natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selskabet opretholdt bl.a. sit standpunkt om, at de kompetente toldmyndigheder havde begået aktive fejl, som selskabet ikke ville kunne påvise, hvilke fejl selskabet også sidestiller med forsømmelser, der kan skabe en særlig situation som omhandlet i toldkodeksens artikel 239.
It maintained, in particular, its position that the competent customs authorities had committed factual errors that it could not have detected, errors which it also likened to failings capable of giving rise to a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Retten frifandt Kommissionen i det hele.
The Court dismissed the action in its entirety.
Med det første anbringende gjorde appellanten gældende, at selskabets ret til forsvar var blevet tilsidesat under den administrative procedure, idet det, selv om det havde fået aktindsigt i den sagsmappe, som indeholdt de sagsakter, hvorpå Kommissionen havde baseret den anfægtede beslutning,
By the first plea in law, the appellant maintained that its rights of defence had been infringed during the administrative proced- ure in that, although it had had access to the file containing the documents on which the Commission based the contested decision, it had not had access to documents which had
Kommissionen fastslog for det første, at det var begrundet at bogføre de importafgifter, der var genstand for ansøgningen.
Firstly, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to enter in the accounts the import duties that were the subjectmatter of the claim.
Kommissionen fandt imidlertid for det andet, at det var begrundet at foretage en godtgørelse af importafgifterne for den del af ansøgningen, der vedrørte de 16 ugyldige certifikater, for så vidt som appellanten med hensyn hertil befandt sig i en særlig situation som omhandlet i toldkodeksens artikel 239.
Secondly, however, it concluded that it was appropriate to repay import duties in respect of the part of the claim relating to the 16 invalid certificates since, in that regard, the appellant was in a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Kommissionen har derimod for det tredje hvad angår de 32 omtvistede certifikater fastslået, at de omstændigheder, appellanten har påberåbt sig, ikke kunne skabe en særlig situation som omhandlet i toldkodeksens artikel 239.
Thirdly, with regard to the 32 certificates at issue, it concluded, on the other hand, that the circumstances relied on by the appellant could not give rise to a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Kommissionen har derfor i den anfægtede beslutnings artikel 2 besluttet, at det ikke var begrundet at foretage en godtgørelse af de hertil knyttede importafgifter med et beløb på 1 702 340,25 EUR.
Consequently, in Article 2 of the contested decision, the Commission decided that it was not appropriate to repay the import duties relating to those certificates, amounting to EUR 1 702 340.25.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT TRSTENJAK — SAG C-204/07 P imidlertid ikke havde fået aktindsigt i dokumenter, der havde haft en afgørende betydning for Kommissionens samlede vurdering af situationen.
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-204/07 P a decisive influence on the Commission’s overall assessment of the situation.
Med hensyn til de dokumenter, som Kommissionen lagde til grund til støtte for den omtvistede beslutning, fastslog Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 98-100, at appellanten konsulterede sagsmappen i Kommissionens lokaler og underskrev en skriftlig erklæring, hvori selskabet udtrykkeligt bekræftede at have fået aktindsigt i samtlige dokumenter, der måtte have en direkte eller indirekte forbindelse med tvisten. Denne erklæring var desuden som bilag vedlagt en liste over alle de dokumenter, hvori appellantens repræsentant havde fået indsigt.
With regard to the documents used by the Commission as the basis for the contested decision, the Court found, in paragraphs 98 to 100 of the contested judgment, that the appellant had consulted the file relating to the contested decision at the Commission’s offices and had signed a written declaration expressly confirming that access had been granted to all documents directly or indirectly connected with the matter at issue.
På grundlag af denne liste fastslog Retten, at appellanten faktisk havde fået aktindsigt i forskellige dokumenter, som selskabet angiveligt ikke kunne få aktindsigt i.
On the basis of that list, the Court concluded that the appellant had indeed consulted various documents which, according to its submissions, it had been unable to consult.
Retten forkastede dette anbringende og fastslog i den appellerede doms præmis 88, at retten til forsvar på dette område blot indebærer, at den berørte skal have mulighed for at gøre sine synspunkter gældende, i det mindste i relation til forholdene, herunder de dokumenter, som Kommissionen har baseret sin afgørelse på til skade for den pågældende, og at Kommissionen derfor ikke af egen drift skal give aktindsigt i alle dokumenter, der eventuelt måtte have relation til den sag, hvori der er forelagt en fritagelsesansøgning.
Rejecting that plea in law, the Court held, in paragraph 88 of the contested judgment, that, in that context, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence implies only that the party concerned be placed in a position in which it may effectively make its views known as regards the evidence — including the documents — used against it by the Commission as a basis for the decision, and that there is therefore no requirement for Commission, acting on its own initiative, to grant access to all the documents which may have some connection with the case at issue when an application for remission is referred to it.
Hvad angår de meddelelser, der af Kommissionen og UCLAF er udvekslet med de tyrkiske myndigheder og medlemsstaternes nationale toldmyndigheder, fastslog Retten, at der ikke var noget til støtte for at antage, at Kommissionen havde baseret den anfægtede beslutning på andre dokumenter end dem, der fremgik af den sagsmappe, hvori sagsøgeren havde fået aktindsigt under konsultationen den 6. august 2002.
As to the correspondence exchanged by the Commission and UCLAF with the Turkish authorities and the national customs authorities of the Member States, the Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the Commission based the contested decision on any documents other than those in the file to which the applicant had access at the consultation on 6 August 2002.
Det andet anbringende, som var støttet på tilsidesættelsen af toldkodeksens artikel 239 og ligeledes blev forkastet af Retten, er sammensat af fire led.
The second plea in law, which alleged infringement of Article 239 of the CCC and was also rejected by the Court of First Instance, is composed of four parts.
Det første led vedrører den urigtige kvalifikation af A.TR.1-varecer-tifikatet D 437214. Med det andet og tredje led påberåbes alvorlige forsømmelser, som
The first part concerns incorrect classification of A.TR.1 movement of goods certificate D 437214.
Retten fastslog derpå i præmis 92, at den omstændighed, at de dokumenter, hvori appellanten ikke kunne få aktindsigt under den administrative procedure, ikke udtrykkeligt var nævnt i den anfægtede beslutning, ikke udelukkede, at visse af disse dokumenter ville have kunnet danne grundlag for den anfægtede beslutning. Dette kunne ikke gælde for hele den omfattende korrespondance, hvortil appellanten havde henvist, da i det mindste et vist antal af disse dokumenter udgjorde dokumenter, der blot vedrørte den kontekst, hvori sagen indgik.
The Court then held, in paragraph 92, that the fact that the documents to which the appellant had been unable to obtain access during the administrative procedure were not expressly mentioned in the contested decision did not preclude the fact that the contested decision may have been based on some of those documents.
Med hensyn til disse »dokumenter med sammenhæng med sagen« fastslog Retten, at den eventuelle manglende meddelelse af dokumenter, der ikke havde dannet grundlag for den anfægtede beslutning, var uden relevans, da sådanne dokumenter under alle omstændigheder ikke kunne have nogen indflydelse på den anfægtede beslutning.
With regard to those documents ‘relating to the background’, the Court of First Instance held that, where documents which have not been used as the basis of a contested decision are not communicated, any failure to communicate them is irrelevant, given that such documents cannot, in any case, have any bearing on the contested decision.
Den forkastede derfor det første anbringende, for så vidt som det vedrørte manglende meddelelse af sådanne dokumenter.
Accordingly, it rejected the first plea in law as irrelevant, in so far as it concerned the failure to communicate such documents.
C.A.S. MOD KOMMISSIONEN på grund af formmangler i et tilfælde, hvor annullation kun kan medføre, at der træffes en ny afgørelse, som materielt er identisk med den annullerede (præmis 133).
C.A.S. v COMMISSION where the annulment of the decision could only lead to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the annulled decision (paragraph 133).
Endelig vedrører det fjerde led den omstændighed, at appellanten ikke har gjort sig skyldig i åbenlys forsømmelse, og vurderingen af erhvervsmæssige risici.
Lastly, the fourth part concerns lack of obvious negligence on the part of the appellant and the assessment of commercial risks.
Retten undersøgte derpå det andet anbringendes andet led, som vedrører forskellige påstande om forsømmelser, der kan tilskrives de tyrkiske myndigheder, og som i det væsentlige hviler på den opfattelse, at de nævnte myndigheder faktisk havde udstedt og påtegnet de omtvistede certifikater.
The Court then examined the second part of the second plea in law, alleging various deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities, which were essentially based on the proposition that the Turkish authorities did in fact issue and endorse the certificates at issue.
Med hensyn til det andet anbringendes første led bemærkede Retten indledningsvis, at fastlæggelsen af en vares oprindelse var et spørgsmål, hvis regulering var baseret på en kompetencefordeling mellem udførselsstatens og indførselsstatens myndigheder, idet varernes oprindelse fastlægges af udførselsstatens myndigheder, og undersøgte derpå korrespondancen mellem Kommissionen, de italienske og de tyrkiske myndigheder.
With regard to the first part of the second plea in law, the Court first recalled that determination of the origin of goods is based on a division of powers between the authorities of the exporting country and those of the importing country, origin being established by the authorities of the exporting country, and then examined the correspondence between the Commission, the Italian authorities and the Turkish authorities.
I den forbindelse konstaterede Retten i præmis 122, at Kommissionen i det væsentlige havde baseret sig på de tyrkiske myndigheders skrivelse af 8. marts 1999, rettet til toldmyndighederne i Ravenna, med hensyn til den del af den anfægtede beslutning, der vedrørte de forfalskede certifikater.
In that regard, the Court noted in paragraph 122 that the Commission based the part of its contested decision concerning the forged certificates essentially on the Turkish authorities’ letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs services.
Retten fastslog imidlertid, at en sammenligning af indholdet af denne skrivelse med indholdet af de efterfølgende meddelelser fra de tyrkiske myndigheder afslørede uklarheder med hensyn til kvalifikationen af certifikat D 437214, og at Kommissionen ikke gyldigt kunne fastslå, at certifikat D 437214 var forfalsket før vedtagelsen af den anfægtede beslutning (præmis 124 og 128).
However, the Court noted that a comparison between the wording of that letter and the wording of subsequent communications from the Turkish authorities disclosed ambiguities as to the classification of certificate D 437214 and that the Commission was not in a position properly to conclude that certificate D 437214 had been forged prior to the adoption of the contested decision (paragraphs 124 and 128).
Dette kunne med hensyn til indholdet af en skrivelse af 22. august 2003, dvs. efter vedtagelsen af den omtvistede beslutning, hvori de tyrkiske myndigheder havde bekræftet konklusionerne i deres skrivelse af 8. marts 1999, imidlertid ikke medføre annullation af den anfægtede beslutning, da appellanten ikke har en legitim interesse i at kræve annullation af en afgørelse
However, that consideration did not suffice to annul the contested decision, in the light of the content of a letter of 22 August 2003, that is, dating from the time after the decision at issue, in which the Turkish authorities confirmed their conclusions contained in their letter of 8 March 1999 because the appellant could not be regarded as having any legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision on the ground of a procedural defect
I denne henseende fastslog Retten indledningsvis i den appellerede doms præmis 150-152, at det for det første udelukkende tilkom de tyrkiske myndigheder, der havde udstedt dokumenter, at fastslå, om disse dokumenter var ægte eller forfalskede, og at disse myndigheder for det andet havde fastslået, at de omtvistede certifikater var forfalskede.
In this connection, in paragraphs 150 to 152 of the contested judgment, the Court first pointed out that, on the one hand, it lay within the exclusive competence of the Turkish authorities to determine whether documents they had issued were original or forged, and that, on the other, those author -ities had concluded that the certificates at issue were forged.
Derpå forkastede den appellantens argument, hvorefter de aftryk af stempler og underskrifter, der var påført de omtvistede certifikater, beviste, at de sandsynligvis var udstedt og godkendt af de tyrkiske myndigheder.
It then rejected the appellant’s argument that the stamps and signatures applied to the certificates at issue demonstrate that they were in all likelihood issued and authenticated by the Turkish authorities.
Desuden foreskrev hverken associeringsaftalen eller gennemførelsesbestemmelser hertil udtrykkeligt, at der skal føres registre over de af de tyrkiske myndigheder udstedte certifikater (præmis 161).
Moreover, neither the Association Agreement nor the implementation provisions expressly provide that registers of the certificates issued by the Turkish authorities are to be kept (paragraph 161).
Retten fastslog endvidere, at fremlæggelse af dokumenter, der viste sig at være falske, ikke i sig selv gjorde det muligt at fastslå, at der havde foreligget noget som helst samarbejde mellem eksportørerne og de toldmyndigheder, der havde udstedt dem
The Court further observed that presentation of documents which prove to be forgeries does not of itself permit it to be concluded that there was some kind of collusion between the exporters and the customs authorities which issued them (paragraphs 167
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT TRSTENJAK — SAG C-204/07 P
OPINION OF MS TRSTENJAK — CASE C-204/07 P view on the issue of the applicant’s due care or negligence, the Court rejected the fourth part of the second plea in law, alleging that there was no obvious negligence on the part of the appellant, as being of no consequence (paragraphs 295 and 296).
(præmis 167 og 168).
and 168).
Endelig fastslog Retten, at de tyrkiske myndigheder ikke havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser til at yde administrativ bistand, og at appellantens argumentation ikke var understøttet af noget som helst bevis (præmis 216-218).
Finally, the Court held that the Turkish authorities had not failed to fulfil their obligations to provide administrative assistance and that the appellant’s argument was not substantiated by any evidence (paragraphs 216 to 218).
Retten forkastede derpå det tredje anbringende om tilsidesættelse af toldkodeksens artikel 220, stk. 2, litra b), da appellanten ikke havde været i stand til at bevise, at de kompetente myndigheders aktive adfærd havde bidraget til udfærdigelsen eller accepten af de omtvistede certifikater, der havde vist sig at være falske (præmis 303-307).
The Court then rejected the third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, since the appellant had not been able to demonstrate that the acts of the competent authorities contributed to the issue or acceptance of the certificates at issue which proved to be forged (paragraphs 303 to 307).
Krævede foranstaltninger med henblik på sagens tilrettelæggelse og bevisoptagelse
Measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry requested
I denne henseende henviste Retten indledningsvis til de undersøgelser, som UCLAF havde foretaget i Tyrkiet, og fastslog, at der ikke var ført bevis for, at Kommissionen var stødt på vanskeligheder inden for rammerne af den administrative bistand, der var aftalt med Republikken Tyrkiet, som begrundede en henvendelse til associeringsrådet eller Det Blandede Udvalg for Toldunionen (præmis 238-240).
In this regard, the Court first recalled the investigations conducted by UCLAF in Turkey and held that it had not been established that the Commission had encountered difficulties concerning the administrative assistance agreed upon with the Republic of Turkey which would have justified a reference to the Association Council or the Customs Union Joint Committee (paragraphs 238 to 240).
Retten var derpå af den opfattelse, at hverken associeringsaftalen eller associeringsrådets afgørelser eller de relevante fællesskabsbestemmelser foreskrev nogen forpligtelse til at meddele aftryk af stempler og underskrifter mellem de kontraherende parter (præmis 249-257), til at underrette importørerne, når der var tvivl om, hvorvidt de toldmæssige transaktioner, der blev foretaget af importørerne i henhold til en præferenceordning, var lovlige (præmis 270), eller til, at UCLAF anvendte en bestemt undersøgelsesmetode (præmis 284).
The Court then held that neither the Association Agreement, nor the decisions of the Association Council, nor the applicable Community legislation laid down any obligation for specimens of stamps and signatures to be sent from one Contracting Party to another (paragraphs 249 to 257), for importers to be warned of doubts as to the validity of customs transactions effected by those importers under the system of preferential treatment (paragraph 270) or for a specific method of investigation to be adopted by UCLAF (paragraph 284).
Det andet anbringendes fjerde led, som vedrører den omstændighed, at appellanten
Having found that, in the part of the contested decision dealing with forged certificates, the Commission did not express its
Endelig afviste Retten de tilbudte beviser og den af appellanten begærede bevisoptagelse, da de enten savnede genstand eller hverken var relevante eller nødvendige med henblik på sagens afgørelse (præmis 314-333).
Finally, the Court of First Instance rejected the evidence offered and the measures of inquiry requested by the appellant either as having no purpose or as being neither relevant nor necessary for the purpose of ruling in the case (paragraphs 314 to 333).
C — Retsforhandlingerne ved Domstolen og parternes påstande
C — Proceedings before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties
Appellanten har iværksat den foreliggende appel ved appelskrift af 13. april 2007, registreret på Domstolens Justitskontor den 16. april 2007.
By application of 13 April 2007 lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 16 April 2007, the appellant brought the present appeal.
— De af Kommissionen i første instans nedlagte påstande tages i det hele til følge.
— uphold in their entirety the forms of order which the Commission sought at first instance; and
— Dommen afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 6. februar 2007 i sag T-23/03 ophæves.
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 in Case T-23/03;
— De i første instans nedlagte påstande tages til følge, subsidiært hjemvises sagen til Retten i Første Instans til afgørelse.
— grant the form of order sought at first instance; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance;
Ved kendelse afsagt den 30. juli 2007 fastslog Domstolens præsident, at det ikke er nødvendigt at afgive replik i sagen.
By order of 30 July 2007, the President of the Court of Justice found that the submission of a reply was not necessary.
— De begæringer om iværksættelse af foranstaltninger med henblik på sagens tilrettelæggelse, som appellanten har fremsat ved skrivelser af 28. januar 2003, 4. august 2003 og 11. august 2003, tages til følge.
— allow the applications for measures of organisation of procedure made by the appellant by documents of 28 January 2003, 4 August 2003 and 11 August 2003;
Efter den skriftlige forhandling blev der afholdt mundtlig forhandling den 10. januar 2008, hvorunder parterne afgav mundtlige indlæg.
After the written procedure, a hearing took place on 10 January 2008 at which the parties made their oral observations.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse er der i betragtning af, at Retten fastslog, at det ikke var bevist, at de tyrkiske myndigheder havde deltaget i forfalskningen af de omtvistede certifikater, ingen grund til at drage opgavefordelingen mellem de tyrkiske toldmyndigheder og Fællesskabets toldmyndigheder i tvivl.
The Commission contends that, in view of the fact that the Court of First Instance concluded that no involvement of the Turkish authorities in forging the certificates at issue has been established, there is no reason to doubt the division of responsibilities between the Turkish and the Community customs authorities.
Indledningsvis har Kommissionen anført, at appellen står og falder med den forudsætning, at de omtvistede certifikater ikke er forfalskede.
By way of an introductory observation, the Commission points out that the appeal stands or falls by the premise that the certificates at issue are not forged.
Retten fastslog i den appellerede dom, at de 32 omtvistede A.TR.1-certifikater er falske og ikke udstedt af de tyrkiske toldmyndigheder.
The Court of First Instance found in the contested judgment that the 32 A.TR.1 certificates at issue were forged and were not issued by the Turkish customs authorities.
Appellen indebærer, at disse faktiske omstændigheder, som Retten har lagt til grund, bestrides, og må derfor afvises.
The appeal effectively disputes that finding of fact by the Court of First Instance and is therefore inadmissible.
Desuden har Kommissionen fremført forskellige formalitetsindsigelser vedrørende visse anbringender.
In addition, the Commission raises various objections of inadmissibility against particular grounds of the appeal.
Med det andet anbringende har appellanten gjort gældende, at Retten med urette har fundet, at retten til aktindsigt kun vedrørte dokumenter, som Kommissionen havde lagt til grund for sin omtvistede beslutning.
By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the right of access to documents relates only to documents on which the Commission based the decision at issue.
Fortrolige dokumenter skulle ligeledes være omfattet af retten til aktindsigt. Kommissionen skulle i det mindste tilkendegive, at der forelå fortrolige dokumenter, og vedlægge en ikke-fortrolig sammenfatning.
The right of access to documents should also apply to confidential documents.
Kommissionen har hertil anført, at appellantens argument ikke har noget grundlag i fællesskabsretten.
The Commission replies that the appellant’s argument has no basis in Community law.