natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ligeledes bemærkes, at det klart fremgår af § 3, som fastsætter selskabets [Assediles] forpligtelse til at betale inden for en frist på 15 dage efter modtagelse af den sikredes anmodning om betaling, at der ikke kan rejses indsigelser over for den sikrede, der ikke har modtaget betaling fra sin debitor.
It is also clear from the wording of Article 3, which requires the company [Assedile] to pay within 15 days of receiving the application for payment from the unpaid beneficiary, that the guarantor cannot raise any objections against the beneficiary.
Følgelig tilkommer der i henhold til de nævnte fællesskabsbestemmelser AIMA en tilbagebetaling på 110% af den forudbetalte støtte, med fradrag af den støtte, som bevisligt er blevet udbetalt, dvs. 1 047 084 185 ITL [540 774 EUR] (den samlede sum af de kontrakter, for hvilke der ikke er blevet fremlagt bevis for betaling, forhøjet med
AIMA should therefore be reimbursed, under the abovementioned Community provisions, up to 110% of the amount of aid paid by way of an advance, less the aid which it was proved had been actually paid, which is ITL 1 047 084 185 [EUR 540 774] (the total amount of the contracts in respect of
Såfremt det antages, at det forud for enhver udbetaling under garantien skal være fastslået, at retten til støtte til destillation (helt eller delvist) ikke foreligger, bemærkes, at denne ret uden tvivl er bortfaldet som følge af, at [appellanten] DAI ikke har overholdt de frister og betingelser, som er fastsat i fællesskabsforordningen.
Even if the view were to be taken that a finding that there is no entitlement (full or partial) to aid for distillation is a precondition for any reimbursement, there is no doubt that such entitlement is extinguished due to the failure by the appellant, DAI, to observe the timelimits and conditions laid down in the Community regulation.
10% — dvs. 1 046 277 980 ITL [540 357 EUR] — med tillæg af forskellen mellem den støtte, for hvilken der er blevet fremlagt bevis for betaling, og den forudbetalte støtte — dvs. 806 205 ITL [416 EUR]).
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS which no proof has been furnished that they were paid, plus 10% — ITL 1 046 277 980 [EUR 540 357] — to which should be added the difference between the aid which it was proved had been paid and the aid paid in advance — ITL 806 205 [EUR 416]).
Den 27. september 1989 iværksatte fire af sagsøgerne i sagen for Retten — dvs. alle med undtagelse af Cantina sociale del Vermentino — appel af denne dom ved Corte d’appello di Roma.
On 27 September 1989 four of the applicants (the exception being Cantina sociale del Vermentino) appealed against that judgment before the Corte d’appello (Court of Appeal) in Rome.
Ved dom af 19. november 1991 afviste appelretten sagen med den begrundelse, at appelskriftet ikke som foreskrevet var blevet forkyndt over for DAI’s kurator, men over for DAI selv (som da var under konkursbehandling), og at der ikke efterfølgende var foretaget en ny, forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse inden for den frist, som den appelretsdommer, der varetog sagens forberedelse, havde fastsat herfor.
By judgment of 19 November 1991 that court held that the appeal was inadmissible because the applicants had not correctly notified lodgement of the appeal to DAI’s official receiver, but had notified DAI itself (which was then in receivership), and they had not subsequently properly made further notification within the timelimit imposed on them by the judge investigating the case.
Det bemærkes, at DAI aldrig har bestridt disse beløb: Selv om virksomheden hævder, at den har videreført ca. halvdelen af den opnåede støtte til producenterne, har den aldrig hævdet, og så meget desto mindre bevist, at den har betalt denne støtte inden for de frister, som er fastsat i forordning nr. 2499/82.
It should be pointed out that DAI has never disputed those amounts: although it has stated that it paid producers approximately half of the aid obtained it has not claimed, let alone proved, that it paid that aid within the timelimits laid down in Regulation No 2499/82.
I mellemtiden havde Assedile den 16. januar 1990 betalt de skyldige beløb til AIMA.
In the meantime, on 16 January 1990, Assedile paid the sums owing to AIMA under the security.
Det bør præciseres, at det sagsøgende destilleri ikke kan beklage sig over, at de vinkooperativer, som har leveret vin til det, er stødt på vanskeligheder med hensyn til at inddrive deres udeståender, når destilleriet selv har bragt sig i misligholdelse ved at indlede en procedure i henhold til konkurslovgivningen umiddelbart efter at have opnået den fællesskabsstøtte, som skulle videreføres til producenterne.
It may be appropriate to point out that the applicant distillery is in no position to complain that the cooperative wine-cellars which have delivered their production are having difficulty in obtaining payment of their debts since by its own action it has placed itself in a situation in which those debts cannot be paid, by filing for insolvency immediately after obtaining the Community aid that should in turn be paid to the producers.
De gjorde bl.a. gældende, at de havde iværksat appel af den ovennævnte dom fra Tribunale civile di Roma med det formål at få fastslået, at denne var urigtig, ikke i forhold til DAI, men udelukkende i forhold til AIMA og Assedile.
They claimed, in particular, that they had appealed against the abovementioned judgment of the Tribunale civile di Roma in order to obtain a declaration that that judgment was incorrect not as regards DAI but solely as regards AIMA and Assedile.
Efter deres opfattelse skulle procedurefejlen derfor ikke afskære dem fra appel 14. Ved dom af 28. november 1994 forkastede Corte di cassazione kassationsanken over appelrettens dom.
They therefore argued that the procedural error was one that should not operate so as to bar their appeal.
14 — Efter hvad der kan udledes af sagens akter, var dette, hvad deres argumentation i sagen for Corte di cassazione i det væsentlige gik ud på.
14 — So far as one can deduce from the papers before the Court, this must have been the essence of their argument before the Corte di Cassazione.
Vinkooperativerne vil — ligesom kautionisten, hvis han vælger at indtræde i rettighederne — kunne opnå dækning af deres krav i forbindelse med konkursbehandlingen sammen med de øvrige kreditorer og under overholdelse af princippet om ligebehandling af kreditorerne.«
The cooperative wine-cellars may — as may the guarantor if it decides to take the applicant’s place — obtain satisfaction of their rights to receive payment in the course of the insolvency proceedings, together with all the other creditors and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment for creditors.’
De fem sagsøgere foretog i forbindelse med konkursbehandlingen af DAI forskriftsmæssigt anmeldelser af deres krav i boet.
The five applicants duly registered their claims among DAI’s liabilities in the context of the insolvency proceedings that had been brought against it.
nr. 352/78 skal trække inddraget sikkerhedsstillelse fra EUGFL’s udgifter, dvs. at sikkerhedsstillelsen skal regnskabsføres til fordel for EUGFL.
by the intervention bodies to reduce the expenditure of the EAGGF (in other words, it must be entered in the EAGGF accounts).
Kommissionen præciserede, at dens tjenestegrene ville foretage de nødvendige undersøgelser, bl.a. over for AIMA, med henblik på at afgøre, hvor den sikkerhedsstillelse, som var blevet inddraget af AIMA, faktisk var endt.
The Commission stated that its officials would make the necessary investigations, in particular at AIMA, in order to determine the actual recipient of the security retained by AIMA.
Ved skrivelse af 22. januar 1996 anmodede de fire sagsøgere AIMA om at indfri deres fordringer på DAI, idet de gjorde gældende, at AIMA havde opnået en ulovlig berigelse ved modtagelsen af sikkerheden.
By letter of 22 January 1996 the four applicants requested AIMA to honour the debts owed to them by DAI. They contended that AIMA had obtained unjust enrichment through payment of the security.
AIMA afviste dette krav med den begrundelse, at sikkerheden tilkom organet, og at producenterne ikke kunne rejse noget direkte krav mod det om indfrielse af deres fordringer på DAI.
AIMA rejected that complaint, pointing out that it was entitled to the security and that the producers had no right to bring a direct action against it for payment of the debts owed to them by DAI.
Den 16. februar 1996 anlagde sagsøgerne ved Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italien) sag mod AIMA med påstand om, at organet havde opnået en ugrundet berigelse.
On 16 February 1996 the applicants brought an action before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italy), against AIMA for unjust enrichment.
Ved skrivelse af 8. december 1997 underrettede Kommissionen sagsøgerne om resultaterne af undersøgelsen af AIMA’s forhold.
By letter of 8 December 1997, the Commission informed the applicants of the results of its investigations at AIMA.
AIMA havde meddelt Kommissionen, at organet den 21. februar 1991 havde hævet den betalingsanvisning på 1 047 084 185 ITL (540 774 EUR), som var blevet udstedt af Assedile den 16. januar 1990, og at organet havde regnskabsført dette beløb — »som formentlig svarede til den stillede sikkerhed« — til fordel for EUGFL i regnskabsåret 1991.
AIMA had notified it that on 21 February 1991 it had redeemed the bank draft amounting to ITL 1 047 084 185 (EUR 540 774) issued in the name of Assedile on 16 January 1990 and that it had entered that amount in the EAGGF accounts in 1991 as ‘probably cor -responding to the security’.
Den 13. november 1996 indgav sagsøgerne en klage til Kommissionen over AIMA’s hævdede tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsbestemmelserne, navnlig forordning nr. 2499/82, og anmodede Kommissionen om at opfordre AIMA og Den Italienske Republik til at godtgøre dem de beløb, de ikke havde modtaget i fællesskabsstøtte for vinproduktionsåret 1982/1983.
On 13 November 1996 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Commission. They alleged that AIMA had infringed Community regulations, in particular Regulation No 2499/82, and requested the Commission to call on AIMA and the Italian Republic to repay them the amounts which they had not received by way of Community aid for the 1982/83 wine year.
Ved skrivelse af 25. juni 1997 meddelte Kommissionen sagsøgerne, at Assedile havde udbetalt sikkerheden med tillæg af renter til AIMA den 16. januar 1990.
By letter of 25 June 1997 the Commission informed the applicants that Assedile had paid AIMA the amount of the security, plus interest, on 16 January 1990.
Kommissionen tilføjede, at vedkommende interventionsorgan ifølge artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning
It added that under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 352/78 any security which is forfeited is to be used
Ved skrivelse af 23. januar 1998, indgået til Kommissionen den 5. februar 1998, anmodede sagsøgerne denne institution om at udbetale dem et beløb svarende til deres fordringer på DAI, med den begrundelse, at den sikkerhed, som var blevet udbetalt til AIMA, var blevet tilbageført til EUGFL.
By letter of 23 January 1998, which reached the Commission on 5 February 1998, the applicants requested that institution to pay them the sum corresponding to the amount of the debts owed to them by DAI on the ground that the security retained by AIMA had been refunded to the EAGGF.
Sagsøgerne gjorde gældende, at det fulgte af formålet med forordning nr. 2499/82, som var at tilgodese vinproducenterne, at disse skulle anses for de egentlige og eneste modtagere af den støtte, som er omfattet af forordningen.
They argued that it was clear from the purpose of Regulation No 2499/82, which was to benefit wine producers, that the latter should be regarded as the actual and sole intended recipients of the aid provided for in that regulation.
Det valg, som er overladt medlemsstaterne med hensyn til de fremgangsmåder for interventionsorganets udbetaling af støtten, som er omhandlet i forordningens artikel 9 og 10, måtte ikke bringe opfyldelsen af dette formål i fare. Navnlig skulle den sikkerhed, destilleriet var forpligtet til at stille i forbindelse med den procedure, som er omhandlet i den nævnte forordnings artikel 9, sikre, at den forebyggende destillation i
The choice afforded to Member States between the procedures provided for in Articles 9 and 10 respectively of that regulation for payment of the aid by the intervention agency could not undermine that purpose.
det hele forløb forskriftsmæssigt, bl.a. for så vidt angik den faktiske udbetaling af støtten til producenterne.
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS the distiller was intended to ensure that the preventive distillation operation as a whole was in order, in particular as regards actual payment of the aid to producers.
Enhver anden fortolkning ville ifølge sagsøgerne udgøre en tilsidesættelse af ligebehandlingsprincippet, som er sikret ved artikel 12 EF.
Any other interpretation would amount to a breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 12 EC.
Sagsøgerne anførte, at denne opfattelse bekræftedes af de forordninger, Kommissionen løbende har udstedt, hvori der er fastsat bestemmelser om forebyggende destillation for de følgende vinproduktionsår.
That view was, they argued, confirmed by the successive Commission regulations laying down provisions relating to preventive distillation in respect of the following wine years.
Kommissionen understregede, at Tribunale civile di Roma i sin dom af 27. januar 1989, som havde opnået retskraft, ikke havde anerkendt sagsøgernes fordringsrettighed til sikkerheden.
The Commission pointed out that, in its judgment of 27 January 1989, which had acquired the force of res judicata, the Tribunale civile di Roma had not accepted that the applicants had a claim to the security.
Kommissionen udledte heraf, at sagsøgerne ikke havde nogen ret til den sikkerhedsstillelse, som var hævet af AIMA, idet en sådan ret heller ikke kunne opstå ved tilbagebetaling af beløbet til Kommissionen.
The Commission inferred from this that, as the applicants had no claim over the security retained by AIMA, there could likewise be no entitlement once that amount had been refunded to the Commission.
Kommissionen anførte subsidiært, at AIMA’s godkendelse af de kontrakter, som var indgået mellem sagsøgerne og DAI, ikke ændrede disses karakter af privatretlige aftaler.
In the alternative, the Commission observed that AIMA’s approval of the contracts entered into between the applicants and DAI did not alter the private law nature of those contracts.
Kommissionens påståede forpligtelser over for sagsøgerne udsprang derfor ikke af en kontrakt.
It followed that the Commission’s alleged obligations with regard to the applicants were of a noncontractual nature.
Følgelig var ethvert krav på Fællesskabet forældet i medfør af artikel 46 i Domstolens statut, idet sikkerheden var blevet udbetalt til AIMA den 16. januar 1990 og tilbageført til EUGFL i løbet af regnskabsåret 1991.
Consequently, any action against the Community was timebarred under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, as the security was paid to AIMA on 16 January 1990 and refunded to the EAGGF during the 1991 financial year.
I øvrigt fremgår det af sagsøgernes skriftlige svar på spørgsmål fra Retten, at den sag om ugrundet berigelse, som var anlagt ved Tribunale civile di Cagliari, blev udsat med henblik på at finde en mindelig løsning mellem parterne med hensyn til sagsomkostningerne. Dette skete på grundlag af udfaldet af Kommissionens undersøgelse, som er nævnt ovenfor i punkt 37.
Moreover, according to the applicants’ written replies to the questions from the Court of First Instance, the proceedings for unjust enrichment brought before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari were suspended in order to enable the parties to reach amicable agreement on the apportionment of the costs, following the results of the Commission investigation mentioned in point 37 above.
Denne undersøgelse havde vist, at AIMA — i modsætning til, hvad organet havde hævdet før indledningen af den nævnte procedure og under denne procedure — havde tilbageført et beløb svarende til sikkerheden til EUGFL.
That investigation had revealed that AIMA had, contrary to what it claimed before and during the abovementioned proceedings, refunded the security to the EAGGF.
Ifølge sagsøgerne havde proceduren mistet enhver relevans, idet det var klart, at AIMA følgelig ikke kunne have opnået nogen ugrundet berigelse.
In the applicants’ view, those proceedings had thereby become devoid of purpose, since it was apparent that AIMA therefore could not have gained any unjust enrichment.
Ved skrivelse af 31. juli 1998, underskrevet af generaldirektøren for Kommissionens Generaldirektorat for Landbrug og fremkommet til sagsøgerne den 14. august 1998 (herefter »den anfægtede skrivelse«), afviste Kommissionen denne anmodning.
By letter of 31 July 1998, signed by the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture, which reached the applicants on 14 August 1998 (‘the contested letter’), the Commission rejected that request.
Kommissionen gjorde gældende, at støtten — i forbindelse med den fremgangsmåde for udbetaling af støtte til destilleriet, som var blevet anvendt i sagen — i første række tilfaldt destilleriet som kompensation for den høje opkøbspris på vin.
It maintained that, under the procedure for payment of the aid to the distiller applicable in the present case, the aid was primarily for the benefit of the distiller, enabling him to offset the high buyingin price of the wine.
Sikkerheden var stillet til fordel for AIMA, og producenterne kunne ikke gøre noget krav herpå.
The security was made out for the benefit of AIMA, and the producers could not claim any rights to that security.
Det valg, medlemsstaterne har mellem denne fremgangsmåde (som er fastlagt i artikel 9 i forordning nr. 2499/82) og fremgangsmåden med direkte udbetaling af støtten til producenten (i henhold til forordningens artikel 10), kunne ikke føre til, at disse to bestemmelser skulle undergives en ensartet fortolkning, hvorefter producenterne altid anses for modtagere af støtten.
The choice afforded to Member States between that procedure (provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82) and the procedure for direct payment of the aid to the producer (provided for in Article 10 of that regulation) did not mean that those two provisions should be interpreted uniformly as meaning that the producers were always the recipients of the aid.
Kommissionen anførte desuden, at forskellen mellem de to ordninger ikke var i strid med ligebehandlingsprincippet, idet den var begrundet i faktiske forskelle (forskellige administrative ordninger og den omstændighed, at antallet af producenter varierer fra medlemsstat til medlemsstat, hvilket i visse medlemsstater begrunder en centraliseret udbetaling af støtte til destillerierne).
Moreover, the Commission contended that the difference between the procedures did not infringe the principle of equal treatment. The difference in treatment arose out of differing factual circumstances (administrative systems and numbers of producers which differed between Member States, and which in some Member States justified centralised payment of the aid to distillers).
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SHARPSTON — SAG C-51/05 P til artikel 235 EF 15 — at betale sagsøgerne en erstatning svarende til deres ubetalte fordringer på DAI.
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-51/05 P and/or by way of compensation for damage within the meaning of Article 235 EC 15to pay the applicants compensation equivalent to the amounts owed to them by DAI.
Hvad angår den tredje påstand fremførte Kommissionen tre grunde til, at erstatningssøgsmålet skulle afvises.
With regard to the third head of claim, the Commission put forward three grounds of inadmissibility.
Endelig anførte sagsøgerne i et skriftligt svar på et spørgsmål fra Retten, at konkursbehandlingen var blevet afsluttet i løbet af 2000.
Lastly, in a written reply to a question from the Court of First Instance, the applicants stated that the insolvency proceedings had been concluded during 2000.
De havde opnået dividende som privilegerede kreditorer på grund af deres status som landbrugskooperativer, jf. artikel 2751a, stk. 5a, og artikel 2776 i den italienske Codice civile.
They had taken part in the distribution as preferential creditors due to their status as an agricultural cooperative, under Article 2751a(5a) and Article 2776 of the Italian Civil Code.
De havde i forbindelse med udlodningen opnået betaling af 39% af deres anmeldte fordringer på DAI.
Under that distribution they received payment of 39% of the acknowledged debts owed by DAI.
Efter udlodningen beløb den ubetalte del af fordringerne sig til 72 797 022 ITL (37 597 EUR) for så vidt angår Cantina sociale di Dolianova, til 54 412 685 ITL (28 102 EUR) for så vidt angår Cantina Trexenta, til 350 554 208 ITL (181 046 EUR) for så vidt angår Cantina sociale Marmilla, til 133 888 664 ITL (69 148 EUR) for så vidt angår Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma og til 37 212 737 ITL (19 219 EUR) for så vidt angår Cantina sociale del Vermentino.
Following that distribution, the amounts of their outstanding debts were: ITL 72 797 022 (EUR 37 597) in the case of Cantina sociale di Dolianova, ITL 54 412 685 (EUR 28 102) in the case of Cantina Trexenta, ITL 350 554 208 (EUR 181 046) in the case of Cantina sociale Marmilla, ITL 133 888 664 (EUR 69 148) in the case of Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma and ITL 37 212 737 (EUR 19 219) in the case of Cantina sociale del Vermentino.
Der var således ubetalte fordringer på i alt 648 865 316 ITL (335 094 EUR).
The total outstanding debt was thus ITL 648 865 316 (EUR 335 094).
For det første gjorde den gældende, at der i forbindelse med administrationen af de støtteforanstaltninger, som er fastsat inden for rammerne af den fælles landbrugspolitik, ikke består noget direkte forhold mellem Fællesskabet og de økonomiske aktører.
First, it argued that in the management of the support measures provided for under the common agricultural policy, there was no direct relationship between the Community and economic operators.
I denne sag havde Kommissionen således ikke udvist nogen adfærd, der opfyldte betingelserne for et søgsmål ved Domstolen i medfør af artikel 288, stk. 2, EF 17.
In the present case, there was therefore no conduct attributable to the Commission, so that the conditions for referral of the matter to the Court under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC were not met. 17
Rettens dom
The judgment of the Court of First Instance
Retten fandt, at den adfærd, som var blevet foreholdt Kommissionen, i det væsentlige bestod i, at forordning nr. 2499/82, inden
The Court of First Instance found that the conduct for which the Commission was criticised was in essence that, under the
15 — Artikel 235 EF tillægger Fællesskabets retsinstanser kompetence til at afgøre tvister vedrørende de i artikel 288, stk. 2, EF omhandlede skadeserstatninger.
15 — Article 235 EC confers jurisdiction on the Community judicature in disputes relating to compensation for damage provided for in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.
I dette stykke bestemmes, for så vidt angår ansvar uden for kontraktforhold, at »Fællesskabet i overensstemmelse med de almindelige retsgrundsætninger, der er fælles for medlemsstaternes retssystemer, [skal] erstatte skader forvoldt af dets institutioner eller af dets ansatte under udøvelsen af deres hverv«.
That paragraph provides that, in the case of noncontractual liability, ‘the Community shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by is servants in the performance of their duties’.
16 — Præmis 58-84 i Rettens dom.17 — Præmis 85.
16 — Paragraphs 58 to 84 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.