natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Following that letter, between 12 and 15 October 1998 and between 30 November and 2 December 1998, the European Commission’s Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the predecessor to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), carried out checks in Turkey.
Komisjoni pettuste ennetamise koordinatsiooniüksus (UCLAF), mis on Euroopa Pettustevastase Ameti (OLAF) eelkäija, viis 12.–15. oktoobril 1998 ja 30. novembril–2. detsembril 1998 Türgis läbi uurimise.
By letter of 8 March 1999, the Turkish Permanent Representation notified the customs services in Ravenna that 32 A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant (‘the certificates at issue’), including 18 of the certificates listed in the annex to the letter of 10 July 1998, were not in order and had been neither issued nor validated by the Turkish authorities.
Türgi alaline esindus teatas 8. märtsi 1999. aasta kirjaga Ravenna tolliteenistusele, et apellandi esitatud 32 sertifikaati A.TR.1 (edaspidi „vaidlusalused sertifikaadid”), sh 18 sertifikaati, mis olid loetletud 10. juuli 1998. aasta kirja lisas, ei ole Türgi ametiasutuste poolt koostatud ega kinnitatud.
Those certificates were identified in the annex to that letter.
Mainitud sertifikaadid on loetletud kirja lisas.
Thereafter, the inauthentic or irregular nature of a significant number of A.TR.1 certificates was the subjectmatter of a large amount of correspondence between the Commission, the Turkish authorities and the Italian authorities, correspondence which included, inter alia, the Turkish authorities’ letters of 22 April 1999 and 16 July 1999.
Seejärel vahetasid komisjon ning Türgi ja Itaalia ametiasutused hulga kirju, mis käsitlesid märkimisväärse arvu sertifikaatide A.TR.1 mitteautentsust või nõuetele mittevastavust, kusjuures selle kirjavahetuse sekka kuuluvad muu hulgas Türgi ametiasutuste 22. aprilli 1999. aasta ja 16. juuli 1999. aasta kirjad.
The Italian authorities took the view that it was clear from all the correspondence that the Turkish authorities considered 48 A.TR.1 certificates, including the certificates at issue, to be either inauthentic or irregular.
Itaalia ametiasutused leidsid selle kirjavahetuse alusel, et Türgi ametiasutused on seisukohal, et 48 sertifikaati A.TR.1, sh vaidlusalused sertifikaadid, on kas mitteautentsed või nõuetele mittevastavad.
In the present case, the certificates at issue were considered to be ‘forged’, given that they had been neither issued nor validated by Turkish customs offices.
Käesoleval juhul loeti vaidlusalused sertifikaadid „valedeks”, kuna Türgi tolliasutused ei olnud neid väljastanud ega kinnitanud.
On the other hand, the 16 other certificates (corresponding to customs duties totalling ITL 1 904 763 758 or EUR 983 728.38) were classified as invalid, given that, whilst they had been issued by the Turkish customs authorities, the goods concerned did not originate in Turkey.
Seevastu kuusteist muud sertifikaati (mis vastavad tollimaksudele kogusummas 1 904 763 758 Itaalia liiri, s.o 983 728,38 eurot) tunnistati „kehtetuteks”, kuna vaatamata sellele, et need olid välja antud Türgi tolli poolt, ei olnud kaubad Türgi päritolu.
Since all 48 certificates had been classified as either ‘forged’ or ‘invalid’, the goods to which they related could not qualify for the preferential treatment accorded to imported Turkish agricultural products.
Kuna kõik 48 sertifikaati tunnistati kas „valedeks” või „kehtetuteks”, ei saa nendega hõlmatud kaupadele kohaldada Türgi põllumajandustoodete impordile ettenähtud sooduskohtlemist.
Accordingly, the Italian customs administration demanded the sum of ITL 5 200 954 129 or EUR 2 686 068.63 from the appellant by way of unpaid customs duties.
Seetõttu nõudis Itaalia toll, et apellant maksaks tasumisele kuuluvad tollimaksud kogusummas 5 200 954 129 Itaalia liiri, s.o 2 686 068,63 eurot.
By letter of 28 March 2000 to the Ravenna customs services, the appellant, relying on Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239 of the CCC, claimed that import duties should not have been entered in the accounts postclearance and that the import duties claimed should be ‘repaid’.
Ravenna tolliteenistusele 28. märtsil 2000 saadetud kirjas esitas apellant ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 220 lõike 2 punkti b ning artiklite 236 ja 239 alusel taotluse jätta nõutavate imporditollimaksude kohta järelarvestuskanne tegemata ja need „tagasi maksta”.
In support of its claim, the appellant pleaded its good faith, errors on the part of the competent authorities that could not have been detected and deficiencies attributable to those authorities.
Taotluses tugines apellant oma heausksusele, pädevate asutuste vigadele, mida ei olnud võimalik avastada, ja nendele ametiasutustele süüks pandavatele rikkumistele.
Following the appellant’s claim, the Italian Republic asked the Commission to decide whether it was appropriate to waive subsequent entry in the accounts of the import duties claimed from the appellant pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, or to ‘repay’ those duties under Article 239 of the CCC.
Apellandi taotluse järel palusid Itaalia ametiasutused komisjonil teha otsus, kas on põhjendatud jätta apellandilt ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 220 lõike 2 punkti b alusel nõutavate imporditollimaksude kohta järelarvestuskanne tegemata või maksta need imporditollimaksud ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 alusel tagasi.
By letter of 3 June 2002, the Commission requested certain additional information from the Italian authorities, which replied by letter of 7 June 2002.
Komisjon palus Itaalia ametiasutustelt teatavat lisateavet 3. juuni 2002. aasta kirjaga, millele need asutused vastasid 7. juuni 2002. aasta kirjaga.
By letter of 25 July 2002, the Commission informed the appellant of its intention not to consent to its claim.
Komisjon teatas 25. juuli 2002. aasta kirjaga apellandile, et ta ei kavatse tema taotlust rahuldada.
Before taking a final decision, however, the Commission invited the appellant to advise it of any observations it may have and to have access to the file so that it could inspect the non-confidential documents.
Enne lõpliku otsuse tegemist palus komisjon apellandil siiski esitada oma võimalikud märkused ja vaadata toimik läbi, et tutvuda mittekonfidentsiaalsete dokumentidega.
On 6 August 2002, the appellant’s representatives consulted the administrative file at the Commission’s offices.
Apellandi esindajad tutvusid 6. augustil 2002 haldustoimikuga komisjoni ruumides.
They also signed a declaration confirming that they had had access to the documents listed in an annex to that declaration.
Muu hulgas kirjutasid nad alla avaldusele, milles kinnitasid, et on tutvunud avalduse lisas loetletud dokumentidega.
On 18 October 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which was notified to the appellant on 21 November 2002.
Komisjon võttis 18. oktoobril 2002 vastu vaidlusaluse otsuse, mis tehti apellandile teatavaks 21. novembril 2002.
Secondly, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to ‘repay’ import duties in respect of the part of the claim relating to the 16 invalid certificates since, in that regard, the appellant was in a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Teiseks leidis komisjon, et on põhjendatud „maksta tagasi” imporditollimaksud seoses taotluse osaga, mis puudutas kuutteist „kehtetut” sertifikaati, kuna komisjoni arvates oli apellandi puhul nende sertifikaatidega seoses tegemist eriolukorraga ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 tähenduses.
Thirdly, with regard to the certificates at issue, the Commission concluded, on the other hand, that the circumstances relied on by the appellant could not give rise to a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Kolmandaks leidis komisjon aga vaidlusaluste sertifikaatide osas, et apellandi esitatud asjaoludel ei saa tekkida eriolukord ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 tähenduses.
Consequently, in Article 2 of the contested decision, the Commission decided that it was not appropriate to ‘repay’ the import duties relating to those certificates, amounting to EUR 1 702 340.25.
Sellepärast otsustas komisjon vaidlusaluse otsuse artiklis 2, et nende sertifikaatidega seotud imporditollimaksude kogusummas 1 702 340,25 eurot tagasimaksmine ei ole põhjendatud.
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Esimese Astme Kohtule esitatud hagi ning vaidlustatud kohtuotsus
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 January 2003, the applicant sought the annulment of Article 2 of the contested decision.
Esimese Astme Kohtu kantseleisse 29. jaanuaril 2003 saabunud hagiavalduses palus hageja tühistada vaidlusaluse otsuse artikli 2.
In support of its action, the applicant put forward three pleas in law, alleging infringement of its rights of defence, of Article 239 of the CCC and of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC respectively.
Oma nõuete toetuseks esitas hageja kolm väidet, mis puudutavad vastavalt tema kaitseõiguse, ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 ning ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 220 lõike 2 punkti b rikkumisi.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.
Esimese Astme Kohus jättis hagi täies ulatuses rahuldamata.
By it first plea, the applicant maintained that its rights of defence were infringed during the administrative procedure in that, although it had access to the file containing the documents on which the Commission had based the contested decision, it did not have access to documents which had a decisive influence on the Commission’s overall assessment of the situation.
Oma esimeses väites leidis hageja, et tema kaitseõigust rikuti haldusmenetluses sellega, et kuigi tal oli õigus tutvuda toimikuga, mis sisaldas dokumente, millele komisjon toetus vaidlustatud otsuse tegemisel, puudus tal siiski juurdepääs dokumentidele, millel oli otsustav tähtsus komisjoni poolt olukorrale antud tervikliku hinnangu seisukohalt.
However, the Court of First Instance dismissed that plea on the grounds set out in paragraphs 87 to 102 of the judgment under appeal.
Sellegipoolest lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktides 87–102 toodud põhjendustel selle väite tagasi.
The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the CCC, is composed of four parts.
Ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 rikkumist puudutav teine väide on jagatud neljaks osaks.
The second and third parts set out, respectively, serious deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities and to the Commission in order to establish that there was a special situation for the purposes of that article.
Väite teise ja kolmanda osaga heidetakse Türgi ametiasutustele ja komisjonile ette tõsiseid rikkumisi eriolukorra tuvastamisel ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 239 mõttes.
Lastly, the fourth part concerns lack of obvious negligence on the part of the applicant and the assessment of commercial risks.
Väite neljas osa käsitleb apellandi ilmse hooletuse puudumist ja äririskide hindamist.
As regards the first part of that plea, after pointing out that determination of the origin of goods is based on a division of powers between the authorities of the exporting country and those of the importing country, inasmuch as origin is established by the authorities of the exporting country, the Court of First Instance first examined the correspondence exchanged between the Commission and the Italian and Turkish authorities.
Meenutades, et kaupade päritolu kindlaksmääramine põhineb eksportiva ja importiva riigi ametiasutuste pädevuse jaotusel, mille kohaselt eksportiva riigi ametiasutused määratlevad päritolu, uuris Esimese Astme Kohus seoses teise väite esimese osaga kõigepealt komisjoni ning Itaalia ja Türgi ametiasutuste kirjavahetust.
In this connection, the Court of First Instance noted, in paragraph 122 of the judgment under appeal, that, with regard to the part of the contested decision concerning the certificates at issue, the Commission based its decision essentially on the Turkish authorities’ letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs services.
Selles osas tuvastas Esimese Astme Kohus vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktis 122, et komisjon on vaidlusaluse otsuse kõnealuseid sertifikaate puudutava osa puhul tuginenud peamiselt Türgi ametiasutuste poolt 8. märtsil 1999 Ravenna tolliteenistusele saadetud kirjale.
However, in comparing the wording of that letter and the wording of subsequent communications from the Turkish authorities, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraphs 124 to 128 of the judgment under appeal, that there were ambiguities as to the classification of certificate D 437214 and that the Commission had not been in a position properly to conclude that that certificate had been forged prior to the adoption of the contested decision.
Siiski on Esimese Astme Kohus pärast selle kirja sisu võrdlemist Türgi ametiasutuste järgnevate sõnumitega tuvastanud vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktides 124–128, et sertifikaadi D 437214 määratlus tekitab mitmetimõistetavust ning et komisjon ei saanud enne vaidlusaluse otsuse vastuvõtmist teha õiguspäraselt otsust, et nimetatud sertifikaat on võltsitud.
However, on the basis of a letter of 22 August 2003, and thus subsequent to the contested decision, in which the Turkish authorities confirmed the conclusions set out in their letter of 8 March 1999, the Court of First Instance held that that
Võttes arvesse 22. augustil 2003. aastal – st pärast vaidlusaluse otsuse vastuvõtmist – saadetud kirja, milles Türgi ametiasutused kinnitasid oma 8. märtsi 1999. aasta kirja järeldusi, leidis Esimese Astme Kohus, et sellest ei piisa siiski vaidlusaluse otsuse
Next, the Court of First Instance examined the second part of the second plea relating to various claims that there were deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities which are essentially based on the proposition that those authorities did in fact issue and endorse the certificates at issue.
Seejärel uuris Esimese Astme Kohus teise väite teist osa, mis puudutab Türgi ametiasutuste kohustuste rikkumiste kohta esitatud erinevaid väiteid, mis põhinevad peamiselt seisukohal, et vaidlusalused sertifikaadid olid tegelikult väljastatud ja allkirjastatud nimetatud ametiasutuste poolt.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance, after observing, in paragraphs 150 to 152 of the judgment under appeal that, firstly, it lay within the exclusive competence of the Turkish authorities to determine whether documents they had issued were original or forged and that, secondly, those authorities had concluded that the certificates at issue were forged, rejected the applicant’s argument that the impressions of the stamps and signatures applied to the certificates at issue demonstrate that they were in all likelihood issued and authenticated by the Turkish authorities.
Tuvastades kõigepealt vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktides 150–152, et esiteks kuulub selle tuvastamine, kas Türgi ametiasutuste väljastatud dokumentide näol on tegemist originaaldokumendi või võltsitud dokumendiga, nende asutuste ainupädevusse ning et teiseks jõudsid need asutused järeldusele, et vaidlustatud sertifikaadid on võltsitud, lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi apellandi väite, et vaidlusalustel sertifikaatidel olevad templijäljendid ja allkirjad tõendavad, et need sertifikaadid on tõenäoliselt väljastatud Türgi ametiasutuste poolt, kes on nende autentsust tõestanud.
Lastly, the Court of First Instance also observed that neither the Association Agreement nor the implementation provisions expressly provide that registers of certificates issued by the Turkish authorities are to be kept.
Lõpuks märkis kohus, et assotsiatsioonileping ega ka selle rakendussätted ei näe otseselt ette Türgi ametiasutuste väljastatavate sertifikaatide registrite pidamist.
The Court of First Instance did in fact acknowledge that paragraph 12 of Point II of Annex II to Decision No 1/96 requires the document number to be entered in Box 12 of A.TR.1 certificates and that Article 13 of that decision provides that, where a certificate is divided, Box 12 of the extract is to show, inter alia, the registration number of the initial certificate.
Sellegipoolest möönis Esimese Astme Kohus, et otsuse nr 1/96 II lisa II punkti lõige 12 sätestab, et sertifikaatide A.TR.1 12. lahtrisse tuleb märkida dokumendi number, ning et sama otsuse artikkel 13 sätestab, et sertifikaatide jagamise korral peab 12. lahtris olema eelkõige esialgse sertifikaadi registreerimisnumber.
However, it considered that that did not mean that the certificates were authentic because forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Siiski leidis kohus, et see ei tähenda, et tegemist on autentsete sertifikaatidega, kuna võltsijate huvides on kasutada võltsitud sertifikaatidel nõuetele vastava sertifikaadi registreerimisnumbrit.
As regards the third part of the second plea, relating to a raft of claims in respect of failings attributable to the European Commission, the Court of First Instance relied on investigations carried out by UCLAF in Turkey to come to the conclusion that the Commission had in fact ensured that the Association Agreement was properly implemented.
Teise väite kolmanda osa puhul, mis hõlmab rea väiteid komisjonile süükspandavate rikkumiste kohta, tugines Esimese Astme Kohus UCLAF-i poolt Türgis läbiviidud uurimisele, leides, et komisjon on tegelikult taganud assotsiatsioonilepingu nõuetekohase rakendamise.
The Court of First Instance also stated, in paragraph 240 of the judgment under appeal, that the applicant had not been able to establish that the Commission had encountered difficulties concerning the administrative assistance agreed upon with the Turkish authorities which would have justified bringing the matter before the Association Council or the EC-Turkey Customs Union Joint Committee (‘the Joint Committee’).
Esimese Astme Kohus sedastas samuti vaidlustatud kohtuotsuse punktis 240, et apellant ei ole suutnud tõendada, et komisjon on Türgi ametiasutustega kokkulepitud halduskoostöö käigus kohanud selliseid raskusi, mille tõttu oleks olnud põhjendatud pöördumine assotsiatsiooninõukogu või EÜ-Türgi tolliliidu ühiskomitee (edaspidi „ühiskomitee”) poole.
Thereafter, the Court of First Instance held that the Association Agreement, the decisions of the Association Council and the applicable Community legislation did not lay down any obligation for specimens of stamps and signatures to be sent from one Contracting Party to another, for importers to be warned of doubts as to the validity of customs transactions effected by those importers under the system of preferential treatment and for UCLAF to adopt a particular method of investigation.
Järgmiseks asus Esimese Astme Kohus seisukohale, et assotsiatsioonileping, assotsiatsiooninõukogu otsused ega kohaldatav ühenduse õigusnorm ei näinud ette lepingupoolte vahelist templite ja allkirjade näidiste esitamise kohustust, kohustust hoiatada importijaid, et nende poolt sooduskorra raames tehtud tollitoimingute õiguspärasuse osas on kahtlusi, ega teatavate uurimismeetodite kasutamist UCLAF-i poolt.
As for the fourth part of the second plea, relating to the lack of obvious negligence on the part of the applicant, the Court of First Instance rejected it as being of no consequence after pointing out that the Commission did not, in the part of the contested decision dealing with the certificates at issue, express its view on the issue of the applicant’s due care or negligence.
Teise väite neljanda osa, mis puudutab apellandi ilmse hooletuse puudumist, lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi kui ainetu, olles tuvastanud, et komisjon ei ole vaidlusaluse otsuse kõnealuseid sertifikaate käsitlevas osas avaldanud arvamust apellatsioonkaebuse esitaja hoolsuse või hooletuse kohta.
The Court of First Instance also rejected the third plea, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, given that the applicant had not been able to demonstrate that the acts of the competent authorities contributed to the issue or acceptance of the certificates at issue which had proved to be forged.
Samuti lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi kolmanda väite, mis käsitles ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 220 lõike 2 punkti b rikkumist, kuna apellatsioonkaebuse esitaja ei suutnud tõendada, et pädevate asutuste endi tegevus oleks aidanud kaasa vaidlusaluste sertifikaatide koostamisele või aktsepteerimisele.
Measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry required
Taotletavad menetlust korraldavad meetmed ja menetlustoimingud
Lastly, the Court of First Instance rejected the evidence offered in support and the measures of inquiry sought by the applicant such as, inter alia, its request to call upon the Commission to produce all the documents which the applicant considers it was not able to consult when it was given access to the administrative file.
Lõpetuseks lükkas Esimese Astme Kohus tagasi esitatud tõendid ja apellatsioonkaebuse esitaja taotletavad menetlust korraldavad meetmed, sealhulgas taotluse nõuda komisjonilt kõigi nende dokumentide esitamist, millega hageja ei saanud tutvuda haldustoimikule juurdepääsu raames.
By its appeal the appellant claims that the Court should:
Oma apellatsioonkaebuses palub apellant Euroopa Kohtul:
— allow the claims made at first instance, or in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to rule on the substance of the case;
– rahuldada esimese astme kohtus esitatud taotlused; teise võimalusena saata asi uueks otsustamiseks tagasi Esimese Astme Kohtule;
— allow the requests for measures of organisation of procedure made by the appellant in its written pleadings of 28 January 2003, 4 August 2003 and 11 August 2003, and
– rahuldada hageja 28. jaanuari 2003. aasta, 4. augusti 2003. aasta ja 11. augusti 2003. aasta taotlused menetlust korraldavate meetmete võtmiseks ning
— order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.
– mõisa esimese astme kohtukulud välja kostjalt.
— uphold the form of order which the Commission sought at first instance; and
– rahuldada esimese astme kohtus komisjoni esitatud nõuded;
— order the appellant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred at first instance.
– mõista kohtukulud, sh esimese astme kohtukulud, välja apellandilt.
The appellant puts forward nine grounds of appeal.
Oma apellatsioonkaebuse toetuseks esitab apellant üheksa väidet.
First, it submits that the Court of First Instance made an error of law in determining the division of powers between the exporting country and the importing country in
Esiteks väidab apellant, et Esimese Astme Kohus rikkus eksportiva ja importiva riigi ametiasutuste pädevuse jaotusel õigusnormi, kuna Türgi ametiasutused ei ole
Secondly, the appellant submits that there was infringement of its right of access to the file, which cannot be restricted to only the documents on which the Commission based the contested decision.
Teiseks viitab apellant, et rikutud on tema õigust tutvuda toimikuga, mida ei saa piirata üksnes dokumentidega, millele komisjon rajas oma vaidlusaluse otsuse.
The appellant’s third and fourth grounds of appeal allege that the burden of proof was wrongly allocated because the Court of First Instance imposed on it the entire burden of proof but rejected its offers of evidence and the measures of inquiry it requested.
Kolmas ja neljas väide puudutavad tõendamiskoormuse ebaõiget jagamist, kuna Esimese Astme Kohus pani talle täieliku tõendamiskoormuse, lükates samal ajal tagasi tema esitatud tõendid ning tema taotletavad menetlust korraldavad meetmed.
Errors in the legal classification of the failings alleged against the Turkish authorities and the Commission form the subjectmatter of the fifth ground of appeal.
Viienda väite ese on Türgi ametiasutustele ja komisjonile etteheidetavad vead, mis viimased tegid kohustuste rikkumiste õiguslikul kvalifitseerimisel.