natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It adds that the plea does not undermine the principle of legal certainty or the principle of res judicata because it was raised within the timelimits for bringing an action against the basic regulation and the implementing regulation, and the Court did not rule on the substance of the case in its earlier judgment.
Dodaja, da ta ugovor ne nasprotuje niti načelu pravne varnosti niti načelu pravnomočnosti, ker je bil podan v roku za vložitev tožbe zoper temeljno uredbo in izvedbeno uredbo ter ker Sodi�če v svoji predhodni sodbi ni odločalo o temelju.
Pursuant to Article 241 EC, ‘[n]otwithstanding the expiry of the period laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230, any party may, in proceedings in which a regulation
Člen 241 ES določa, da lahko „[n]e glede na iztek roka iz petega odstavka člena 230 vsaka stranka v sporu, v katerem gre za uredbo, ki sta jo skupaj sprejela Evropski
SPAIN v COUNCIL adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council, or a regulation of the Council, of the Commission, or of the [European Central Bank] is at issue, plead the grounds specified in the second paragraph of Article 230 in order to invoke before the Court of Justice the inapplicability of that regulation’.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU parlament in Svet, ali za uredbo Sveta, Komisije ali [Evropske centralne banke], pred Sodi�čem uveljavlja, da se ta uredba iz razlogov, navedenih v drugem odstavku člena 230, ne uporablja“.
It follows from that article that a Member State may, in the course of legal proceedings, challenge the legality of a regulation against which it has not brought an action for annulment before the expiry of the timelimits laid down in the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC.
Iz tega člena izhaja, da lahko država članica v primeru spora izpodbija zakonitost uredbe, zoper katero ni vložila ničnostne tožbe pred iztekom roka iz člena 230, peti odstavek, ES.
It should be pointed out in that regard that since the right of the Member States to bring an action for annulment of a regulation is not limited, the plea of inadmissibility raised by the Council and the Commission — to the effect, essentially, that a Member State may not plead the illegality of a regulation after the expiry of the abovementioned timelimits if it could have sought the annulment thereof within those timelimits — would mean, if accepted, that Member States do not have the right to query, in the course of legal proceedings, the legality of a regulation in order to invoke its inapplicability before the Court.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da glede na to, da pravica držav članic, da vložijo ničnostno tožbo zoper uredbo, ni omejena, bi ugovor nedopustnosti, na katerega se sklicujeta Svet in Komisija in v skladu s katerim se država članica načeloma ne more sklicevati na nezakonitost uredbe po izteku zgoraj navedenega roka, če bi lahko v tem roku predlagala, naj se jo razglasi za nično, če bi bil sprejet, državam članicam odvzel pravico, da v sporu razpravljajo o zakonitosti uredbe zato, da bi se pred Sodi�čem sklicevale na njeno neuporabljivost.
As the Advocate General points out in paragraph 61 of his Opinion, since such an approach would constitute an infringement of the terms of Article 241 EC which gives that right to ‘any party’ (see Case C-11/00 Commission v ECB [2003] ECR I-7147, paragraph 76), the plea of inadmissibility must be rejected.
Ker je taka re�itev, kot poudarja generalni pravobranilec v točki 61 sklepnih predlogov, v nasprotju z besedilom člena 241 ES, ki to pravico daje „vsaki stranki“ (glej sodbo z dne 10. julija 2003 v zadevi Komisija proti ECB, C-11/00, Recueil, str. I-7147, točka 76), je ta ugovor nedopustnosti treba zavrniti.
However, although the Kingdom of Spain raised expressly in its reply a plea of illegality in regard to Regulation No 1954/2003 as a whole, it did not introduce in support thereof any pleas in law not already put forward in the application, in regard to which the Council was able to express its position in the defence.
Toda čeprav se je Kraljevina Španija v repliki izrecno sklicevala na ugovor nezakonitosti celotne Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, v utemeljitev tega ni podala nobenih drugih tožbenih razlogov, kot so tožbeni razlogi, ki jih je že navajala v tožbi in glede katerih bi Svet lahko zavzel stali�če v odgovoru na tožbo.
It is thus apparent that the plea of illegality was implicitly but clearly contained in the application, with the result that the plea of inadmissibility based on the allegedly late submission of the plea of illegality must also be rejected.
Jasno je torej, da je bil ugovor nezakonitosti Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 implicitno, toda jasno, vsebovan v tožbi, tako da je treba ugovor nedopustnosti, ker je prepozen, prav tako zavrniti.
It should also be noted that the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain in regard to Regulation No 1954/2003 does not infringe the principle of res judicata.
Poleg tega je treba navesti, da ugovor nezakonitosti Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, ne kr�i načela pravnomočnosti.
That principle extends only to matters of fact and of law actually or necessarily settled by the judicial decision in question (Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraph 44 and the caselaw cited therein).
To se namreč nana�a zgolj na dejanska in pravna vpra�anja, ki so bila dejansko ali nujno obravnavana v zadevni sodni odločbi (sodba z dne 15. oktobra 2002 v združenih zadevah Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij in drugi proti Komisiji, C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P in C-254/99 P, Recueil, str.
It follows from all the foregoing that the plea of illegality raised by the Kingdom of Spain is admissible and the substance of the submissions put forward in support thereof must be considered; those submissions allege, first, breach of the principle of nondiscrimination and, secondly, misuse of powers.
Iz zgoraj navedenega izhaja, da je ugovor nezakonitosti, na katerega se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, dopusten in da je treba preizkusiti utemeljenost tožbenih razlogov, ki so podani v njegovo utemeljitev in ki se nana�ajo, prvič, na kr�itev načela prepovedi diskriminacije in, drugič, na zlorabo pooblastil.
Alleged breach of the principle of nondiscrimination
Tožbeni razlog kršitve načela prepovedi diskriminacije
That discrimination is to be found in the reference period used in those articles for the calculation of the fishing effort, and in the delimitation of the biologically sensitive area defined in Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1954/2003.
Ta diskriminacija naj bi izhajala iz referenčnega obdobja za izračun ribolovnega napora, določenega v teh členih, ter iz določitve biolo�ko občutljivega območja, ki je opredeljeno v členu 6(1) Uredbe �t. 1954/2003.
First of all, the reference period, running from 1998 to 2002, corresponds to a period in which — by reason of the transitional arrangements under the Act of Accession, which expired on 31 December 2002 — the Kingdom of Spain was subject to greater restrictions in regard to fishing than the other Member States.
Prvič, sprejeto referenčno obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 naj bi namreč ustrezalo obdobju, v katerem so za Kraljevino Španijo zaradi prehodnega režima, ki ga je uvedel Akt o pristopu in ki je prenehal veljati 31. decembra 2002, veljale omejitve na področju ribi�tva, ki so bile večje od omejitev, ki so veljale za druge države članice.
Consequently, since the Member States were not in an identical position during the reference period, the use of that period to calculate the fishing effort has the effect of perpetuating the transitional measures and, in consequence, of discriminating on grounds of nationality.
Države članice zato med referenčnim obdobjem niso bile v enakem položaju, dejstvo, da je bilo to obdobje sprejeto za izračun ribolovnega napora, pa naj bi podalj�evalo trajanje prehodnih ukrepov in zato povzročalo diskriminacijo na podlagi državljanstva.
Secondly, the establishment of the biologically sensitive area and the procedure for the calculation of the maximum permissible fishing effort in that area discriminate against the Spanish fleet and show an intention to continue to apply measures similar to those applied to the former Irish Box, which were also discriminatory in regard to the Spanish fleet.
Drugič, določitev biolo�ko občutljivega območja in postopka za izračun največje dovoljene letne količine ribolovnega napora za to območje naj bi bila diskriminatorna za �pansko floto in naj bi izražala namen nadaljnje uporabe analognih ukrepov, kot so ukrepi, ki so veljali za nekdanje območje „Irish Box“ in ki so bili prav tako diskriminatorni za �pansko floto.
The reason given in the seventh recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1954/2003 for the delimitation of that area — namely, the existence in the area of a high concentration of juvenile hake — in fact merely serves to justify the continuance of those discriminatory measures.
Razlog za določitev tega območja, ki je naveden v sedmi uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, in sicer obstoj visoke koncentracije nedoraslih osličev na tem območju, naj bi v resnici zgolj upravičeval ohranitev diskriminatornih ukrepov.
The Council states that the limitation of the fishing effort is a measure intended to limit the number of days on which certain ships fish in particular waters, with a view to conserving fisheries resources and also to make more efficient the catch limitations laid down for certain stocks of fish.
Svet meni, da je omejitev ribolovnega napora ukrep, ki je namenjen omejitvi ribolovnih dni za določena ribi�ka plovila v določenih vodah zaradi prispevanja k ohranjanju ribolovnih virov in učinkovitej�ih omejitev ulova, ki so bile uvedene za določene staleže rib.
It argues that the limitation of the fishing effort on the basis of the effort carried out by each national fleet in each area and for each fishery in the period from 1998 to 2002, as laid down in Regulation No 1954/2003, applies to all Community fishing vessels regardless of nationality, with the result that there is no overt discrimination based on nationality.
Svet zatrjuje, da omejitev ribolovnega napora na podlagi napora, ki ga opravi vsaka nacionalna flota na vsakem območju in za vsako vrsto ribi�tva v obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002, ki je določena z Uredbo �t. 1954/2003, velja za vsa ribi�ka plovila Skupnosti ne glede na njihovo državno pripadnost, tako da ni očitne diskriminacije na podlagi državljanstva.
However, the criterion used in the present case to limit the fishing effort — namely, the effort deployed in a recent earlier period — is fully justified, appropriate and proportionate to the objective sought.
V obravnavanem primeru uporabljeno merilo za omejitev ribolovnega napora, in sicer napora, opravljenega v nedavnem predhodnem obdobju, pa naj bi bilo popolnoma upravičeno, primerno in sorazmerno zasledovanemu cilju.
With regard to the limitation of the fishing effort in the biologically sensitive area defined in Article 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, the Council states that a specific restriction of the fishing effort in that area is intended to guard against the risk that, by reason of the restrictions applying to large areas such as the ICES areas and CECAF divisions, the fishing effort would be concentrated in specific areas, such as the area at issue, in which there is a high concentration of juvenile hake.
Glede omejitve ribolovnega napora na biolo�ko občutljivem območju, ki je opredeljeno v členu 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, Svet meni, da je namen posebne omejitve ribolovnega napora na tem območju za�čita pred nevarnostjo, da bi se zaradi omejitve, ki velja za velika območja, kot so območje ICES in razdelki CECAF, ribolovni napor skoncentriral na posebnih območjih, kot je zadevno območje, na katerem se nahaja visoka koncentracija nedoraslih osličev.
The Commission, pointing out that the method fixed by Regulation No 1954/2003 for calculating the fishing effort is identical for all the Member States, contends that the reference period from 1998 to 2002 involved no discrimination against the Spanish fleet.
Glede na to, da Komisija meni, da je način izračuna ribolovnega napora, ki je določen z Uredbo �t. 1954/2003, enak za vse države članice, trdi, da referenčno obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 ne povzroča nobene diskriminacije v �kodo �panske flote.
It states that whereas the maximum fishing effort limits had been fixed under the rules introduced in 1995 on the basis of theoretical data, the maximum fishing effort must now be calculated, pursuant to Regulation No 1954/2003, on the basis of an objective criterion, namely the fishing effort actually exerted during a recent, representative period.
V zvezi s tem Komisija meni, da medtem ko so bile maksimalne omejitve ribolovnega napora določene v okviru režima, uvedenega leta 1995 na podlagi teoretičnih podatkov, je na podlagi Uredbe �t. 1954/2003 treba sedaj največjo dovoljeno letno količino ribolovnega napora izračunavati na podlagi objektivnega merila, in sicer dejanskega ribo -lovnega napora v zadnjem reprezentativnem obdobju.
With regard to the biologically sensitive area, the Commission is of the opinion that the period from 1998 to 2002 can validly serve as a reference period for calculating the fishing effort in that area, which does exactly coincide with the Irish Box, because it reflects the effort effectively deployed by the Spanish fleet and causes it no harm.
Komisija glede biolo�ko občutljivega območja meni, da je obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002 dejansko lahko referenčno obdobje za izračun ribolovnega napora na tem območju, ki ne sovpada povsem z območjem „Irish Box“, ker odraža dejanski napor, ki ga je opravila �panska flota in ji ne povzroča nobene �kode.
The Spanish fleet developed an intense fishing activity in certain areas adjacent to the Irish Box which today are part of the biologically sensitive area and the fishing effort thus exerted is taken into account in the fishing effort it can deploy in the whole of that area today.
Ta flota naj bi na določenih območjih, ki mejijo na območje „Irish Box“ in ki so danes vključena v biolo�ko občutljivo območje, razvila intenzivno ribolovno dejavnost, ribolovni napor, ki ga je tako opravila, pa naj bi se sedaj upo�teval pri naporu, ki ga lahko opravi na celotnem območju.
Moreover, the Kingdom of Spain produces nothing to show that the limit in force in the Irish Box has reduced the activity of its fleet or even that the Spanish fishing fleet has reached that limit.
Kraljevina Španija naj poleg tega ne bi dokazala, da omejitev, ki velja na območju „Irish Box“, zmanj�uje dejavnost njene flote in da je slednja to omejitev dosegla.
In the present case, the provisions of Articles 3, 4 and 6 of Regulation No 1954/2003, the illegality of which is pleaded by the Kingdom of Spain, are applicable in an identical manner to all Member States.
V obravnavanem primeru se določbe členov 3, 4 in 6 Uredbe �t. 1954/2003, na nezakonitost katerih se sklicuje Kraljevina Španija, uporabljajo enako za vse države članice.
In particular, the reference period from 1998 to 2002, which serves, pursuant to those provisions, for the assessment and then for the allocation of levels of fishing effort for the fisheries and areas covered by them is the same for the whole European Community.
Zlasti je za vso Evropsko skupnost isto referenčno obdobje od leta 1998 do 2002, ki je na podlagi teh določb namenjeno oceni in poznej�i določitvi količine ribolovnega napora za vrste ribi�tva in območja, ki jih te določbe določajo.
The limitation of the fishing effort, fixed on the basis of the effort actually exerted during that period by each national fleet in those areas and fisheries, thus applies to all Community fishing vessels regardless of nationality.
Omejitev ribolovnega napora, ki je določena na podlagi napora, ki ga je v tem obdobju dejansko opravila vsaka nacionalna flota na teh območjih in za te vrste ribi�tva, se torej uporablja za vsa ribi�ka plovila Skupnosti ne glede na njihovo državno pripadnost.
Therefore, the measures contained in those provisions cannot be regarded as discriminating against the Kingdom of Spain unless, on the one hand, that Member State was, as it claims, in a different position from the other Member States when those provisions were adopted and, on the other, it is not objectively justified that the Kingdom of Spain should be subject, in some circumstances, to the same fishing effort management regime as the other Member States.
Ukrepe, ki jih vsebujejo te določbe, je tako mogoče �teti za diskriminatorne do Kraljevine Španije zgolj, če bi bila ta, kot zatrjuje, v položaju, ki se razlikuje od položaja, v katerem so bile druge države članice, ko so bili ti ukrepi sprejeti, in če ne bi bilo objektivno utemeljeno, da za Kraljevino Španijo velja isti režim upravljanja ribolovnega napora, kot je režim, ki velja za druge države članice.
It should be noted, as Advocate General Léger pointed out in points 61 and 62 of his Opinion in Spain v Council, cited above, to which the Advocate General in the present case refers in point 95 of his Opinion, that the Kingdom of Spain was subject from the time of its accession to the European Union until 31 December 2002 to a number of restrictions relating to access to certain fishing areas and resources and
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točkah 61 in 62 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Légerja v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Svetu, na kateri se v točki 95 sklepnih predlogov sklicuje generalni pravobranilec v tej zadevi, da so za Kraljevino Španijo od pristopa k Evropski uniji do 31. decembra 2002 veljale določene omejitve glede dostopa do
SPAIN v COUNCIL that, although its situation gradually came into line with that of the other Member States, it retained certain particular features until the end of that period, hence during the 1998-2002 reference period used in the provisions at issue for determining the fishing effort.
ŠPANIJA PROTI SVETU določenih območij in ribolovnih virov in da je bil njen položaj kljub postopnemu usklajevanju s položajem drugih držav članic do konca tega obdobja �e naprej poseben, torej v referenčnem obdobju od leta 1998 do 2002, ki je bilo z zadevnimi določbami sprejeto za določitev ribolovnega napora.
Articles 156 to 166 of the Act of Accession lay down the arrangements governing access to Community waters and their resources, thereby limiting the fishing opportunities open to Spanish fishing vessels in certain areas of Community waters.
V členih od 156 do 166 Akta o pristopu je namreč opredeljen režim dostopa do voda Skupnosti in do njihovih virov, ki �panskim ribi�kim plovilom omejuje možnosti ribolova na določenih območjih voda Skupnosti.
Thus, inter alia, Article 158 of the Act of Accession, referred to by the Kingdom of Spain in its application, provides for a list to be drawn up of 300 vessels — specified with their technical characteristics in the list of names in Annex IX to the Act of Accession — which may be authorised to fish in ICES areas V b, VI, VII, VIII a, b and d, and lays down the conditions governing the number of ships on that list that may be present in the areas concerned at the same time.
Člen 158 Akta o pristopu, ki ga Kraljevina Španija navaja v tožbi, tako določa, da je 300 ribi�kim plovilom, ki so glede na svoje tehnične značilnosti navedena na seznamu v prilogi IX k Aktu o pristopu, mogoče dovoliti, da izvajajo svoje ribi�ke dejavnosti na območjih ICES V b, VI, VII, VIII a, b in d, ter določa pogoje za istočasno prisotnost ribi�kih plovil s tega seznama na teh območjih.
Article 158 of the Act of Accession also excludes access to the Irish Box.
Člen 158 poleg tega izključuje dostop do območja „Irish Box“.
Article 166 of the Act of Accession provides that the arrangements defined in Articles 156 to 164 thereof are to remain in force until the expiry of the period laid down in Article 8(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources (OJ 1983 L 24, p.
Člen 166 Akta o pristopu določa, da režim, opredeljen v členih od 156 do 164 Akta o pristopu, ostane veljaven do izteka obdobja iz člena 8(3) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 170/83 z dne 25. januarja 1983 o vzpostavitvi sistema Skupnosti za ohranjanje in upravljanje z ribolovnimi viri (UL L 24, str. 1), to je do 31. decembra 2002.
However, Article 162 of the Act of Accession provides for a procedure for the assessment and adjustment of those arrangements, indicating that the adjustments which proved to be necessary were to take effect on 1 January 1996.
Člen 162 Akta o pristopu kljub temu določa postopek ocenjevanja in prilagajanja tega režima, s tem ko navaja, da bodo prilagoditve, ki se bodo izkazale za potrebne, začele učinkovati 1. januarja 1996.
Article 1 of Regulation No 1275/94 provides, with regard to the Kingdom of Spain, that with effect from 1 January 1996, the arrangements regarding access to waters and resources laid down in Articles 156 to 166 of the Act of Accession are to be adjusted and incorporated — in accordance with the subsequent articles of Regulation No 1275/94 — into the Community measures provided for in Articles 3 and 4 of that Regulation, which are applicable to all Community vessels.
Člen 1 Uredbe �t. 1275/94 glede Kraljevine Španije določa, da se od 1. januarja 1996 prilagodi režim dostopa do voda in virov, določen v členih od 156 do 166 Akta o pristopu, in se v skladu z nadaljnjimi členi Uredbe prilagodi in vključi v ukrepe Skupnosti, predvi -dene v členih 3 in 4 te uredbe, ki se uporabljajo za vsa ribi�ka plovila Skupnosti.
Article 3 of Regulation 1275/94 provides that the Council is to adopt, in accordance with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p.
Člen 3 te uredbe določa, da Svet v skladu s členoma 4 in 8 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 3760/92 z dne 20. decembra 1992, ki vzpostavlja sistem Skupnosti na področju ribi�tva in ribogojstva (UL L 389, str.
1), the Community measures laying down the conditions of access
1) sprejme ukrepe Skupnosti, ki določajo pogoje dostopa do območij in virov, za katere velja posebna ureditev v skladu s členi od
2008 — CASE C-442/04 to the zones and resources subject to specific rules pursuant to Articles 156 to 166 of the Act of Accession and that such measures must comply with the principle of no increase in fishing effort the level of which is laid down in Articles 158, 160, 164 and 165 of the Act of Accession.
156 do 166 Akta o pristopu, in da morajo ti ukrepi spo�tovati načelo preprečevanja povečanja ribolovnega napora, katerega količina je določena v členih 158, 160, 164 in 165 Akta o pristopu.
That system was introduced by Regulation No 2027/95, which fixed the maximum annual fishing effort for each Member State and for each fishery.
2027/95, ki je za vsako državo članico določala največjo dovoljeno količino ribolovnega napora za vsako vrsto ribi�tva.
With regard to the Irish Box, Article 3(5) of Regulation No 685/95 provides that the Member States concerned are to assess the fishing effort in that area on the basis of the level of existing activity for their respective vessels, except for those flying the flag of Spain, whose number in the area may not exceed 40.
Člen 3(5) Uredbe �t. 685/95 je glede območja „Irish Box“ določal, da zadevne države članice ocenijo ribolovni napor na tem območju na podlagi ravni obstoječe aktivnosti za svoja ribi�ka plovila, razen za tista, ki plovejo pod �pansko zastavo, ki jih na tem območju ne sme biti več kot 40.