iii pravne tekovine eu - Правни факултет · 3 judgment no. rev-ii-2374/2003 dated...

III

Pravne tekovine EU

1 Prof. dr Maja Stanivuković, Faculty of Law, Novi Sad. This paper was prepared as a part of authors engagement at project "Harmonization of Legal

System of the Republic of Serbia and the European Union".

Prof. dr Maja STANIVUKOVIĆ1

TRANSLATION OF EC COURT'S

DECISIONS TO SERBIAN

ABSTRACT

Presude i mišljenja Suda EZ predstavljaju deo pravnog nasleđa Evropske zajednice. Obaveza države da harmonizuje svoje pravo sa pravom Zajednice obuhvata i obavezu harmonizacije njene sudske prakse sa odlukama Suda EZ. Da bi se takva harmonizacija mogla postepeno obaviti, neophodno je da presude i mišljenja Suda EZ budu prevedeni na srpski jezik. Uz presudu se često objavljuje i mišljenje opšteg pravobranioca koje je od velikog značaja za pravilno razumevanje i tumačenje presude - u doktrini se preporučuje da se prvo pročita to mišljenje, a zatim presuda. Stoga bi bilo preporučljivo da se pored presude na srpski prevode i mišljenja opšteg pravobranioca.

Prevođenje presuda i mišljenja Suda EZ je ozbiljan i dugotrajan zadatak u kome bi trebalo da što vise da učestvuju domaći pravnici koji poznaju francuski jezik kao jezik na kome je presuda suda doneta. Ono je od značaja ne samo za harmonizaciju domaćeg prava sa pravom EZ, već i za obučavanje mladog naraštaja koji bez čitanja odluka Suda EZ i mišljenja opštih pravobranilaca ne može zaista razumeti osnovna načela pravnog sistema Zajednice. Osnovni problem koji se javlja u prevođenju presuda jeste veliki obim presuda (često i po više desetina stranica) i veoma težak stil kojim se Sud EZ izražava. Veoma je važno, takođe, da prevedene odlu-ke budu široko dostupne domaćem pravosuđu, što se može postići njiho-vim unošenjem u elektronske baze podataka. Stručna javnost bi mogla da doprinese da se ovaj zadatak što uspešnije i efikasnije obavi, tako što bi, oslanjajući se na stranu literaturu o pravu EZ, vršila odabir bitnih odluka i bitnih delova odluka i mišljenja i tako donekle skratila potrebno vreme za unošenje ovog elementa prava Zajednice u domaći pravni sistem.

Key words: legal translation, case law, Court of Justice of the European Communities, EU law

178 Proširenje Evropske unije na Zapadni Balkan

2 P. Craig, G. de Burca, EU Law, Text, Cases, and Materials, Fourth Edition, Oxford, 2008, p. 545 3 Judgment no. Rev-II-2374/2003 dated 29.1.2004. godine - Bilten sudske prakse Vrhovnog suda

Srbije, br. 2/2004, retrieved from database Paragraf.net.

The topic I am going to speak about today is a kind of a mission. It requires

a lot of energy and stamina, both collective and individual. It is the mission of

translating the main body of case law of the Court of Justice of the European

Communities to the Serbian language. First, I will indicate the main purposes

of such an endeavor. This will be followed by a rough indication of the main

problems that anyone striving to accomplish that task will have to face. I will

finish with proposing possible solutions to some of those problems.

1. Purpose of translation

There are at least three good reasons to undertake the translation of the

ECJ's judgments to Serbian: a) to increase the awareness of European legal

ideas in the Serbian judiciary, b) to enable qualified and quality instruction of

EU law in domestic law schools, and c) to fulfill the obligation of Serbia

pursuant to the Stabilization and Association Agreement.

Undoubtedly, domestic courts and legal doctrine could benefit from

knowledge of the EC Court's case-law. There are certain principles and doctrines

applied by the Court that may provide inspiration and guidance in resolving

domestic cases, either related or unrelated to the EU. Let's take as an example the

principle of proportionality. This is one of the general principles of Community

law, and a yardstick that the Court applies when assessing the legality of acts

and measures adopted by Community institutions. The principle has been

originally developed in the practice of the Court, under the influence of German

law, but and is now included in the EC Treaty. Basically, in a proportionality

inquiry the Court examines whether the Community measure was suitable and

necessary to achieve the desired end, and whether it imposed a burden on the

individual that was excessive in relation to the objective sought to be achieved.2

Recently, a judgment by the Supreme Court of Serbia has come to my attention,

in which the Supreme Court assessed the conduct of criminal proceedings by the

Serbian authorities against the defendant, a German citizen, as contrary to the

principle of proportionality. The defendant's passport was seized during the

criminal proceedings initiated because of a traffic accident, and he was unable to

leave the country for two and a half years, despite the fact that he offered to pay

security on several occasions. The defendant was owner of a restaurant in

Germany and he suffered substantial damages due to absence from his business.

The Supreme Court accordingly held that he was entitled to damages from the

Serbian State.3Since the principle of proportionality is not expressly mentioned

Proširenje Evropske unije na Zapadni Balkan 179

4 Stabilization and Association Agreement, Article 72:

1. The Parties recognize the importance of the approximation of the existing legislation in

Serbia to that of the Community and of its effective implementation. Serbia shall endeavor to

ensure that its existing laws and future legislation will be gradually made compatible with the

Community acquis. Serbia shall ensure that existing and future legislation will be properly

implemented and enforced.

2. This approximation shall start on the date of signing of this Agreement, and shall gradually

extend to all the elements of the Community acquis referred to in this Agreement by the end

of the transitional period defined in Article 8 of this Agreement.

3. Approximation will, at an early stage, focus on fundamental elements of the Internal Market

acquis, Justice, Freedom and Security as well as on other trade-related areas. At a further stage,

Serbia shall focus on the remaining parts of the acquis.

Approximation shall be carried out on the basis of a program to be agreed between the

European Commission and Serbia.

in the Serbian Constitution or legislation, it inevitably occurs to me that the

Supreme Court might have been inspired by the comparative law (possibly EU

law) influences in rendering this judgment.

The most important purpose of the translation is education of young

lawyers. EC law courses already exist at most law schools in Serbia. At the

Novi Sad Faculty of Law, Introduction to EU Law is an obligatory course at

undergraduate level. There are some master courses in this field, as well.

Several textbooks for these courses have been written in the Serbian language.

However, what is missing are course materials in Serbian that would provide

the students with texts of judgments in which the EC Court interprets and

develops the EC Treaties and legislation. The translated judgments (if well

translated) would enable the students to discuss the issues of EU law and to

better understand them. Used in combination with the textbook, they would

provide a more interesting way of approaching the EU law.

Finally, adopting acquis communautaire has become the obligation of the

Republic of Serbia pursuant to the Stabilization and Association Agreement

under the provision that is applicable upon signature, i.e. even before the entry

into force of the Agreement.4 Case law of the EC Court makes part of the acquis

communautaire. This is true at least for the so-called "historic case-law

judgments", or landmark decisions of the Court that have been selected for

translation into languages of the countries that have acceded to the Union in

2004 and 2007. This group includes 948 judgments and decisions of the EC

Court and the Court of First Instance that have been delivered between 1956

and April 2004. Systematic translation of these judgments into languages of the

new Member States started in 2002. At first 869 decisions, delivered before

2001 and later additional 79 delivered after 2001 have been sent to the official

translation centers in the Candidate States. The first translation project covered


5 http://curia.europa.eu/en/content/juris/indcx.htm.

57 selected judgments that can be accessed at the Court's website.5 The purposes

of translating and the revision of translations in these countries is still in

progresses.

2. Potential problems

The magnitude of the project makes it reasonably foreseeable that some

problems may be encountered. The problems that may be expected are the sheer

number and length of judgments, lack of financing, a great potential for non-

uniform, incorrect and diverging translations, and difficult access to translations.

The fact that by the year 2004 there were already 948 judgments that were

considered "historic", i.e. important enough to be translated, and that a few

more have accumulated over the last five years may be discouraging both to

potential translators and to sponsors. Furthermore, judgments of the EC Court

are extensive. Some of them range between 100 and 200 paragraphs. To this

should be added opinions of Advocate General that make a constituent part of

the judgment and often present a significant background to the Court’s

holding. This brings us to the question whether the full text of the judgment

and AG opinion should be translated or only their abbreviated form.

Translation of judgments is costly. Specialized translators who know Serbian

and foreign legal terminology are hard to find and usually cost more than

regular translators. Furthermore, each translation should be edited by a legal

expert - to correct terminology and to single out the relevant authorities and the

holding of the Court. Usually, some publication costs are also involved. It is hard

to find constant sources of funding for such projects within the State budget.

There is a danger, if the project is carried out unsystematically, that each

translated judgment will look differently. Everybody does it "their own way",

and every translated judgment looks a little bit different, with respect to title

format, citations, etc. Great potential for discrepancy also lies in the terminology

used by the Court. Let us take the example of a common term used in the

everyday parlance of the Court, such as "direct effect". There are at least

foul possible translations of this term to Serbian. Whether "direct effect" should

be translated as "direktan efekat" or "neposredno dejstvo" or "direktno dejstvo" or

"neposredan efekat"? This should by no means be left to the linguistic

inspiration or liking of each individual translator, but should be dealt with

uniformly.

After the enormous effort has been invested into translating and editing

the translated judgments should be readily accessible to users, mostly


6 The complete list of available translations of judgments to Serbian is attached as appendix to

this text. 7 M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, Službeni glasnik, Belgrade 2007; A. Čavoški, A.

Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, Belgrade2006.

students, judges, and other practicing lawyers. The first translations of EC Court judgments in Serbia were published in specialized legal journals: Revija za evropsko pravo, Evropsko zakonodavstvo, and Evropski pravnik.6 There are also two short monographs on the Court of Justice that contain translations of extracts of approximately 20 judgments each.7 These translations are not readily accessible to the general legal public and are therefore of limited use.

As previously mentioned, the first translations of judgments made in the new member states are accessible at the web-site of the EC Court. Serbia being currently far from accession and even from the status of a candidate country, cannot hope to have this portal available to its translations. Yet, the electronic internet accessible text of the translated judgments would be the best solution both for judges and other legal practitioners, and for the students.

Proposed Solutions

a) The number and length of judgments calls

for selection and abbreviation

The selection of the most relevant judgments has already been made for I the needs of other countries that have been on this path before Serbia. Still, this list should be amended to include the more recent case-law.

The practice of publishing court judgments in Serbia is very limited. It is the prevailing opinion that only final judgments may be published and even then they are not published in full text like in Switzerland, Great Britain or Germany, but only in the so-called "sentences". This means that a judge is assigned at every court to read the judgments and make excerpts of the most important sentences from the judgments. The full facts of the case and the reasoning of the court are usually not provided, so that it is often difficult to understand some of those sentences. The courts also publish the so-called "stavovi" - opinions adopted by judges at their meetings on certain points of interpretation of law that reoccur in practice. From this perspective, the publication of the full-text judgment of the EC Court including the AG opinion would be highly unusual and unlike the accepted practice.

For that reason, it is to be recommended for translations to be made from an abbreviated version of the judgment; this would accelerate the translation process and provide the necessary materials for the study of EC law much


earlier. It would also be somewhat cheaper. The selection of the relevant

paragraphs to be translated could be made by domestic experts on the basis of

the most reputable casebooks and treatises on EU law. The facts of the case

should always be included, even in the abbreviated form, because they enable

the reader to understand and remember the judgment. In contrast, certain

parts of the judgment should always be omitted from the translation, such as

decisions on costs, questions posed by the national courts and tribunals

(because the EC court always repeats them in more understandable form in

reasoning of the judgment), operative part of the judgment (because it always

repeats the holding of the court as outlined in the reasoning), etc.

b) The lack of finance calls for seeking of financial support

The Government should seek financial support from the EU pre-accession

funds for this type of activity. Translation of judgments in the countries that

joined the EU in 2004 and 2007 was supported by TAIEX. A request for

financial support should include fees of translators and legal editors and costs

of publication. To reduce the necessary funding, fees should be exempted from

payment of taxes and other State contributions in Serbia.

c) The potential lack of uniformity of translations calls for creation

of standards and terminology in advance

Certain standards must be adopted before the translation starts. One of the

important issues is how to translate the names of the parties. These are often

names of companies or individuals, usually written in the language of the

country of their origin, but in case of Greek companies, transcribed to their

Latin script form in other language versions of the judgment. Official alphabet

in Serbia is Cyrillic, and maintaining the Party names in the Latin form would

render the translation confusing. To facilitate finding of the original judgment

on the website of the court - the number and the original name of the case

should be retained in the title of the translation. However, in the body of the

judgment, the original name of the parties should not be written in its original

spelling, because this would be against Serbian spelling rules. These rules

demand that foreign names be spelled in the way they are pronounced in

Serbia (the so-called phonetic transcription). The same transcription rule

applies even if the text of the translation would be published in the Latin script.

Lawyers in Serbia often do not speak foreign languages and they would not

know how to pronounce correctly the foreign names appearing in the

judgments, especially if they belong to a language that is not widely spoken in

Serbia. It is therefore the task of the translator to help them in this by indicating

the correct pronunciation. This will also advance the use of these judgments in


8 Case 162/96 A. Racke GmbH & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Mainz, paragraph 18. 9 „Sl. list SFRJ - Međunarodni ugovori i drugi sporazumi”, no. 30/72.

the process of legal education. For educational purposes, each case should also be

given a "nickname" - short name used for ease of reference - for example

"Kasis" in addition to full name of the case (Case no 120/78, Rewe-Zentral AG

v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein). The "nickname" could appear

after the title of the translation in brackets. Furthermore, the names of

companies should be preceded by the word "company" - (in Serbian:

društvo). Otherwise, it would depend on the company name whether the gender

of the company in Serbian, and accordingly all the verbs and pronouns

accompanying them would be feminine, masculine or neuter.

Some rules should be laid down to ensure that translations are uniform

(similar to the rules applied to publication of legislation. E.g. it should be

determined in advance whether paragraph numbers should be followed by a

full stop or not, whether articles and paragraphs should be cited separately

(article 1 paragraph 2, article 1 paragraph 3) or jointly (articles 1(2) and 1(3)),

whether article numbers should be followed by a full stop, whether titles

should be capitalized, etc. If such technical standards are not defined in the

very beginning, later editing of translations will take up as much time as the

translation itself.

Special attention should be accorded to standards of citation of other

authorities in the translated judgments. This would facilitate establishing

relations between legal texts. Judgments often refer to other legal authorities,

such as regulations, directives, international treaties and previous judgments.

Some of these authorities may not be in force in Serbia, others may already be

the part of Serbian law. For example, in the Racke judgment,8 the EC Court cites

Articles 62 and 65 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties. This

Convention already has an official translation to Serbian.9 The translator

should insert the text of the cited authority in the version that already exists in

the Serbian language, to enable the reader to understand and establish the

correlation that exists between the two legal instruments - the judgment and

the Treaty. This requires from our translator a basic knowledge of legal sources

and how to find them.

The EC Court also often cites its own judgments. This poses a problem

before the translator - whether the citations of earlier judgments should be

omitted from the translation or not, and unless they are omitted, whether the

titles of cases should be cited in their original language or transcribed to

Serbian. There are basically two types of citations - enumerative and extensive.

In the former case, an earlier judgment is only mentioned, without any

reference to its content. In the latter case, the content of the previous judgment


10 Rečnik Eurovoc, 4. višejezičko izdanje, srpski, engleski, francuski, nemački, italijanski,

španski, gl. urednik: B. Babić, Institut za međunarodnu politiku i privredu, Boograd, 2006.

is discussed and analyzed by the Court (confirmed or departed from) in a later

judgment. The basic rules should be that the former type of citation can be

omitted from the translation while the latter should remain, because it is

usually of relevance to the judgment.

Great importance lies in certain early judgments (e.g. Van gend en Loos,

Plaumann), or other landmark judgments (Brasserie de Pecheur, Cassis dc Dijon)

that are extensively referred to in the later practice. These judgments create

legal standards making part of the EU law in the particular field. The translator

should take special care to compare the translations and use the same terms as

are used in the translation of the landmark judgment, when these later

references are translated. That also means that the landmark judgments should

be translated first, before the judgments that follow them. In other words, the

translation should as much as possible be organized chronologically, starting

from earlier judgments towards the more recent ones.

As for uniform terminology, the Institute of International Policy and

Economics has done a milestone by publishing Eurovoc10 and making it

available in the Serbian language. However, Eurovoc does not solve all

problems in translation of judgments. It actually lacks many of the terms

habitually used by the Court. Therefore, the creation of a judicial thesaurus is

a necessity in the future. Nevertheless, Serbian terminology for translation of

judgments should be based as much as possible on the Eurovoc, the existing

translation of the Stabilization and Association Agreement, and were

none of these two contains the term, on a broad doctrinal consensus.

Occasionally, choices will have to be made between the existing translations

(e.g. "right of establishment" was translated as "pravo privređivanja" in

Eurovoc, and as "pravo poslovnog nastanjivanja" in the Stabilization and

Association Agreement).

d) The lack of accessibility of translations calls for publication in an

electronic legal database

The solution for the problem of accessibility is already on the way. Last

year, one of the private electronic legal database providers, Paragraph

company, started its project of building up a database of EU law. Part of this

project is translation of case-law. Currently, the database contains translations

of twelve judgments of the EC Court, mostly full text versions.

The application software used by this provider enables cross-referencing

between documents. For example, the judgment in Racke is referenced to the

Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties, the UN Charter and the EC


Treaty - all these documents being also part of the Paragraph database in their Serbian translation. Paragraph deserves full support of the Republic of Serbia in implementing this important project.

Spisak prevoda i prikaza odluka Suda EZ na srpskom jeziku

1. Predmet 25/62 Plaumann v. Commission, A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 180 (kratak izvod).

2. Predmet 26/62 Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse administratie der belastingen, M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 145-147; A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 149-150 (izvodi). Evropski pravnik br. I/2006, str. 156-161 (u celosti). REP, br. 1/1999 str. 151-160 (u celosti).

3. Predmet 28-30/62 Da Costa en Schaake NV, Jacob Meijer NV, Hoechst - Holland NV

iK Netherlands Inland Revenue Administratio; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 148-149.

4. Predmet 6/64 Costa v ENEL; M. Stanivuković,: Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 150-152; A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.151-153 (izvodi); Evropski sud pravde, str. 149-150 (izvodi). Evropski pravnik br. 1/2006, str. 161-168 (u celosti).

5. Predmet 56/64 i 58/64 Etablissements Consten SARL & Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v.

Commission A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.212-213 (izvori).

6. Predmet 11/70 Internationale Handelsgesellschaft; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 153-154 (pasusi 3 i 4).

7. Predmet 22/70 Commission of European Communities v. Council of European

Communities („ERTA”), A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 157-159 (pasusi 12-31).

8. Predmet 6/72 Europemballage Corporation & Continental Can Company Inc. v.

Commission of the European Communities, A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 214-218 (pasusi 14-17,28-37).

9. Predmet 4/73 J. Nold, Kohlen- und Baustojfgrosshandlung v. Commission of the

European Communities, A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.176-177 (pasusi 1-3).

10. Predmet 181/73 Haegemann / Belgian State; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 155-156 (pasusi 2-6).

11. Predmet 8/74 Procureur du Roi v. Dassonville M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 156-157 (pasusi 5-9); A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 192-193 (pasusi 4-9).

12. Predmet 41 /74 Van Duyn v. Home Office; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 158 160 (pasusi: 10 22); A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str 200-201 (pasusi 16-23).


13. Predmet 27/76 United Brands Company & United Brands Continental BV v. Commission of the European Communities („Čikita banana”) A. Čavoški, A. Knežević- Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 219-223 (pasusi 22-23, 27-35, 44-46, 51-53,182-183,189-193,227-233), Paragraf.net (pasusi 1-7,10-35,44-46,51-53,65-95, 121-129,163-196,202-203, 227-234).

14. Predmeti 83 i 94/76 i br. 4, 15 i 40/77 HNL v. Council and Commission; M Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 161-163; (pasusi 3-8).

15. Predmet 106/77 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal („Simental”); M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 164-166 (pasusi 17-24); A. Čavoski. A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. str. 154-156 (pasusi 13- 24); Evropski pravnik br. 2/2006,203-209 (u celosti). REP, br. 1/2002, str. 95-101 (u celosti).

16. Predmet 116/77 Arnylum v. Council and Commission ; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 167-169, pasusi 13-22.

17. Predmet 3/78 Centrafarm BV v American Home Products Corporation Paragraf.net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

18. Predmet 238/78 Ireks-Arkady GmbH v. Council and Commission of the European Communities, M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 170-173, pasusi 4-20.

19. Predmet 120/78 Rewe-Zentrale AG v. Bundesmonopolverwaltung fur Branntwein, („Kasis de Dižon”) M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 174-176, pasusi 8-15. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 194- 195 (pasusi 8-14). Evropski pravnik, br. 4/2006, str. 139-144 (u celosti).

20. Predmet 44/79 Hauer v. Land Rheinland-Pfalz; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 177-178, pasusi 13-15.

21. Predmet 104/79 Pasquale Foglia v. Marietta Novelo („Folja 1") M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 179-180, pasusi 8-13.

22. Predmet 66/80 International Chemical Corporation; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac ppred Sudom EZ, str. 181-182, pasusi 11-17.

23. Predmet 244/80 Pasquale Foglia v. Marietta Novelo („Folja 2") M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 183-185, pasusi 12-19.

24. Predmet 246/80 Broekmeulen v. Huisarts Registratie Commissie; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 186-188, pasusi 3-18.

25. Predmet 270/80 Polydor Limited and RSO Records Inc. v. Harlequin Records Shops Limited and Simons Records Limited, REP, br. 2-3/2004, str. 83-93. (u celosti).

26. Predmet 283/81 CILFIT; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 189-191, pasusi 8-20. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 171-185 (1-22).

27. Predmet 145/83 Stanley George Adams v. Commission; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 192-193, pasusi 34-37,41-43 i 53-55.

28. Predmet 152/84 Marshall v. Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 196-197, pasusi 46-49,


51. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 160-162 (pasusi 2-51). Evropski pravnik, str. 218-222 (komentar).

29. Predmet 178/84 Commission v. Germany („Slučaj nemačkog piva”), A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 196-197 (pasusi 31-35).

30. Predmet 314/85 Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lubeck-Ost; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 198-199, pasusi 13-20. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 186-187 (pasusi 11-20).

31. Predmet C-12/86 Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

32. Predmet 30/87 Bodson v. Pompes funebres des regions liberees, REP, br. 2-3/2000, str. 111-116 (pasusi 1-34).

33. Predmeti 46/87 i 227/88 Hoechst AG v Commission of the European Communities, Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

34. Predmet C-10/89 SA CNL - Sucal NV Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

35. Predmet C-177/89 Foster and others v. British Gas. M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 200-201, pasusi 17-18 i 20.

36. Predmet C-192/89 S. Z. Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

37. Predmeti C-6/90 i 9/90 Frankovich v. Italy; 6.6.; 6.9.; 6.10. M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 202-204 pasusi 29-43. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 167-169 (pasusi 33-43). Evropski pravnik, br. 2/2006, str. 209-218 (pasusi 1-7,9-21,22-48).

38. Predmet C41/90 Hofrier & Elserv. Macrotron GmbH, REP, br. 2-3/2000, str. 116-118 (pasusi 21-34).

39. Predmet 286/90 Anklagemyndigheden v. Peter Michael Pouslen and Diva Navigation

Corp. REP, br. 1/2000, str. 103-113 (komentar).

40. Predmeti C-267 i 268/91 Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard ; 7.23. M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 205-206, pasusi 11-18. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 198-199 (pasusi 11-18); Evropski pravnik, br. 4/2006, str. 144-148 (u celosti).

41. Predmet C-91/92 Faccini Dori v. Recreb; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 207-209, pasusi 17, 19-27. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 163-166 (pasusi 1-5); Evropski pravnik br. 2/2007, str. 177-182 (u celosti).

42. Predmeti C-46 i 48/93 Brasserie du Pecheur v. Germany; R v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 210-211, pasusi 20-57,76-79. A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 170-175 (pasusi 1-5,17-18,19-20,31-33, 36, 39-42,51,55-57, 64, 74, 76,80, 82-83, 87-94). Evropski pravnik br. 3/2007 str. 153-162 (prikaz).


43. Predmet C-92/93 i C-326/92 Phil Collins v. Imtrat Handelsgeselbchaft mbH (C-92/93) and Patricia Im- und Export Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v. EMI Elcctrola GmbH (C- 326/92) Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

44. Predmet C-280/93 Federal Republic of Germany v. Council of the European Union M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 215, pasusi 109-112.

45. Predmet C-415/93 Jury Lehtomen and Others v. Federation Royale Beige des Societes de Basket-ball, REP br. 1/2000, str. 116-117.

46. Predmet C 415/93 ASBL v. Jean-Marc Bosman A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.202-208 (pasusi 93-110, 114-137). REP, br. 2- 3/199, str. 105-127 (komentar).

47. Predmeti C-427/93, C-429/93 i C436/93 Bristol-Myers Squibb v Paranova A/S (C- 427/93) and C. H. Boehringer Sohn, Boehringer Ingelheim KG and Boehringer

Ingelheim A/S v Paranova A/S (C-429/93) and Bayer Aktiengesellschaft and Bayer

Danmark A/S v Paranova A/S (C-436/93) Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

48. Mišljenje 2/94 o pristupanju Evropske zajednice Evropskoj konvenciji za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda, A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.178-179 (pasusi 23-35).

49. Predmet 55/94 Consiglio dell'Ordine degli Avvocati e Procuratori di Milano A. Čavoski, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 211, (pasusi 20, 25-27). Evropski pravnik, 1/2008, str. 117-125 (u celosti).

50. Predmeti C-267/95 i C-268/95 Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Etd and Merck Sharp & Dohme International Services BV v Primecrown Ltd, Ketan Himatlal Mehta, Bharat Himatlal Mehta and Necessity Supplies Ltd and Beecham Group plc v

Europharm of Worthing Ltd. Paragraf. net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

51. Predmet C-321/95 Stichting Greenpeace v. Commission; Paragraf. net (sudska praksa -XXI) (u celosti).

52. Predmet C-84/95 Bosphorus v. Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Ireland and the Attorney General M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str 216-219, pasusi 8-26.

53. Predmet C-337/95 Parfums Christian Dior SA and Parfums Christian Dior BV e Evora BV, REP, 1/2002, str. 87-94 (prikaz).

54. Predmet 85/96 Maria Martinez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern A. Čavoški, A. Knežević- Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str. 209-210 (pasusi 28,57-65).

55. Predmet C-162/96 A. Racke Gmbh & Co. v. Hauptzollamt Meinz, M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 220-225, pasusi 24-61. Paragraf.net (sudska praksa -XXI) (u celosti). REP, br. 1/1999, str. 145-150 (komentar)

56. Predmet T-220/96: Elliniki Viomichania Oplon AE (EVO) v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities REP, br. 1-3/2003, str. 97-101(prikaz).

57. Predmet 126/97 Eco Swiss China Time v. Benetton International NV; Evropski pravnik, br. 3/2008,.


58. Predmet 212/97 Centros Ltd. v. Erhvervs-og Selskabsstyrelsen M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 226-228, pasusi 21-30.

59. Predmet 177/98 Aldo Kuijer v. Council of the European Union, REP, br. 1/2000, str. 117-119.

60. Predmet 285/98 Tanja Kreil v. Federal Republic of Germany REP, br.1/2000, str. 113-115 (komentar).

61. Predmet C-376/98, Germany v. European Parliament and Council; M. Stanivuković, Pojedinac pred Sudom EZ, str. 229-232, pasusi 97-101,103-106,108-118.

62. Predmet C-63/99 The Queen and Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Wieslaw Gloszczuk and Elybieta Gloszczuk, REP, br. 1/2005, str. 69-82 (pasusi: 15-26, 2842,47-59, 63-87).

63. Predmet C-224/01, Gerhard Köbler v. Republic Osterreich, A. Čavoški, A. Knežević-Bojović, D. Popović, Evropski sud pravde, str.188-191 (pasusi 30-56).

64. Predmet C-347/03, Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v. Agenzia regionale per lo sviluppo rurale Evropski pravnik br. 3/2006, str. 169-182 (pasusi 1-3,52-62,64-68,70, 72-75, 82-83, 85-90, 92, 94, 98,100-102,104-105,115-117,119-123,126,130,132-134, 136-139).

65. Predmet C-112/05 Commission v. Germany Paragraf.net (sudska praksa - XXI) (u celosti).

iii pravne tekovine eu - Правни факултет · 3 judgment no. rev-ii-2374/2003 dated...

Documents