
I-2257, točke od 14 do 17); Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2001 v združenih zadevah Kaufring in drugi proti Komisiji (T-186/97, T-187/97, od T-190/97 do T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, od T-216/97 do T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 in T-147/99, Recueil, str. II-1337, točki 134 in 135).
24 — Case C-291/89 Interhotel v Commission [1991] ECR I-2257, paragraphs 14 to 17; Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190/97 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216/97, T-217/97, T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99 Kaufring and Others v Commission [2001] ECR II-1337, paragraphs 134 to 135.
V tej zadevi je Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice odločilo, da se določba 6(1) EKČP lahko uporabi v zadevi, v kateri je tožnica zahtevala uvedbo kazenskega postopka zoper njenega biv�ega vladnega delodajalca in je v tej zadevi sodelovala kot „pomoč“, saj je s tem izkazala interes za obsodbo in za plačilo od�kodnine.
25 Article 6(1) ECHR, which guaran- tees the right to an impartial tribunal, forms part of those fundamental rights.
25Člen 6(1) EKČP, ki zagotavlja pravico do nepristranskega sojenja, je sestavni del teh temeljnih pravic.
First, there is no manifest breach of an essential procedural requirement.
Prvič, ne gre za očitno bistveno kr�itev postopka.
Article 118(1) of the Rules of the Court of First Instance does not prohibit successive proceedings in a case which has been remitted from being heard by the same Chamber.
Člen 118(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje ne prepoveduje, da bi v več zaporednih postopkih zadevo v novem odločanju obravnaval isti senat.
That may be contrasted with the very different rule under Article 118(2a), according to which a judge may not rehear a case referred back to the Court of First Instance if he or she sat as a single judge the first time round.
To je sicer lahko v nasprotju z drugačnim pravilom, določenim v členu 118(2a), v skladu s katerim sodnik ne sme sodelovati v zadevi, vrnjeni Sodi�ču prve stopnje v novo odločanje, če je pri prvotni sodbi odločal kot sodnik posameznik.
Nor does anything in the Rules of the Court of First Instance suggest that the same judge may not act as Judge-Rapporteur if a case is remitted after appeal.
V Poslovniku Sodi�ča prve stopnje pa ni določeno, da isti sodnik ne bi mogel odločati kot sodnik poročevalec v zadevi v novem odločanju.
Indeed, Article 118(2) specifically requires Grand Chamber (and, of course, plenary) cases to be re-examined by the same formation of judges.
Člen 118(2) posebej zahteva, da mora zadevo, v kateri je odločal veliki senat (ali seveda občna seja), ponovno preučiti ista sestava.
In respect of objective bias, which arises when there are legitimate doubts about the impartiality of a tribunal, the European Court of Human Rights has held that ‘it cannot be stated as a general rule resulting from the obligation to be impartial that a superior court which sets aside an administrative or judicial decision is bound to send the case back to a different jurisdictional authority or to a differently composed branch of that authority’.
Evropsko sodi�če za človekove pravice je v zvezi z objektivno pristranskostjo sodi�ča, o kateri je mogoče govoriti, kadar obstaja upravičen dvom o nepristranskosti sodi�ča, odločilo, da se „ne sme določiti splo�nega načela, ki izhaja iz dolžnosti nepristrankosti, in sicer da je sodi�če, ko razveljavi upravno ali sodno odločbo, zavezano zadevo tudi vrniti v novo odločanje drugemu sodnemu organu ali drugače sestavljenemu delu tega organa“.
26The participation of the same judge in successive hearings of the same case may raise justified doubts as to impartiality only in combination with other factors.
26Sodelovanje istega sodnika v zaporednih obravnavah v zvezi z isto zadevo lahko zbuja upravičen dvom o nepristranskost sodi�ča le v povezavi z drugimi dejavniki.
27 No such additional factor is alleged here.
27 V obravnavani zadevi obstoj takega dodatnega dejavnika ni zatrjevan.
Secondly, the appellants do not allege actual (subjective) bias.
Drugič, pritožnici ne zatrjujeta dejanske (subjektivne) pristranskosti.
The only (objective) bias alleged relates to the composition of the Chamber in the Court of First Instance to which their case was assigned upon being referred back by the Court of Justice.
Edini zatrjevani (objektivni) razlog pristranskosti je sestava senata Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki mu je bila dodeljena zadeva, potem ko jo je Sodi�če prve stopnje vrnilo v novo odločanje.
25 — See, for example, Case C-540/03 Parliament v Council [2006] ECR I-5769, paragraph 35 and the caselaw cited there.
25 – Glej na primer sodbo z dne 27. junija 2006 v zadevi Parlament proti Svetu (C-540/03, ZOdl., str. I-5769, točka 35 in navedena sodna praksa).
26 — Ringeisen v Austria, judgment of 16 July 1971, Series A no. 13, p. 40, § 97, my emphasis.
26 – Sodba ESČP z dne 16. julija 1971 v zadevi Ringeisen proti Avstriji, §97, moj poudarek.
The court reached a similar conclusion in Diennet v France, judgment of 26 September 1995, Series A no. 325-A, p.
Sodi�če je podobno odločitev sprejelo v zadevi Diennet proti Franciji (sodba z dne 26. septembra 1995, serija A, �t.
17, § 38, where three out of seven judges in the proceedings under examination had taken part in the first decision. In Schwarzenberger v Germany, no. 75737/01 (Sect.
325-A, §38), kjer so trije izmed sedmih sodnikov senata sodelovali že v prvem sojenju v zadevi.
The appellants correctly observe that, although the Community is not a party to the ECHR, Article 6(2) EU provides that ‘the Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the [ECHR] ….’ Further, the ECHR has special significance among the sources of inspiration for the fundamental
Pritožnici pravilno ugotavljata, da čeprav Skupnost ni podpisnica EKČP, člen 6(2) EU določa, da „Unija spo�tuje temeljne pravice, kakr�ne zagotavlja EKČP […].“ Poleg tega ima EKČP poseben pomen med viri, iz katerih izhajajo temeljne pravice, katerih
I therefore conclude that if (quod non) the first ground of appeal is admissible, it is in any event unfounded.
Zato ugotavljam, da je prvi pritožbeni razlog, če ni nedopusten, v vsakem primeru neutemeljen.
Furthermore, judges at the European Court of Human Rights itself may on occasion participate in successive hearings of the same case.
Poleg tega tudi sodniki Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice včasih sodelujejo v več zaporednih obravnavah v isti zadevi.
When a Chamber judgment is referred to the Grand Chamber under Article 43 ECHR, the President of the referring Chamber and the judge who sat in respect of the State Party concerned (but no other judge from the referring Chamber) may sit in the Grand Chamber.
Kadar je sodba senata dodeljena velikemu senatu v skladu s členom 43 EKČP, lahko predsednik senata, ki je izdal sodbo, in sodnik, ki je sodeloval v imenu zadevne države članice (vendar nihče izmed drugih sodnikov senata, ki je izdal sodbo), sodelujeta tudi pri odločanju velikega senata.
28It is not unknown for judges sitting in both proceedings to change their minds. 29
28 Mogoče je, da sodniki, ki sodelujejo v obeh postopkih, spremenijo mnenje. 29
Second ground of appeal: Breach of pro -cedure in that the Court of First Instance did not assess La Poste’s plea of inadmissibility and in that it ruled on the substance of an inadmissible plea
Drugi pritožbeni razlog: Kršitev postopka, ker Sodišče prve stopnje ni presojalo ugovora nedopustnosti, ki ga je uveljavljala družba La Poste, in ker je vsebinsko odločalo o nedopustnem tožbenem razlogu
Argument
Trditve strank
Finally, the appellants note that Article 6(2) EU also requires the Union to respect fundamental rights resulting from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.
Pritožnici nazadnje navajata, da mora Skupnost v skladu s členom 6(2) EU spo�tovati temeljne svobo�čine, kot izhajajo iz ustavnih tradicij držav članic.
They point out that in France, courts to which a case is remitted must be differently constituted to the court hearing the case the first time round.
Poudarjata, da mora biti v Francoski republiki sodi�če, kateremu je zadeva vrnjena v novo odločanje, drugače sestavljeno kot sodi�če, ki je prvič sodilo v zadevi.
UFEX responds that that is not the case in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom.
Združenje UFEX odgovarja, da tak�en sistem v Nemčiji, Španiji in Veliki Britaniji ni uveljavljen. Jasno je, da sklicevanje na ureditev v eni državi članici ne zado-
28 — Article 27(3) ECHR.
28 – Člen 27(3) EKČP.
See further Mowbray, A., An Examination of the Work of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, [2007] P.L.
Glej tudi Mowbray, A. R., „An examination of the Work of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights“, Public Law, 2007, 3, str.
(Autumn) 507, in particular at 519 et seq.
507, zlasti pa str. 519 in naslednje.
La Poste states, first, that it had argued in its written observations that UFEX’s complaint relating to the transfer of Postadex was a new plea and that the Court of First Instance failed to rule on whether, in consequence, that plea was inadmissible.
Družba La Poste navaja, prvič, da je v pisnih stali�čih zatrjevala, da je očitek združenja UFEX v zvezi s prenosom storitev Postadex nov tožbeni razlog in da se Sodi�če prve stopnje ni izreklo o tem, ali je ta tožbeni razlog nedopusten.
Second, La Poste submits that since that plea was new, the Court of First Instance should not in any event have examined it.
Drugič, družba La Poste trdi, da glede na to, da je bil tožbeni razlog nov, Sodi�če prve stopnje o njem nikakor ne bi smelo odločati.
29 — See, for example, Kyprianou v Cyprus [GC], no. 73797/01, ECHR 2005-XIII — (15.12.05), itself a case concerning an allegation of judicial bias.
29 – Glej na primer sodbo ESČP z dne 15. decembra 2005 v zadevi Kyprianou proti Cipru, Recueil des arrêts et decisions, 2005-XIII, izdano v zadevi, v kateri pritožniki zatr -jujejo pristranskost sodi�ča.
Judge Costa (now the President of the European Court of Human Rights), who had been President of Chamber in the first judgment, changed his mind on two issues in the Grand Chamber proceedings.
Sodnik Costa (zdaj predse -dnik Evropskega sodi�ča za človekove pravice), ki je bil predsednik senata, ki je izdal prvo sodbo, je v okviru postopkov pred velikim senatom spremenil stali�če glede dveh vpra�anj.
In his partly dissenting opinion he addresses the question whether judges who sit twice should stick to their original view.
V delno odklonilnem ločenem mnenju je obravnaval vpra�anje, ali naj sodnik, ki je sodeloval pri obeh sojenjih, vztraja pri svojem prvotnem stali�ču.
He states: ‘… everything depends on the specific features of the case … and on each judge’s greater or lesser degree of stubbornness (or ability to reconsider his or her previous conclusions); once again, this depends on individual cases, more perhaps than on individual temperaments.’
Navaja, da je „[v]se […] odvisno od okoli�čin zadeve […] in večje oziroma manj�e trmoglavosti vsakega od sodnikov (ali pa sposobnosti ponovnega razmisleka o svojih prej�njih zaključkih); to je ponovno odvisno od posamezne zadeve, morda celo bolj kot od značaja posameznika“.
He concludes (rather delightfully) that the referral of that particular case ‘has bolstered my views while enabling me to correct them: one can always do better (or in any event less badly …)’.
(Hudomu�no) zaključi, da je obravnavana zadeva „podprla njegova stali�ča in mu hkrati omogočila, da jih spremeni: vsak zmore opraviti zadeve bolje (oziroma v vsakem primeru ne slab�e)“.
UFEX considers the first part of La Poste’s plea to be confused and imprecise,
Združenje UFEX meni, da je prvi del pritožbenega razloga La Poste, ker je nejasen in nedoločen, nedopusten. V zvezi z vsebino