natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som medlemmerne ved, betales skatter og afgifter under den fælles forsendelsesordning ikke ved indgangestedet til EU, men der, hvor varerne skal bringes på markedet.
As members are aware, under the Community Transit system, taxes and duties are paid not at the point of entry into the EU, but at the point at which they goods are to be placed on the market.
Varerne transporteres fra indgangsstedet til fortoldningsstedet under forsendelsesordningen, idet "den hovedforpligtede" (dvs. speditøren) over for toldmyndighederne påtager sig ansvaret for den skyldige skat/afgift, indtil varerne er fortoldet.
Goods travel from the point of entry to the point of customs clearance under the transit system, with the "principal" (i.e the freight forwarder) giving a guarantee to the customs authorities to cover the tax/duty liability until the goods are cleared through customs.
Denne garanti er genstand for mange af de klager, der blev fremført over for delegationen i Rotterdam.
This guarantee is at the heart of many complaints the delegation heard in Rotterdam.
Fra den 1. april 1996 kræves der en 100% garanti i forbindelse med transporten af visse "følsomme" varer (dvs. varer med høje afgifter) under forsendelsesordningen.
As from 1 April 1996 a 100% guarantee is required for the transport of certain "sensitive" (i.e. high-duty) goods under the transit system.
Et af delegationens besøg var til Van Ommeren NV, hvis forretninger bl.a. omfatter handel med ethanol.
One of the visits paid by the delegation was to Van Ommeren NV, whose businesses include trade in ethanol.
Dette produkt, hvis basisværdi er 1,20 gylden/liter, har, når alle afgifter er betalt, en værdi på 40 gylden/liter og klassificeres derfor soa "følsom".
This product, basic value 1.20 guilders per litre, has an all-duty-paid value of 40 guilders per litre and is therefore classified as "sensitive".
Selskabet oplyste, at efter indførelsen af 100% garantien den 1. april 1996 ophørte det, der var en hurtigt ekspanderende forretning, totalt.
The company reports that, following the introduction of the 100%-guarantee on 1 April 1996, what was a rapidly-expanding business has ceased totally.
Forklaringen er, at den potentielle erstatning var for høj både for Van Ommeren, der som "den hovedforpligtede" har en bankfacilitet til dækning af sine garantiforpligtelser, og for selskabets kunder, aoa kontraktligt er knyttet til Van Ommeren.
The explanation given was that the potential liability was too high for both Van Ommeren, which relies on a banking facility to cover its guarantee obligations as "principal" and for its customers which are contractually bound to Van Ommeren.
Selv om operatørerne var villige til at bruge Rotterdam, ville det loft, som bankbegrænsningerne lagde over Van Ommeren, betyde, at den potentielle trafik ville blive begrænset til under 1/8 af niveauet fra før april.
Even where traders were willing to use Rotterdam, the ceiling effectively placed on Van Ommeren by its banking limits would have the consequence of limiting possible traffic to less than an eighth of its pre-April level.
Man fremførte over for delegationen, at handelen var ved at svinge over til de østeuropæiske havne, hvor sådanne garantikrav ikke eksisterer.
The hypothesis put to the delegation was that the trade was switching to eastern European ports where such guarantee requirements do not exist.
Van Ommeren kom sågar med et skøn over de økonomiske bivirkninger af dette tab af handel: et tab på 6%-8% af Van Ommerens omsætning, hvilket, hvis det varede ved, uden tvivl ville betyde, at 19 personer ville miste deres job i firmaet, 8000 færre lastvognstransporter om året med indvirkning på omkring 100 jobs, negative følger for forarbejdningsindustrien, mistet handel i EU-havne.
The company even went so far as to estimate the knock-on economic effects of this loss of trade: a loss of 6%-8% of Van Ommeren's turnover, leading, if sustained, to probable in-house job losses of 19 persons; 8000 fewer lorry transports per year, affecting about 100 jobs; adverse effects for the processing industry; loss of traffic for EU ports.
Det er klart, at Van Ommerens udlægning af problemerne ikke var helt objektiv, og at skatteyderen generelt har en legitim interesse i at gøre forsendelsesordningen så sikker som muligt.
It is clear that Van Ommeren's presentation of its problems were not of an entirely disinterested nature, and that the taxpayer at large has a legitimate interest in making the transit system as secure as possible.
Imidlertid opfordrer delegationens medlemmer til, at man holder sig for øje, at der skal findes en balance mellem skatteyderens interesser (skatteyderen skal i den sidste ende dække de mistede indtægter) og operatørernes interesser (operatørerne betaler i tilfælde af svig de mistede indtægter, uanset om de er ansvarlige eller ej, og påtager sig under alle omstændigheder en stor eventualforpligtelse med betydelige direkte økonomiske omkostninger).
However, the members of the delegation would invite reflection on the fact that there is a balance to be struck between the interests of the taxpayer (who is eventually required to make up lost revenue) and the interests of the trader (who, in case of fraud, pays the lost revenue whether or not responsible and in any case takes on a large contingent liability in the balance sheet at a significant direct financial cost).
Med andre ord skal der findes en costbenefitbalance mellem skatteyderens udgifter og erhvervslivets udgifter.
In other terms, there is a cost benefit equation to be made, between costs to the taxpayer and costs to the economy.
Toldprocedurer - ^rç ffngfceseddel fra brugerne
Customs procedures - a users' wish list
På et møde med repræsentanter for Rotterdam Port Operators (operatørerne i Rotterdam havn) fik delegationen forelagt en liste med 10 "anmodninger".
During a meeting with the representatives of Rotterdam Port Operators the delegation was presented with a list of ten "demands".
Dette er et interessant billede af indstillingen hos dem, der bruger ordningen og Rotterdam havn, som det er noget forskelligt fra de sædvanlige institutionelle synspunkter, som udvalget møder.
These are an interesting reflection of the viewpoint of the users of the system and of Rotterdam Port, which is at some variance with the usual institutional viewpoint encountered by the Committee.
Anmodningerne gengives ordret nedenfor, ikke fordi delegationens medlemmer nødvendigvis vil støtte dem, men fordi de præcist afspejler meget af det, de hørte i Rotterdam.
They are reproduced verbatim below, not because the delegation members wish necessarily to support them, but because they reflect concisely much of what they heard in Rotterdam.
(Forklarende bemærkninger er tilføjet med kursiv, hvor det har været nødvendigt.) a) "Lige betingelser" (jf. ovenfor) b) "Skræddersyede, kundeorienterede løsninger" (dvs. kontrolprocedurer tilpasset de enkelte virksomheder) c) "Pragmatisme/fleksibilitet" (også i fortolkningen af lovgivningen) d) "Incitamenter til god opførsel" (dvs. at toldmyndighederne skal tage hensyn til en operatørs ry, når det bestemmes, hvilket kontrolniveau der skal anvendes) e) "Forenkling af administrative procedurer for at skabe større kapacitet til undersøgelser" (dvs. afskaffelse af unødvendigt papirarbejde) f) "EDI/tracking and tracing" (dvs. anvendelse af satellitsporingsteknologi til overvågning under forsendelsesordningen) g) "Samarbejde mellem toldmyndighederne i EU-havne" h) "Tidligere meddelelser til og høring af private havneoperatører" i) "Bevarelse af transithandel" j) "Samarbejde mellem toldmyndighederne og private havneoperatører til bekæmpelse af svig".
(Clarifications are added in italics as necessary.) a) "Level playing field" (see above) b) "Tailor-made, client-oriented solutions" (i.e. control procedures tailored to the circumstances of individual businesses) c) "Pragmatism/flexibility" (including in the interpretation of legislation) d) "Incentives for good behaviour" (i.e. customs to take account of operator's track record in deciding level of control to apply) e) "Simplification of administrative procedures to create more capacity for 'intelligence'" (i.e. eliminate useless paperwork) f) "EDI/tracking and tracing" (i.e. use of satellite tracking technology to monitor vehicle under transit regime) g) "Cooperation between customs of EU ports" h) "Advanced notice of and consultation with private port operators" i) "Preservation of transit trade" j ) "Cooperation between customs and private port operators to cope with fraud"
Delegationen fandt sin undersøgelsesrejse til Rotterdam meget interessant og nyttig, hovedsagelig fordi den gav indsigt i den rolle, som toldvæsenet og dermed opkrævningen af de egne indtægter kan spille for erhvervslivet i en havn som Rotterdam.
The delegation found its visit to Rotterdam very interesting and useful, predominantly for the reason that it provided an insight into the role customs, and thereby the collection of own resources, can play in the commercial life of a port like Rotterdam.
Frem for alt fik delegationens medlemmer mulighed for at vurdere den vanskelige balance, der skal findes mellem operatørernes frihed til at handle og toldvæsenernes forpligtelse til at opkræve indtægter på det offentliges vegne. Der skal i beretningen ikke drages bestemte konklusioner med hensyn til, hvordan denne balance kan nås, men opmærksomheden henledes på, at denne interessebalance (som afspejler en reel økonomisk omkostningsbalance) eksisterer og må tages i betragtning.
Above all the members of the delegation were able to appreciate the difficult equilibrium to be struck between operators' freedom to trade and customs' duty to collect income on behalf of the public. This report does not wish to draw firm conclusions as to how this balance should be achieved, but
En interessebalance kan blive en interessekonf1ikt. hvis den ordning, som begge disse interesser hviler på, ikke fungerer ordentligt.
A balance of interests can become a conflict of interests if the system upon which both interests rely fails to operate properly.
Efter delegationsmedlemmernes opfattelse er den fælles forsendelsesordning et godt eksempel. Ordningens mangler føres videre til de økonomiske operatører enten som direkte udgifter eller som eventualiorpligtelser.
It appears to the members of the delegation that the Community transit system is a case in point.
I sidste ende taber såvel operatørerne som skatteyderne. De forværrer problemet ved at gå ind i en konflikt, som kun kan være til gavn for bedrageren.
In the end both the operator and the taxpayer lose, compounding the problem by entering into a perceived conflict which can only assist the fraudster.
Det drejer sig heller ikke kun om forsendelser: et andet problem er konkurrencen mellem havnene, hvor
Nor is it just a question of transit: the problem of inter-port competition is another where customs finds itself implicated in a problem which is not of its making.
Således bliver det, der kunne være en relativ fredelig sameksistens mellem offentlige og private interesser, til et problem.
It is thus that what could be a relatively peaceful coexistence between public and private interests becomes problematic.
Ansvaret ligger i den sidste ende hverken hos toldmyndighederne eller hos de enkelte operatører, men hos lovgivningsmagten - i dette tilfælde Fællesskabets institutioner - som er ansvarlig for selve ordningen.
The responsibility lies ultimately with neither the customs service nor individual operators, but with the legislator - in this case the Community institutions - responsible for the system itself.
Hvis dette erkendes, må delegationen til Rotterdam siges at have båret frugt.
If this point can be appreciated, the delegation to Rotterdam can consider itself to have been a fruitful one.
Deltagere fra Europa-Parlamentet i undersøgelsesrejsen til Rotterdam den 11. og 12. april 1996
11-12 April 1996
Medlemmer af delegationen
Delegation Members
Udvalgets sekretariat
Committee secretariat
Medlems medarbejder
Member's assistant
Meddelelse til medlemmerne nr. 64
Notice to Members no. 64
Om: Ordførerens deltagelse i et seminar afholdt af Den Europæiske Transportministerkonference (CEMT) om "Kriminalitet i forbindelse med transport" i Paris den 4. december 1996
Participation by the rapporteur in a workshop held by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) on "Crime in Transport" in Paris on 4 December 1996.
Vedlagt fremsendes et referat af ovennævnte møde.
Please find attached a summary record of the above meeting.
Nedenstående en kort gennemgang af de vigtigste punkter, der forekom under et seminar afholdt af Den Europæiske Tiansrx)rtrninisterkonference (CEMT) den 4. december 1996 om emnet "kriminalitet i forbindelse med transport"^)·
The following is a brief account of the principal points arising during a workshop held by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) on 4 December 1996 on the subject of "Crime in Transport"1.
Hvad er CEMT?
What is the ECMT?
Den omfatter nu transportministrene fra 30 medlemsstater plus otte associerede stater og observatørstater samt 25 ikke-statslige organisationer og faglige sammenslutninger.
It now comprises the Ministers of Transport of 30 Member States, plus eight associate and observer states and 25 non-governmental organisations and professional associations.
Det afholder et plenarmøde en gang om året og har som mål (i) at opnå generel eller regionalt den maksimale udnyttelse og mest rationelle udvikling af europæisk indlandstransport af international betydning og (ii) at koordinere og fremme arbejdet hos internationale organisationer, der er beskæftiget med europæisk indlandstransport under hensyntagen til de supranationale myndigheders arbejde på dette område"(3).
It meets in plenary session once a year and has as its objective (i) to aim "to achieve, at general or regional level, the maximum use and most rational development of European inland transport of international importance", and (ii) " to coordinate and promote the activities of international organisations concerned with European inland transport, taking into account the work of supranational authorities in this field"2.
Formålet med seminaret
The purpose of the workshop
Som følge af en øget international bevidsthed med hensyn til det høje kriminalitetsniveau i transportsektoren besluttede det nuværende franske formandskab for CEMT at prioritere emnet på konferencens næste møde.
Following an increasing international awareness of the serious levels of crime involving the transport sector, the current French presidency of the ECMT decided to prioritise the subject at the next full meeting of the Conference.
Formålet med denne konference var at samle et bredt udsnit af eksperter og involverede parter for at drøfte de vigtigste spørgsmål i forbindelse med kriminalitet på transportområdet og at fremsætte henstillinger om foranstaltninger, som transportministrene bør træffe.
The aim of this conference was to gather a wide range of experts and concerned parties to discuss the key issues connected with crime in transport and to formulate recommendations on the action to be taken by the Ministers of Transport.
Mødet blev overværet af et bredt udsnit af deltagere fra hele Europa, herunder repræsentanter for nationale transportministerier, internationale organisationer, told, politi, organisationer inden for transportsektoren, speditører, fagforeninger osv.
The meeting was attended by a wide range of participants from all over Europe, including representatives of national transport ministries, international organisations, customs, police, transport sector organisations, freight forwarders, trade unions, etc.
Skønt mødet som fælles betegnelse havde titlen "kriminalitet i forbindelse med transport", tenderede det at fokusere på svig i forbindelse med fællesskabsforsendelsesordningen og de fælles forsendelsesordninger og TIR-konventionen, skønt der også blev drøftet andre (ofte hermed beslægtede) spørgsmål som biltyveri, bortførelse osv.
Though entitled generically 'Crime in Transport", the meeting tended to focus on fraud in connection with the Community and Common Transit systems and the TIR Convention, though there was some discussion of other (often connected) issues such as vehicle theft, hijacking, etc.
Forsædet varetoges af den franske vicetransportminister, Jean Guillot, og mødet var struktureret omkring en række indlæg af udpegede eksperter på grundlag afskriftlige indlæg.
The meeting was chaired by the Deputy of the French Minister of Transport, Mr Jean Guillot, and was structured around a series of presentations by nominated experts, on the basis of written submissions.
Afholdt i OECD's hovedkvarter i Paris.
Held at OECD Headquarters in Paris
­ "Contribution by Freight Forward Europe to "Crime in Transport" workshop" (bidrag fra Freight Forward Europe til seminaret om kriminalitet i forbindelse med transport) Poul HANSEN, manager i FFE(6).
"Contribution by FreightForward Europe to 'Crime in Transport' workshop" Mr Poul HANSEN, Manager FFE2
De fleste talere var enige i, at både fællesskabsforsendelsen og den fælles forsendelse samt TER­konventionen befandt sig i en krise med omfattende svig over for nationale budgetter og Fællesskabernes budget.
Most speakers agreed that both the Community/Common Transit System and the TIR Convention were in a state of crisis, with wide-scale fraud against national budgets and the European Community budget.
Taleren fra Freight Forward Europe understregede navnlig de enorme udgifter for erhvervslivet på grund af svig i forbindelse med forsendelse som følge af den hovedforpligtedes kaution.
The speaker from Freight Forward Europe in particular stressed the enormous costs to business of transit fraud arising from the principal's guarantee.
I nogenlunde samme retning gik Nigel Jenkins indlæg, der repræsenterede
In a similar vein, Mr Nigel Jenkins, representing the insurance industry3, expressed concern, not only at the future risks run by the insurance industry in connection with guarantee insurance but also the substantial and as yet unknown burden of the past arising from claims in the pipeline.
Optrådte som vidne i undersøgelsesudvalget den 4. september 1996. rru­repræsentanter optrådte som vidner i undersøgelsesudvalget den 25. april 1996.
FFE representatives appeared as witnesses in the Committee of Inquiry: 25 April 1996
Bortset fra den generelle enighed om, at der forelå en krise, var det yderst vanskeligt at fastslå, hvor meget svig under forsendselsproceduren der fandt sted eller endda, hvilke beløb speditører og andre hovedforpligtede betalte til de forskellige nationale toldtjenester.
Notwithstanding the general agreement that the crisis existed, it was extremely difficult to establish how much transit fraud was taking place, or even what amounts by freight forwarders and other principals to the various national customs services.
Kun Hansen fra FFE forsegte at give en prognose, idet han nævnte, at ca. 350 mio £ var ophobet som gæld over for toldtjenesterne og et beløb fra 3,5 mia til 20 mia ecu i gæld, der endnu ikke var betalt i forbindelse med fællesskabsforsendelsen.
Only Mr Hansen of FFE attempted an estimate, pointing to about $350 million of accumulated debt to customs services and anything between Ecu 3.5 billion and Ecu 20 billion of debt outstanding under the Community transit system.
Hvem er gerningsmændene?
Who are the criminals?
Der var almindelig enighed om, at lovovertrædelser inden for forsendelsesprocedureme blev begiet af internationale kriminelle organisationer, hvoraf nogle kom fra Vesteuropa, men hvoraf langt de fleste var baseret i lande i Central- og Østeuropa og det tidligere Sovjetunionen
There was general consensus that crime within the transit systems was perpetrated by international criminal organisations, some of them within Western Europe but increasingly based in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Det blev ligeledes konstateret, at kriminalitet, uanset gerningsmændene, først og fremmest var et problem i de centrale vesteuropæiske lande i stedet for de mere eksotiske medlemmer af TIR-konventionen som Kasakhstan, Afghanistan osv.
It was also observed, whoever the perpetrators, that crime was a problem above all in "core" Western European countries rather than in "exotic" members of the TIR Convention, such as Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, etc.
Hvem bærer ansvaret for ordningens mangler?
Mho bears the responsibility for failings of the system?
Skønt spørgsmålet om ansvarlighed helt klart var kontroversielt, kunne der opnås enighed om, at de politiske forhold og toldtjenester i særdeleshed generelt bar skylden, fordi de ikke reagerede på ændrede forhold.
Though clearly controversial, the question of responsibility saw a consensus emerging, with the finger pointing at the political world in general and the customs services in particular for failing to react to changing circumstances.
Duquesne anførte, at det var uansvarligt at indføre en ordning uden at være i besiddelse af de nødvendige instrumenter til dens forvaltning.
Mr Duquesne indicated that it was irresponsible to create a system without possessing the instruments necessary to manage it.
Adskillige talere, herunder Acri, understregede, at regeringernes laden stå til delvis skyldtes misbrug af systemet udelukkende med henblik på at sikre regeringsindtægter, og at forsendelsesordninger langsomt var blevet omdannet til garantiordninger for penge i stedet for forsendelsesordninger for varer.
Several speakers, including Mr Acri, pointed out that governmental complacency arose in part from the misuse of the system solely to secure government revenue and that transit systems had slowly been transformed into guarantee systems for money rather than transit systems for goods.
Ehmcke erkendte åbent, at det tyske toldvæsen først og fremmest så det som sin opgave at inddrive indtægter, og at han ville være tilfreds, så længe garantiordningen arbejdede i denne forstand.
Mr Ehmcke openly acknowledged that the German customs service saw its primary role as the collection of revenue, and that as long as the guarantee system worked in these terms he would be satisfied.
Han indrømmede dog, at enhver forsendelessordning "indbyder til svig".
He nevertheless acknowledged that any transit regime "is an invitation to fraud".
Duquesne protesterede mod dette synspunkt, idet han understregede, at toldvæsenets pligt først og fremmest var at forebygge, opspore og straffe svig.
Responding, Mr Duquesne demurred from this point of view, affirming that the first duty of customs is to prevent, detect and punish fraud.
Garantiens virkning var, at den legitime økonomi kom til at betale for svig i stedet for svindleren.
The effect of the guarantee was to make the legitimate economy pay for fraud rather than the fraudster.
Hvem betaler regningerne?
Who pays the bills?
Repræsentanter for handelen udtrykte bekymring over, at mangler i forsendelsesordningen næsten udelukkende gik ud over speditører og transportvirksomheder.
Trade representatives expressed their concern that the failings of transit were visited almost exclusively on freight forwarders and transporters.
Der blev derfor rejst en del kritik af toldvæsenets manglende evne til i tilstrækkelig grad at undersøge og straffe svig.
Much criticism of customs' failure adequately to investigate and punish fraud was therefore voiced.
På lignende måde blev indførelsen af en 100% garanti for følsomme varer kritiseret som en uberettiget yderligere omkostning for erhvervslivet.
In a similar vein, the introduction of a 100% guarantee for sensitive goods was attacked as an unjustified additional cost on business.
Nødvendige foranstaltninger
Necessary Measures
Efter at være blevet opfordret til at fremsætte forslag til aktion nævnte en række delegerede områder, på hvilke der kunne indføres foranstaltninger. Følgende er eksempler på de forslag, der blev fremsat:
Invited to make proposals for action, a number of delegates mentioned areas where measures could be introduced.
ANDEN KRIMINALITET I FORBINDELSE MED TRANSPORT
OTHER TRANSPORT CRIME
Under mødet omtaltes kort andre former for kriminalitet i forbindelse med transport, dog langtfra så indgående.
The meeting also addressed briefly other forms of transport crime, though at considerably less length.