natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the caselaw to date, in contrast, the basic problem of determining which of those systems was the appropriate forum for proceedings was not at issue.
Selles väljakujunenud kohtupraktikas ei seisnenud aga põhiküsimus selles, millise süsteemi järgsesse kohtusse asjaomases vaidluses pöörduda.
If the prescription defence were to succeed in the present case, the result would be to deny the applicants access to the courts and hence to justice.
Juhul kui nimetatud aegumisele tuginev vastuväide oleks käesolevas asjas edukas, keelataks selle tulemusel hagejatele juurdepääs kohtutele ja seega õigusmõistmisele.
Such a result would run counter to the fundamental principle that Community law operates in a way that affords effective judicial protection to persons on whom it confers rights.
Selline lahend oleks vastuolus aluspõhimõttega, et ühenduse õigus tagab tõhusa kohtuliku kaitse isikutele, kelle õigused tulenevad ühenduse õigusest.
The applicants are persons who are entitled to receive payment of Community aid in respect of the wine that they sent to DAI for distillation and who have been deprived of their money through a lacuna in Regulation No 2499/82 for which the Court of First Instance has held the Commission responsible.
Hagejad on isikud, kellel on õigus saada ühenduse abi seoses veiniga, mille nad tarnisid DAI-le destilleerimiseks, ja kes jäid ilma oma rahast määruses nr 2499/82 esineva lünga tõttu, mille eest Esimese Astme Kohtu sõnul vastutas komisjon.
There is no challenge before the Court on the merits.
Euroopa Kohtus ei toimu vaidlust põhiküsimuses.
It would in my view be wholly wrong for the prescription defence to succeed in the exceptional circumstances of the present case.
Minu arvates oleks täiesti vale, kui käesoleva asja erandlikus olukorras osutuks edukaks aegumisele tuginev vastuväide.
58 — In so saying, I bear in mind that the applicants were aware of the risk that the sum derived from forfeiture of the se curity would at some stage be paid by AIMA to the Commission and credited to the EAGGF account.
58 – Seda väites pean ma silmas, et hagejad olid teadlikud riskist, et mingis etapis maksab AIMA komisjonile summa, mille osas garantii minetati, ning et see summa kantakse üle EPATF-ile.
Their hope, in the main national proceedings, was that the security would not be declared forfeit and/or that the national court could be persuaded to make some other order that would result in their receiving payment of the aid.
Siseriiklikus põhikohtumenetluses lootsid hagejad, et garantiid ei tunnistata minetatuks ja/või et siseriiklikku kohut on võimalik veenda sellise otsuse tegemises, mille tulemusel makstakse neile abi.
For the reasons I have given, I accept that, objectively, it was reasonable for them to try that route.
Nimetatud põhjustest lähtudes nõustun ma arvamusega, et objektiivses mõttes oli mõistlik, et hagejad selle valiku tegid.
In contrast, I regard the unjust enrichment proceedings against AIMA as being more in the nature of a forlorn last hope.
AIMA vastu alusetu rikastumise tuvastamise hagi esitamist pean ma vastupidi pigem meeleheitlikuks viimaseks lootuseks.
59 — See paragraphs 129 and 130 and paragraph 149 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
59 – Vt Esimese Astme Kohtu otsuse punktid 129, 130 ja 149.
The exact extent of the applicants’ losses could only be quantified after, as preferential creditors, they had recovered part of the unpaid debts owed to them by DAI at the conclusion of the insolvency proceedings in 2000.
Hagejate kahju täpset ulatust oli võimalik määratleda alles pärast seda, kui DAI oli osaliselt rahuldanud nende kui eelistatud võlausaldajate nõuded 2000. aastal toimunud pankrotimenetluse tulemusel.
I would accordingly dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Eeltoodust tulenevalt olen seisukohal, et apellatsioonkaebus tuleks jätta rahuldamata ning Esimese Astme Kohtu otsus tuleks jätta muutmata.
Costs my view the fifth applicant (Cantina sociale del Vermentino) is, unlike the first four applicants, an unsuccessful party.
(Cantina sociale del Vermentino) erinevalt esimesest neljast hagejast kohtuvaidluse kaotanud pool.
However, it seems from the file that any costs solely attributable to the fifth applicant — if indeed there are any such costs — are likely to be insignificant and would in any event be difficult to quantify.
Toimikust lähtuvalt tundub mulle, et üksnes viiendale hagejale omistatavad kulud on tähtsusetud ning neid on igal juhul keeruline määratleda, juhul kui selliseid kohtukulusid üldse on.
I accordingly propose that the Commission should pay the costs of this
Sellest tulenevalt teen ma ettepaneku, et käesolevas apellatsioonimenetluses mõistetakse komisjonilt välja kohtukulud seoses kõigi viie hagejaga.
The applicants have applied for costs.
Hagejad on kohtukulude hüvitamist nõudnud.
In appeal with regard to all five applicants.
Minu arvates on viies hageja
For the reasons given above, I consider that the Court should:
Esitatud põhjendustest lähtudes teen Euroopa Kohtule ettepaneku:
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal.
– mõista apellatsioonkaebusega seotud kohtukulud välja komisjonilt.
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 7 February 2005,
Kohtuasjas C-51/05 P, mille ese on Euroopa Kohtu põhikirja artikli 56 alusel 7. veebruaril 2005 esitatud apellatsioonkaebus,
Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjon, esindajad: C. Cattabriga ja L. Visaggio, kohtudokumentide kättetoimetamise aadress Luksembourgis, apellatsioonkaebuse esitaja, teised menetlusosalised:
Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, established in Dolianova (Italy),
Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, asukoht Dolianova (Itaalia),
Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, established in Senorbì (Italy),
Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, asukoht Senorbì (Itaalia),
Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, established in Santa Maria La Palma (Italy),
Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, asukoht Santa Maria La Palma (Itaalia),
Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari, established in Monti (Italy), represented by C. Dore and G. Dore, avvocati, applicants at first instance,
Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari, asukoht Monti (Itaalia), esindajad: avvocato C. Dore ja avvocato G. Dore, hagejad esimeses astmes,
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 November 2007,
EUROOPA KOHUS (neljas koda), koosseisus: koja esimees K. Lenaerts, kohtunikud G. Arestis (ettekandja), R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Malenovský ja T. von Danwitz, kohtujurist: E. Sharpston, kohtusekretär: R. Grass, arvestades kirjalikku menetlust, olles 22. novembri 2007. aasta kohtuistungil ära kuulanud kohtujuristi ettepaneku,
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS gives the following
KOMISJON VS. CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA JT on teinud järgmise otsuse
By its appeal, the Commission of the European Communities requests the Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98 Dolianova and Others v Commission [2004] ECR II-3991 (‘the judgment under appeal’) in so far as, by that judgment, the Court ordered the Commission to make good the damage suffered by Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl, and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari (herineafter collectively referred to as ‘the Cantine’), following the insolvency of Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba (‘DAI’), by reason of the absence of a procedure that would guarantee, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 of 15 September 1982 laying down provisions concerning preventive distillation for the 1982/1983 wine year (OJ 1982 L 267, p.
Komisjon palub oma apellatsioonkaebuses tühistada Euroopa Ühenduste Esimese Astme Kohtu 23. novembri 2004. aasta otsuse kohtuasjas T-166/98: Cantina sociale di Dolianova jt vs. komisjon (EKL 2004, lk II-3991; edaspidi „vaidlustatud kohtuotsus”), kuna Esimese Astme Kohus kohustas selle kohtuotsusega komisjoni hüvitama kahju, mis tekkis Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. Arl-ile, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. Arl-ile, Cantina sociale Marmilla – Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. Arl-ile, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop.
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 sets the minimum buyingin price for wines for distillation.
Määruse nr 2499/82 artikli 5 lõikes 1 kehtestatakse destilleerimiseks tarnitud veini minimaalne ostuhind.
According to the 8th recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2499/82, that price normally renders it impossible to market the products of distillation at market prices.
Määruse nr 2499/82 põhjenduse 8 kohaselt ei võimalda see hind tavaliselt destilleerimisel saadud toodete turustamist turutingimustes.
The regulation therefore laid down a compensation procedure whereby the
Seetõttu nägi määrus ette hüvi-
Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides:
Määruse nr 2499/82 artiklis 9 on sätestatud:
The minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) shall be paid by the distiller to the producer not later than 90 days after the entry into the distillery [of the total quantity of wine or, where appropriate, of each consignment of wine].
Destilleerija maksab artikli 5 lõike 1 esimeses lõigus ettenähtud minimaalse ostuhinna tootjale hiljemalt 90 päeva pärast seda, kui [kogu veinikogus või olenevalt olukorrast iga veinipartii] on piiritusetehasesse saabunud.
The intervention agency shall pay to the distiller the aid provided for in Article 6(1) and, where appropriate, the increase in the minimum buyingin price referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) within 90 days of submission of proof that the total quantity of wine specified in the contract has been distilled.
Sekkumisamet tasub artikli 6 lõikes 1 märgitud abi ning vajaduse korral artikli 5 lõike 1 teises lõigus märgitud minimaalse ostuhinna suurendamise destilleerijale hiljemalt 90 päeva pärast tõendi esitamist selle kohta, et kogu lepingus märgitud veinikogus on destilleeritud
The distiller shall be required to supply the intervention agency with proof that he has paid the minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) within the period specified in paragraph 1 and, where appropriate, the increase in the said price within the period referred to in the fourth paragraph.
Destilleerija peab sekkumisametile esitama tõendi selle kohta, et ta on tasunud artikli 5 lõike 1 esimeses lõigus märgitud minimaalse ostuhinna lõikes 1 märgitud tähtajal ning vajaduse korral selle ostuhinna suurendamise neljandas lõigus märgitud tähtajal.
If such proof is not submitted within 120 days of the date of submission of the proof referred to in the first paragraph, the amounts paid shall be recovered by the intervention agency. …’
Kui seda tõendit ei esitata 120 päeva jooksul esimeses lõigus märgitud tõendi esitamisest, nõuab sekkumisamet tasutud summad tagasi. […]”
Article 11 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides:
Määruse nr 2499/82 artiklis 11 on sätestatud:
The distiller in the case referred to in Article 9 … may ask for an amount equal to the aid referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 to be paid to him by way of advance on condition that he has provided a security equal to 110% of the said amount in the name of the intervention agency.
Artiklis 9 märgitud juhul võib destilleerija […] taotleda, et talle tasutaks ettemakse korras artikli 6 esimeses lõigus märgitud abiga võrdne summa, tingimusel et sekkumisameti nimele seatakse garantii, mis vastab 110%-le sellest summast.
The security shall be provided in the form of a guarantee by an establishment meeting the criteria laid down by the Member State to which the intervention agency is responsible.
See garantii seatakse tagatise vormis, mille annab välja asutus, mis vastab selle liikmesriigi kehtestatud kriteeriumidele, kus asub sekkumisamet.
The advance shall be paid not later than 90 days after proof is furnished that the security has been provided and in any case after the date of approval of the contract or declaration.
Ettemakse tasutakse hiljemalt 90 päeva pärast tõendi esitamist selle kohta, et garantii on seatud, ja igal juhul pärast kuupäeva, kui lepingut või deklaratsiooni tunnustati.
Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides:
Euroopa Kohtu põhikirja artiklis 46 on sätestatud:
‘Proceedings against the Communities in matters arising from noncontractual liability shall be barred after a period of five years from the occurrence of the event giving rise thereto.
„Ühenduste lepinguvälise vastutusega seotud asjade aegumistähtaeg on viis aastat vastutuse aluseks olevast sündmusest.
The period of limitation shall be interrupted if proceedings are instituted before the Court or if, prior to such proceedings, an application is made by the aggrieved party to the relevant institution of the Communities.
Aegumistähtaeg katkeb, kui Euroopa Kohtus algatatakse menetlus või kui enne sellist menetlust esitab kannatanud pool avalduse asjakohasele ühenduste institutsioonile.
In the latter event the proceedings must be instituted within the period of two months provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty and Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty; the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 232 of the EC Treaty and the second paragraph of Article 148 of the EAEC Treaty, respectively, shall apply where appropriate.’
Viimasel juhul tuleb menetlus algatada kahe kuu jooksul, nagu on sätestatud EÜ asutamislepingu artiklis 230 ja EURATOMi asutamislepingu artiklis 146; vajaduse korral kohaldatakse vastavalt EÜ asutamislepingu artikli 232 teise lõigu või EURATOMi asutamislepingu artikli 148 teise lõigu sätteid.”
Facts of the dispute
Vaidluse aluseks olevad asjaolud
The facts of the dispute, as set out in paragraphs 16 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as follows.
Vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktides 16–44 esitatud vaidluse aluseks olevad asjaolud võib kokku võtta järgmiselt.
The Cantine, which are wine cooperatives, are producers of wine in Sardinia (Italy).
Cantine koosneb mitmest Sardiinia (Itaalia) veinitootjate kooperatiivist.
In the context of preventive distillation in respect of the 1982/1983 marketing year they delivered, between January and March 1983, wine to DAI which was distilled within the timelimit laid down by the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 2499/82.
Veiniaasta 1982/1983 eeldestilleerimise raames tarnis ta DAI-le 1983. aasta jaanuarist märtsini veini, mis destilleeriti määruse nr 2499/82 artiklis 4 märgitud tähtajal.
The 90-day period laid down by Article 9(1) of that regulation within which DAI was required to pay the Cantine expired in June 1983.
Selle määruse artikli 9 lõikes 1 DAI-le antud 90-päevane tähtaeg Cantinele maksmiseks lõppes 1983. aasta juunis.
On 22 June 1983 DAI requested the Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (the Italian intervention agency, ‘AIMA’) to make an advance payment of Community aid, under Article 11 of Regulation No 2499/82, in respect of the wine which had been delivered and distilled.
DAI taotles 22. juunil 1983, et Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (edaspidi „AIMA”) tasuks määruse nr 2499/82 artikli 11 alusel ettemakse korras ühenduse abi tarnitud veini eest, mis oli destilleeritud.
To that end, DAI provided the security required by that provision, equal to 110% of the amount of the aid, in the form of a bond issued by Assicuratrice Edile SpA (‘Assedile’) in favour of AIMA.
DAI seadis selleks otstarbeks nõutud garantii, mis vastas 110%-le abi summast; selle garantii esitas Assicuratrice Edile SpA (edaspidi „Assedile”) AIMA nimele väljastatud kindlustuspoliisi vormis.
On 10 August 1983, AIMA paid the advance requested to DAI in accordance with Article 11.
AIMA tasus 10. augustil 1983 selle artikli 11 alusel DAI-le ettemakse.
Due to financial difficulties, DAI failed to pay, either in full or in part, the producers, including the Cantine, who had delivered wine for distillation.
Rahaliste raskuste tõttu jättis DAI olenevalt olukorrast kas tervikuna või osaliselt tasumata tootjatele, sh Cantinele, kes olid tarninud veini destilleerimiseks.
In October 1983 DAI applied for administration under Italian bankruptcy law.
DAI esitas oktoobris 1983 taotluse erilise saneerimismenetluse kohaldamiseks, mis on ette nähtud Itaalia pankrotialastes õigusnormides.
As the court to which the matter was subsequently referred, the Tribunale di Oristano (District Court, Oristano) (Italy), granted that application, DAI suspended all its payments, including those still owed to the producers who had delivered wine to it.
Pärast seda, kui Tribunale d’Oristano (Itaalia) selle taotluse rahuldas, peatas DAI kõik maksed, sh talle veini tarninud tootjatele seni väljamaksmata summade osas.
AIMA requested DAI to reimburse the Community aid, less the sums duly paid to the abovementioned producers, on the ground that DAI had not supplied it, within the timelimit laid down in Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2499/82, with proof that
AIMA taotles, et DAI maksaks tagasi ühenduse abi, millest on maha arvatud eespool märgitud tootjatele nõuetekohaselt tasutud summad, ja seda põhjusel, et DAI ei esitanud talle määruse nr 2499/82 artikli 9 lõikes 2 märgitud tähtajal tõendit selle
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS it had paid the other producers the minimum buyingin price for wine within the period of 90 days after the entry into the distillery laid down in Article 9(1) thereof.
KOMISJON VS. CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA JT kohta, et ta on teistele tootjatele tasunud minimaalse ostuhinna 90 päeva jooksul pärast selle määruse artikli 9 lõikes 1 märgitud veini jõudmist piiritusetehasesse.
As DAI did not reimburse that aid, AIMA applied to Assedile for payment of the security.
Kuna DAI ei maksnud seda abi tagasi, palus AIMA Assedilel tasuda talle garantii summa.
At the request of DAI, the Pretore di Terralba (Magistrate’s Court, Terralba) (Italy) made an interim order on 26 July 1984 prohibiting Assedile from paying the security to AIMA.
DAI taotlusel andis Pretore di Terralba (Itaalia) 26. juulil 1984 ajutiste meetmete kohaldamise määruse, milles keelati Assedilel tasuda AIMA-le garantiid.
It gave DAI a period of 60 days within which to bring an action on the merits of the case.
DAI-le anti 60 päeva põhikohtuasja algatamiseks.
In September 1984 DAI brought such an action before the Tribunale civile di Roma (Civil District Court, Rome) (Italy).
DAI algatas 1984. aasta septembris põhikohtuasja Tribunale civile di Roma’s (Itaalia).
It claimed inter alia that that court should declare that the producers were the intended ultimate recipients of the security provided by Assedile, to the extent of the sums still owed to them.
Ta taotles eeskätt seda, et nimetatud kohus tuvastaks, et tootjad olid Assedile seatud garantii lõplikeks saajateks summade osas, mis neile tuli tasuda.
It maintained that that security was intended to guarantee payment of the minimum buyingin price to producers in proportion to the amount of production delivered in the event of the distiller failing to meet its obligations.
Ta väitis, et selle garantii eesmärk oli tagada tootjatele minimaalse ostuhinna maksmine proportsionaalselt tarnitud toodanguga, kui destilleerija ei täida oma kohustusi.
It proposed that questions concerning the interpretation of the relevant Community regulations should be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Ta soovitas pöörduda Euroopa Kohtu poole eelotsuse küsimustega kohaldatavate ühenduse määruste tõlgendamise kohta.
The Cantine, another wine cooperative and a consortium of wine cooperatives intervened in the proceedings in support of the form of order sought by DAI.
Cantine, üks teine veinitootjate kooperatiiv ja üks veinitootjate kooperatiivide konsortsium astusid menetlusse, toetades DAI väidet.
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 and they therefore sought a ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma requiring Assedile to pay them the outstanding amounts of the debts owed to them by DAI, and, in the alternative, a ruling requiring AIMA to pay them those sums.
Nad sedastasid, et Assedile seatud garantii esemeks olnud summad kuulusid neile proportsionaalselt nende tarnitud veiniga ning palusid seejärel Tribunale civile di Romal otsustada, et Assedilel oli kohustus maksta neile summa, mis vastab nende rahuldamata nõuetele DAI suhtes, ja teise võimalusena otsustada, et AIMA on kohustatud neile need summad tasuma.
Meanwhile, by judgment of 27 February 1986, the Tribunale di 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 essentially that the claims put forward by the cooperatives intervening in support of DAI were unfounded, stating in particular that Regulation No 2499/82 was easy to interpret,
Tribunale civile di Roma leidis oma 27. jaanuari 1989. aasta otsuses sisuliselt, et DAI toetuseks menetlusse astujate väited on alusetud, sedastades eeskätt, et nii määrust nr 2499/82 kui ka Assedile poolt AIMA-le seatud garantiid käsitlevaid
Having ruled out any alleged right of those cooperatives to receive the amount of the security provided by Assedile, the Tribunale civile di Roma held that DAI’s insolvency proceedings constituted the appropriate framework within which the cooperatives could obtain payment of their debts.
Olles välistanud nende kooperatiivide igasuguse väidetava õiguse saada Assedile seatud tagatise summat, leidis Tribunale civile di Roma, et DAI pankrotimenetlus oli sobilik raamistik nende kooperatiivide nõuete rahuldamiseks.
By judgment of 19 November 1991 that court held that the appeal was inadmissible on the grounds that the applicants had notified lodgement of the appeal, not to DAI’s official receiver, but to DAI itself, which was then in insolvency, and that they had not subsequently effected proper notification within the timelimit imposed on them.
See kohus leidis 19. novembri 1991. aasta otsusega, et apellatsioonkaebus on vastuvõetamatu, kuna apellatsioonkaebuse esitajad ei olnud DAI pankrotihaldurile apellatsioonkaebuse esitamisest nõuetekohaselt teatanud, vaid teinud seda üksnes sellel ajal juba pankrotis olnud DAI-le, ega olnud oma apellatsioonkaebusest seejärel nõuetekohaselt uuesti teatanud kehtestatud tähtaja jooksul.
In the meantime, on 16 January 1990, Assedile paid the sums owing to AIMA.
Vahepealsel ajal, st 16. jaanuaril 1990, maksis Assedile AIMA-le tasumata summad.
By judgment of 28 November 1994, the Corte suprema di cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) (Italy) dismissed the appeal brought by the Cantine, with the exception of Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari, against the judgment of the Corte d’appello di Roma.
Corte suprema di cassazione (Itaalia kassatsioonikohus) lükkas Cantine (v.a Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari) poolt Corte d’appello di Roma otsuse peale esitatud kassatsioonkaebuse 28. novembril 1994 tagasi.
The Cantine duly registered their claims among DAI’s liabilities in the context of the insolvency proceedings that had been brought against it and, at the conclusion of those proceedings in 2000, took part in the distribution of assets as preferential creditors.
Cantine registreeris nõuetekohaselt oma nõuded DAI põhivara suhtes viimase vastu algatatud pankrotimenetluse raames ja selle menetluse lõppedes 2000. aastal osales ta pankrotivara jagamises eelistatud võlausaldajana.