natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I den henseende er jeg derfor enig med den belgiske regering i, at den manglende præcision betød, at den omstændighed, at det angivne areal var større end GIS-arealet, ikke i sig selv kunne anses for en »afvigelse, som tyder på, at der er fejl i støtteansøgningen«, og som under alle omstændigheder gjorde det nødvendigt enten at beregne støttebeløbet ud fra GIS-arealet eller at gennemføre kontrol på stedet.
In that sense, I therefore agree with the Belgian Government that, in view of that lack of precision, a positive discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area could not per se be considered to be ‘an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in the application’, such as to require, in any event, either calculation of the amount of the aid on the basis of the GIS area or an on-the-spot check.
Selv om de belgiske myndigheder ifølge de bestemmelser, der gjaldt i det omhandlede tidsrum, ikke var forpligtet til at kontrollere markernes nøjagtige areal allerede ved den administrative kontrol, mener jeg derfor, at det var forkert af Retten ikke at tage hensyn til, at arealdataene i GIS var upræcise, hvilket er ubestridt i sagen 56.
If, then, it was not possible to identify from the rules in force during the material period, an obligation incumbent upon the Belgian authorities to determine the exact area of the agricultural parcels already at the stage of the administrative checks, I consider that the Court of First Instance erred in failing to attach significance to the lack of precision of area data produced by the GIS, which is common ground in these proceedings.
Den belgiske regering har indgående forklaret — først under den administrative procedure, dernæst for Retten og til sidst for Domstolen — hvorfor GIS-arealet ikke nødvendigvis svarede præcist til markernes faktiske areal.
57 The Belgian Government has set out at length — first during the administrative procedure, then before the Court of First Instance and finally before the Court of Justice — the reasons why the GIS area did not necessarily exactly reflect the true area of the agricultural parcels.
Den har gjort opmærksom på ulemperne ved, at markerne indtegnes manuelt, at de grafiske data om markerne indlæses i GIS, hvilket ikke er optimalt, og at der anvendes luftfotos, der kan være af ældre data, og disse ulemper er hverken blevet bestridt af Kommissionen eller tilbagevist af Retten.
It mentioned problems linked to the fact that the outline of the parcels was traced by hand, the less than optimum graphic encoding of that tracing in the GIS and the use of older aerial photographic images — problems which were in no way challenged by the Commission or refuted by the Court of First Instance.
Muligheden for at beregne støttebeløbet på grundlag af et mindre areal end det angivne fremgik i det omhandlede tidsrum af artikel 9, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3887/92. Det bestemmes i første afsnit, første punktum, i dette stykke, at støttebeløbet beregnes på grundlag af det areal, der er fastslået under kontrollen, når dette areal er mindre end det, der er angivet i støtteansøgningen.
The calculation of the amount of the aid on the basis of an area that has been reduced, as compared with the declared area, is a measure which was provided for at the material time by Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, the first sentence of the first subparagraph of which indicates that if the area actually determined is found to be less than that declared, the area actually determined on inspection is to be used for calculation of the aid.
Men som den belgiske regering har påpeget, fastslog Domstolen i præmis 48 i Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch-dommen, at »formålet med artikel 9, stk. 2, første og andet afsnit, i forordning nr. 3887/92 er at sammenligne angivelserne i støtteansøgningen og resultatet af den på stedet foretagne kontrol« 57. Den sidstnævnte henvisning synes at præcisere den generelle henvisning til »en kontrol [foretaget af de kompetente myndigheder]« i samme doms præmis 40, som Kommissionen har påberåbt sig, og hvorefter det fremgår af
However, as the Belgian Government has pointed out, in paragraph 48 of the abovementioned judgment in Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, the Court held that ‘the first and second subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 seek to establish a comparison between the statements made in the aid application and the result of the on-the-spot checks’, 58the latter reference apparently clarifying the more general reference to ‘checks carried
Når de belgiske myndigheder var nødt til at drage de fornødne konklusioner af arealdataene i GIS, kunne de efter min mening ikke undlade at tage hensyn til disse datas beskaffenhed og til det forhold, at de ikke var præcise. GIS-systemet skulle nærmere bestemt tages for det, det var, eftersom det ikke kan lægges de belgiske myndigheder til last og ikke blev lagt dem til last, at systemet burde være anderledes, end det var.
While it true that the Belgian authorities should have drawn the appropriate conclusions from the area data produced by the GIS, it seems to me to be equally true that they had inevitably to take account of the nature of that data and, therefore, also of the fact that it was imprecise.
56 — Jf. den appellerede dom, præmis 48.
57 — See judgment under appeal, paragraph 48.
57 — Min fremhævelse.
58 — Case C-417/00, paragraph 48.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-418/06 P bestemmelserne i artikel 9, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3887/92, at »konstateringen af en forskel mellem det angivne areal og det areal, som fastslås af de kompetente myndigheder under en kontrol, i sig selv medfører anvendelse af en sanktion«.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-418/06 P out by the competent authorities’ contained in paragraph 40 of that same judgment and cited by the Commission, according to which it is clear from Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 that ‘the finding of a difference between the area declared and the area actually determined in the course of checks carried out by the competent authorities entails, by itself, the application of a penalty’.
som Retten bekræftede, nemlig at de belgiske myndigheder, når det angivne areal var større end GIS-arealet, enten burde have nedsat arealet eller have foretaget en kontrol på stedet.
of First Instance endorsed, according to which, when faced with a positive discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area, the Belgian authorities ought either to have reduced the area or to have carried out an on-the-spot check is clearly self-contra-dictory.
Hvis det antages, at GIS-arealet er et »areal, der er fastslået«, i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3887/92, vil en sådan afvigelse ifølge denne bestemmelse kun bevirke, at arealet (og dermed støttebeløbet) nedsættes, og ikke at der iværksættes kontrol på stedet.
If, in fact, the GIS area is regarded as an ‘area actually determined’, within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, then, pursuant to Article 9(2), a discrepancy of that nature could give rise only to a reduction in the area (and, consequently, in the amount of the aid) but not to an on-the-spot check.
Åbner man derimod mulighed for at iværksætte kontrol på stedet for at kontrollere det faktiske areal, svarer det indirekte til ikke at anerkende GIS-arealet som et »areal, der er fastslået«.
However, to consider the alternative of an on-the-spot check to be permissible for the purpose of determining the true area, implies refusal to accord the GIS area the status of an ‘area actually determined’.
Jeg mener derfor i lighed med den belgiske regering, at det i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 3887/92 kun er muligt at beregne støttebeløbet på grundlag af et mindre areal end det angivne, hvis arealet opmåles i forbindelse med en kontrol på stedet.
It therefore seems to me that, as the Belgian Government maintains, according to Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, the calculation of the amount of the aid on the basis of an area which is reduced, as compared with the declared area, is possible only if the area has been measured during an on-the-spot check.
Selv om jeg ikke mener, at den positive forskel mellem det angivne areal og GIS-arealet i sig selv krævede, at de belgiske myndigheder traf de manglende foranstaltninger, må jeg dog tilslutte mig de klagepunkter, som den belgiske regering har fremsat mod Rettens vurdering af, at de belgiske myndigheder ikke reagerede hensigtsmæssigt, da denne forskel blev konstateret.
Moreover, if I consider that a positive discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area did not of itself require the Belgian authorities to adopt the measures omitted, then I also consider to be justified the complaints which the Belgian Government has made in relation to the view taken by the Court of First Instance that the Belgian Government’s response to the identification of that discrepancy was, in any event, inappropriate.
I den foreliggende sag kan man under alle omstændigheder lade dette spørgsmål stå åbent.
In any event, as far as these proceedings are concerned, that question may be left open.
Selv om det antages, at den omhandlede bestemmelse også omfatter tilfælde, hvor arealet fastlægges i forbindelse med en administrativ kontrol, mener jeg imidlertid ikke, at det i betragtning af GIS-syste-mets konkrete egenskaber og formålet med dette system, som de belgiske myndigheder anvendte i det omhandlede tidsrum, og som overholdt de daværende fællesskabsbestemmelser, reelt er muligt at betragte GIS-arealet som det »areal, der er fastslået«, i denne bestemmelses forstand.
In fact, while acknowledging that that rule also covers the possibility of the area being actually determined during an administrative check, it really does not seem to me to be possible, in the light of the specific characteristics and purpose of the GIS which the Belgian authorities used during the material period, and which complied with the Community rules then in force, to regard the GIS area as an ‘area actually determined’, within the meaning of Article 9(2).
Jeg må i øvrigt påpege, at der er en klar selvmodsigelse i Kommissionens synspunkt,
I would, moreover, point out that the Commission’s position, which the Court
Jeg vil indledningsvis minde om, at det i præmis 58 i den appellerede dom blev fastslået, at et af de parametre, som de belgiske myndigheder i det omhandlede tidsrum benyttede i forbindelse med deres risikoanalyse med henblik på at udvælge de sager, der skulle gøres til genstand for kontrol på stedet, var forskellen mellem det angivne areal og
It should first be pointed out that, as stated in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, during the material period, in the context of the risk analysis designed to identify which files should be subject to an on-the-spot check, the Belgian authorities applied, among other criteria, the criterion of a discrepancy between the area declared
Den belgiske regering har præciseret, at dette kriterium har haft stor betydning for risikoanalysen.
The Belgian Government explained that significant weight was attached to that criterion in the context of the risk analysis.
Som nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 58 er det ubestridt, at der i det omhandlede tidsrum blev foretaget kontrol på stedet for 10% af ansøgningerne om arealstøtte, dvs. for dobbelt så mange ansøgninger som krævet i artikel 6, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 3887/92.
As is clear from paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, it is common ground that, during the material period, on-the-spot checks were carried out on 10% of area aid applications, double the minimum percentage required under Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92.
Retten fandt det dog ikke acceptabelt, at det ifølge dette parameter kun var sager, hvor den positive eller negative afvigelse overskred en tolerancetærskel på 5%, der blev taget hensyn til ved risikoanalysen 58.
However, the Court of First Instance considered to be unacceptable the fact that only the files in which that discrepancy, whether positive or negative, exceeded a 5% tolerance margin were taken into consideration, pursuant to that criterion, in the context of the risk analysis.
Det er derfor min opfattelse, at Retten har gjort sig skyldig i urigtig retsanvendelse, idet den i den foreliggende sag i medfør af artikel 8 i forordning nr. 3508/92 samt
I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it found, in this case, pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation No 3508/92 and Articles 6(1) and 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, and with reference
59 — Retten understregede i den appellerede doms præmis 60, at de udtrykkelige fællesskabsbestemmelser om, at der kan anvendes en tolerancetærskel ved måling på stedet, er begrundet i, at »måleudstyret har visse tekniske begrænsninger«.
60 — The Court of First Instance pointed out, at paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, that the application of a tolerance margin in the context of on-the-spot checks, expressly provided for under the Community rules, is justified ‘because of the technical limitations of the instrument of measurement’.
Her er jeg enig med den belgiske regering i, at når det i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 7, i forordning nr. 3887/92 er tilladt at anvende en tolerancetærskel med henblik på opmåling af markarealer på stedet, var der intet til hinder for, at de belgiske myndigheder også i forbindelse med den administrative kontrol benyttede sig af deres frie og uomtvistelige ret til at anvende en tolerancetærskel baseret på arealdata, der stammede fra et system som GIS, der var kendetegnet ved en række klare
On that point, I concur with the Belgian Government when it points out that, if a tolerance margin is permitted for the purposes of measuring on the spot the area of agricultural parcels, pursuant to Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92, there was nothing to prohibit the Belgian authorities from applying a tolerance margin in the context of an administrative check which was based, at the unexceptionable and freelytaken decision of those authorities, on area data obtained using a system, the GIS, which displayed unquestionable technical limita-
60 — Jf. navnlig præmis 45 og 61 i stævningen i første instans og præmis 58 i den appellerede dom.
61 — See, in particular, paragraphs 45 and 61 of the application to the Court of First Instance, as well as paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal.
For øvrigt var det, som den belgiske regering gjorde gældende, og Kommissionen ikke bestred over for Retten, ikke særlig problematisk at anvende en tolerancetærskel i forbindelse med den administrative kontrol, fordi det samlede areal, der var angivet for Belgien, under alle omstændigheder var mindre end det samlede GIS-areal i det omhandlede tidsrum.
The application of a tolerance margin in the context of the administrative checks appears, moreover, to be all the less problematical in that, as the Belgian Government stated before the Court of First Instance — and the Commission did not dispute this — during the material period, the total area declared for Belgium was, in any event, smaller than the total GIS area.
58 — Præmis 60 og 61 i den appellerede dom.
59 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 60 and 61.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-418/06 P appellerede doms præmis 68, forelagde Retten flere argumenter med henblik på at tilbagevise klagepunktet om dataindlæsningen og ikke som oplyst i denne præmis kun påstod, at »risikoanalysen var baseret på samtlige kriterier med undtagelse af kriteriet om den forsinkede indlæsning, og at indlæsningen fandt sted inden den 31. august for dem, der udgjorde en risiko« 61.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-418/06 P to the first complaint which the Commission addressed to the appellant, that the Commission had adduced sufficient evidence of the existence of serious and reasonable doubt concerning the effectiveness of the controls carried out by the Belgian authorities during the material period.
Jeg mener derfor, at den appellerede dom bør ophæves på dette punkt.
In my view, the judgment under appeal should, therefore, be set aside in that respect.
Appellanten havde imidlertid fremsat en række andre argumenter mod dette klagepunkt i førsteinstanssagen.
In the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the appellant in fact advanced other arguments as well to refute that complaint.
b) Anbringendets fjerde led (klagepunktet om den forsinkede indlæsning af grafiske data) i) Parternes argumenter
(b) The fourth limb of the ground of appeal (the complaint based on late graphic data input)
Appellanten havde for det første understreget, at den risikoanalyse, der blev foretaget efter den 31. august, var lige så grundig som den, der blev foretaget før den dato, og at de belgiske myndigheder i øvrigt ikke havde taget hensyn til denne dato, som ikke fremgik af nogen bestemmelse.
In the first place, the appellant had pointed out that the risk analysis made after 31 August had been just as effective as the risk analysis made prior to that date — a date which was not, moreover, taken into consideration by the Belgian authorities, since it was not prescribed by any of the legislation.
Selv i de tilfælde, hvor de grafiske markdata var indlæst i GIS efter den 31. august, blev det areal, der var angivet
In point of fact, even if the agricultural parcels were graphically encoded in the GIS after 31 August, the area declared would have been compared with the GIS area for each file, and those files relating to groups
BELGIEN MOD KOMMISSIONEN i forbindelse med hver sag, sammenlignet med GIS-arealet, og sagerne vedrørende de afgrødegrupper, hvor der var størst forskel mellem de to arealer, indgik ifølge dette kriterium i risikoanalysen og blev i givet fald udvalgt til kontrol på stedet.
BELGIUM v COMMISSION of crops displaying the greatest discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area would have been taken into consideration, in accordance with that criterion, in the risk analysis and, if necessary, selected for on-the-spot checks.
Klagepunktet sigtede ikke til, at kontrollen på stedet var gennemført for sent, men til, at det som følge af den forsinkede indlæsning af grafiske data var umuligt at gennemføre den administrative kontrol rettidigt, hvilket betød, at der ikke kunne foretages en hensigtsmæssig efterfølgende kontrol på stedet.
63 The complaint therefore related not to the late conduct of on thespot checks, but to the fact that delays in graphic data input meant that it was impossible to carry out the administrative checks in due time, and that made it impossible to carry out the additional on-the-spot checks appropriately.
Kommissionen har påpeget, at de belgiske myndigheder selv har erkendt, at den pågældende forsinkelse fik betydning for, hvilke støtteansøgninger der blev udvalgt i forbindelse med risikoanalysen.
The Commission points out that the Belgian authorities themselves recognised that the delays had an effect on the selection of aid applications in the context of the risk analysis.
Appellanten havde for det andet, hvilket Kommissionen ikke bestred, gjort gældende, at datoen den 31. august var uden betydning for gennemførelsen af den fysiske kontrol på stedet, fordi den kontrol, der fandt sted efter denne dato, var lige så grundig som den, der fandt sted før.
Secondly, the appellant had pointed out, without this being disputed by the Commission, that the date of 31 August had no particular relevance as far as the carrying out of physical on-the-spot checks was concerned, since the checks carried out after that date were just as effective as those carried out before it.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT MENGOZZI — SAG C-418/06 P dataene blev indlæst efter den 31. august, på ingen måde forhindrede, at den pågældende sag indgik i risikoanalysen, eller at der blev iværksat kontrol på stedet, selv om det skete efter denne dato.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-418/06 P concerned in the risk analysis or the carrying out of on-the-spot checks, albeit after that date.
Klagepunktet om den forsinkede indlæsning af grafiske data — dvs. provinsmyndighedens teknikers indlæsning i GIS-systemet af de marker, som landbrugerne havde indtegnet manuelt på luftfotos — der er beskrevet i Kommissionens sammenfattende rapport og omhandlet i den appellerede doms præmis 65, støttes på følgende ræsonnement: De sager, hvor de grafiske data ikke var blevet indlæst inden udgangen af august, kunne hverken indgå i risikoanalysen eller udvælges til kontrol på stedet.
The complaint concerning delays in the abovementioned graphic data input — that is to say the entering into the GIS, by a technician from the Bureau provincial, of the outline of the agricultural parcels traced by hand by farmers on the aerial photographic images — as formulated in the Commission’s summary report and recorded in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, is based on the following reasoning: those files in respect of which graphic data input had not been completed by the end of August could not be taken in account in the risk analysis or selected for an on-the-spot check.
Appellanten havde endvidere præciseret, at det ikke er omsonst at gennemføre kontrollen i september og oktober, selv om høsten er overstået, og fremført en række begrundelser til støtte for denne påstand (jf. punkt 97 ovenfor) 64.
The appellant had, moreover, made it clear that the on-the-spot checks could also usefully be carried out during the months of September and October, even after the harvest, and had set out reasons in support of that assertion (see point 97 above). 65
Hertil anførte appellanten dog flere gange under førsteinstanssagen 63, at det angivne areal også var blevet sammenlignet med GIS-arealet i de sager, hvor indlæsningen af grafiske data havde fundet sted efter den 31. august, og at ansøgningerne vedrørende de afgrødegrupper, hvor forskellen mellem de to arealer var størst, ligesom det skete for de ansøgninger, hvor de grafiske data var indlæst inden denne dato, var blevet undersøgt som led i risikoanalysen og eventuelt udvalgt til fysisk kontrol på stedet.
On that point, the appellant had in fact argued, however, on several occasions during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, 64in particular, that for those files in respect of which the graphic data input in question was completed after 31 August, the areas declared and GIS areas were compared, and, as in the case of the files for which graphic data input had been completed before that date, the applications for groups of crops which displayed more marked differences between the areas declared and GIS areas were reviewed in the context of a risk analysis and may have been selected for physical on-the-spot checks.
Retten fastslog derfor fejlagtigt i den appellerede doms præmis 68, at appellanten med hensyn til påstanden om, at det som følge af den forsinkede indlæsning af grafiske data ikke var muligt at gennemføre den administrative kontrol i tide og dermed at gennemføre kontrol på stedet, »blot [havde bemærket], at risikoanalysen var baseret på samtlige kriterier med undtagelse af kriteriet om [forskellen mellem det angivne areal og GIS-arealet] 65, og at indlæsningen fandt sted inden den 31. august for dem, der udgjorde en risiko«.
Consequently, in paragraph 68 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance wrongly found that — as regards the alleged impossibility of carrying out in due time administrative checks and, therefore, on-the-spot checks, because of the delays in graphic data input — the applicant ‘[had] merely asserted that the risk analysis [had been] made on the basis of all the criteria other than that [of the discrepancy between the area declared and the GIS area], 66and … those which posed a risk were subject to accelerated graphic data input before 31 August’.
Hertil kommer de argumenter, der er nævnt i punkt 102-104 ovenfor, og som
The arguments cited in points 102 to 104 above, on which the Court of First
Med dette argument påpegede appellanten i det væsentlige, at det forhold, at
By that argument, the appellant is essentially pointing out that graphic data input completed after 31 August had in no way precluded either the inclusion of the file
64 — Jf. punkt 80 i den stævning, der blev indgivet til Retten.65 — Jf. fodnote 62 ovenfor.
65 — See paragraph 80 of the application to the Court of First Instance.