natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Appeals — Recommendations and rulings of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body — Determination of the Dispute Settlement Body that the Community regime governing the import of bananas was incompatible with WTO rules — Imposition by the United States of America of retaliatory measures in the form of increased customs duty levied on imports of certain products from various Member States — Retaliatory measures authorised by the WTO — No noncontractual Community liability — Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Reasonable period — Claim for fair compensation)
„Pritožba – Priporočila in sklepi organa za re�evanje sporov Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) – Ugotovitev organa za re�evanje sporov glede neskladnosti skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan s predpisi STO – Uvedba povračilnih ukrepov Združenih držav Amerike v obliki dodatne carinske dajatve na uvoz nekaterih proizvodov iz različnih držav članic – Povračilni ukrepi, ki jih odobri STO – Neobstoj nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti – Trajanje postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje – Razumni rok – Zahtevek za pravično od�kodnino“
Appeals — Pleas in law — Inadequate or contradictory reasoning — Admissibility (Art. 225 EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.)
Pritožba – Razlogi – Nezadostna ali nasprotujoča si obrazložitev – Dopustnost (člen 225 ES; Statut Sodišča, člen 58, prvi odstavek)
International agreements — Agreements concluded by the Community
Mednarodni sporazumi – Sporazumi Skupnosti
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P
International agreements — Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation
Mednarodni sporazumi – Sporazum o ustanovitvi Svetovne trgovinske organizacije
Non­contractual liability — Liability for a lawful act (Art. 288, second para., EC)
Nepogodbena odgovornost – Odgovornost zaradi zakonitega akta (člen 288, drugi odstavek, ES)
Community law — Principles — Fundamental rights — Right to property — Freedom to pursue a trade or profession — Scope
Pravo Skupnosti – Načela – Temeljne pravice – Lastninska pravica – Svoboda opravljanja poklicne dejavnosti – Obseg
Appeals — Pleas in law — Grounds of a judgment vitiated by an infringement of Commu­nity law — Operative part well founded on other legal grounds — Dismissal
Pritožba – Razlogi – Obrazložitev sodbe, s katero je kršeno pravo Skupnosti – Izrek, utemeljen z drugimi pravnimi razlogi – Zavrnitev
Procedure — Duration of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance — Reasonable length — Criteria for assessment
Postopek – Trajanje postopka pred Sodiščem prve stopnje – Razumni rok – Merila presoje
Court of First Instance has not upheld their arguments and provides the Court of Justice with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review.
pa omogoča, da razpolaga z dovolj elementi za izvajanje nadzora.
The question whether the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance are contradictory or inadequate is a question of law which is amenable, as such, to judicial review on appeal.
Vpra�anje, ali je obrazložitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje protislovna ali pomanjkljiva, pomeni pravno vpra�anje, ki se kot tako sme uveljavljati v okviru pritožbe.
(see paras 90, 91, 96)
(Glej točke 90, 91 in 96.)
In that connection, the requirement that the Court of First Instance give reasons for its decisions cannot be interpreted as meaning that it is obliged to respond in detail to every single argument advanced by an applicant, particularly if the argument is not sufficiently clear and precise.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da obveznosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da obrazloži svoje sodbe, ni mogoče razlagati, kot da pomeni, da je dolžno podrobno odgovoriti na vsako trditev, ki jo navede tožeča stranka, zlasti če ta trditev ni dovolj jasna in natančna ter ne temelji na podrobnih dokazih.
Nor does the obligation to state reasons require the Court of First Instance to provide an account which follows exhaustively and one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case. The reasoning may therefore be implicit on condition that it enables the persons concerned to know why the
Obveznost obrazložitve Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne nalaga, da zagotovi razlago, ki bi izčrpno in posamično sledila ugotovitvam, ki jih navajajo stranke v sporu; obrazložitev je torej lahko implicitna, če zadevnim osebam omogoča, da se seznanijo z razlogi, zakaj Sodi�če prve stopnje ni sprejelo njihovih argumentov, Sodi�ču
The effects within the Community of provisions of an agreement concluded by the Community with nonmember States may not be determined without taking account of the international origin of the provisions in question.
Učinkov – v Skupnosti – določb sporazuma, ki ga je Skupnost sklenila s tretjimi državami, ni mogoče opredeliti, ne da bi pri tem upo�tevali mednarodni izvor zadevnih določb.
In conformity with the principles of public international law, Community institutions which have power to negotiate and conclude such an agreement are free to agree with the nonmember States concerned what effect the provisions of the agreement are to have in the internal legal order of the contracting parties.
V skladu z načeli madnarodnega prava se institucije Skupnosti, ki so pristojne za pogajanje in sklepanje takega sporazuma, lahko sporazumejo z zadevnimi tretjimi državami o učinkih, ki jih morajo imeti določbe tega sporazuma v notranjem redu pogodbenih strank.
If that question has not been expressly
Ker to vpra�anje ni bilo izrecno urejeno v navedenem sporazumu, morajo o njem odločiti pristojna sodi�ča in zlasti Sodi�če
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION cannot in principle be fundamentally distinguished from the substantive rules which convey such obligations and by reference to which such a review is carried out, at least when it is a question of determining whether or not an infringement of those rules or that decision can be relied upon before the Community courts for the purpose of reviewing the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions.
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI v okviru svoje pristojnosti na podlagi Pogodbe, enako kot o vsakem drugem vpra�anju o razlagi uporabe zadevnega sporazuma v Skupnosti, pri čemer se opira zlasti na duh, sistematiko ali besedilo tega sporazuma.
dealt with in the agreement, it is the courts having jurisdiction in the matter and in particular the Court of Justice within the framework of its jurisdiction under the Treaty that have the task of deciding it, in the same manner as any other question of interpretation relating to the application of the agreement in question in the Community, on the basis in particular of the agreement’s spirit, general scheme or terms.
ki izhajajo iz teh obveznosti in glede katerih izvaja tak nadzor, razen če gre za opredelitev, ali se je za namene nadzora zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti mogoče pred sodi�čem Skupnosti sklicevati na kr�itev navedenih predpisov oziroma sklepa ali ne.
Thus, specifically, it falls to the Court to determine whether the provisions of an international agreement confer on persons subject to Community law the right to rely on that agreement in legal proceedings in order to contest the validity of a Community measure.
Zato je �e zlasti naloga Sodi�ča, da na podlagi predvsem zgoraj navedenih meril določi, ali določbe mednarodnega sporazuma dajejo posameznikom v Skupnosti pravico, da se sklicujejo nanje v sodnem postopku, v katerem izpodbijajo veljavnost akta Skupnosti.
A recommendation or a ruling of the DSB finding that the substantive rules contained in the WTO agreements have not been complied with is, whatever the precise legal effect attaching to such a recommendation or ruling, no more capable than those rules of conferring upon individuals a right to rely thereon before the Community courts for the purpose of having the legality of the conduct of the Community institutions reviewed, whether the review is in annulment proceedings or for the purpose of deciding an action for compensation.
Tako kot materialni predpisi, ki jih vsebujejo sporazumi STO, tudi priporočilo ali sklep ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena kr�itev navedenih predpisov, ne moreta, ne glede na to, kak�en je pravni pomen takih priporočil oziroma sklepa, za posameznike ustvariti pravice, da se nanju sklicujejo pred sodi�čem Skupnosti za namene pridobitve nadzora zakonitosti ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, in da do tega nadzora pride v okviru spora o razglasitvi ničnosti ali za namene odločanja o od�kodninski tožbi.
The Court can examine the validity of secondary Community legislation in the light of an international treaty only where the nature and the broad logic of the latter do not preclude this and, in addition, the treaty’s provisions appear, as regards their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise.
Sodi�če lahko veljavnost zakonodaje Skupnosti z vidika mednarodne pogodbe presoja le, če temu ne nasprotujeta narava in sistematika te pogodbe in če se določbe glede na njihovo vsebino izkažejo za nepogojne in dovolj jasne.
(see paras 108-110)
(Glej točke od 108 do 110.)
A decision of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO, which has no object other than to rule on whether the conduct of a WTO member is consistent with the obligations entered into by that State within the context of the WTO,
Sklepa organa za re�evanje sporov (ORS) STO, ki nima drugega namena kot izreči se o skladnosti ravnanja države članice STO z obveznostmi, ki jih je v tem okviru prevzela ta članica, načeloma ni mogoče razlikovati od materialnih predpisov,
First, the nature of the WTO agreements and the reciprocity and flexibility characterising them continue to obtain after such a ruling or recommendation has been adopted and after the reasonable period of time allowed for its implementation has expired.
Po eni strani namreč ugotovitve, povezane z naravo sporazumov STO ter z vzajemnostjo in prožnostjo, ki je značilna za te sporazume, veljajo tudi potem, ko so bile sprejete s takimi sklepi ali priporočili, in po izteku razumnega roka za njihovo izvr�itev.
The Community institutions continue in particular to have an element of discretion and scope for negotiation vis-à-vis their trading partners with a view to the adoption of measures intended to respond to the ruling or recommendation, and such leeway must be preserved.
Institucije Skupnosti obdržijo zlasti določeno polje proste presoje in pogajanj nasproti svojim poslovnim partnerjem z namenom, da se sprejmejo ukrepi, namenjeni izpolnjevanju teh sklepov oziroma priporočil, in to je treba ohraniti.
SUMMARY — JOINED CASES C-120/06 P AND C-121/06 P positive act, that is to say, for example, the adoption of regulations following a decision of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the WTO, or as an omission, that is to say the failure to adopt measures calculated to ensure the correct implementation of that decision.
POVZETEK – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-120/06 P IN C-121/06 P akt, in sicer sprejetje uredb zaradi sklepa organa za re�evanje sporov (ORS) STO, ali kot opustitev, namreč nesprejetje aktov, s katerimi bi se zagotovila pravilna izvr�itev tega sklepa.
Failure on the part of the Community institutions to act can also fall within the legislative function of the Community, including in the context of actions for damages.
Nedelovanje institucij Skupnosti lahko namreč izhaja tudi iz zakonodajne funkcije Skupnosti, zlasti v okviru spora o odgovornosti.
Second, as is apparent from Article 3(2) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, which forms Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, recommendations and rulings of the DSB cannot add to or diminish the rights and obligations provided in the agreements concerned.
Po drugi strani, kot izhaja iz člena 3(2) Dogovora o pravilih in postopkih za re�evanje sporov, ki je del priloge 2 k Sporazumu o ustanovitvi STO, priporočila in sklepi ORS ne morejo raz�iriti ali zmanj�ati pravic in obveznosti, navedenih v zadevnih sporazumih.
It follows in particular that a decision of the DSB finding an infringement of such an obligation cannot have the effect of requiring a party to the WTO agreements to accord individuals a right which they do not hold by virtue of those agreements in the absence of such a decision.
Iz tega med drugim izhaja, da sklep ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena kr�itev take obveznosti, ne more povzročiti obveznosti podpisnice sporazumov STO, da prizna posameznikom pravico, ki je nimajo na podlagi teh sporazumov, če ni takega sklepa.
(see paras 120, 128-131)
(Glej točke 120 in od 128 do 131.)
However, the Community legislature enjoys a broad discretion for the purpose of assessing whether the adoption of a given legislative measure justifies, when account is taken of certain harmful effects that are to result from its adoption, the provision of certain forms of compensation.
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti ima vendarle �iroko diskrecijsko pravico pri presoji, ali v primeru sprejetja danega zakonodajnega akta upo�tevanje nekaterih �kodnih učinkov, ki morajo izhajati iz tega sprejetja, upravičuje določitev nekaterih oblik nadomestila.
In affirming the existence of a regime providing for noncontractual liability of the Community on account of the lawful pursuit by it of its activities falling within the legislative sphere, the Court of First Instance erred in law.
Zakonodajni akt Skupnosti, katerega uporaba vodi k omejitvam temeljnih pravic, kot sta lastninska pravica in pravica prostega izvajanja poklicne dejavnosti, kar naj bi nesorazmerno in nesprejemljivo posegalo v sam temelj navedenih pravic – kar velja, če ni predvideno ustrezno nadomestilo za preprečitev ali odpravo navedenega posega – bi prav tako lahko imel za posledico nepogodbeno odgovornost Skupnosti.
As Community law currently stands, no liability regime exists under which the Community can incur liability for conduct falling within the sphere of its legislative competence in a situation where any failure of such conduct to comply with the WTO agreements cannot be relied upon before the Community courts.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem da je v izpodbijanih sodbah ugotovilo obstoj sistema nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi njenega zakonitega izvajanja svojih dejavnosti s področja zakonodaje.
Also, a Community legislative measure whose application leads to restrictions of fundamental rights, such as the right to property and the freedom to pursue a trade or profession, that impair the very substance of those rights in a disproportionate and intolerable manner, perhaps precisely because no provision has been made for compensation calculated to avoid or remedy that impairment, could give rise to noncontractual liability on the part of the Community.
V sedanjem pravu Skupnosti ne obstaja sistem odgovornosti, ki bi omogočal uveljavljanje odgovornosti Skupnosti zaradi ravnanja, ki spada na področje njene zakonodajne pristojnosti, v položaju, v katerem morebitne neskladnosti takega ravnanja s sporazumi STO ni mogoče uveljavljati pred sodi�čem Skupnosti.
It is immaterial in this regard whether that conduct is to be regarded as a
S tega vidika je nepomembno, da je treba navedeno ravnanje preučiti kot pozitivni
(see paras 176, 178, 179, 181, 184)
(Glej točke 176, 178, 179, 181 in 184.)
FIAMM AND OTHERS v COUNCIL AND COMMISSION
FIAMM IN DRUGI PROTI SVETU IN KOMISIJI
If the grounds of a judgment of the Court of First Instance disclose an infringement of Community law but its operative part is shown to be well founded on other legal grounds, the appeal must be dismissed.
Čeprav obrazložitev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje kaže na kr�itev prava Skupnosti, je treba pritožbo zavrniti, ker je njen izrek utemeljen z drugimi pravnimi razlogi.
Where there is no indication that the length of the proceedings affected their outcome in any way, a plea that the proceedings before the Court of First Instance did not satisfy the requirements concerning completion within a reasonable time cannot as a general rule lead to the setting aside of the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance.
Če ni nobenega indica, v skladu s katerim naj bi dolžina postopka vplivala na re�itev spora, potem pritožbeni razlog, da naj bi postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje prekoračil zahtevani razumni rok, na splo�no ne more povzročiti razveljavitve sodbe, ki jo je to sodi�če izreklo.
An economic operator whose business consists in particular in exporting goods to the markets of nonmember States must therefore be aware that the commercial position which he has at a given time may be affected and altered by various circumstances and that those circumstances include the possibility, which is moreover expressly envisaged and governed by Article 22 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), which forms Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, that one of the nonmember States will adopt measures suspending concessions in reaction to the stance taken by its trading partners within the framework of the WTO and will for this purpose select in its discretion, as follows from Article 22(3)(a) and (f) of the DSU, the goods to be subject to those measures.
Zato se mora gospodarski subjekt, katerega dejavnost je zlasti izvoz na trge tretjih držav, med drugim zavedati dejstva, da na poslovni položaj, ki ga ima v danem trenutku, lahko vplivajo in ga spremenijo različne okoli�čine in da so med njimi mogoči primeri – sicer izrecno določeni in urejeni s členom 22 Dogovora o pravilih in postopkih za re�evanje sporov (DPPRS), ki je priloga 2 k Sporazumu o ustanovitvi STO – ko taka tretja država sprejme ukrepe prekinitve koncesij kot odgovor na ravnanje svojih poslovnih partnerjev v okviru STO in da s tem namenom prosto izbere, kot izhaja iz člena 22(3)(a) in (f) DPPRS, blago, na katero se nana�ajo navedeni ukrepi.
In addition, the reasonableness of the length of proceedings before the Court of First Instance must be appraised in the light of the circumstances specific to each case and, in particular, the importance of the case for the person concerned, its complexity and the conduct of the applicant and of the competent authorities.
Razumnost roka v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje je treba presojati glede na posebne okoli�čine vsakega primera in zlasti glede na interese oseb v sporu, zapletenost zadeve ter ravnanje tožeče stranke in pristojnih organov.
(see paras 185, 186)
(Glej točki 185 in 186.)
(see paras 203, 212)
(Glej točki 203 in 212.)
The confrontation between the United States of America and Europe in what is usually called the ‘banana war’ could be presented metaphorically as ‘eating the banana at both ends’.
„Jesti banano z obeh strani“, tako bi lahko metaforično predstavili spopad med ameri�kimi in evropskimi protagonisti v zvezi s tem, kar je po navadi poimenovano „bananska vojna“.
The banana war has already given rise to innumerable disputes.
To je že bil razlog za �tevilne spore.
The present proceedings, which concern the problem of the collateral victims in this war, are merely one more manifestation of it.
Ta zadeva, ki načenja problem stranskih žrtev te vojne, je le �e ena preobrazba tega spopada.
Nevertheless, these proceedings cannot be said to be of no legal interest; indeed, the contrary is the case.
Vendar to ne pomeni, da ni pravno nepomembna, ampak ravno nasprotno.
They call upon the Court to resolve hitherto unexplored questions with wide-reaching legal implications.
Sodi�če poziva k obravnavanju novih vpra�anj in vpra�anj z velikim pravnim dometom.
Commission 3(together referred to as ‘the contested judgments’).
ljevanju skupaj: izpodbijani sodbi) 3.
By those judgments, the Court of First Instance dismissed the actions of FIAMM and Fedon for compensation in respect of damage which they allegedly suffered as a result of the levying by the United States of increased customs duty on imports of stationary batteries and spectacle cases from various Member States as retaliation for the European Community’s failure to implement the decision in which the Dispute Settlement Body (‘the DSB’) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) found the Community regime governing the import of bananas to be incompatible with the WTO agreements.
S tema sodbama je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo tožbi FIAMM in FEDON, katerih cilj je bil dobiti povračilo �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpeli zaradi dodatnih carinskih dajatev, ki so jih Združene države kot povračilni ukrep naložile na uvoz stacionarnih akumulatorjev in etuijev za očala, ki izvirajo iz različnih držav članic, ker Evropska skupnost ni izvr�ila sklepa, s katerim je organ za re�evanje sporov Svetovne trgovinske organizacije (STO) (v nadaljevanju: ORS) ugotovil nezdružljivost skupnostne ureditve uvoza banan s sporazumi STO.
The proceedings before the Court stem from two appeals, one brought by Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA and Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC (together referred to as ‘FIAMM’) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 14 December 2005 in FIAMM and FIAMM Technologies v Council and Commission, 2and the other lodged by Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA and Fedon America, Inc. (together referred to as ‘Fedon’) against the judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on the same day in Fedon & Figli and Others v Council and 3.
Zadeva, ki je Sodi�ču predložena v odločanje, izvira iz dveh pritožb, eno sta vložili Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio SpA in Fabbrica italiana accumulatori motocarri Montecchio Technologies LLC (v nadaljevanju skupaj: FIAMM) zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 14. decembra 2005 v zadevi FIAMM in FIAMM Technologies proti Svetu in Komisiji 2, drugo pa Giorgio Fedon & Figli SpA in Fedon America, Inc. (v nadaljevanju skupaj: FEDON) zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, izdano istega dne v zadevi Fedon & Figli in drugi proti Svetu in Komisiji (v nada- 3.
The pleas raised by the appellants in support of their appeals call on the Court, first, to rule on the effect that a DSB decision finding the Community legislation to be incompatible with the WTO agreements has on the possibility of relying on WTO rules and, secondly, to rule on the principle of, and conditions for, no-fault liability on the part of the Community.
S pritožbenimi razlogi, ki jih pritožnici navajata v utemeljitev teh pritožb, predlagata Sodi�ču, naj se po eni strani izreče o vplivu sklepa ORS, s katerim je bila ugotovljena nezdružljivost ureditve Skupnosti s sporazumi STO o možnosti sklicevanja na pravila STO, in po drugi strani o načelu in pogojih za objektivno odgovornost Skupnosti.
3 — Case T-135/01 (‘the Fedon judgment’).
3 – T-135/01, v nadaljevanju: sodba Fedon.
I — Legal and factual background
I – Pravni okvir in dejansko stanje
1999 the United States obtained authorisation from the DSB to levy customs duty on imports from the Community up to an annual amount of trade of USD 191.4 million, corresponding to the level of nullification or impairment it had suffered.
A – Dejansko stanje na uvoz iz Skupnosti odmerijo carine do letnega zneska trgovinske menjave v vi�ini 191,4 milijona USD, ki ustreza stopnji izničenja ali zmanj�anja koristi, ki so ju utrpele.
As a consequence, the United States authorities applied, as from 19 April 1999, ad valorem duty of 100% on imports of a list of Community products that they drew up.
Zato so ameri�ki organi od 19. aprila 1999 uporabljali dajatev ad valorem po stopnji 100 % za uvoz proizvodov, ki izvirajo iz Skupnosti in za katere so sestavili seznam.
These included the stationary batteries and spectacle cases exported by the Italian undertakings FIAMM and Fedon respectively.
Med temi proizvodi so bili stacionarni akumulatorji in etuiji za očala, ki sta jih izvažali italijanski družbi FIAMM in FEDON.