natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Lastly, the Court took the view that, while guidelines in the Commission’s communications may indeed help to ensure that the Commission acts in a manner that is transparent, foreseeable and consistent with legal certainty, the fact nevertheless remains that such rules cannot bind the Court in the exercise of the broad discretion conferred on it by Article 228(2) EC.
Pomnenju Sodišča taka potreba izhaja iz uvodne izjave 17 navedene uredbe, ki se nanaša na takojšnjo vrnitev odvzetega otroka, in iz člena 11(3) iste uredbe, ki sodišču, pri katerem je bil vložen zahtevek za vrnitev, določa rok šestih tednov, da iz da sodbo. Sodišče je pojasnilo, da potreba po varstvu otroka pred morebitno škodo in nujnost zagotovitve pravilnega ravnotežja med interesi otroka in interesi njegovih staršev ravno tako utemeljujeta obravnavanje po nujnem postopku predhodnega odločanja.
Still in the sphere of judicial proceedings, it will be recalled that 2008 was the year in which the Court introduced the new urgent preliminaryruling procedure, established with effect from 1 March 2008.
V zvezi z načeli, ki urejajo predložitev zadeve Sodišču z namenom pridobiti odločbo o vprašanju za predhodno odločanje, je imelo Sodišče v zadevi Cartesio (sodba z dne 16. decembra 2008, C-210/06) priložnost, da obravnava problematiko pooblastila nacionalnega pritožbenega sodišča, da spremeni odločbo nižjega sodišča o predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
Three cases gave rise to that procedure: Case C-296/08 PPU Santesteban Goicoechea (judgment of 12 August 2008); Case C-388/08 PPU Leymann and Pustovarov (judgment of 1 December 2008) concerning the interpretation of Framework Decision 2002/584 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (7); and Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau (judgment of 11 July 2008) in relation to Community rules on the return of a child who has been unlawfully retained in another Member State.
V zvezi s tem je Sodišče razsodilo, da če obstajajo pravila nacionalnega prava glede pravice do pritožbezoper odločbo o predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, pri čemer je značilno, da o celotni zadevi v glavni stvari v es čas odloča predložitveno sodišče in je le predložitvena odločba predmet omejene pritožbe, je treba člen 234, drugi odstavek, ES razlagati tako, da pristojnosti, ki jo ta določba Pogodbe da je vsakemu nacionalnemu sodišču, da Sodišču predlaga sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ni mogoče izpodbijati na podlagi takih pravil, ki pritožbenemu sodišču omogočajo, da spremeni odločbo o predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe pred Sodiščem, da izloči ta predlog in da naloži nacionalnemu sodišču, ki je izdalo navedeno odločbo, naj znova začne prekinjeni postopek.
Rinau gave the Court an opportunity to explain the conditions required in order for the urgent preliminaryruling procedure to be applied.
Člen 234 ES gotovo ne nasprotuje temu, da odločbe nacionalnega sodišča o predložitvi vprašanj za predhodno odločanje Sodišču ostanejo predmet običajnih pravnih sredstev, predvidenih z nacionalnim pravom.
Thus the Court held that a request from a referring court for a reference for a preliminaryruling relating to the interpretation of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments inmatrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation
Vendar vložitev takega pravnega sredstva nemore omejiti pristojnosti, ki jo člen 234 ES da je navedenemu sodišču, da predloži zadevo
Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).
Okvirni sklep Sveta 2002/584/PNZ z dne 13. junija 2002 (UL L 190, str. 1).
No 1347/2000 (8), to be dealt with under the urgent procedure pursuant to Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice is justified if it is based on a needto act urgently.
Razvoj in dejavnost v odločanje Sodišču, če meni, da se v zadevi, o kateri odloča, pojavljajo vprašanja glede razlage določb prava Skupnosti, ki zahtevajo presojo zadnjenavedenega sodišča.
Such is the case where any delay would be very unfavourable to the relationship between the child and the parent with whom the child does not live and the damage to that relationship could be irreparable.
Sodišče je pojasnilo tudi učinke prava Skupnosti v nacionalnih pravnih redih.
According to the Court, that need is apparent both from recital 17 in the preamble to the regulation, which refers to the return without delay of a child who has been removed or retained, and from Article 11(3) of the regulation, which sets a deadline of six weeks for the court to which an application for return is made to issue its judgment.
Sodišče je v združenih zadevah Viamex Agrar Handel (sodba z dne 17. januarja 2008, C-37/06 in C-58/06, ZOdl., str.
The Court of Justice made clear that the needto protect the child against any possible harm and the needto ensure a fair balance between the interests of the child and those of the parents are also capable of justifying recourse to the urgent preliminaryruling procedure.
I-69) razsodilo, da direktiva sicer nemore ustvariti obveznosti za posameznike, vendar načeloma ni mogoče izključiti možnosti uporabe direktive na podlagi izrecne napotitve na njene določbe v uredbi, če se spoštujejo splošna pravna načela in zlasti načelo pravne varnosti.
So far as concerns the principles in accordance with which cases are referred to the Court for the purposes of obtaining a preliminaryruling , the Court had occasion in Case C-210/06 Cartesio (judgment of 16 December 2008) to address the issue of the power of a national appellate court to vary the decision of a lower court making a reference for a preliminaryruling .
Sodišče se je moralo v zadevi Kempter (sodba z dne 12. februarja 2008, C-2/06) opredeliti glede vprašanja, ali je pogoj za ponovno preučitev in odpravo pravnomočne upravne odločbe zaradi upoštevanja razlage zadevne določbe Skupnosti, kot jo je medtem sprejelo Sodišče Evropskih skupnosti, da je stranka to odločbo na sodišču izpodbijala s sklicevanjem na pravo Skupnosti. Sodišče tega zadnjega pogoja ni sprejelo.
It is true that Article 234 EC does not preclude decisions which are made by a court or tribunal of a Member State against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law and by which questions are referred to the Court for a preliminaryruling from remaining subject to the remedies normally available under national law.
Tako je razsodilo, da čeprav pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva, da mora upravni organ načeloma odpraviti upravno odločbo, ki je postala pravnomočna, je lahko zaradi posebnih okoliščin nacionalnemu upravnemu organu na podlagi načela sodelovanja iz člena 10 ES kljub temu naloženo, da mora ponovno preučiti pravnomočno upravno odločbo, da bi se upoštevala razlaga ustrezne določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jo je pozneje sprejelo Sodišče.
Nevertheless, the outcome of such an appeal cannot limit the jurisdiction conferred by Article 234 EC on that court to make a reference to the Court if it considers that a case pending before it raises questions on the interpretation of provisions of Communitylaw necessitating a ruling by the Court.
Med pogoji za nastanek obveznosti ponovne preučitve pogoja, v skladu s katerim je sodba sodišča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, s katero je izpodbijana upravna odločba postala pravnomočna, v smislu poznejše sodne prakse Sodišča temeljila na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila sprejeta, ne da bi bilo Sodišče zaprošeno za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ni mogoče razlagati tako, da bi se morale stranke pred nacionalnim sodiščem sklicevati na zadevno vprašanje prava Skupnosti.
The effects of Communitylaw on national legal systems have also been clarified.
V zvezi s tem je dovolj, da je nacionalno sodišče, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, preučilo navedeno vprašanje prava Skupnosti, katerega razlaga se je ob upoštevanju poznejše sodbe Sodišča izkazala za napačno, ali da bi ga lahko zastavilo po uradni dolžnosti.
In Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel [2008] ECR I-69, the Court held that, while it is true that a directive cannot of itself impose obligations on an individual, it cannot be precluded, in principle, that the provisions of a directive may be applicable by means of an express reference in a regulation to its provisions, provided that general principles of law and, in particular, the principle of legal certainty are observed.
Če namreč pravo Skupnosti nacionalnim sodiščem ne nalaga, naj po uradni dolžnosti preizkusijo tožbeni razlog kršitve določb Skupnosti, kadar bi s preizkusom tega razloga presegla meje spora, ki so jih določile stranke, morajo ta sodišča po uradni dolžnosti navesti tožbene razloge, ki izhajajo iz zavezujočega predpisa Skupnosti, če so po nacionalnem pravu dolžna ali pristojna to storiti v zvezi z zavezujočim nacionalnim predpisom.
In Case C-2/06 Kempter [2008] ECR I-411, the Court was called upon to determine the question whether the review and amendment of a final administrative decision in order to take account
Čeprav zato možnost predlagati ponovno preučitev in odpravo pravnomočne upravne odločbe, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, ni nobenega roka, lahko države članice v skladu z načeloma učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti svobodno kljub temu določijo razumne roke za vložitev tožbe.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments inmatrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2116/2004 of 2 December 2004 (OJ 2004 L 367, p. 1).
Tako je Sodišče v združenih zadevah Švedska in Turco proti Svetu (sodba z dne 1. julija 2008, C-39/05 P in C-52/05 P) natančneje določilo, kaj mora preučiti Svet, preden odgovori na zahtevek za razkritje dokumenta.
Court of Justice of the interpretation of the relevant Communitylaw carried out in the meantime by the Court of Justice is subject to the requirement that the party concerned relied on Communitylaw when contesting the administrative decision before the national courts.
Uredba Skupnosti o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov9 določa, da imajo vsi državljani Unije in vse osebe s prebivališčem v eni od držav članic pravico dostopa do dokumentov institucij.
The Court found that therewas no such requirement.
Določa tudi izjeme od splošnega načela, zlasti kadar bi razkritje dokumenta oslabilo varstvo sodnih postopkov in pravnih nasvetov, razen če ne prevlada javni interes za razkritje.
Thus, it held that, while Communitylaw does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final, specific circumstances may nevertheless be capable, by virtue of the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, of requiring such a body to review an administrative decision that has become final in order to take account of the interpretation of a relevant provision of Communitylaw given subsequently by the Court.
Natančneje glede izjeme v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti mora institucija, od katere se zahteva razkritje dokumenta, preveriti, ali se ta dokument nanaša na pravne nasvete, in če se, določiti, kateri njegovi deli ustrezajo in lahko torej spadajo na področje uporabe navedene izjeme.
The condition — which is among those capable of providing the basis for such an obligation of review — that the judgment of the court of final instance by virtue of which the contested administrative decision became final was, in the light of a subsequent decision of the Court, based on a misinterpretation of Communitylaw which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminaryruling , cannot be interpreted as requiring the parties to have raised before the national court the point of Communitylaw in question.
Dejstvo, da je dokument naslovljen„pravno mnenje“, namreč ne pomeni, da je samodejno upravičen do varstva pravnih nasvetov, ki ga zagotavlja zgoraj navedena uredba.
It is sufficient in that regard if either the point of Communitylaw the interpretation of which proved to be incorrect in light of a subsequent judgment of the Court was considered by the national court ruling at final instance or it could have been raised by the latter of its own motion.
Ne glede na njegov naslov se mora institucija prepričati, da se dokument res nanaša na tak nasvet. V tem primeru mora Svet nato preučiti, ali bi razkritje delov zadevnega dokumenta oslabilo varstvo pravnih nasvetov.
While Communitylaw does not require national courts to raise of their own motion a plea alleging infringement of Community provisions where examination of that plea would oblige them to go beyond the ambit of the dispute as defined by the parties, they are obliged to raise of their own motion points of law based on binding Community rules where, under national law, they must or may do so in relation to a binding rule of national law.
V zvezi s tem Sodišče izjemo v zvezi s pravnimi nasveti razlaga tako, da je njen namen varovati interes institucije, da zahteva odkrite, objektivne in popolne nasvete. Tveganje za poseg v ta interes mora biti razumno predvidljivo, in ne le hipotetično, da bi se lahko uveljavljalo.
While that possibility of applying for the review and withdrawal of a final administrative decision that is contrary to Communitylaw is not subject to any limit in time, the Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable time limits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
V zvezi s tem splošna in abstraktna navedba tveganja, da lahko razkritje pravnih mnenj v zvezi z zakonodajnimi postopki povzroči dvome o zakonitosti zakonodajnih aktov, nemore zadostovati za opredelitev oslabitve varstva pravnih nasvetov v smislu navedene določbe in torej nemore utemeljiti zavrnitve razkritja tehmnenj.
Proceedings relating to public access to documents of the institutions shown o signs of abating.
Nazadnje je Sodišče pojasnilo, da mora Svet preveriti, ali obstaja javni interes, ki utemelji to razkritje.
In Joined Cases C-39/05 P and C-52/05 P Sweden and Turco v Council (judgment of 1 July 2008), the Court clarified the examination to be carried out by the Council before it responds to a request for disclosure of a document.
V tem okviru mora uravnotežiti poseben interes, ki ga je treba varovati z nerazkritjem zadevnega dokumenta, in med drugim javni interes, da se omogoči dostop do dokumenta ob upoštevanju prednosti, ki izhajajo iz povečane preglednosti, to je tesnejšega sodelovanja državljanov v postopku odločanja in več je zakonitosti v upravi ter njeno učinkovitejše in odgovornejše ravnanje v razmerju do državljanov v demokratičnem sistemu.
The Community regulation regarding public access to documents (9) provides that any citizen of the Union, and any person residing in a Member State, has a right of access to documents of the institutions.
Sodišče je opozorilo, da so take ugotovitve zlasti ustrezne, kadar Svet deluje v svoji zakonodajni funkciji. Preglednost v zvezi s tem pripomore h krepitvi demokracije tako, da omogoča državljanom nadzor nad vsemi informacijami, ki so bile podlaga za zakonodajni akt.
It lays down exceptions to that general principle, including where disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of court proceedings and legal advice, unless there is an overriding public interest in its disclosure.
Možnost državljanov, da poznajo temelje zakonodajne dejavnosti, je namreč pogoj, da lahko učinkovito izvajajo svoje demokratične pravice.
As regards, specifically, the exception relating to legal advice, the institution which is asked to disclose a document must satisfy itself that the document does indeed relate to legal advice and, if so, it must decide which parts of it are actually concerned and may, therefore, be
Sodišče je sklenilo, da je v Uredbi št. 1049/2001 načeloma določena obveznost razkritja mnenj pravne službe Sveta v zvezi z zakonodajnim postopkom, vendar je priznalo, da bi se lahko na podlagi varstva pravnih nasvetov zavrnilo razkritje posebnega pravnegamnenja, izdanega v okviru zakonodajnega postopka, ki ima posebej občutljivo vsebino ali je njegov obseg posebej širok, tako da presega zadevni zakonodajni okvir. V takem primeru bi morala zadevna institucija natančno obrazložiti zavrnitev.
Proceedings covered by the exception.
Razvoj in dejavnost
The fact that a document is headed‘legal advice/opinion’does not mean that it is automatically entitled to the protection of legal advice ensured by the regulation referred to .
Na podlagi te obrazložitve je Sodišče razveljavilo sodbo Sodiščaprvestopnje v delu, v katerem je bil zavrnjen dostop do zadevnega pravnega mnenja v tej zadevi.
To submit, in a general and abstract way, that there is a risk that disclosure of legal advice relating to legislative processes may give rise to doubts regarding the lawfulness of legislative acts does not suffice to establish that the protection of legal advice will be undermined for the purposes of that provision and cannot, accordingly, provide a basis for a refusal to disclose such advice.
Sodišče je na začetku spomnilo, da člen 9 Protokola o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti10 navaja načelo imunitete evropskih poslancev glede mnenj ali glasov, ki jih je poslanec podal pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti.
It is precisely openness in this regard that contributes to conferring greater legitimacy on the institutions in the eyes of European citizens and increasing their confidence in them by allowing divergences between various points of view to be openly debated.
Tako imuniteto je treba torej šteti v delu, v katerem se nanaša na varstvo svobode izražanja in neodvisnosti evropskih poslancev, za absolutno imuniteto, ki nasprotuje vsakemu sodnemu postopku.
Lastly, the Court stated that it is incumbent on the Council to ascertain whether there is no overriding public interest justifying disclosure.
Zato mora nacionalno sodišče tožbo, vloženo zoper evropskega poslanca zaradi mnenj, ki jih je izrazil, zavrniti, če ugotovi, da ima ta poslanec poslansko imuniteto.
The Court observed that such considerations are of particular relevance where the Council is acting in its legislative capacity.
Nato je Sodišče priznalo, da sodi v izključno pristojnost nacionalnega sodišča, da preveri, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji zato imuniteto, ne da bi vprašanje moralo predložiti Evropskemu parlamentu, ki nima pristojnosti na tem področju.
Openness in that respect contributes to strengthening democracy by allowing citizens to scrutinise all the information which has formed the basis of a legislative act.
Če pa je Evropski parlament na prošnjo zadevnega poslanca sprejel odločitev o zaščiti imunitete, ta odločitev pomeni mnenje, ki pa nima zavezujočih učinkov za nacionalne sodne organe.
The Court concluded that Regulation No 1049/2001 imposes, in principle, an obligation to disclose the opinions of the Council’s legal service relating to a legislative process, while nevertheless admitting that disclosure of a specific legal opinion, given in the context of a legislative process, but being of a particularly sensitive nature or having a particularly wide scope that goes beyond the context of the legislative process in question, may be refused, on account of the protection of legal advice.
Če poslanec pri Evropskem parlamentu vloži zahtevo za zaščito imunitete in je nacionalno sodišče o tem obveščeno, mora zaradi obveznosti lojalnega sodelovanja med evropskimi institucijami in nacionalnimi organi11 prekiniti sodni postopek in Parlament zaprositi, naj v najkrajšem času po da svoje mnenje.
In such a case, it is incumbent on the institution concerned, therefore, to give a detailed statement of reasons for such a refusal.
To sodelovanje je obvezno, zato da bi se izognili vsakršnemu ko n ç ik tu pri razlagi in uporabi določb Protokola.
On those grounds, the Court set aside the judgment of theCourtofFirstInstance insofar as it related to the refusal of access to the legal opinion at issue in that case.
Na koncu tega pregleda sodne prakse na ustavnem in institucionalnem področju je treba navesti še zadevo Payir in drugi (sodba z dne 24. januarja 2008, C-294/06), v kateri se je Sodišče izreklo o priznanju statusa delavca na podlagi Pridružitvenega sporazuma EGS-Turčija turškim državljanom, ki so vstopili na ozemlje države članice kot osebe „au pair“ ali študenti in so vključeni v zakoniti trg dela.
By contrast, the Court broke new ground in its consideration, in Joined Cases C-200/07 and C-201/07 Marra (judgment of 21 October 2008), of the issue of the immunity enjoyed by Members of the European Parliament in certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, and more specifically of the rules for applying the immunity of a Member of the European
Tako je Sodišče glede člena 6(1) Sklepa Pridružitvenega sveta EGS-Turčija z dne 19. septembra 1980 o razvoju pridružitve razsodilo, da dejstvo, da je bilo turškemu državljanu dovoljeno vstopiti na ozemlje države članice kot osebi„au pair“ ali študentu, nemore odvzeti temu državljanu statusa„delavca“ in mu preprečiti vključitve v„zakoniti trg dela“ te države članice v smislu navedenega člena.
Court of Justice
Protokol o privilegijih in imunitetah Evropskih skupnosti z dne 8. aprila 1965 (UL 1967, 152, str. 13).
In several cases the Court examined national provisions that can improperly limit the freemovement of citizens of the Union.
Sodišče je v več zadevah preizkusilo nacionalne določbe, s katerimi bi se lahko neupravičeno omejevalo prosto gibanje državljanov Unije.
Case C-353/06 Grunkin and Paul (judgment of 14 October 2008) concerned the recognition of the surname of a child of German nationality who was born and living in Denmark and registered at birth with a double-barrelled surname composed of the surnames of both the father and mother.
Zadeva Grunkin in Paul (sodba z dne 14. oktobra 2008, C-353/06) se nanaša na priznanje priimka otroka – ki ima nemško državljanstvo, a je bil rojen in živi na Danskem – ki je bil ob rojstvu registriran z dvojnim priimkom, sestavljenim iz priimkov očeta in matere.
The child’s parents applied for the double-barrelled name to be entered in the family register held in Germany, and were refused on the ground that surnames of German citizens are governed by German law, which does not allow a child to bear a double-barrelled surname.
Starši otroka so zahtevali vpis tega dvojnega priimka v družinsko knjižico, ki se vodi v Nemčiji, vendar je bil ta zahtevek zavrnjen, ker priimek nemških državljanov ureja nemško pravo, ki ne dopušča, da bi otrok imel dvojni priimek.
The Court found that, although the rules governing a person’s surname are matters coming within the competence of the Member States, the latter must nonetheless, when exercising that competence, comply with Communitylaw .
Sodišče je ugotovilo, da čeprav so pravila, ki urejajo priimek osebe, v pristojnosti držav članic, morajo države članice pri izvrševanju te pristojnosti kljub temu ravnati v skladu s pravom Skupnosti.
The Court explained that having to use a surname, in the Member State of which the person concerned is a national, that is different from that conferred and registered in the Member State of birth and residence is liable to hamper the freemovement of citizens of the Union.
Sodišče je pojasnilo, da dejstvo, da mora imeti prizadeti v državi članici, katere državljanstvo ima, drugačno ime, kot mu je bilo dodeljeno in registrirano v državi članici rojstva in prebivališča, lahko ovira pravico prostega gibanja državljanov Unije.
A discrepancy in surnames in various German and Danish documents is liable to cause serious inconvenience for the person concerned at both professional and private levels.
Neenakost priimkov v nemških in danskih dokumentih bi lahko prizadetim povzročila resno neprijetnost, tako na strokovni kot zasebni ravni.
Since the restrictive German provisions had not been properly justified, the Court held that the right of European citizens to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States precluded the legislation at issue.
Ker omejevalne nemške določbe niso bile primerno utemeljene, je Sodišče sklenilo, da pravica evropskih državljanov, da se prosto gibljejo in bivajo na ozemlju držav članic, nasprotuje zadevni zakonodaji.