natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
35 It follows, according to the Court, that ‘if the national rules applicable to appeals impose an obligation to withdraw an administrative act that is unlawful under domestic law, even though that act has become final, where to uphold that act would be “outright intolerable”, the same obligation to withdraw must exist under equivalent conditions in the case of an administrative act which does not comply with Community law’.
35 Po mnenju Sodi�ča iz tega izhaja, da „mora – če nacionalna pravila, ki se uporabljajo za pravna sredstva, določajo obveznost odprave upravnega akta, ki čeprav je postal dokončen, v skladu z nacionalnim pravom ni zakonit, če bi bila ohranitev tega akta ‚preprosto nevzdržna‘ – ista obveznost odprave pod enakovrednimi pogoji veljati za upravni akt, ki ni v skladu s pravom Skupnosti“.
36 The Court will therefore guide the national court for the
36 Sodi�če bo torej naci-
Consequently the Court’s reply to the referring court is worded as follows: the decision is incompatible with Community law as subsequently interpreted by the Court.
Zato je Sodi�če odgovorilo nacionalnemu sodi�ču tako: onalno sodi�če napotilo k preverjanju, ali se merila iz nem�ke sodne prakse, na podlagi katerih je mogoče presojati pojem „preprosto nevzdržen“, ne uporabljajo različno glede na to, ali govorimo o nacionalnem pravu ali pravu Skupnosti.
‘Article 10 EC, read in conjunction with Article 11(1) of Directive 97/13, requires the national court to ascertain whether legislation which is clearly incompatible with the Community law … constitutes manifest unlawfulness within the meaning of the national law concerned.
„Člen 10 ES, v povezavi s členom 11(1) Direktive 97/13, nacionalnemu sodi�ču nalaga, naj presodi, ali ureditev, ki očitno ni združljiva s pravom Skupnosti, […] pomeni očitno nezakonitost v smislu zadevnega nacionalnega prava.
If that is the case, it is for the national court to draw the necessary conclusions under its national law with regard to the withdrawal of [the fee assessments].’ 40
Če je tako, mora to sodi�če storiti vse, kar glede odprave [odločb o odmeri dajatve] določa njegovo nacionalno pravo.“ 40
However, if it is shown that a national procedural rule preventing the review of a final decision is contrary to the principle of equivalence and/or the principle of effectiveness, that rule should be disregarded by the national court.
37Sodi�če najprej navede nekatera dejstva 38, nato pa prepu�ča nacionalnemu sodi�ču, naj presodi, „ali ureditev, ki očitno ni združljiva s pravom Skupnosti, kot je ta, na kateri temeljita odločbi o odmeri dajatve, ki sta predmet obravnave v postopkih v glavni stvari, pomeni
The recent caselaw concerning the review of final administrative and judicial decisions may, in my view, be summarised as follows.
35 – Navedena sodba i-21 Germany in Arcor, točka 62.36 – Ibidem, točka 63.37 – Ibidem, točka 69.38 – Ibidem, točka 70.
Regarding the specific issue of the review of final administrative decisions, Article 10 EC produces effects the nature and intensity of which vary, depending on the situation.
KEMPTER ker je pristojni nacionalni organ zavrnil ponovno preučitev navedene odločbe, dolžno vsaj preveriti, ali ni ponovna preučitev, oziroma kadar je to primerno, odprava navedene odločbe obvezna v skladu s postopkovnimi pravili njegovega nacionalnega prava na podlagi načela enakovrednosti.
Having regard to the importance of the principles of legal certainty and res judicata in the Community and national legal systems, the rule is that Community law does not require a national authority to reopen a final decision which it has adopted, even if
Glede na pomen načela pravne varnosti in načela pravnomočnosti v pravnem redu Skupnosti ter v nacionalnih pravnih redih velja, da pravo Skupnosti nacionalnemu organu ne nalaga, da mora odpraviti dokončno odločbo, ki jo je sprejelo, tudi če ta ni združljiva s pravom Skupnosti, kot ga je pozneje razlagalo Sodi�če.
Thus it is clear from i-21 Germany and Arcor that, in the case of a final administrative decision which has not been the subject of an appeal to a court, Article 10 EC, in conjunction with the Community provision which is alleged to have been infringed, requires at the very least the national court to which the matter has been referred by
Tako iz navedene sodbe i-21 Germany in Arcor izhaja, da je pri dokončni upravni odločbi, ki ni bila predmet pravnega sredstva, na podlagi člena 10 ES v povezavi z določbo Skupnosti, katere kr�itev se navaja, nacionalno sodi�če, ki mu je zadeva predložena,
explained by the special nature of the situation in question. Where Community law is misinterpreted by a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law and that court infringes its obligation under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC to seek a preliminary ruling, Article 10 EC has the effect of converting the power conferred upon an administrative body by national law into an obligation to review a final administrative decision contrary to Community law and, depending on the outcome of the review, to withdraw that decision.
obveznosti vložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki je določena v tretjem odstavku člena 234 ES, potem je učinek člena 10 ES ta, da možnost, ki jo ima upravni organ na podlagi svojega nacionalnega prava, spremeni v obveznost, da je treba dokončno upravno odločbo, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ponovno preučiti in jo glede na rezultate te ponovne preučitve po potrebi odpraviti.
Here Article 10 EC requires every means potentially available in national procedural law to be used to bring about, if national procedural law so authorises, the review and, as the case may be, the withdrawal of the final administrative decision which is contrary to Community law.
Ker se obravnavana zadeva ume�ča v dejanski in pravni okvir, podoben tistemu, v katerem je bila sprejeta navedena sodba Kühne & Heitz, je po mojem mnenju treba ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnavati z enakega vidika, kot ga je Sodi�če upo�tevalo v navedeni sodbi. B – Prvo vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
The approach taken in Kühne & Heitz therefore provides a means of mitigating, through Article 10 EC, the negative effects of the lack of a reference for a preliminary ruling in the situation referred to in the third paragraph of Article 234 EC, by offering individuals who have exhausted the remedies available under domestic law a further opportunity to assert the rights conferred upon them by Community law. 80.
Z re�itvijo, ki izhaja iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz, je tako na podlagi člena 10 ES mogoče ublažiti negativne učinke zaradi nevložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe v primeru iz tretjega odstavka člena 234 ES, saj strankam v postopku, ki so izkoristile vsa pravna sredstva po svojem nacionalnem pravu, daje novo možnost za uveljavitev pravic, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Skupnosti. 83.
As regards the situation to which Kühne & Heitz relates, the Court itself has laid down the conditions in which an administrative body is required to review such a decision. It is true that, among those conditions, the first to be mentioned is that the body in question has power under national law to reopen the decision. The existence of an obligation of review does therefore depend, above all, on the existence of a national procedural rule conferring such a power upon the competent administrative body. 83.
Kot ob upo�tevanju sedanje sodne prakse po mojem mnenju upravičeno navaja finska vlada 41, je navedena sodba Kühne & Heitz določila pogoje, pod katerimi je ponovna 85.
As the Finnish Government observes, 41correctly in my view taking account of the present case-law, Kühne & Heitz laid down the conditions in which an obligation of review exists in any event. However, 81. However, this concession to the procedural autonomy of the Member States stops there, a fact which in my view can be
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim vpra�anjem Sodi�ču v bistvu predlaga, naj odloči, ali se za izpolnitev pogoja iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz, da odločba nacionalnega sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, z vidika sodne prakse Sodi�ča po sprejetju te odločbe temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila podana, ne da bi se Sodi�ču predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES, zahteva, da se je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari v okviru pravnega sredstva po nacionalnem pravu, ki ga je vložila zoper izpodbijano upravno odločbo, sklicevala na pravo Skupnosti. 41 – Stali�ča finske vlade, točka 15.
First of all, the Commission observes that neither the grounds nor the operative part of Kühne & Heitz indicate that it is a condition that the person concerned should have contested the administrative act in question before the national courts by relying on Community law. 84.
Prvič, Komisija navaja, da pogoj, da bi morala stranka zadevni upravni akt izpodbijati pred nacionalnimi sodi�či in se pri tem sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, ne izhaja niti iz obrazložitve niti iz izreka navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz. 91.
As the factual and legal context of the present case is similar to that in Kühne & Heitz, the present reference for a preliminary ruling should be approached from the same viewpoint as that chosen by the Court in Kühne & Heitz. B — The first question referred
Enako kot družba Kempter, finska vlada in Komisija menim, da se v primeru iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz za ponovno preučitev, in kadar je to primerno, odpravo dokončne upravne odločbe zaradi upo�tevanja razlage določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jo je medtem podalo Sodi�če, ne zahteva, da se je morala tožeča stranka v okviru pravnega sredstva po nacionalnem pravu, ki ga je vložila zoper tako odločbo, sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, in sicer zaradi teh razlogov. 88.
The Finnish Government also agrees with the referring court’s opinion that, if a national court has failed to recognise the significance of a question of Community law, that should not be held against the citizen affected.
Navedena vlada se strinja tudi s stali�čem predložitvenega sodi�ča, da če nacionalno sodi�če ni priznalo pomena vpra�anja glede prava Skupnosti, potem tega ni mogoče očitati o�kodovancu.
In addition, Kempter and the Commission observe that the obligation of national courts ruling at last instance to seek a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC cannot depend on the parties so requesting the court in question or their pleading an infringement of Community law.
Poleg tega družba Kempter in Komisija opozarjata, da obveznost nacionalnih sodi�č, ki odločajo na zadnji stopnji, v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES, ne more biti odvisna od tega, ali stranke na sodi�če, ki odloča o zadevi, v ta namen naslovijo predlog ali se sklicujejo na kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
The national court’s first question is, in substance, whether, in order to be fulfilled, the condition laid down in Kühne & Heitz that the decision of a national court ruling at final instance is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC presupposes that the claimant in the main proceedings relied on Community law in the legal action under national law brought by him against the disputed administrative decision. I - 433
Prvič, ugotavljam, da zahteva, da bi se morala tožeča stranka v okviru svojega pravnega sredstva po nacionalnem pravu sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, nikakor ne izhaja iz besedila tretjega pogoja, ki ga je Sodi�če določilo v navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, da bi pristojnemu upravnemu organu naložilo obveznost ponovne preučitve. Ponoviti je I - 433
OPINION OF MR BOT — CASE C-2/06 the national court ruling at final instance ‘is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under [the third paragraph of Article 234] EC’. 42
treba besede, s katerimi je Sodi�če opredelilo ta tretji pogoj: sodba nacionalnega sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, „glede na sodno prakso Sodi�ča po tej sodbi […] temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila podana, ne da bi bilo Sodi�ču predloženo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES“. 42
Worded in that way, the third condition of Kühne & Heitz is founded on two factors which are closely connected. First, the decision of the court ruling at final instance is based on a misinterpretation of Community law. Second, that court did not refer a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling, contrary to the third paragraph of Article 234 EC. 91.
Tako ubesedeni tretji pogoj iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz se opira na dve tesno povezani dejstvi. Prvič, odločba sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti. Drugič, to sodi�če pri Sodi�ču ni vložilo predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, s čimer je kr�ilo tretji odstavek člena 234 ES. 95. Zdi se, da gre v tej zadevi prav za to.
On the other hand, the Court does not expressly require the claimant in the main proceedings to have relied on Community law before the abovementioned court.
43Torej ni niti najmanj pomembno, ali je sodi�če, zoper odločitve katerega po nacionalnem pravu ni pravnega sredstva, pravo Skupnosti uporabilo na pobudo strank v postopku v glavni stvari ali na svojo pobudo.
43It is therefore of no consequence whether the court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law applied
Glede na besede, ki jih je uporabilo Sodi�če,
42 — Kühne & Heitz, paragraph 28( emphasis added). 43 — The mere fact that the claimant undertaking in Kühne & Heitz does appear to have relied on Community law before the national court ruling at final instance does not seem to me such as to prove that, in formulating the third condition, the Court implicitly required Community law to be relied upon before the national court ruling at final instance. On this point, see the observations of Kühne & Heitz in that case, paragraph 22. More precisely, the undertaking states that, in the course of the proceedings which led to the judgment of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court of Trade and Industry, Netherlands) of 22 November 1991, it relied on the judgment in Case 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107. 92.
Drugič, ne smemo pozabiti, da je re�itev, ki jo je Sodi�če sprejelo v navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, v skladu z besedilom tretjega pogoja iz te sodbe, tesno povezana z obveznostjo vložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki so jo v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES dolžna izpolniti nacionalna sodi�ča, zoper odločitve katerih po nacionalnem pravu ni pravnega sredstva. Vendar pa enako kot Komisija menim, da ta obveznost ni pogojena niti z dejstvom, da je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni 44 – Glej francosko različico predložitvene odločbe, str. 8, točka b, ter stali�ča družbe Kempter, točki 1 in 2.
First, a requirement that the claimant must have relied on Community law in the legal action brought by him under domestic law does not follow at all from the wording of the third condition laid down by the Court in Kühne & Heitz with a view to giving rise to an obligation on the part of the competent administrative authority to carry out a review. It is appropriate once more to cite the words used by the Court when laying down the third condition: the judgment of I - 434
43 – Dejstvo, da se je v zadevi, v kateri je bila sprejeta navedena sodba Kühne & Heitz, tožeče podjetje pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, kot vse kaže sklicevalo na pravo Skupnosti, po mojem mnenju ne dokazuje, da naj bi Sodi�če z določitvijo tega tretjega pogoja implicitno zahtevalo sklicevanje na pravo Skupnosti pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, ki odloča na zadnji stopnji. V zvezi s tem glej stali�ča podjetja Kühne & Heitz v tej zadevi, točka 22. Natančneje, podjetje navaja, da se je med postopkom, v katerem je bila izdana sodba z dne 22. novembra 1991 v zadevi College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven, sklicevalo na sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 18. januarja 1984 v zadevi Ekro (327/82, Recueil, str. 107). I - 434
KEMPTER refer a question to the Court of Justice or on a requirement that he has based the pleas in support of his action on Community law.
KEMPTER stvari zadevnemu sodi�ču predlagala, naj pri Sodi�ču vloži tak predlog, niti z zahtevo, da morajo njeni tožbeni razlogi temeljiti na pravu Skupnosti.
Community law on the initiative of the parties to the main proceedings or of its own motion.
prava so namreč dolžna zagotoviti, da druga nacionalna sodi�ča spo�tujejo pravilno in učinkovito uporabo prava Skupnosti.
To interpret the third condition laid down by the Court in Kühne & Heitz as meaning that the claimant in the main proceedings must have relied on Community law before the national court ruling at final instance would, in my view, have the major drawback of creating indirectly a new exemption from the obligation, under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC as hitherto interpreted by the Court, requiring a court of that kind to seek a preliminary ruling. 95.
Če bi tretji pogoj, ki ga je Komisija določila v navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, razlagali, kot da bi se morala tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari pred nacionalnim sodi�čem, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti, bi to po mojem mnenju pomenilo večje tveganje za posredni nastanek novega primera oprostitve obveznosti vložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki jo morajo taka sodi�ča upo�tevati na podlagi tretjega odstavka člena 234 ES, kot ga je do zdaj razlagalo Sodi�če. 99.
It should be remembered that the main reason for the existence of the obligation to seek a preliminary ruling is to prevent the establishment and consolidation of a body of national caselaw containing errors of interpretation or misapplying Community law.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti na glavni razlog za obveznost vložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, tj. da se preprečita pojav in uveljavitev nacionalne sodne prakse, ki bi vsebovala napačne razlage ali nepravilno uporabo prava Skupnosti.
45 That obligation is commensurate with the strategic position of supreme courts in national legal systems.
45 Ta obveznost je sorazmerna s strate�kim položajem vrhovnih sodi�č v nacionalnih pravnih redih.
In accordance with their traditional function of unifying the
V skladu z njihovo tradicionalno vlogo združevanja
Second, it must be borne in mind that the approach adopted by the Court in Kühne & Heitz is, in accordance with the wording of the third condition, closely bound up with the obligation of national courts against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law to seek a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC. I agree with Kempter and the Commission that that obligation does not depend on the claimant in the main proceedings having requested the court concerned to 44 — See the order for reference, English version, p.
Po drugi strani iz te sodne prakse ne izhaja, da bi bilo lahko nacionalno sodi�če, zoper odločitve katerega po nacionalnem pravu ni pravnega sredstva, opro�čeno obveznosti vložitve predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe zaradi razlage, če stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pred njim niso navedle tožbenega razloga, ki temelji na pravu Skupnosti.
7, para -graph (b), and Kempter’s observations, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Nasprotno, iz sodne prakse o pogojih izvajanja člena 234 ES izhaja, da je vložitev predloga za sprejetje predhodne
45 — See in particular, to that effect, Case C-495/03 Intermodal Transports [2005] ECR I-8151, paragraph 29, and the caselaw cited.
45 – V tem smislu glej zlasti sodbo z dne 15. septembra 2005 v zadevi Intermodal Transports (C-495/03, ZOdl., str. I-8151, točka 29 in navedena sodna praksa).
for applying Article 234 EC that the making of any reference for a preliminary ruling depends entirely on that court’s assessment as to whether a reference is appropriate and necessary and that it in no way depends on the nature of the pleas relied on before it by the parties to the main proceedings.
odločbe v celoti odvisna od tega, kako navedeno sodi�če presodi pomembnost in potrebnost predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, in da je nikakor ne pogojuje več tožbenih razlogov, ki jih stranke v postopku v glavni stvari navedejo pred tem sodi�čem.
Establishing a procedure for direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the national courts, the system of references for a preliminary ruling is based on a dialogue between one court and another.
Ker predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe vzpostavlja postopek neposrednega sodelovanja med Sodi�čem in nacionalnimi sodi�či, dejansko temelji na dialogu med sodi�či.
In the course of that procedure, the parties to the main proceedings are merely invited to submit observations within the legal framework set out by the court making the reference.
Med tem postopkom so stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pozvane samo k predložitvi stali�č v pravnem okviru, ki ga začrta predložitveno sodi�če.
48According to the Court of Justice, ‘within the limits established by Article [234 EC], it is thus for the national courts alone to decide on the principle and purpose of any reference to the Court of Justice and it is also for those courts alone to judge whether they have obtained sufficient guidance from the preliminary ruling delivered in response to their reference or whether it appears to them necessary to refer the matter once more to the Court’. 49
48 Po navedbah Sodi�ča „[j]e v okviru omejitev iz člena [234 ES] izključna dolžnost nacionalnih sodi�č, da določijo načelo in namen morebitne predložitve zadeve Sodi�ču, kot je tudi njihova dolžnost, da presodijo, ali jim predhodna odločba, sprejeta na njihov predlog, daje dovolj pojasnil, ali pa menijo, da je treba zadevo znova predložiti Sodi�ču“. 49
It is also to be observed that, in Cilfit and Others, the Court explained the meaning of the phrase ‘where [such a/any such] question is raised’ for the purposes of the second
Treba je tudi navesti, da je Sodi�če v navedeni sodbi Cilfit in drugi natančno razložilo pomen besed „kadar se tako vpra�anje postavi“, v smislu drugega in tretjega
On the other hand, it does not follow from that caselaw that a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law might be exempt from the obligation to seek a preliminary ruling on a question of interpretation where the parties to the main proceedings have not raised before it a plea based on Community law. On the contrary, it is clear from the caselaw relating to the conditions
Poleg tega je Sodi�če v neki drugi sodbi poudarilo, prvič, da „dejstvo, da stranke v postopku v glavni stvari pred nacionalnim sodi�čem niso navedle vpra�anja glede prava Skupnosti, ne nasprotuje temu, da nacionalno sodi�če zadevo predloži Sodi�ču“, in drugič, da „[n]amen določitve, da je treba Sodi�ču predložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, kadar se tako, vpra�anje postavi kateremu koli sodi�ču države članice‘ [drugi in tretji odstavek člena 234 ES], ni, da bi tako predložitev omejili samo na primere, v katerih ena ali druga stranka v postopku v
46 — Case 283/81 [1982] ECR 3415.47 — Intermodal Transports, paragraph 33.
49 – Ibidem, točka 8.
49 — Ibidem, paragraph 8.
50 – Navedena sodba Cilfit in drugi, točka 9.
KEMPTER and third paragraphs of Article 234 EC, in order to determine the circumstances in which a national court against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is required to bring the matter before the Court of Justice.
KEMPTER glavni stvari postavi vpra�anje glede razlage ali veljavnosti prava Skupnosti, ampak vključuje tudi primere, v katerih tako vpra�anje postavi nacionalno sodi�če, ki meni, da je ‚za izrek sodbe potrebna‘ odločitev Sodi�ča o tem“.