natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
They contended that the sums to which the security provided by Assedile related were due to them in proportion to the amount of wine delivered.
Nad sedastasid, et Assedile seatud garantii esemeks olnud summad kuulusid neile proportsionaalselt nende tarnitud veiniga.
They therefore sought a ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma, that Assedile should pay them the amount of the unpaid debts owed to them by DAI, plus the monetary revaluation and
Seejärel palusid nad Rooma Tribunale civilel otsustada, et Assedilel oli kohustus neile maksta summa, mis vastab nende rahuldamata nõuetele DAI suhtes, mida on suurendatud raha väärtuse langemist arvestades ja millele lisanduvad intressid; ja teise võimalusena otsustada, et AIMA on kohustatud neile need summad
13 — Namely, the present applicants, another wine cooperative and a consortium of wine cooperatives.
13 – Nimelt käesoleva kohtuasja hagejad, teine veinitootjate ühistu ning veinitootjate ühistute konsortsium.
The judgment of the Tribunale civile di Roma of 27 January 1989 states that, according to AIMA, of the 12 contracts for buying in wine concluded by DAI and
Rooma Tribunale civile 27. jaanuari 1989. aasta otsusest ilmneb, et AIMA sõnul esitas DAI kaheteistkümne enda sõlmitud ja määruse nr 2499/82 artikli 1 sätete kohaselt
[the procedure provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82] — the intended recipients of the aid whilst the wine and grape producers are the intended ultimate recipients.
CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA JT nr 2499/82 artiklis 9 märgitud menetlus] – abi saajad, samas on veini- ja viinamarjatootjad abi lõplikud saajad.
It is clear from this that the regulation in question is easy to interpret and that it is not necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Eelnevast tulenevalt on kõnealust määrust kerge tõlgendada ning Euroopa Kohtule ei ole vaja eelotsuse küsimust esitada.
In particular, the applicants stated that the amount of their unpaid debts resulting from contracts approved in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 2499/82 was ITL 106 571 589 (EUR 55 040) in the case of Cantina sociale di Dolianova, ITL 79 483 181 (EUR 41 050) in the case of Cantina Trexenta, ITL 506 921 061 (EUR 261 803) in the case of Cantina sociale Marmilla, ITL 192 954 189 (EUR 99 653) in the case of Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma and ITL 54 812 419 (EUR 28 308) in the case of Cantina sociale del Vermentino.
Eeskätt märkisid hagejad, et nende rahuldamata nõuded, mis tulenevad määruse nr 2499/82 alusel tunnustatud lepingutest, olid Cantina sociale di Dolianova puhul 106 571 589 Itaalia liiri (55 040 eurot), Cantina Trexenta puhul 79 483 181 Itaalia liiri (41 050 eurot), Cantina sociale Marmilla puhul 506 921 061 Itaalia liiri (261 803 eurot), Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma puhul 192 954 189 Itaalia liiri (99 653 eurot) ja Cantina sociale del Vermentino puhul 54 812 419 Itaalia liiri (28 308 eurot).
The total sum at stake was thus ITL 940 742 439 (EUR 485 854).
Seega ulatus vaidlusalune summa 940 742 439 Itaalia liirini (485 854 eurot).
Meanwhile, by judgment of 27 February 1986, the Tribunale d’Oristano declared DAI insolvent.
Vahepealsel ajal kuulutas Tribunale d’Oristano 27. veebruari 1986. aasta otsusega välja DAI pankroti.
In its judgment of 27 January 1989, the Tribunale civile di Roma held as follows:
Rooma Tribunale civile sedastas oma 27. jaanuari 1989. aasta otsuses:
As regards relations between Assedile and AIMA, Article 2 of the general conditions of insurance of [the security bond issued by Assedile] provides that Assedile guarantees AIMA, up to the value of the sum insured (which is ITL 1 169 040 262 [EUR 603 759]), reimbursement of any sums which may be owed to it by the contracting party [DAI] as a refund in whole or in part of the advance paid by AIMA in the event of it being found that there is no entitlement to exceptional aid for distillation for all or some of the quantities shown in the application for an advance or in the distillation contract.
Assedile ja AIMA suhte kohta märgitakse [Assedile väljastatud garantiipoliisi] üldiste kindlustustingimuste artiklis 2, et Assedile tagab AIMA-le kindlustatud summa (st 1 169 040 262 Itaalia liiri) ulatuses nende summade tagasimaksmise, mis lepinguosaline [DAI] peab talle lõpuks tagasi maksma, tagastades täielikult või osaliselt AIMA tasutud ettemaksu, kui tuvastatakse, et tal puudus õigus erakorralise destilleerimisabi saamiseks terve või osa koguse suhtes, mis oli märgitud ettemakse saamise taotluses või destilleerimislepingus.
‘In short, Regulation … No 2499/82 confers entitlement to aid on condition that the strictly imposed timelimits and conditions are observed; failure to observe those timelimits and conditions entails recovery in whole or in part of the aid paid in advance.
„Lõpuks annab määrus […] nr 2499/82 õiguse saada abi tingimusel, et täpselt sätestatud tähtaegu ja tingimusi järgitakse; tähtaegade ja tingimuste järgimata jätmine toob kaasa ettemaksu korras tasutud abi täieliku või osalise tagasinõudmise.
The distillers are — according to the pro -cedure adopted by the Italian Republic
Kui selleks tähtajaks ei ole nõuet rahuldatud, võib AIMA nõuda selle summa maksmist äriühingult [Assedile], kes on kohustatud selle summa tasuma 15 päeva
If on expiry of this timelimit no action has been taken on that request AIMA may request the company [Assedile] to pay that sum; the company is required to make that
Destilleerijad on – Itaalia Vabariigi vastu võetud menetluse kohaselt [määruse
OPINION OF MS SHARPSTON — CASE C-51/05 P payment within 15 days of receipt of that request and may raise no objection to so doing.
KOHTUJURIST SHARPSTONI ETTEPANEK – KOHTUASI C-51/05 P jooksul pärast nõude saamist, ilma et ta võiks sellele vastu vaielda.
Under Article 4, the company [Assedile] is subrogated, to the extent of the amount paid, to all the rights, grounds and actions of AIMA against the contracting party and its successor in title.
Üldiste kindlustustingimuste artikli 4 kohaselt on äriühingul [Assedile] tasutud summa ulatuses õigus astuda AIMA asemele kõigi õiguste, väidete ja hagide osas lepingupoole ja tema õigusjärglaste vastu.
It is established that the applicant distillery failed to meet its obligations on three different counts: (1) it did not pay (as is shown by the absence of any proof of payment among the documents before the Court) the minimum price to the producers, apart from ITL 110 795 870 [EUR 57 221]; (2) it did not pay the aid to the producers within 90 days of the entry of the wine into the distillery (a timelimit which expired in June 1983) and, whether it did or not, (3) it did not provide proof before 1 June 1984 that it had made the payments.
Tegelikult on tõendatud, et hagejaks olev piiritusetehas rikkus oma kohustusi kolmel viisil: 1) ta ei tasunud (nagu ilmneb sellest, et toimik ei sisalda tõendit makse sooritamise kohta) tootjatele miinimumhinda, välja arvatud 110 795 870 Itaalia liiri [57 221 eurot]; 2) ta ei tasunud tootjatele abi 90 päeva jooksul pärast veini piiritusetehasesse saabumist (tähtaeg lõppes 1983. aasta juunis) ja igal juhul 3) ta ei esitanud enne 1. juunit 1984 tõendit selle kohta, et ta on maksed sooritanud.
The penalty for such failures is that the security is to be forfeited in its entirety.
Nende rikkumiste karistusena minetatakse garantii täielikult.
The contractual clauses cited above are clear and easy to interpret: it is accepted in particular that the guarantee is given for the benefit of AIMA and not for the benefit of other persons such as the producers and that therefore the latter do not have any rights against Assedile in respect of the sum guaranteed.
Eespool viidatud lepingusätted on selged ja kergelt tõlgendatavad: vaidlust ei ole eeskätt selles, et tagatis seatakse AIMA kasuks, mitte aga teiste isikute kasuks nagu tootjad ja et seetõttu ei ole viimastel mingit õigust tagatise summale Assedile suhtes.
Furthermore, the court cannot accept the points put forward in mitigation by the distillery in order to justify the failure to make the payments (that it was impossible for it to make the payments because it was in administration, and respect for the principle of equal treatment for creditors), since the expiry of the timelimits for making those payments (June 1983) and for repaying the aid (July 1983) was before the date on which the decision had been taken to apply for it to go into administration (October 1983).
Lisaks ei saa kohus nõustuda destilleerija väidetavate õigustustega tegemata maksete kohta (võimatus teostada makseid saneerimismenetluse tõttu ning võlausaldajate võrdsuse põhimõte), kuivõrd nende maksete sooritamise tähtaeg (juuni 1983) ning abi tagastamise tähtaeg (juuli 1983) eelneb kuupäevale, mil otsustati taotleda tema suhtes saneerimismenetluse kohaldamist (oktoober 1983).
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
Lisaks ilmneb, et tagatise seadjal ei ole võimalik esitada vastuväiteid tagatist saama õigustatud isiku vastu, selgelt artikli 3 sõnastusest, milles seatakse äriühingule [Assedile] kohustus tasuda 15 päeva jooksul pärast maksenõude saamist õigustatud isikult, kellele ei ole tasutud.
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.
Isegi kui soovitakse sedastada, et igasugusele tagasimaksmisele peab eelnema destilleerimisabi saamise õiguse (täieliku või osalise) puudumise tuvastamine, ei ole mingit kahtlust, et see õigus kadus seetõttu, et hageja DAI ei täitnud ühenduse määruses kehtestatud tähtaegu ja tingimusi.
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]).
KOMISJON VS. CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA JT ja mida suurendatakse 10% võrra ehk kokku 1 046 277 980 Itaalia liiri [540 357 eurot], millele lisandub selle abi, mille kohta maksetõend esitati, ning ettemakse korras tasutud abi vahe, st 806 205 Itaalia liiri [416 eurot]).
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.
Neli hagejat, välja arvatud Cantina sociale del Vermentino, esitasid 27. septembril 1989 Rooma Corte d’appello’sse (apellatsioonikohus) apellatsioonkaebuse selle kohtuotsuse peale.
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.
Apellatsioonikohus leidis 19. novembri 1991. aasta otsusega, et apellatsioonkaebus on vastuvõetamatu, kuna hagejad ei olnud DAI pankrotihaldurile apellatsioonkaebuse esitamisest nõuetekohaselt teatanud, vaid teinud seda üksnes sellel ajal pankrotis olevale DAI-le, ja kuna nad ei olnud oma apellatsioonkaebusest seejärel nõuetekohaselt uuesti teatanud tähtaja jooksul, mille neile kehtestas uurimise eest vastutav kohtunik.
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.
Tuleb märkida, et DAI ei vaielnud kordagi nendele summadele vastu: kuigi ta kinnitas, et ta tasus tootjatele umbes poole saadud abist, ei viidanud ta ega tõendanud a fortiori, et ta on selle abi määruses nr 2499/82 sätestatud tähtajal tasunud.
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.
On asjakohane täpsustada, et hagejaks oleval piiritusetehasel ei ole alust vaielda vastu sellele, et talle oma toodangut tarninud veinitootmisühistutel oli raskusi nõuete rahuldamisega, kuna just tema ise põhjustas oma kohustuste täitmata jätmise, kui ta algatas pankrotimenetluse vahetult pärast tootjatele väljamakstava ühenduse abi saamist.
The four applicants referred to above appealed to the Corte di Cassazione (Court of Cassation).
Neli hagejat esitasid kassatsioonkaebuse Corte di Cassazione’sse (kassatsioonikohus).
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.
Nad väitsid eeskätt seda, et nad olid esitanud apellatsioonkaebuse eespool märgitud Rooma Tribunale civile otsuse peale, et tuvastataks nimetatud otsuse ekslikkus üksnes seoses AIMA ning Assedilega ja mitte seoses DAI-ga.
They therefore argued that the procedural error was one that should not operate so as to bar their appeal.
Seejärel väitsid nad, et nende apellatsioonkaebuse vastuvõetamatuks tunnistamisega rikuti menetlusnormi.
14 By judgment of 28 November 1994, the Corte di Cassazione dismissed their appeal against the judgment of the Corte d’appello.
14Corte di Cassazione jättis 28. novembri 1994. aasta otsusega rahuldamata hagejate kassatsioonkaebuse, mille nad olid esitanud Corte d’appello otsuse peale.
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.
14 – Euroopa Kohtule esitatud dokumentidest võib tuletada, et see pidi olema hagejate väite sisu Corte di Cassaziones.
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.’
Veinitootmisühistud, nagu ka tagatise seadja, kui ta otsustab nende asemele astuda, võivad nõuda oma nõuete rahuldamist pankrotimenetluses koos kõigi teiste võlausaldajatega, järgides võlausaldajate võrdsuse põhimõtet.”
The five applicants duly registered their claims among DAI’s liabilities in the context of the insolvency proceedings that had been brought against it.
Viis hagejat registreerisid nõuetekohaselt oma nõuded DAI põhivara suhtes viimase vastu algatatud pankrotimenetluse raames.
by the intervention bodies to reduce the expenditure of the EAGGF (in other words, it must be entered in the EAGGF accounts).
tagatist EPATF-i kulutuste vähendamiseks, st see tuleb EPATF-i raamatupidamisse sisse kanda.
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.
Komisjon täpsustas, et tema talitused teostavad vajalikud uurimised eeskätt AIMA juures, et kindlaks määrata AIMA saadud garantii tegelik adressaat.
By letter of 22 January 1996 the four applicants requested AIMA to honour the debts owed to them by DAI.
Neli hagejat palusid 22. jaanuari 1996. aasta kirjas AIMA-l täita nende nõuded DAI suhtes.
They contended that AIMA had obtained unjust enrichment through payment of the security.
Nad väitsid, et AIMA oli garantii omandamisega alusetult rikastunud.
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.
AIMA jättis selle kaebuse rahuldamata, märkides, et garantii kuulus talle ja et tootjad ei saa tema vastu esitada mingit otsest hagi, et rahuldataks nende nõuded DAI vastu.
On 16 February 1996 the applicants brought an action before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italy), against AIMA for unjust enrichment.
Hagejad esitasid 16. veebruaril 1996 Cagliari (Itaalia) Tribunale civilesse alusetu rikastumise tuvastamise hagi AIMA vastu.
By letter of 8 December 1997, the Commission informed the applicants of the results of its investigations at AIMA.
Komisjon teavitas 8. detsembri 1997. aasta kirjaga hagejaid AIMA-s teostatud uurimise tulemustest.
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’.
AIMA oli komisjonile teatanud, et ta sai 21. veebruaril 1991 1 047 084 185 Itaalia liiri (540 774 eurot) suuruse tšeki, mis oli väljastatud Assedile nimel 16. jaanuaril 1990, ja et ta kandis selle summa – „mis vastab arvatavasti garantiisummale” – EPATF-i raamatupidamisse aastal 1991.
On 13 November 1996 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Commission.
Hagejad esitasid 13. novembril 1996 kaebuse komisjonile.
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.
Nad väitsid, et AIMA rikkus väidetavalt ühenduse õigusnorme, eeskätt määrust nr 2499/82, ning palusid komisjonil eelkõige nõuda AIMA-lt ja Itaalia Vabariigilt nende summade hüvitamist hagejatele, mida nad ei olnud ühenduse abina veiniaasta 1982/1983 eest saanud.
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.
Komisjon märkis 25. juuni 1997. aasta kirjas hagejatele, et Assedile tasus garantiisumma koos intressidega AIMA-le 16. jaanuaril 1990.
It added that under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 352/78 any security which is forfeited is to be used
Ta lisas, et määruse nr 352/78 artikli 2 lõike 1 kohaselt peab asjaomane sekkumisamet kasutama minetatud
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.
KOMISJON VS. CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA JT aga abi tegeliku maksmise tootjatele.
Any other interpretation would amount to a breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 12 EC.
Erinev tõlgendus rikub nende arvates EÜ artiklis 12 sätestatud võrdse kohtlemise põhimõtet.
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.
Nende sõnul kinnitavad seda järeldust ka komisjoni järjestikused määrused, millega kehtestati sätted järgnevate veiniaastate eeldestilleerimise kohta.
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.
Komisjon rõhutab, et 27. jaanuari 1989. aasta jõustunud kohtuotsuses keeldus Rooma Tribunale civile tunnustamast hagejate nõudeid garantiile.
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.
Komisjon tuletas sellest, et hagejatel ei ole mingit õigust AIMA garantiisummale ja et selline õigus ei saa tekkida ka siis, kui see summa on komisjonile tagastatud.
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.
Teise võimalusena märgib komisjon, et hagejate ja DAI vahel sõlmitud lepingute tunnustamine AIMA poolt ei muuda nende lepingute eraõiguslikku laadi.
It followed that the Commission’s alleged obligations with regard to the applicants were of a noncontractual nature.
Sellest järeldus, et komisjoni väidetavad kohustused hagejate suhtes on lepinguvälist laadi.
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.
Seetõttu on igasugune hagi ühenduse vastu Euroopa Kohtu põhikirja artikli 46 alusel aegunud, kuna garantii tasuti AIMA-le 16. jaanuaril 1990 ja kanti üle EPATF-ile eelarveaastal 1991.
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.
Lisaks peatati vastavalt hagejate kirjalikele vastustele Esimese Astme Kohtu küsimustele Cagliari Tribunale civiles algatatud menetlus alusetu rikastumise kohta eespool punktis 37 märgitud komisjoni uurimise tulemuste järel, et lahendada vaidlus kulude hüvitamise osas poolte vahel kohtuväliselt.
That investigation had revealed that AIMA had, contrary to what it claimed before and during the abovementioned proceedings, refunded the security to the EAGGF.
Kõnealuse uurimise tulemusel ilmnes, et AIMA oli vastupidiselt sellele, mida ta oli väitnud enne eespool märgitud menetluse algatamist ja selle menetluse käigus, kandnud garantiisumma üle EPATF-ile.
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.
Hagejate sõnul kaotas menetlus eseme, kuna ilmnes, et AIMA ei saanud alusetult rikastuda.
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.
Komisjoni põllumajanduse peadirektoraadi peadirektori allkirjaga 31. juuli 1998. aasta kirjas, mille hagejad said kätte 14. augustil 1998 (edaspidi „vaidlustatud kiri”), jättis komisjon selle taotluse rahuldamata.
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.
Ta väitis, et käesoleval juhul destilleerijale abi tasumise osas kohaldatavas menetluses on abi esmaseks saajaks destilleerija, kellele hüvitatakse veini kõrge ostuhind.
The security was made out for the benefit of AIMA, and the producers could not claim any rights to that security.
Garantii seati AIMA kasuks ja tootjad ei saa pretendeerida mingile osale sellest summast.
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.
Asjaomase liikmesriigi võimalus valida selle menetluse (sätestatud määruse nr 2499/82 artiklis 9) ja menetluse vahel, mis seisneb abi maksmises otse tootjale (sätestatud sama määruse artiklis 10), ei tähenda, et nimetatud kahte sätet tuleb tõlgendada ühetaoliselt nii, et tootjad on alati abi saajad.