natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter den forelæggende ret har antaget, at der i teorien ikke er nogen grænser for, hvor længe en transport som den her omhandlede mellem et geografisk punkt i Fællesskabet og et geografisk punkt i et tredjeland kan vare, modsiger den imidlertid sig selv ved at anmode Domstolen om at tage stilling til, om der, hvis varigheden af en transport, som foregår med et køretøj, der indlades på en færge, er uden betydning, kan påbegyndes en ny vejtransport på 28 timer, så snart lastbilen er aflæsset i en havn i et tredjeland (hvilket selvfølgelig svarer til at erkende, at transporten er tidsmæssigt begrænset, selv om den foregår ad landevej i et tredjeland).
As to the idea that, in the case of transport between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point situated in a third country, transport such as the transport in question might not, in theory, be subject to any time-limit, its first source of weakness is immediately apparent from the fact that the referring court contradicts itself by asking the Court to determine whether, in cases where the period of transport on vehicles loaded onto ferries is immaterial, a further period of 28 hours of transport by road begins immediately after unloading the lorry at a port in a third country (which clearly indicates an admission that there is a timelimit on transport, even transport by road in a third country).
Betragtningerne i punkt 23 og 24 ovenfor om problemerne med at fortolke nr. 48, punkt 7, litra b), i bilaget til direktiv 91/628 — hvorefter den chauffør, der transporterer dyr med et køretøj, der lastes på en færge, skal sørge for, at dyrene aflæsses og hviler i 12 timer i bestemmelseshavnen i et tredjeland, hvilket kræver et samarbejde med myndighederne i dette land, hvis fællesskabsreglerne skal kunne anvendes uden for »Fællesskabets område« — er ikke til hinder for den konklusion, jeg har draget i slutningen af det foregående punkt.
The statement at the end of the preceding paragraph is not inconsistent with the statements made earlier in paragraphs 23 and 24 above about the difficulties that would be encountered by an interpretation of Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628 which would require a transporter of animals in a vehicle loaded onto a ferry to unload the animals for a rest period of 12 hours at the port of destination in a third country, since that would entail cooperation by the authorities of that country and, in the absence of such cooperation, would face the impossibility of imposing the application of Community rules outside ‘Community territory’.
Problemet med denne antagelse er dog især, at selv om direktivet ikke indeholder bestemmelser om vejtransport i et tredjeland, peger de generelle principper i ordningen i retning af, at reglen om en forsendelsestid på mindst 29 timer også gælder for denne transport.
But in addition to this source of weakness in the idea in question, there is another more decisive factor: even if the directive does not contain any provision on transport by road in the territory of a third country, the general spirit of the system suggests that the 29-hour rule should also apply to such transport.
I modsat fald ville det overordnede formål med de pågældende bestemmelser, nemlig at sikre dyrevelfærden, blive tilsidesat.
If it were not so, the general ob -jective of the legislation in question, which is to ensure the welfare of the animals, would be undermined.
Den hvileperiode på mindst en time, der er fastsat i nr. 48, punkt 4, litra d), kræver nemlig intet samarbejde med myndighederne i dette tredjeland, eftersom hvileperioden som nævnt i punkt 46 i artikel 2, stk. 2, litra h), i direktiv 91/628 defineres som »en sammenhængende periode under forsendelsen, i løbet af hvilken dyrene ikke flyttes ved hjælp af et transportmiddel«.
The rest period of at least one hour prescribed in Chapter VII 48 point 4(d) would not in fact require any cooperation on the part of the authorities of such a third country since, as mentioned in paragraph 45 above, Article 2(2)(h) of Directive 91/628 defines ‘rest period’ as ‘a continuous period in the course of a journey during which animals are not being moved by a means of transport’.
Dyrene behøver altså ikke at blive aflæsset for at få en hvileperiode.
This implies that giving the animals a rest period does not involve unloading.
Da det tidsrum, hvor dyrene transporteres på køretøjer, der indlades på en færge, når betingelserne i punkt 39-41 ovenfor er opfyldt, ikke tages i betragtning, er der ingen risiko for, at transporten af disse dyr, selv om de straks sendes videre ad landevejen, kan vare i flere dage uden ophold, eftersom den nye transport kun kan fortsætte uhindret i 14
It follows that in classifying the period of transport of animals on vehicles loaded onto a ferry as neutral when the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 39 to 41 above are met, there is no risk that if the transport of such animals continues immediately by land it could continue for several days without a break, since that subsequent transport can continue unconditionally only for 14 hours,
Jeg foreslår derfor, at Domstolen i sit svar på det tredje spørgsmål præciserer, at
I therefore propose that the Court reply to the third question that in the case of
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-207/06 ved en søtransport i direkte rutefart mellem et geografisk punkt i Fællesskabet og et geografisk punkt i et tredjeland ved hjælp af køretøjer, der lastes på et skib, uden at dyrene aflæsses, må varigheden af denne transport anses for at være uden betydning, såfremt dyrene regelmæssigt bliver fodret og vandet, og hvis denne betingelse er opfyldt, kan lastbilen påbegynde en ny vejtransport på 28 timer, så snart den er ankommet til bestemmelseshavnen.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-207/06 transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of a vehicle loaded onto a ferry without unloading of the animals, the period of such transport should be held to be immaterial provided that the animals have been regularly fed and watered, with the result that, if those conditions are met, a further period of 28 hours of transport by road may begin immediately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination.
Det fremgår af den logiske opdeling af den forelæggende rets spørgsmål i to led, at hovedformålet er at afklare, om transportvirksomheden som helhed har handlet i overensstemmelse med direktivet og ikke bare med den specifikke bestemmelse, der er nævnt i spørgsmålets første led. Det drejer sig ikke bare om den fortrykte erklæring på ruteplanen om, hvilke foranstaltninger der skal træffes, men også om a) den underskrift på samme ruteplan, hvorved chaufføren ved transportens afslutning bekræfter, at han faktisk har sørget for den pasning af dyrene, der er nævnt i transportplanen, på de anførte tidspunkter og den foreskrevne måde, og om b) en erklæring på tro og lov om dyrenes pasning, som chaufføren ifølge forelæggelseskendelsens s. 3 har afgivet, og som Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ikke fandt relevant.
It is clear from the logical order of the two points raised by the referring court that the main purpose of its question is to ascertain whether the transporter’s general conduct complies with the directive — and not merely with the specific provision that is the subject of its first question — general conduct consisting not only of what was presented by way of a programme in the pretyped statement on the route plan but also (a) the subsequent signature of the route plan by which the transporter claims to have confirmed at the end of the journey that the animals really had been given the care specified in the plan at the prescribed times and in the prescribed manner and (b) an affidavit to the same effect which, according to a statement on page 3 of the order for reference, was submitted by the person in charge of the transport and was considered by the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, to be irrelevant.
D — Det fjerde spørgsmål
D — The fourth question
For at kunne besvare dette spørgsmål, således som det er beskrevet i det foregående punkt, på en tilfredsstillende måde, er det nødvendigt at fortolke artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), i direktiv 91/628 i lyset af litra d), nr. ii), andet led, og litra f) i samme bestemmelse.
To reply properly to that question, understood in the terms indicated in the preceding paragraph, it is necessary to interpret Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Dir -ective 91/628, in the light of the second indent of that provision, and of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of that directive.
Det bestemmes i artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), i direktiv 91/628, at transportvirksomheden skal forvisse sig om, at det personale, der varetager transporten, »anfører på ruteplanen, hvornår og hvor de dyr, der transporteres, er blevet fodret
Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Direct- ive 91/628 establishes that the transporter must ensure that the staff in charge of the transport ‘state in the route plan the times and places at which the animals transported have been fed and watered during the journey’
Med det fjerde spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst dels, »om artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), første led, i direktiv 91/628 skal forstås således, at det personale, der varetager transporten, skal anføre i ruteplanen, hvornår de transporterede dyr er blevet fodret og vandet under skibstransporten«, dels om »en forududfyldt, maskinskreven erklæring« om, at dyrene under transporten »er blevet fodret og vandet om aftenen og morgenen, midt på dagen og om aftenen og morgenen«, ikke opfylder kravene i direktiv 91/628, med den retsvirkning, »at retten til eksportrestitution fortabes, når de foranstaltninger, der reelt er truffet med henblik på at passe på dyrene, ikke er anført, såfremt det ikke lykkes at fremlægge det nødvendige bevis på anden måde«.
By the fourth question, the referring court asks, on the one hand, whether ‘the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Dir -ective 91/628 [is] to be understood as meaning that the staff in charge of the transport are required to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the ferry journey’ and, on the other, whether ‘a pretyped statement’ indicating that during the ferry journey, ‘animals are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’ does not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628, with the effect in law ‘that the failure to state the measures actually taken to care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export refund in so far as the proof required cannot be provided by any other means’.
SCHWANINGER og vandet under forsendelsen«, og i litra d), nr. i), første led, at originaleksemplaret af ruteplanen »udfyldes behørigt og rettidigt af de rette personer« 13.
SCHWANINGER and Article 5A point 2(d)(i) provides that the original copy of the route plan must be ‘duly drawn up and completed by the appropriate persons at the appropriate time’. 13
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har i sit skriftlige indlæg for Domstolen påpeget, at der i den omhandlede bestemmelse sondres mellem »udfærdigelse« og »udfyldelse« af denne plan (o.a.: det er ikke tilfældet i den danske sprogudgave, hvor der kun tales om udfyldelse), og fremhævet, at de to formaliteter samlet og hver for sig skal overholdes »rettidigt«.
The applicant in the main proceedings, in its written observations submitted to the Court, made the most of the distinction in the provision in question between ‘drawing up’ and ‘completing’ and the fact that it spe -cifies that both these formalities, and therefore each of them, must be completed at the ‘appropriate time’.
dagen og om aftenen og morgenen« og gentagelsen af ordene »om aftenen og morgenen« med rette kunne forstås som en angivelse, der ikke var af generel karakter, men henviste til konkrete opgaver, der skulle udføres på bestemte tidspunkter i løbet af forsendelsen, der efter det i sagen oplyste strakte sig over 41 timer og 30 minutter og dermed ikke bare omfattede »om aftenen og morgenen, midt på dagen«, men også »om aftenen og morgenen«, og b) at transportplanen var så detaljeret, at det ikke var nødvendigt løbende at notere, at den blev fulgt, men mere »hensigtsmæssigt« at underskrive en erklæring, der kunne vedlægges ruteplanen, når forsendelsen var afsluttet.
with the repetition of the expressions ‘in the evenings and mornings’ that it contained, could legitimately be understood not as a general statement but as referring to various identifiable times in the actual journey to be made which, as the documents show, lasted 41 and a half hours and therefore specifically covered ‘the evening and morning, midday’ and another ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and (b) the programme set out in the route plan was so specific as to render a detailed account of its execution unnecessary and cause the end of the journey to be the ‘appropriate’ time to complete the statement to be included in the route plan by appending the final signature.
Det skyldes uden tvivl den opfattelse, der er anført i de to foregående punkter, at sagsøgeren i hovedsagen ikke i sit indlæg har påberåbt sig den beviskraft, som en erklæring på tro og love kan have, idet en sådan erklæring som nævnt i punkt 3 i forelæggelseskendelsen senere blev forelagt for Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, der ikke lagde vægt herpå.
It is clearly because it holds the view set out in the preceding two paragraphs that the applicant in the main proceedings does not invoke in its observations the possible probative value of the affidavit which point 3 in the order for reference states that it produced in vain, ex post, before the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen.
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen har henvist til oplysningerne i punkt 5.2 i forelæggelseskendelsen om, at transportvirksomheden havde underskrevet ruteplanen og dermed bekræftet, at dyrene var blevet passet på de foreskrevne tidspunkter. Efter sagsøgerens opfattelse opfylder den fortrykte anmærkning på ruteplanen om, hvornår dyrene skulle fodres og vandes, således kravene til planens udfærdigelse, og efter at denne plan var blevet underskrevet, var den også blevet udfyldt.
Having noted, as already stated, in point 5.2 of the order for reference that by signing the route plan at the end of the journey the transporter had confirmed that the animals really had been given the requisite care at the prearranged times, the applicant in the main proceedings claims to infer that, while the pretyped indication in the route plan of the times when the animals were to be fed and watered represented the required ‘drawing up’, the subsequent signature represented the required ‘completion’.
Sagsøgeren mener tydeligvis, at underskriften opfylder kravet i de pågældende regler, eftersom underskriften er knyttet til den fortrykte transportplan.
It meant, clearly, that the completion effected by the signature met the requirement laid down in the provision in question by means of the connection between the signature and the pretyped route plan.
Dette hænger sammen med, a) at præciseringen af, at de pågældende foranstaltninger skulle træffes »om aftenen og morgenen, midt på
The reason being that (a) the specification that the operations in question were to be carried out ‘in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’,
Den fremgangsmåde, som sagsøgeren i hovedsagen hævder at have fulgt for at overholde bestemmelserne i artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), i direktiv 91/628, er sikkert ikke i fuld overensstemmelse med kravet i nr. ii) om, at transportvirksomheden skal forvisse sig om, at »det personale, der varetager transporten, anfører på ruteplanen, hvornår og hvor de dyr, der transporteres, er blevet fodret og vandet under forsendelsen«, eftersom den fremgangsmåde, som det personale, der varetog transporten, må antages at have fulgt (bortset fra at det i forbindelse med søtransport er vanskeligt at
The manner in which the applicant in the main proceedings might thus be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628 certainly does not correspond exactly to the provision contained in subparagraph (ii), according to which the transporter must ensure that ‘the staff in charge of the transport state in the route plan the times and places at which the animals transported have been fed and watered during the journey’, because (apart from the fact that it is not easy during transport by sea to state the ‘places’ at which the operations are carried out) the detailed rules which the loading
13 — Min fremhævelse.
13 — My emphasis.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-207/06 angive, »hvor« foranstaltningerne er truffet), ikke gjorde det muligt at angive, hvornår dyrene blev fodret og vandet.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-207/06
fremlægger et konkret bevis for, at »behovet for at vande og fodre de dyr, der transporteres, under forsendelsen« er blevet tilgodeset.
Community legislature, the essential element that the transporter must furnish is actual evidence that ‘the animals’ needs for food and water [have been met] during the journey’.
Hvis man imidlertid som nævnt i punkt 55 ovenfor sammenholder bestemmelserne i artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), og artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), andet led, i direktiv 91/628 med det i stk. 2, litra f), anførte, kan det ikke — som Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen ifølge forelæggelseskendelsens punkt 3 har gjort — udledes af den omstændighed, at fremgangsmåden ikke er fuldstændig korrekt, at dyrene ikke har fået foder og vand i 46 timer, og at eksportøren som følge heraf har mistet retten til restitution for den pågældende eksport.
If however, as indicated in paragraph 55 above, Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Direct- ive 91/628 and the second indent of that provision are considered in conjunction with Article 5A point 2(f), it cannot be inferred from the fact that the way in which the applicant claims that it complied with point 2(d)(ii) did not correspond exactly with the terms of that provision — as, according to the order for reference (in point 3), the Zollamt Salzburg did infer — that the animals had not been fed or watered for 46 hours and that the exporter had therefore forfeited the right to the export refund.
Hvis man lægger så stor vægt på, at artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), overholdes til punkt og prikke, som Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen gør, vil det endvidere stride mod princippet om, at der skal tages hensyn til alle faktiske oplysninger i en sag, dvs. også dem, eksportøren er fremkommet med, hvilket Domstolen fastslog i dommen i sagen Viamex Agrar og Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) 14, med hensyn til formålet med og anvendelsen af henvisningen til direktiv 91/628 i artikel 1 og artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 615/98.
To infer from the failure to comply exactly with Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628 the absolute value attributed to that provision by the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, would also conflict with the approach of assessing all the elements of fact in the particular case, including the elements supplied by the exporter, which the Court of Justice held in Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK 14to be the approach that should be followed in interpreting and applying the reference made by Article 1 and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628.
Det fremgår af artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra f), nr. ii), som selvfølgelig skal tages i betragtning ved en systematisk fortolkning af hele stk. 2, at »transportvirksomheden […] bevidner, at der […] er truffet foranstaltninger med henblik på at kunne vande og fodre dyrene under forsendelsen selv i tilfælde af ændring af ruteplanen eller afbrydelse af forsendelsen af uforudsigelige årsager«.
Article 5A point 2(f) of Directive 91/628, which must naturally be borne in mind in the context of a systematic interpretation of the whole of point 2, provides that Member States shall ensure that the transporter ‘demonstrates … that steps have been taken to meet the animals’ needs for food and water during the journey, even where the route plan is changed’.
Der var i de nationale retssager, der lå til grund for den pågældende præjudicielle sag, rejst tvivl om gyldigheden af denne henvisning i forhold til retssikkerheds- og proportionalitetsprincippet, fordi begge bestemmelser a) fastsætter, at der kun udbetales eksportrestitution for levende kvæg, hvis direktivets bestemmelser overholdes under transporten af dyrene til det første aflæsningssted i det endelige bestemmelsestredjeland, og b) blev fortolket sådan, at der ikke kunne udbetales restitution, hvis bare én af bestemmelserne ikke var overholdt.
In the national proceedings which led to the request for that ruling, the question had been raised as to the validity of that reference, as being contrary to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, in view of the fact that both provisions (a) make the payment of export refunds for live bovine animals subject to compliance, during the transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the third country of final des -tination, with the provisions of that directive, and (b) were understood to preclude such refunds in the event of any infringement of even one of those provisions.
14 — Dom af 17.1.2008, forenede sager C-37/06 og C-58/06, Sml. I, s. 69.
14 — Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK [2008] ECR I-69.
Fællesskabslovgiver har herved klart tilkendegivet, at det ikke er afgørende, hvorledes det i henhold til artikel 5, afsnit A, stk. 2, litra d), nr. ii), i direktiv 91/628 godtgøres, at dyrene regelmæssigt er blevet fodret og vandet.
By that provision, the Community legislature indicated unequivocally that it did not wish to attribute absolute value to the manner in which it is demonstrated, in accordance with Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628, that the animals have been regularly fed and watered.
1) at fortolke direktivets bestemmelser, der skal supplere hinanden indbyrdes og indgå i regelsættet i den pågældende retsakt, i retning af, at betydningen af hver enkelt bestemmelse og henvisningen til dem i forordning nr. 615/98 afhænger af, om dens direkte mål er at sikre opfyldelsen af direktivets hovedformål, eller om den bare har en praktisk funktion i forhold til dette formål, og
(1) to interpret provisions of the direct- ive, designed to be taken together and in conjunction with the whole body of the act in which they are contained, by attributing differing degrees of importance to each of those provisions and to the reference made to them by Regulation No 615/98, depending on whether the direct objective of the provision is to achieve the principal aim of the directive or whether the provision has a purely instrumental function with respect to that aim, and
Domstolen bemærkede i sin besvarelse af de forelagte spørgsmål indledningsvis, at »den generelle henvisning, der i forordning nr. 615/98 er foretaget til direktiv 91/628, har til formål at sikre overholdelse af relevante bestemmelser i nævnte direktiv på området for levende dyrs velfærd, og navnlig beskyttelse af dyrene under transport« 15. Den fastslog, at den pågældende henvisning ikke var ugyldig, eftersom den ikke kan fortolkes således, at den dækker alle bestemmelser i direktiv 91/628, og navnlig dem, der ikke har forbindelse til direktivets hovedformål 16.
The Court replied to the questions referred to it by pointing out, first, that ‘the purpose of the general reference made by Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628 is to ensure … compliance with the relevant provisions of that directive on the welfare of live animals and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport’ 15; it concluded that the reference in question cannot be held to be invalid since it cannot be interpreted as covering all the provisions of Directive 91/628 and, in particular, those provisions which have no connection with the principal objective pursued by that directive.