natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Annex 6 (‘Grant Application’) includes only direct eligible costs, which are indicated by the use of the capital letter ‘D’ (‘Staff, Travel, Services/Activities and Administration Costs’) while Annex 7 (‘Budget Estimate’) includes in addition to direct eligible costs, such as those mentioned in Annex 6, the indirect eligible costs, which are indicated by the use of the capital letter I. That distinction serves to explain the difference of EUR 80 000 between the two Annexes observed by the Commission.
Lisa 6 („Toetusetaotlus”) hõlmab üksnes otseseid abikõlblikke kulusid, mida märgib suurtähe „D” kasutamine („Personali-, reisi-, tegevuste/teenuste ja halduskulud”), samas kui lisa 7 („Esialgne eelarve”) hõlmab lisaks kaudseid abikõlblikke kulusid, mida märgib suurtähe „I” kasutamine. See vahetegu võimaldab põhjendada seda 80 000 euro suurust erinevust nende kahe lisa vahel, millele komisjon tähelepanu juhtis.
The applicant thus submits that there can be no inconsistency between Annexes 6 and 7 of its proposal as it complied in every respect with the binding model set out by the Commission in the Applicant’s Guide.
Hageja väidab seega, et tema ettepaneku lisade 6 ja 7 vahel ei saa olla vastuolu, kuna ta järgis pidevalt siduvat näidist, mille komisjon oli taotleja juhendis koostanud.
Therefore, to include the EUR 80 000 as overheads in the administration costs, under the heading ‘D.4’ of Annex 6, as the Commission suggested in its email of 15 July 2005, would have been absurd and would have had the result that the grant application would have been filled out incorrectly and that heading ‘I’ in Annex 7(b) to the Applicant’s Guide would have been rendered pointless.
80 000 euro lisamine üldkuludena halduskulude hulka, lisa 6 rubriiki „D4”, nagu pani ette komisjon oma 15. juuli 2005. aasta e-kirjas, oleks olnud absurdne ja tähendanuks toetustaotluse ebakorrektset täitmist ning oleks muutnud kasutaja juhendi lisa 7 punkti b rubriigi „I” kasutuks.
That interpretation by the Commission is due to both a manifest error of assessment, as the Commission confuses the total expenditure for the project with the total for the direct eligible costs only, and a misuse of power, as the Commission adjusts, to suit its purposes, the models for proposals which it has itself drawn up.
Selline komisjonipoolne tõlgendus tuleneb kas ilmsest hindamisveast, mille puhul komisjon ajab projekti kogukulud segi otseste abikõlblike kuludega, või võimu kuritarvitamisest, mille puhul komisjon tõlgendab näidiseid, mida ta ise on koostanud, oma suva kohaselt.
The applicant therefore submits that the contested decision infringes the rules previously established, such as the Applicant’s Guide and Annexes 6 and 7 thereto.
Hageja leiab seetõttu, et vaidlustatud otsus rikub eelnevalt, näiteks taotleja juhendis ja selle lisades 6 ja 7, kehtestatud eeskirju.
Furthermore, the contested decision infringes the prior decision deriving from the communication of 12 January 2001, Article 6 of Regulation No 1784/1999, Articles 22 and 24 of Regulation No 1260/1999, and also the principle of legal certainty.
Lisaks rikub vaidlustatud otsus eelnevat otsust, mis tuleneb 12. jaanuari 2001. aasta teatisest, määruse nr 1784/1999 artiklist 6, määruse nr 1260/1999 artiklitest 22 ja 24 ning õiguskindluse põhimõttest.
Furthermore, in reply to the Commission’s argument that the applicant did not send it an additional request for information, the applicant submits that such a request was pointless given that there was not the slightest doubt regarding the scope of the financial information required.
Vastuseks komisjoni argumentatsioonile, et hageja ei olnud nõudnud temalt lisateavet, väidab hageja veel, et selline teabenõue oleks olnud kasutu, kuna tal ei olnud vähimatki kahtlust nõutud finantsandmete ulatuse osas.
It is obvious that the different entries in the budget would be mathematically identical, if it were not for the fact that Annex 7(b) to the Applicant’s Guide requires a statement of the indirect costs, as well as the entries set out in Annex 6.
Erinevate eelarvepunktide matemaatilise võrdsuse osas on ilmne, et üksnes kasutaja juhendi lisa 7 punkt b näeb ette, et lisaks lisas 6 näidatuile tuleb mainida ka kaudseid kulusid.
In addition, the statement of reasons for the Commission’s claim referring to ‘serious inconsistencies’ is, according to the applicant, insufficient, as the difference of EUR 80 000 was made clear only belatedly in the email of 4 July 2005, which does not specify the existence of other inconsistencies allowing the Commission to reject the proposal.
Lisaks ei ole komisjoni väide „oluliste vastuolude” kohta hageja arvates piisavalt põhjendatud, kuna 80 000 euro suurune vahe toodi välja hiljem, 4. juuli 2005. aasta e-kirjas, mis ei viidanud teistele võimalikele vastuoludele, mis võimaldaks komisjonil ettepaneku tagasi lükata.
Furthermore, the caselaw relating to Article 253 EC requires that a clear and unequivocal statement of reasons must be indicated in a decision adversely affecting an applicant.
Lisaks kohustab EÜ artiklit 253 puudutav kohtupraktika kasutama negatiivses otsuses selget ja üheseltmõistetavat argumentatsiooni.
Lastly, the applicant refers to the Commission’s argument that the caselaw has affirmed ‘that the purpose of that statement of reasons is to inform the addressee of the decision of the grounds of fact and law on which it is based, so as to enable the party concerned to determine, in particular, whether it is appropriate to submit it for review by the competent court.’
Lõpuks viitab hageja komisjoni argumentatsioonile, mille kohaselt kohtupraktikas on välja kujunenud, et „põhjendamiskohustuse eesmärk on teha selle adressaadile teatavaks otsuse aluseks olevad faktilised ja õiguslikud asjaolud, et huvitatud isik saaks muu hulgas hinnata, kas otsust oleks võimalik allutada pädeva kohtu kontrollile”.
That is not the case here, as the Commission’s claim, which refers to ‘serious inconsistencies between the budget information supplied in Annex 6 and that supplied in Annex 7’, does not make it possible for the applicant to understand the grounds for the rejection of its proposal.
Antud juhul ei ole see nii, kuna komisjoni väide, et „lisades 6 ja 7 toodud eelarveandmetes on olulised vastuolud”, ei võimalda hagejal mõista tema ettepaneku tagasilükkamise põhjusi.
In addition, the additional information provided subsequently by the Commission cannot substantially alter the contested decision, as the required statement of reasons should have been in the decision itself or been communicated at the same time as the decision.
Lisaks ei saa komisjoni poolt tagantjärele antud teave vaidlustatud otsust sisuliselt muuta, kuna nõutav põhjendus oleks pidanud olema juba otsuses endas või see oleks tulnud edastada koos otsusega.
The Commission, observing that the applicant does not call in question the difference between the information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in 7 to its proposal, at the same time disputes the applicant’s assessment that the difference
Märkides et hageja ei vastusta erinevust oma ettepaneku lisades 6 ja 7 toodud andmete vahel, vaidlustab komisjon hageja hinnangu, mille kohaselt see erinevus on tingitud nende lisade ülesehitusest. Komisjoni väitel peavad esiteks lisa 6, mis
According to the Commission, there must be complete consistency between, on the one hand, Annex 6, which describes the ‘activities in the budget description’ and, on the other hand, Annex 7, setting out the ‘budget estimate’.
KOHTUOTSUS 14.2.2008 — KOHTUASI T-351/05 kirjeldab „eelarvekirjelduses esitatud meetmeid”, ja teiseks lisa 7, milles on esitatud „esialgne eelarve”, olema täielikus vastavuses.
In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant’s Guide (Annex 2), that consistency is a necessary condition for a grant application to be taken into consideration.
Taotleja juhendi tehnilise ja finantslisa (lisa 2) punkti 34 kohaselt on see vastavus toetusetaotluse kaalumisele võtmise vajalik tingimus.
According to the Commission, it is also apparent from point C8 of Annex 6 that the Annex has to include all the costs relating to the budget section.
Komisjoni väitel tuleneb lisaks lisa 6 punktist C8, et taotlus peab hõlmama kõiki eelarvega seotud kulusid.
The Commission states that, if Annex 6 differs from Annex 7, it is duty bound to point that out and take it into consideration in evaluating the project.
Komisjon täpsustab, et kui lisa 6 erineb lisast 7, peab ta sellest märku andma ja seda projekti hindamisel arvestama.
As regards the structure of Annex 6, the Commission takes the view that it is for each applicant to demonstrate its ability to organise the financial and human resources in a consistent and functional way, clarifying the nature and the value of the activities planned and the tasks entrusted to the participants concerned.
Lisa 6 ülesehituse osas leiab komisjon, et iga taotleja ülesandeks on näidata oma võimet grupeerida rahalised ja inimressursid kooskõlalisel ja toimival viisil, näidates ära kavandatud tegevuste ning asjaomastele isikutele usaldatud ülesannete sisu ja väärtuse.
As regards the applicant’s argument relating to the use of the letter ‘D’ in Annex 6, the Commission observes that there is nothing to prove that that use, which serves to facilitate understanding on the part of the applicants, excludes overheads from the costs in Annex 6.
Lisas 6 tähe „D” kasutamist puudutava hageja argumendi osas märgib komisjon, et millestki ei tulene, et selle tähe kasutamine, mis on mõeldud selleks, et taotlejatel oleks lihtsam aru saada, välistab üldkulud lisa 6 kulude hulgast.
According to the the Commission, the overheads are as a matter of course entered under ‘D.4’, the ‘Project management and co-ordination’ phase.
Komisjoni väitel kuuluvad need tavaliselt punkti D4, „Juhtimine ja koordineerimine”, alla.
The Commission states that it also allows them to be entered during another specific phase or in a separate note, but that it cannot under any circumstances, having regard to their importance, accept that they are missing.
Komisjon täpsustab, et vastuvõetav on ka nende kirjendamine mingi teise konkreetse etapi raames või eraldi märkuses, kuid nende puudumine ei ole nende olulisust arvestades mingil juhul vastuvõetav.
The Commission states that that need for clarity, irrespective of mathematical accuracy, was set out in Chapter 3.4 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant’s Guide.
Komisjon toonitab, et sellist selgust nõutakse sõltumatult matemaatilisest täpsusest ka taotleja tehnilise ja finantslisa peatükis 3.4.
The Commission also maintains that, in case of doubt concerning the inclusion of overheads in the amount of EUR 80 000 in Annex 6, the applicant was required to send a request for additional information to the Commission.
Lisaks kinnitab komisjon, et kahtluse korral, kas lisada 80 000 euro suurused üldkulud lisasse 6, pidi hageja esitama komisjonile taotluse lisateabe saamiseks.
In that regard, the Commission observes that it had also envisaged the possibility of differences in interpretation by providing for a rapid and easy means of communication in order to reply to possible questions.
Komisjon märgib sellega seoses, et ta arvestas võimalusega, et tõlgendused võivad lahkneda, ning oli võimalikele küsimustele vastamiseks ette näinud kiire ja lihtsa suhtlusvahendi.
Thus, the possibility of requesting additional information via an Internet site, by email or by telephone was provided for both in the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant’s Guide and in the call for proposals VP/2003/021, which was published in the Official Journal on 31 October 2003.
Nii taotleja juhendi tehnilises ja finantslisas kui 31. oktoobri 2003. aasta Euroopa Liidu Teatajas avaldatud konkursikutses VP/2003/021 oli ette nähtud võimalus küsida lisateavet veebilehe, e-kirja või telefoni vahendusel.
As regards the alleged infringement of Article 253 EC, the Commission takes the view that it replied very quickly to the applicant’s requests for information (within three days) and sets out the caselaw according to which a brief statement of reasons is sufficient and meets the requirements of Article 253 EC in that context.
Seoses EÜ artikli 253 väidetava rikkumisega leiab komisjon, et vastas hageja teabenõuetele väga kiiresti (kolme päeva jooksul), ning viitab kohtupraktikale, mille kohaselt EÜ artikli 253 nõuetele vastamiseks piisab selles valdkonnas kokkuvõtlikust põhjendamisest.
In this respect, it states that the summary nature of the statement of reasons is the inevitable consequence of a large number of applications.
Selles osas meenutab komisjon, et suure arvu taotluste menetlemise vältimatu tagajärg on, et põhjendused on kokkuvõtlikud.
Furthermore, the purpose of the obligation to state reasons is above all to enable the party concerned to determine whether it is appropriate to bring an action before the competent court.
Lisaks meenutab ta, et põhjendamiskohustuse eesmärgiks on võimaldada huvitatud isikul hinnata pädevale kohtule hagi esitamise võimalikkust.
The Commission is of the opinion that such a statement of reasons was provided in the present case.
Komisjon leiab, et selline põhjendamine oli antud juhul tagatud.
Lastly, the Commission takes the view that the obligation to state reasons must be distinguished from the issue of whether or not the reasons are correct.
Lõpuks leiab komisjon, et põhjendamiskohustust tuleb eristada põhjenduste sisulisest õigsusest.
Even if a brief statement of reasons for the contested decision were shown to be insufficient in the present case, settled caselaw in any event allows the Commission to provide additional reasons, provided that the additional information is supplied before an action is brought. That is the case here.
Juhul kui kokkuvõtlik põhjendamine osutub teatud juhul ebapiisavaks, volitab väljakujunenud kohtupraktika komisjoni igal juhul andma lisateavet, tingimusel et see lisateave antakse enne hagi esitamist.
The Commission did provide additional explanations in reply to the requests made by the applicant and cannot be criticised for having provided such explanations.
Komisjon esitas täiendavad täpsustused vastuseks hageja teabenõuetele ning talle ei saa nende täpsustuste esitamist ette heita.
The first plea is directed against the ground, put forward by the Commission in support of the contested decision, that the proposal contains ‘serious inconsistencies between the budget information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in Annex 7’.
Käsitletav väide on suunatud vaidlustatud otsuse toetuseks komisjoni poolt esitatud põhjenduse vastu, mille kohaselt ettepaneku „lisades 6 ja 7 toodud eelarveandmetes on olulised vastuolud”.
That ground was explained by the Commission in its email of 4 July 2005, in which it stated that ‘[t]he documents [submitted by the applicant] contain inconsistencies in the financial data’ and that ‘[a]lthough Annex 6 contains a total amount of EUR 2 029 599.[9]9, Annex 7 contains a total amount of EUR 2 109 599.99 (a significant difference of EUR 80 000)’.
Komisjon täpsustas seda väidet oma 4. juuli 2005. aasta e-kirjas, märkides, et „[n]endes dokumentides, mis [hageja on saatnud], toodud finantsandmetes on vastuolud”, ja rõhutades, et „[l]isas 6 toodud kogusummaks on 2 029 599,19 eurot, samas kui lisa 7 kogusummaks on 2 109 599,99 eurot (vahe on oluline, 80 000 eurot)”.
As a preliminary point, it must be noted that, in the context of this plea, the applicant puts forward several heads of claim, which are listed in paragraph 36 above.
Kõigepealt tuleb märkida, et käsitletava väite raames toob hageja välja mitu etteheidet, mis on loetletud eespool punktis 36.
Even if some of those heads of claim were to be inadmissible on account of their nonspecific nature, as claimed by the Commission, that is certainly not true of the heads of claim alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons and the infringement of the Applicant’s Guide, which were expressed in a sufficiently clear and specific manner to allow the Commission to prepare its defence and to allow the Court to decide on the action.
Isegi juhul, kui mõned neist etteheidetest on vastuvõetamatud, kuna nad on ebatäpsed, nagu väidab komisjon, ei ole see kindlasti nii etteheidete puhul, mis tuginevad põhjendamiskohustuse rikkumisele ja taotleja juhendi rikkumisele, kuna need etteheited on sõnastatud piisavalt selgelt ja täpselt, et võimaldada kostjal koostada oma vastus ja Esimese Astme Kohtul teha hagi suhtes otsus.
As to the substance of, first, the applicant’s head of claim alleging infringement of the obligation to state reasons, it must be borne in mind that, according to settled caselaw, the statement of reasons required by Article 253 EC must disclose in a clear and unequivocal fashion the reasoning followed by the institution which adopted the measure in such a way as to enable the persons concerned to ascertain the reasons for the measure and the Court to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction (Case C-350/88 Delacre and Others v Commission [1990] ECR I-395, paragraph 15; Case C-56/93 Belgium v Commission [1996] ECR I-723, paragraph 86; Case C-367/95 P Commission v Sytraval and Brink’s France [1998] ECR I-1719, paragraph 63; and Case C-159/01 Netherlands v Commission [2004] ECR I-4461, paragraph 65).
Põhikohtuasja käsitledes tuleb kõigepealt hageja etteheite osas, mis tuleneb põhjendamiskohustuse rikkumisest, meenutada, et väljakujunenud kohtupraktika kohaselt peab EÜ artikliga 253 nõutav põhjendus vastama asjaomase akti olemusele, sellest peab selgelt ja üheselt selguma akti andnud institutsiooni arutluskäik, mis võimaldab huvitatud isikutel mõista võetud meetme põhjuseid ja pädeval kohtuasutusel teostada kontrolli (Euroopa Kohtu 14. veebruari 1990. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-350/88: Delacre jt vs. komisjon, EKL 1990, lk I-395, punkt 15; 29. veebruari 1996. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-56/93: Belgia vs. komisjon, EKL 1996, lk I-723, punkt 86; 2. aprilli 1998. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-367/95 P: komisjon vs. Sytraval ja Brink’s France, EKL 1998, lk I-1719, punkt 63, ja 29. aprilli 2004. aasta otsus kohtuasjas C-159/01: Madalmaad vs. komisjon, EKL 2004, lk I-4461, punkt 65).
The question whether the statement of the reasons for a decision meets the requirements of Article 253 EC must be assessed with regard not only to its wording but also to its context and to all the legal rules governing the matter in question (see Delacre and Others v Commission, paragraph 52 above, paragraph 16, and the caselaw cited).
Seda, kas akti põhjendused vastavad EÜ artikli 253 nõuetele, tuleb hinnata mitte üksnes akti sõnastuse, vaid ka selle konteksti ja kõigi asjaomast valdkonda reguleerivate õigusnormide põhjal (vt eespool punktis 52 viidatud kohtuotsus Delacre jt vs. komisjon, punkt 16 ja viidatud kohtupraktika).
It must also be pointed out that the conciseness of the statement of reasons for a decision by which the Commission refuses a grant application is an unavoidable consequence of the processing by computer of several hundred grant applications upon which the Commission must adjudicate within a short period.
Lisaks tuleb märkida, et otsuse, millega komisjon lükkab tagasi toetusetaotluse, põhjenduste kokkuvõtlikkus on nende sadade toetusetaotluste, mille üle komisjon peab otsustama lühikese tähtaja jooksul, elektroonilise töötluse paratamatu tagajärg.
In the present case, contrary to what the applicant claims, the duty to state reasons must be assessed in the light of the additional information contained in the Commission’s email of 4 July 2005, which was available to the applicant at the time when the action was brought.
Käesoleval juhul tuleb vastupidiselt hageja väidetele põhjendamiskohustust hinnata vastavalt komisjoni 4. juuli 2005. aasta e-kirjas sisaldunud lisateabele, mida hageja hagi esitamise hetkel valdas.
If, as in the present case, the applicant, before bringing an action, asks the institution concerned for additional explanations about a decision and receives those explanations, he cannot ask the Court not to take them into consideration when determining whether the statement of reasons is adequate. The institution is, of course, not permitted to substitute an entirely new statement of reasons for the original statement of reasons, but that is not the position in this case (Case T-183/00 Strabag Benelux v Council [2003] ECR II-135, paragraph 58).
Kui hageja taotleb, nii nagu käesolevas asjas, asjaomaselt institutsioonilt teatava otsuse kohta täiendavaid selgitusi enne hagi esitamist ja ta saab need selgitused, ei saa ta nõuda, et Esimese Astme Kohus ei arvestaks neid põhjenduste piisavuse hindamisel; seda tingimusel, et antud institutsioonil ei ole lubatud asendada esialgseid põhjendusi täiesti uute põhjendustega, millega käesolevas asjas tegu ei ole (Esimese Astme Kohtu 25. veebruari 2003. aasta otsus kohtuasjas T-183/00: Strabag Benelux vs. nõukogu, EKL 2003, lk II-135, punkt 58).
It follows that the ground being disputed in the context of this plea, in particular in the light of the additional information contained in the email of 4 July 2005, is of such a kind as to allow the applicant to understand clearly that one of the two reasons for the refusal of its grant application was based on the fact that, according to the Commission, it did not meet the final evaluation criterion for assessing the quality and feasibility of the actions proposed in the application, as set out in paragraph 34 of the Technical and Financial Annex to the Applicant’s Guide.
Eelnevast järeldub, et käsitletava väite raames vaidlustatud põhjendus võimaldab, eriti komisjoni 4. juuli 2005. aasta e-kirjas sisaldunud lisateavet arvestades, hagejal selgelt aru saada, et üks tema toetusetaotluse tagasilükkamise õigustamiseks toodud põhjendustest rajaneb asjaolul, et komisjoni arvates ei täida ta viimast hindamiskriteeriumi, mis vastavalt taotleja juhendi tehnilise ja finantslisa punktile 34 võimaldab hinnata taotluses esitatud tegevuste kvaliteeti ja teostatavust.
Having regard to the circumstances in the present case, it has therefore not been proved that the contested decision, in so far as it concerns the ground being disputed in the context of this plea, is insufficiently reasoned.
Käesoleva asja asjaolusid silmas pidades ei ole seega tõendatud, et vaidlustatud otsus on ebapiisavalt põhjendatud osas, mis puudutab käsitletava väite raames vaidlustatud põhjendust.
Secondly, as regards the applicant’s head of claim alleging infringement of the Applicant’s Guide by the ground disputed in the context of this plea, namely that ‘there are serious inconsistencies between the budget information provided in Annex 6 and that provided in Annex 7’ of the proposal, it must be found, as is shown by the two tables below, that, in both of those annexes, the headings D.1 to D.4, set out exactly the same totals and correspond perfectly:
Teiseks tuleb seoses hageja etteheitega, mille kohaselt taotleja juhendit on rikutud käsitletava väite raames vaidlustatud põhjendusega, et ettepaneku „[l]isades 6 ja 7 toodud eelarveandmetes on olulised vastuolud”, asuda seisukohale, et nii nagu kinnitavad kaks allpool toodud tabelit, on mõlema lisa rubriigid D1–D4 omavahel täielikus vastavuses, kuna mõlema kogusummad on täpselt samad:
Table 1 (setting out the cost of the activities in the grant application drawn up according to the model in Annex 6 to the Applicant’s Guide)
Tabel 1 (kajastab taotleja juhendi lisas 6 oleva näidise eeskujul koostatud toetusetaotluses olevate meetmete kulusid)
D 1Staff(in euro)
D1+D2+D3+D4 Kokku (eurodes)
D 4Administra-tion(in euro)
D3tegevused, teenused(eurodes)
Table 2 (setting out the cost of the entries mentioned in the budget estimate compiled according to the model in Annex 7 to the Applicant’s Guide)
Tabel 2 (sisaldab taotleja juhendi lisas 7 oleva näidise eeskujul koostatud toetusetaotluses olevaid punkte)
D 3Activities/services (in euro)
D3tegevused, teenused (eurodes)
Total Direct costs (D 1 to D 4)
Kokkuotsesed kulud (D1–D4)
Total Indirect costs (I.1)
Kokkukaudsed kulud (I.1)
Total expenditure Project total - (D + I)
Kogukuludprojekt kokku — (D+I)