natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er ikke undersøgelsesudvalgets opgave at foretrække den ene holdning frem for den anden, navnlig da forholdene i de nordlige højkapacitetshavne er forskellige fra forholdene i Middelhavsområdet.
It is not for the Committee of Inquiry to favour one approach above the other, particularly as the circumstances in the high volume ports of the north differ from those in the Mediterranean.
Desuden har udvalget ikke hørt et eneste overbevisende udsagn om, at den ene holdning nødvendigvis giver større effektivitet end den anden.
Moreover, the Committee has not heard any convincing evidence that one approach is necessarily more effective than another.
Udvalget noterer sig dog de mange klager på dette punkt samt de negative følger, der er tale om for et effektivt samarbejde mellem toldvæsenerne.
The Committee does however note the level of complaints on this issue and the adverse effects it has on effective cooperation between customs.
Selv om de divergerende holdninger utvivlsomt er opstået som et resultat af forskellige behov, må det med fremtidens indre marked formodes, at der er behov for en mere ensartet holdning til toldvæsenets indgriben i handelen.
Although different approaches have undoubtedly developed as a result of different needs, the coming of the single market would suggest that a more harmonious approach to customs intervention in trade is needed.
Undersegelsespolitik
Policy on Investigation
Undersøger toldvæsenet tilstrækkelig ofte uregelmæssighederne?
Do customs investigate irregularities sufficiently often?
Uanset hvilke undersøgelsesmidler toldvæsenerne har til deres rådighed, gør de, efter hvad udvalget ofte har hørt klager over, ikke brug af dem.
Whatever the investigative instruments at the disposal of customs services, a frequent complaint heard by the Committee is that they do not use ¿hem.
Klagerne kommer naturligvis mest fra erhvervslivet, som opfordres til at stille sikkerhed i forbindelse med ufuldstændige forsendelsestransaktioner.
The complaint naturally comes predominantly from the trade who are called upon to make guarantee payments relating to incomplete transit operations.
I begyndelsen af udvalgets arbejde påpegedes dette især af FreightForward Europe:
This point was made at the beginning of the Committee's work by Freight Forward Europe in particular:
I betragtning af de vanskeligheder med at gennemføre undersøgelser, der er beskrevet ikke blot ovenfor, men også i afsnit 3.3. i denne beretning, er det alt i alt ikke overraskende, at toldvæsenet ofte er ude af stand til på hensigtsmæssig måde at undersøge uregelmæssigheder, de modtager melding om.
Given the difficulties in carrying out investigations described not only above but also in section 3.3 of this report, it is not altogether surprising that customs are often unable to investigate in any meaningful sense irregularities of which they are notified.
Derfor kan udvalget godt se det sande i transportvirksomhedernes vurdering gående ud på, at ikke alle tilfælde undersøges fyldestgørende, men det må også indrømme, at ordningens mangler gør, at effektive undersøgelser ikke altid er mulige Som allerede sagt bliver transportvirksomhederne på denne måde syndebukkene, ikke blot hvad angår toldvæsenets mangler, men også ordningens mangler generelt.
The Committee would accept therefore the truth of the freight forwarders assessment that not all cases are adequately investigated, but would likewise accept that the failings of the system are such that effective investigations are not always possible. In this sense, as has already been stated, the freight forwarders are the fall guys not only for the failings of customs but for those of the system as a whole.
Ikke blot har toldvæsenerne de seneste år lidt under de nylige drastiske nedskæringer i personalet, men har også måttet kæmpe med den mærkbare demotivering, der har været resultatet heraf. I modsætning til disse fælles erfaringer har der imidlertid kunnet mærkes betydelige forskelle mellem toldvæsenerne i EU-medlemsstaterne og andre lande, der omfattes af den fælles forsendelsesordning, lige fra de lovgivningsmæssige beføjelser, de sidder inde med, og deres materielle ressourcer til deres "kultur" og praksis i forbindelse med udøvelsen af deres hverv.
Customs services have suffered not only from a recent squeeze on their staff numbers over the last few years, but also the significant demotivation which has arisen from iL In contrast to this common experience however, marked differences are discernable between the customs services of EU member States and other countries involved in Common Transit, ranging from the legal powers they possess and their material resources to their "culture" and practice in carrying out their tasks.
efterforskningsarbejde, som trods UCLAF's optimale, men nødvendigvis begrænsede indsats kun har succes ved enkelte lejligheder.
This ineffectiveness begins with the reluctance to share basic operational intelligence (even to use the SCENT early warning system) and ends with practical investigative cooperation which is, notwithstanding the best but necessarily limited efforts of UCLAF, successful only on an occasional basis.
Stillet overfor vanskelighederne med at håndtere forsendelsesordningen har alle toldvæsener i forskellig grad afsløret en manglende evne til enten at overholde den grundlæggende lovgivnings bestemmelser (især fristerne for de forskellige procedurer) eller effektivt at efterforske bedragerier og potentielle bedragerier.
In the face of the difficulties in handling the transit system, all customs services have to varying degrees displayed an inability either to respect the terms of the basic legislation (particularly the deadlines for the various procedures) or effectively to investigate frauds and potential frauds.
I de fleste tilfælde er det så usandsynligt, at bedragere vil blive pågrebet, at toldvæsenet ofte slet ikke forsøger en efterforskning, men i stedet somforste udvej henvender sig til forsendelsens hovedforpligtede f or at få indtægtstabet dækket Således forvalter myndighederne nu snarere forsendelsesordningen som et system til forsikring af offentlige indtægter end som en ordning, der skal lette samhandelen.
So unlikely is it in most cases that fraudsters will be apprehended that customs often do not attempt an investigation but turn instead to the transit principal for recovery of lost revenue as a first resort. In this sense transit is now managed by the authorities as an insurance system for public revenue rather than a system for the facilitation of trade.
Jf. f.eks. Vandenberghe fra FreightForward Europe ved vidneforklaringen den 25.4.1996.
See for example Mr Vandenberghe of FreightForward Europe: evidence of 25.4.96
Jf. f.eks. den daværende østrigske finansminister Klimas udtalelser, beretningen om besøget i Østrig, meddelelse til medlemmerne nr. 38 (PE 219.591).
See for example: Dr Klima, Finance Minister of Austria : Report of visit to Austria - Notice to Members No. 38 (PE 219.591)
Jf. Budgetkontroludvalgets beretning om besøget i Rotterdam, PE 217.467.
See Mission Report of Committee on Budgetary Control on the visit to Rotterdam - PE 217.467
Til dels havde de ikke en gang en fax.
In some places they do not even have a fax machine.
Jeg troede, at tyskerne var langt de bedst udstyrede.
I had thought that the Germans were by far the best.
Det er altså ikke tilfældet -desværre."
That is not true unfortunately. "
Baseret på protokollen fra mødet den 5.-8.11.1996 i Ad hoc-Arbejdsgruppen om Forsendelsesreformer, meddelelse til medlemmerne nr. 67, PE 220.793.
Based on minutes of the Ad Hoc Working Group "Transit Reform" of 58 November 1996: Notice to Members no. 67 - PE 220.793
Jf. navnlig redegørelsen for besøget i Rom og Napoli, meddelelse til medlemmerne nr. 61, PE 220.195.
See in particular the report of the visit to Rome and Naples : Notice to Members no. 61 - PE 220.195
L· ANALYSE ΓνΤ) ­ RETSFORFØLGNING OG RETLIGE SANKTIONER
S. ANALYSIS (VI) - PROSECUTION AND LEGAL SANCTIONS
I maj 1996 sendte undersøgelsesudvalget en anmodning til medlemsstaterne om at oplyse, hvilke retssager der havde været inden for vareforsendelsessektoren i de forskellige lande siden 199o!
In May 1996, the Committee of Inquiry submitted a request to Member States requesting information concerning court cases in the transit sector since 1990 in each country.
Der er modtaget svar fra alle medlemsstater1. Nedenstående statistikker er udarbejdet på grundlag af de disponible tal.
Answers have been received from all Member States.1The following statistics have been prepared on the basis of the available figures.
Medlemsstaterne blev bedt om oplysninger om, hvilket år overtrædelsen fandt sted, hvilke produkter det drejede sig om, deres værdi, indførselslandet, bestemmelsesstedet og de pålagte 'straffe.
The request was for information of the year of the infringement, the products concerned, their value, the point of entry, the destination and the penalties imposed.
Antallet af retssager
Volumes of cases
Det er ikke nøjagtig muligt at sammenligne tallene fra medlemsstaterne, fordi retssystemerne er forskellige i de forskellige medlemsstater. Det kan f.eks. være, at de "talrige" sager, der blev afgjort udenretsligt i Det Forenede Kongerige (med en bøde og betaling af det tabte afgiftsprovenu), og som ikke figurerer i statistikken, ville figurere i statistikken for andre medlemsstater.
It is not strictly possible to compare the figures provided by the Member States as legal systems vary.
Tallene viser imidlertid en stærk stigning i antallet af retssager i perioden 1990­94.
Nevertheless, the figures show a boom in the number of cases in the 1990-1994 period.
For så vidt angår værdien af skatter og afgifter, som sagerne vedrørte, hidrører størstedelen af beløbene fra nogle få og meget kostbare ladninger.
In terms of the value of the duties and taxes involved, most of the amounts concerned arose from a very few high-value consignments.
Nedenstående graf viser antallet af retssager fra 1989 til 1995 indledt som følge af forsendelsesbedragerier i EU.
The graph below shows the number of prosecutions brought in connection with transit fraud in the EU from 1989 to 1995.
Det geografiske sted for retsforfølgningen
Place of prosecution
I de fleste tilfælde fandt retsforfølgningen sted i den medlemsstat, hvor forsendelsen tog sin begyndelse.
In most cases, the place of prosecution was in the Member State in which the transit operation began.
Som følgende grafiske fremstilling viser, kan det ikke overraske, at de fleste sager fandt sted i de lande, som har benyttet forsendelsesordningen mest.
Unsurprisingly, as the following graph shows, the largest number of cases were prosecuted in the countries most involved in the transit system.
Grafen viser det samlede antal retssager i hver medlemsstat i perioden 1986­1996:
The graph shows accumulated cases over the 1986 to 1996 period in each Member State:
Fordeling efter produkter
Breakdown by product
Følgende diagram viser retssagernes fordeling alt efter de produkter, der var involveret.
The following chart shows the breakdown of the reported cases by the product involved.
Der kan spores en mærkbar overvægt af "følsomme produkter" (enten på grund af høje punktafgifter eller tilskyndende faktorer i forbindelse med den fælles landbrugspolitik).
A marked preponderance of "sensitive goods" (either because of high excise or CAP-related incentives) is discernable.
Det bør bemærkes, at den her anførte fordeling er numerisk og ikke afspejler produkternes værdi.
It should be noted that the breakdown given here is a numerical one, and does not reflect value.
Den 15. maj 1996 tabte det britiske toldvæsen en sag ved retten i Southwark i London.
On 15 May 1996 UK Customs and Excise lost a case in Southwark Crown Court in London.
Sagen drejede sig om bedragerisk omdirigering af 7 lastvognsladninger af cigaretter (5 til Italien og 2 lil Spanien), som under anvendelse af HR*came£ skulle transporteres tra Det nede Kon iü en destination uden íor EU.
The case involved the fraudulent diversion of 7 lorry loads of cigarettes (5 into Italy and 2 into Spain) which were due to be transported under a TIR Carnet from the UK to a destination outside the EU.
Afgïftstabet for Italien og Spanien anslås dl et eløb svare
The estimated loss of revenue to Italy and Spain was estimated at the equivalent of £8 million pounds.
Anklagemyndigheden førte sagen ud fra tre punkter: I forbindelse med de første to blev der 'nedla ' ι anden medlemsstats lovgivning, hvilket er i strid med kriminalretsplejeloven fra 1993. Under det tredje 'deke af toldforvaltningsloven fra 1979.
The prosecution brought the case under three counts: under the first two, it claimed that the defendants were committing a serious offence against the law of another member state, contrary to the provisions of me Criminal Justice Act 1993; and under the third, it maintained that they were guilty of conspiracy to contravene the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.
Dommeren fandt ikke, at der var grundlag for en sag mod de til
The judge did not accept that the defendants had a case to answer and instructed the jury formally to acquit them.
Dette certifikat blev udarbejdet for at påvise, at de tiltalte havde begå^ d til spansk lovgivning, men dommeren anså det ikke porat 'der skulle
This certificate was designed to establish that the defendants were cornmhting a serious offence under Spanish law but the judge did not consider it to be sufficiently clear.
Told mente, at de vüiè have hali; en større chance for at fa de tiltalte dømt* hvis áeiforbindehe med certifikatet efter spansk ret havde overvejet at føre et vidne, hvis særlige viden ville være ; ¿r vs^à, og de i forbi gerì havde fremført, at det planlagte bedrageri ikke var rettet mod toldmyndighederne, men mod den britiske speditørforening (Freight Transport Association - FTA) ved at stille denne i en finansiel risikositu
The customs service considered that they would have had a better chance to obtain a conviction if: in relation to the certificate of Spanish law, they had considered bringing a live witness, whose specific knowledge would warrant the expenditure involved; and in relation to the conspiracy charge, they had argued that the conspiracy was directed not at them but at the Freight Transport Association by putting the organisation at financial risk on the guarantee that it had issued.
¡¡¡¡ρ§: De erkendte også, at de havde kunnet bruge de kvitteringer for franske motorvejsgebyrer, som blev fundet hos en af chaufførerne, som bevismateriale, hvis de havde kunnet fremlægge et certifikat som dokumentation for, at det edb­baserede maskineri fungerede.
They also admitted that they would have been able to use French motorway toll receipts found on one of the drivers as evidence if they had been able to produce a certificate showing that the computerised machine was working.
Under de foreliggende omstændigheder afviste dommeren kvitteringerne som bevismateriale.
As it was, the judge excluded the receipts as evidence.
Praktiske hindringer f or samarbejde
The practical obstacles to cooperation
Ligesom efterforskningsamarbejdet i praksis ikke svarer til teorien, så har det retlige samarbejde i virkeligheden vist sig at være "langsomt, formalistisk og ikke at opfylde anklagemyndighedens behov".3 Selv om midlerne til samarbejde findes, og der i høj grad er et behov herfor, er de formelle strukturer udformet på en måde, der gør systemet langsomt og ineffektivt.
Just as the practice of investigative cooperation fails to match the theory, so judicial cooperation proves in reality to be "slow, formalistic and not responsive to the needs of the prosecution"3. While the instruments, indeed the requirement, for cooperation exist, the formal structures are such as to make the system slow and ineffective.
Ifølge De Beaufort, statsadvokat i Rotterdam, som deltog i en høring i udvalget, skal en anmodning om bistand til forberedelse af en retssag rettet til myndighederne i en anden medlemsstat følge vejen opad i det nationale hierarki, gå gennem de diplomatiske kanaler og derefter vejen nedad til den relevante tjeneste i det pågældende land.
According to Mr De Beaufort, a state prosecutor based in Rotterdam who testified before the Committee, a request for assistance in the preparation of a prosecution addressed to the authorities of another Member State is required to pass upward through the national hierarchy, across the diplomatic structures of EU Member States and thence downward to the particular service competent in the country concerned.
Selv da er der ingen garanti for, at anmodningen vil blive behandlet med den prioritet eller hurtighed, den ville få i det land, hvor retssagen skal føres.
Even then there is no guarantee that the matter will be afforded either the priority or the urgency it would receive in the country of prosecution.
Der er så store forsinkelser i systemet, at det måske ikke er umagen værd at forfølge en sag, der lægger beslag på kostbar domstolstid.
Such are the delays in the system that it may not be worth pursuing a case to the exclusion of other demands on valuable court time.
Sådanne overvejelser kan i hvert fald i et land som Nederlandene, hvor retsforfølgning ikke er obligatorisk, veje tungt hos de ansvarlige myndigheder, navnlig hvis administrative sanktioner frembyder en hurtigere og billigere løsning.
Certainly in a country such as the Netherlands, where prosecution is not compulsory, considerations of this kind can weigh heavily with the competent authorities, especially when administrative sanctions may offer a more rapid and cheaper solution.
Desuden hviler der et økonomisk pres på myndighederne for end ikke at gå så vidt som til at indlede administrative sanktioner.
Furthermore, there is financial pressure on the authorities not even to go so far as to impose administrative sanctions.
Ifølge f.eks. Linnington "har en række myndigheder bestemt, at deres ressourcer anvendes bedre ved at gå efter kautionisten, som er til at få fat i, håndgribelig og i besiddelse af et checkhefte.
According, for example, to Mr Linington, "a number of authorities have decided that their resources are better invested in going after the guarantor who is available, tangible and has a cheque-book.
Jeg er bange for, at dette er en bivirkning heraf."4
I am afraid that is a knock-on effect of this"4.
I lighed med efterforskningssamarbejdet fungerer det retlige samarbejde (som naturligvis overlapper hinanden i et system med undersøgelsesdommere) mest effektivt, når der er mulighed for umiddelbar, direkte og personlig kontakt. Som De Beaufort anførte, ved en statsadvokat ikke, "hvem han skal ringe til".
Again in a manner similar to investigative cooperation, judicial cooperation (which of course overlaps in the case of a system employing investigating magistrates) works most effectively when immediate, direct and personal contacts are possible.
Det er et simpelt, men betydningsfuldt problem, fordi det forhindrer den form for umiddelbar personlig kontakt, som gang på gang har vist sig at være det eneste effektive middel til at få det internationale samarbejde til at fungere.
The problem is a simple but significant one, as it prevents the kind of immediate personal contact which proves time and again to be the only effective means of making international cooperation work.
Problemet vanskeliggøres yderligere af de forskellige strukturer i de enkelte medlemsstaters retsvæsen.
The problem is compounded by the different legal structures in different Member States.
F.eks. ville den rette samtalepartner for en undersøgelsesdommer i nogle lande være en politimand, hvis synsvinkel og professionelle indstilling måske er anderledes.
For example, in some countries, the correct interlocutor for an investigating magistrate would be a police officer, whose perspectives and professional attitudes might be different.
Ovennævnte sag fra retten i Southwark (jf. omstående) illustrerer, at ligegyldig hvor god efterforskningen og det indledende retlige samarbejde er (i dette tilfælde var det "eksemplarisk"5), kan det være forgæves, hvis der opstår uforudsete juridiske vanskeligheder.
The Southwark Crown Court case cited above (see box), is an illustration of the fact that, however good the investigative and preliminary legal cooperation (in this case it was "exemplary"5), it can be rendered void by unforeseen legal difficulties.
I det pågældende tilfælde var der to andre medlemsstater, som eventuelt også var involveret.
In the case concerned, there were two other Member States potentially involved.
Den største part af forbrydelsen værdimæssigt set fandt sted i Italien, men her forsøgte anklagemyndigheden ikke engang at rejse sag:
The greater part of the offence in value terms took place in Italy, but here the prosecution did not even try to make a case:
"Al tiltale i forbindelse med varer, som blev omdirigeret til det italienske marked, blev frafaldet, fordi det igen var umuligt for anklagemyndigheden at forelægge retten de rigtige dokumenter til at bevise, at der var begået en forbrydelse i Italien, som kunne retsforfølges i Det Forenede Kongerige.*'6
"all charges relating to the goods that were diverted onto the Italian market were dropped because again there was an inability on the part of the prosecution to bring the
Problemet var her tilsyneladende, at anklagemyndigheden ikke kunne bevise, at cigaretsmugleri var "en alvorlig forbrydelse" i Italien, hvilket var en forudsætning for at retsforfølge forbrydelsen i Det Forenede Kongerige7. Det britiske toldvæsen var "usikker med hensyn til den italienske lovgivning på daværende tidspunkt".*
The problem here was apparently that the prosecution could not demonstrate that cigarette smuggling is classified as a "serious offence" in Italy, this being a prerequisite for the prosecution of the offence in the UK.7The UK customs was "unclear about the Italian law at that time".8
Den anden involverede medlemsstat var Spanien, og i det tilfælde gik anklagemyndigheden frem på basis af et certifikat fra de spanske myndigheder med bekræftelse af, at den forbrydelse, der var begået i Spanien, var en "alvorlig forbrydelse".9 Tiltalen faldt, da forsvareren med held fremførte, at det spanske certifikat ikke opfyldte de engelske lovbestemmelser.
The second Member State involved was Spain, and in this case the prosecution proceeded on the basis of a certificate from the Spanish authorities confirming that the crime committed in Spain was a "serious offence"9. The prosecution fell when the counsel for the defence successfully argued that the Spanish certificate did not comply with the requirements of English law.
Desuden blev andet bevismateriale - kvitteringer for franske motorvejsgebyrer - afvist, fordi anklagemyndigheden ikke kunne fremlægge et certifikat med dokumentation for, at de maskiner, der udsteder kvitteringerne, fungerede korrekt.
Moreover, other evidence submitted - French motorway toll receipts - were not admissible because the prosecution could not produce a certificate stating that the machines which emitted them were in good working order.
Det er klart, at hovedproblemet ligger i standarderne for bevismateriale, der rekvireres fra andre medlemsstater.
Obviously, the key problem is one of the standards of evidence required from other Member States.
I øjeblikket er der ingen fælles normer for bevismateriale.
At present there are no common EU standards of evidence.
Desuden var der ingen i det britiske toldvæsen, der havde ekspertise til at sikre, at bevismaterialet svarede til engelsk standard og praksis.
Furthermore, there was nobody in UK Customs with the expertise to ensure that the evidence corresponded to English standards and practices.