natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen kan i henhold til artikel 52, stk. 2, i afgørelse nr. 1/95 rette henvendelse til Det Blandede Udvalg, såfremt der opstår vanskeligheder for Fællesskabet eller Republikken Tyrkiet ved aftalens gennemførelse.
Thus, under Article 52(2) of Decision No 1/95, the Commission may call upon the Joint Committee where difficulties arise for the Community or the Republic of Turkey in the implementation of that decision.
Kommissionen råder endvidere over en fast repræsentation i Tyrkiet, hvilket i hvert fald gør det muligt for den at være behørigt informeret om denne stats juridiske udvikling og navnlig anvendelsen af nævnte aftale.
Moreover, the Commission has a permanent representation in Turkey which enables it, at the very least, to be reliably informed of legal developments in that State and, in particular, of the stage which the implementation of that agreement has reached.
Det bemærkes ligeledes, at Kommissionen i forbindelse med sin overvågnings- og kontrolforpligtelse vedrørende den korrekte anvendelse af associeringsaftalen råder over vigtige beføjelser.
The Commission also has significant rights and powers available to it in connection with its obligation of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Således kan Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 3 i bilag 7 til afgørelse nr. 1/95 anmode de tyrkiske myndigheder om alle oplysninger, som gør det muligt for den at sikre, at toldlovgivningen anvendes korrekt.
Thus, under the provisions of Article 3 of Annex 7 to Decision No 1/95, the Commission may request from the Turkish authorities any information which may enable it to ensure that customs legislation is correctly applied.
Kommissionen kan ligeledes i henhold til artiklens stk. 4, litra a), anmode de tyrkiske myndigheder om at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at sikre, at der gennemføres særlig overvågning af fysiske eller juridiske personer, om hvem der er rimelig grund til at antage, at de overtræder eller har overtrådt toldlovgivningen.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the same article, the Commission may also request that the Turkish authorities take the necessary steps to keep a special watch on natural or legal persons of whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are breaching or have breached customs legislation.
Desuden kan Kommissionens behørigt bemyndigede tjenestemænd i henhold til bilagets artikel 7, stk. 3 og 4, i de tyrkiske toldmyndigheders kontorer indhente sådanne oplysninger vedrørende overtrædelsen af toldlovgivningen, eller efter aftale med disse myndigheder og på de i denne fastsatte betingelser være til stede ved undersøgelser, der foretages på tyrkisk område.
Furthermore, according to Article 7(3) and (4) of that annex, duly authorised Commission officials may, with the agreement and within the conditions laid down by the Turkish customs authorities, obtain from the respective offices of those authorities information relating to breaches of customs legislation or be present at inquiries carried out in Turkish territory.
Det samme gælder for artikel 15 i afgørelse nr. 1/96, hvorefter medlemsstaterne og Republikken Tyrkiet for at sikre en korrekt anvendelse af bestemmelserne i denne afgørelse bistår hinanden gennem deres toldadministrationer og inden for rammerne af den i bilag 7 i afgørelse nr. 1/95 fastsatte gensidige bistand ved kontrollen af certifikaternes ægthed og rigtighed.
The same is true of Article 15 of Decision No 1/96 according to which, in order to ensure the proper application of the provisions of that decision, the Member States and the Republic of Turkey must assist each other, through their respective customs administrations and within the framework of mutual assistance provided for in Annex 7 of Decision No 1/95, in checking the authenticity and accuracy of the certificates.
Kommissionen kan derfor ikke med føje hævde, som den har gjort under retsmødet, at den befinder sig i samme situation som appellanten med hensyn til kontrollen af de omstændigheder, som har fundet sted i et tredjeland, nemlig Tyrkiet.
Consequently, the Commission cannot reasonably claim, as it did at the hearing, that it is in the same position as the appellant as regards the checking of events which occurred in a third country, namely in Turkey.
Kommissionen skal derimod fuldt ud anvende de beføjelser, den råder over i henhold til associeringsaftalen, og de afgørelser, der er truffet med henblik på dens gennemførelse, idet den ellers tilsidesætter sine forpligtelser til overvågning og kontrol med nævnte aftales korrekte anvendelse.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to make full use of the rights and powers which it has under the provisions of the Association Agreement and the decisions adopted in respect of its implementation so as to fulfil its obligation of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Dette gælder så meget desto mere i situationer, hvor udførslerne til den samme fællesskabshavn, nemlig Ravenna, via det samme tyrkiske eksportselskab i referenceperioden efter konstateringerne i den appellerede dom er sket under dække af såvel uægte som urigtige certifikater.
Such use of its rights and powers is particularly necessary in a situation in which exports to the same Community port, namely that of Ravenna, by the same Turkish export company in the same reference period took place, according to the findings in the judgment under appeal, under cover of both irregular and inauthentic certificates.
Den fulde anvendelse af de beføjelser, som Kommissionen råder over i forbindelse med dens pligt til overvågning og kontrol med den korrekte anvendelse af associeringsaftalen, er ligeledes nødvendig, fordi de vurderinger, som de tyrkiske myndigheder anlagde med hensyn til de omtvistede certifikaters ægthed eller urigtighed, indeholder visse uklarheder eller i hvert fald visse inkonsekvenser.
The full use of the rights and powers which the Commission has in connection with its duty of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement is also called for because the assessments made by the Turkish authorities as regards the inauthentic or irregular nature of the certificates at issue show some ambiguities or, at the very least, some inconsistencies.
Som Retten har fastslået i den appellerede doms præmis 120-128, afslører en sammenligning af indholdet af de tyrkiske myndigheders skrivelse af 8. marts 1999 med indholdet af de efterfølgende meddelelser fra de tyrkiske myndigheder, såsom skrivelsen fra Tyrkiets faste repræsentation til UCLAF af 22. april 1999, uklarheder med hensyn til den påståede uægthed af certifikat D 437214.
Therefore, as the Court of First Instance stated in paragraphs 120 to 128 of the judgment under appeal, a comparison between the wording of the letter of the Turkish authorities of 8 March 1999 and that of subsequent communications from those authorities, such as the letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 22 April 1999, discloses ambiguities as to the allegedly inauthentic nature of cer -tificate D 437214.
For så vidt angår de øvrige A.TR.1-certifikater, hvis ægthed er blevet vurderet af de tyrkiske myndigheder under den efterfølgende kontrolundersøgelse, fastslog Retten, selv om de ikke omfattedes af de omtvistede certifikater, i den appellerede doms præmis 198-201, at disse også indeholdt en inkonsekvens, eftersom de tyrkiske myndigheder på forskellige trin af proceduren har kvalificeret dem som falske, urigtige eller delvis urigtige.
As regards two other A.TR.1 certificates whose authenticity was assessed by the Turkish authorities in the course of the same postclearance check, even though they are not amongst the certificates at issue, the Court of First Instance also found, in paragraphs 198 to 201 of the judgment under appeal, some inconsistencies in that the Turkish authorities had classified them, at different stages of the procedure, as falsified, incorrect and also partially incorrect.
De nævnte myndigheders anvendelse, således som det fremgår af den appellerede dom, af forskellige udtryk ved beskrivelsen af resultatet af deres kontrol af de omhandlede certifikater som bl.a. »falske« (skrivelse fra Tyrkiets faste repræsentation ved UCLAF af 10.7.1998, nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 41), »ikke korrekte og udstedt og påtegnet af de tyrkiske toldsteder« (det tyrkiske tolddirektorats skrivelse af 8.3.1999, nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 123), »ikke korrekte og […] og ikke udstedt i henhold til reglerne« (skrivelse fra Tyrkiets faste repræsentation ved
Furthermore, as is apparent from the judgment under appeal, the use by those authorities of a variety of terms to describe the outcome of their checks of the certificates, such as, inter alia ‘false’ (letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 10 July 1998, mentioned in paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal), ‘not correct and … not issued and endorsed by [the Turkish] customs office’ (letter from the Turkish General Directorate of Customs of 8 March 1999, mentioned in paragraph 123 of the judgment under appeal), ‘not correct and … not issued according to the rules’ (letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 22 April 1999, mentioned in paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal)
UCLAF af 22.4.1999, nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 124) og »ukorrekt« (det tyrkiske tolddirektorats skrivelse af 16.7.1999, nævnt i den appellerede doms præmis 200) rejste også tvivl.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION and ‘incorrect’ (letter from the Turkish General Directorate of Customs of 16 July 1999, mentioned in paragraph 200 of the judgment under appeal), also gave rise to ambiguities.
I øvrigt bemærkes, at de forskellige udtryk, som de tyrkiske myndigheder anvendte i deres korrespondance med Kommissionen og de italienske toldmyndigheder, ikke svarer til begreberne »ægthed« og »rigtighed« i artikel 11 i afgørelse nr. 5/72 og artikel 15 i afgørelse nr. 2/96.
What is more, the different terms used by the Turkish authorities in their correspondence with the Commission and the Italian customs authorities do not tally with the notions of ‘authenticity’ and ‘accuracy’ set out in Article 11 of Decision No 5/72 and Article 15 of Decision No 1/96.
Det påhvilede under disse betingelser Kommissionen inden for rammerne af dens overvågnings- og kontrolopgave ved en korrekt anvendelse af associeringsaftalen at sikre sig, at de tyrkiske myndigheder korrekt havde kvalificeret nævnte certifikater som urigtige, eller uægte.
In those circumstances, it was the task of the Commission to satisfy itself, in the course of its task of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, that the Turkish authorities had correctly classified those certificates as either irregular or inauthentic.
Det må dog fastslås, at Kommissionen ikke fuldt ud har udnyttet de beføjelser, som associeringsaftalen og gennemførelsesbestemmelserne indrømmer den.
However, clearly the Commission did not make full use of the rights and powers conferred upon it by the Association Agreement and its implementing provisions.
Selv om det er korrekt, at UCLAF gennemførte to undersøgelser i Tyrkiet henholdsvis mellem den 12. og 15. oktober 1998 og mellem den 30. november og 2. december 1998, må det først fastslås, at Retten med urette i den appellerede doms præmis 218 fastslog, at der ikke foreligger noget bevis, der giver anledning til at formode, at UCLAF ikke har kunnet foretage en dybtgående undersøgelse, navnlig hos toldmyndighederne i Mersin.
First, although it is true that UCLAF carried out two investigations in Turkey from 12 to 15 October 1998 and from 30 November to 2 December 1998, clearly the Court of First Instance erred in holding, in paragraph 218 of the judgment under appeal, that there was no conclusive evidence which would give grounds for assuming that UCLAF was not able to carry out a thorough investigation, in particular at the customs administration in Mersin.
Det fremgår klart af UCLAF’s undersøgelsesrapporter af 9. og 23. december 1998, at der ikke blandt de organisationer, som dens kontrollører besøgte i Tyrkiet, figurerer det toldkontor, hvorfra de pågældende produkter blev eksporteret til Fællesskabet, nemlig toldkontoret i Mersin.
It is clear from UCLAF’s mission reports of 9 and 23 December 1998 that the customs office from which the goods at issue were exported to the Community, namely that of Mersin, was not one of the organisations visited by its investigators in Turkey.
Kontrollørerne har altså ikke kunnet vurdere, om de omtvistede certifikater var ægte.
Therefore, they were not able to check whether the certificates at issue were authentic or not.
UCLAF’s to undersøgelsesrapporter af 9. og 23. december 1998 omhandler ikke spørgsmålet, om de omtvistede certifikater reelt var forfalskede eller eventuelt ved en fejltagelse var blevet udstedt af de tyrkiske myndigheder.
UCLAF’s two mission reports of 9 and 23 December 1998 do not deal with whether the certificates at issue were in fact falsified or, by contrast, incorrectly issued by the Turkish authorities.
Denne konstatering støttes af skrivelse af 9. december 1998, dvs. efter UCLAF’s undersøgelse i Tyrkiet, hvori direktøren for UCLAF, Knudsen, anmodede de tyrkiske myndigheder om »øjeblikkeligt« at give deres samtykke til en fælles undersøgelse på toldkontoret i Mersin med henblik på at opnå detaljerede oplysninger vedrørende alle de udførelser af koncentrerede frugtsafter, som selskabet Akman havde foretaget siden udløbet af 1993.
That finding is borne out by a letter of 9 December 1998, that is to say subsequent to the investigations carried out by UCLAF in Turkey, in which UCLAF’s Director, Mr Knudsen, ‘urged’ the Turkish authorities to agree to a joint investigation in the Mersin customs office in order to obtain details of all the exports of fruit juice concentrates Akman had made since the end of 1993.
Det kan ikke herved bestrides, at Kommissionen for at gennemføre en undersøgelse i de tyrkiske toldmyndigheders kontorer i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 3, i bilag 7 til afgørelse nr. 1/95 burde opnå de nævnte myndigheders samtykke.
In that regard, it cannot be disputed that in order to carry out an investigation in the respective offices of the Turkish customs authorities, the Commission had to have the agreement of those authorities pursuant to Article 7(3) of Annex 7 to Decision No 1/95.
Det er tilstrækkeligt at understrege, at Kommissionen ikke på noget tidspunkt har fremført, at de tyrkiske myndigheders manglende samtykke havde hindret den i at foretage en sådan undersøgelse på stedet.
It is sufficient to point out that the Commission has not referred to any lack of agreement on the part of the Turkish authorities which prevented it from carrying out such an on-the-spot check.
Det fremgår desuden af den appellerede doms præmis 244-259, at Kommissionen ikke af de tyrkiske myndigheder havde krævet tilsendelse af aftrykkene af de stempler, der anvendtes af toldkontoret i Mersin, og ikke havde meddelt disse til medlemsstaternes toldmyndigheder.
Moreover, it is apparent from paragraphs 244 to 259 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission did not request specimen impressions of the stamps used in the Mersin customs offices from the Turkish authorities and did not send them to the customs authorities of the Member States.
Retten fastslog herved, at Republikken Tyrkiet og Kommissionen i den periode, som omfattede de omtvistede indførelser, ikke var underlagt nogen forpligtelse til indbyrdes meddelelse af aftrykkene af de stempler, der anvendtes af toldkontorerne.
The Court of First Instance found in that regard that, during the entire period covering the importations at issue, the Republic of Turkey and the Commission were not under any obligation to provide each other with specimen impressions of the stamps used by the customs offices.
Det bemærkes dog, at det er meddelelsen af aftrykkene af stemplerne og underskrifterne, som anvendes i disse kontorer, der gør det muligt at foretage en effektiv kontrol med, om toldreglerne vedrørende toldpræferencer er overholdt.
However, it is the sending of specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures used in those offices that makes it possible to supervise compliance with the customs rules relating to tariff preferences effectively.
Kommissionens forpligtelse til at overvåge, at associeringsaftalen anvendes korrekt, indebærer, at denne gennem medlemsstaternes toldmyndigheder på ethvert tidspunkt råder over alle de elementer, der gør det muligt for den at foretage en effektiv kontrol, idet aftryk af stempler og underskrifter ubestrideligt udgør sådanne elementer.
The Commission’s obligation to ensure that the Association Agreement is properly implemented means that the Commission, and through it the customs authorities of the Member States, should always have all the information to enable it to carry out an effective check, and specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures unquestionably constitute such information.
Det skal dog ligeledes bemærkes, at det modsat det af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 255 fastslåede fremgår klart af ordlyden af artikel 15, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/96, som ændret ved afgørelse nr. 2/97 truffet af Toldsamarbejdsudvalget EF-Tyrkiet den 30. maj 1997 (EFT L 249, s. 18), ikrafttrådt den 1. september 1997, altså i det tidsrum, der omfattede de omhandlede indførsler, at »medlemsstaternes, Kommissionens og Republikken Tyrkiets toldmyndigheder skal gennem Kommissionen […], forsyne hinanden med aftryk af de stempler, der anvendes på toldstederne ved udstedelsen af varecertifikater A.TR.«.
Moreover, contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 255 of the judgment under appeal, it is unambiguously apparent from the wording of Article 15(1) of Decision No 1/96, as amended by Decision No 2/97 of the EC-Turkey Customs Cooperation Committee of 30 May 1997 (OJ 1997 L 249, p. 18), which entered into force on 1 September 1997, namely during the period covering the imports at issue, that ‘the customs authorities of the Member States of the Community and of [the Republic of] Turkey shall provide each other, through the Commission …, with specimen impressions of stamps used in their customs offices for the issue of A.TR. movement certificates’.
Kommissionen burde under alle omstændigheder, endog inden ikrafttrædelsen af nævnte afgørelse, med henblik på at sikre, at associeringsaftalen anvendes korrekt, have anmodet de tyrkiske myndigheder om at meddele den nævnte aftryk i henhold til artikel 3 i bilag 7 til afgørelse nr. 1/95, hvorefter Kommissionen kan anmode om »alle sådanne oplysninger, som gør det muligt for den at sikre, at toldlovgivningen anvendes korrekt«.
In any event, even before the entry into force of that decision, the Commission should, in order to facilitate the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, have requested that the Turkish authorities provide it with those specimens on the basis of Article 7(3) of Decision No 1/95 which authorises it to request ‘any information which may enable it to ensure that customs legislation is correctly applied’.
Den omstændighed, at Republikken Tyrkiet af egen drift har fremsendt aftryk af de stempler, der anvendes for A.TR.1-certifikater, således som Retten har fastslået i den appellerede doms præmis 258, ændrer ikke den konklusion, at Kommissionen har tilsidesat sin forpligtelse til af de tyrkiske myndigheder at kræve, at den tilsendes aftrykkene af de stempler og underskrifter, der anvendes på toldkontoret i Mersin, og herefter meddele disse til medlemsstaternes toldmyndigheder.
The fact that the Republic of Turkey sent the impressions of stamps used for A.TR.1 certificates voluntarily, as stated by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 258 of the judgment under appeal, does not call in question the finding that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to request that the Turkish authorities provide it with specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures used in the Mersin customs office and to send them, in turn, to the customs authorities of the Member States.
Endelig fremgår det også af den appellerede doms præmis 153-160, at Kommissionen alene har anført, at hverken associeringsaftalen eller gennemførelsesbestemmelserne hertil udtrykkeligt foreskriver, at der i Tyrkiet skal føres registre, hvori toldcertifikaterne indføres, og at den eventuelle forekomst af sådanne registre under alle omstændigheder ikke indebærer, at det drejer sig om ægte certifikater, eftersom forfalsknerne har al mulig interesse i for de forfalskede certifikater at anvende et registreringsnummer, der svarer til et rigtigt certifikat. Retten har tiltrådt denne argumentation i den appellerede doms præmis 161 og 162.
Lastly, it is also apparent from paragraphs 153 to 160 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission merely observed that neither the Association Agreement nor the implementing provisions expressly required registers to be kept in Turkey for the entry of customs certificates and that, in any case, the possible existence of such registers did not imply that certificates were authentic, given that forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Der kan imidlertid ikke gives medhold i denne opfattelse.
That argument cannot, however, succeed.
Det skal herved understreges, at registreringen af certifikater udstedt af toldmyndighederne er en uomgængelig praksis i samhandelen.
In that regard, it must be stated that the registration of certificates issued by the customs authorities is indispensable in international trade.
En mangel på sådanne registre indebærer nemlig, at effektiviteten af enhver efterfølgende kontrol af certifikater udstedt af de respektive toldmyndigheder ophæves.
Failure to keep such registers is likely to render worthless the effectiveness of any postclearance check on certificates issued by the respective customs authorities.
Modsat det af Retten i den appellerede doms præmis 161 fastslåede, fremgår de tyrkiske myndigheders forpligtelse til at registrere A.TR.1-certifikater af associeringsaftalens gennemførelsesbestemmelser.
Furthermore, the obligation on the Turkish authorities to register A.TR.1 certificates stems, contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 161 of the judgment under appeal, from the implementing provisions of the Association Agreement.
Artikel 13 i afgørelse nr. 1/96 foreskriver nemlig, at i tilfælde af opdeling af certifikater skal rubrik 12 på udskriften særlig forsynes med »det oprindelige certifikats« registreringsnummer.
Article 13 of Decision No 1/96 provides that, where there is division of certificates, box 12 of the extract must show, in particular, the registration number of the ‘initial certificate’.
Selv om artikel 13 finder anvendelse på tilfælde, hvor der foreligger opdeling af certifikater, er det klart, at der i rubrik 12 i A.TR.1-certifikatet skal figurere »det oprindelige certifikats« registreringsnummer, således at det oprindelige registreringsnummer under alle omstændigheder også skal være registreret i udførselsmedlemsstatens toldregister.
Even though Article 13 applies to the specific case of division of certificates, it is clear that the registration number of the ‘initial certificate’ must appear in box 12 of the A.TR.1 certificate, that is to say that the initial certificate must, in any event, also be registered in the customs registers of the country of export.
For så vidt angår Rettens udsagn i den appellerede doms præmis 162, hvorefter falsknere har al mulig interesse i at anvende et registreringsnummer, der svarer til et rigtigt certifikat, som var blevet registreret, kan dette ikke fritage Kommissionen for dens forpligtelse til at overvåge en korrekt anvendelse af associeringsaftalen.
The Court of First Instance’s statement in paragraph 162 of the judgment under appeal, that forgers would have every interest in using a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate which had already been registered, is not such as to relieve the Commission of its obligation to ensure that the Association Agreement is properly implemented.