natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
after hearing the oral observations of Kühne & Heitz NV, represented by A.J. Braakman, of the Netherlands Government, represented by H.G. Sevenster and J.G.M. van Bakel, acting as Agent, of the French Government, represented by R. Abraham and C. Isidoro, acting as Agents, of the Commission, represented by T. van Rijn, and of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by B. Eiríksdóttir, at the hearing on 9 October 2002,
saslušavši usmena očitovanja društva Kühne & Heitz NV, koje zastupa A. J. Braakman, nizozemske vlade, koju zastupaju H. G. Sevenster i J. G. M. van Bakel, u svojstvu agenata, francuske vlade, koju zastupaju R. Abraham i C. Isidoro, u svojstvu agenata, Komisije, koju zastupa T. van Rijn, i Nadzornog tijela EFTA-e, koje zastupa B. Eiríksdóttir, na raspravi održanoj 9. listopada 2002.,
after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 17 June 2003,
saslušavši mišljenje nezavisnog odvjetnika na raspravi održanoj 17. lipnja 2003.,
1 By order of 1 November 2000, received at the Court on 11 December 2000, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question on the interpretation of Community law and, in particular, the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC.
1 Odlukom od 1. studenoga 2000., koju je Sud zaprimio 11. prosinca 2000., College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Upravni sud za trgovinu i industriju) je na temelju članka 234. UEZ-a postavio prethodno pitanje o tumačenju prava Zajednice, a posebno načela suradnje koje proizlazi iz članka 10. UEZ-a.
2 That question was raised in proceedings between Kühne & Heitz NV ( Kühne & Heitz) and the Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren ( the Productschap) concerning the payment of export refunds.
2 Pitanje je upućeno u okviru spora između društva Kühne & Heitz NV (dalje u tekstu: Kühne & Heitz) i Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren (dalje u tekstu: Productschap) u vezi s plaćanjem izvoznih subvencija.
3 Article 10 EC provides: Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community. They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty.
3 Članak 10. UEZ-a predviđa: „Države članice poduzimaju odgovarajuće mjere, opće ili posebne, kako bi osigurale ispunjavanje obveza koje proizlaze iz ovog Ugovora ili akata institucija Zajednice. One olakšavaju ostvarivanje zadaća Zajednice. One se suzdržavaju od svake mjere koja bi mogla ugroziti postizanje ciljeva Ugovora.ˮ
4 As regards Netherlands law, Articles 4:6 and 8:88 of the Algemene wet bestuursrecht (General law on administrative law) of 4 June 1992 (Stbl. 1992, p. 315), as last amended on 12 December 2001 (Stbl. 2001, p. 664), provide: Article 4:6
4 Što se tiče nizozemskog prava, članci 4:6 i 8:88 zakona Algemene wet bestuursrecht (Opći zakon o upravnom pravu) od 4. lipnja 1992. (Stbl. 1992, str. 315.), kako je zadnje izmijenjen 12. prosinca 2001., (Stbl. 2001, str. 664.), predviđa:
1. Where an application has, whether entirely or partly, been the subject of a decision of refusal, a further application may be made only on condition that the applicant shows new facts or a change of circumstances.
„Članak 4:6 1. Kad je zahtjev u cijelosti ili djelomično predmet odluke o odbijanju, novi se zahtjev može podnijeti samo pod uvjetom da tužitelj navede nove činjenice ili promjenu okolnosti.
2. If no new fact or change of circumstances is relied on, the administrative body may refuse the application by referring to its earlier decision of refusal, without applying Article 4:5.
2. Ako se ne istakne nijedna nova činjenica ili promjena okolnosti, upravno tijelo može odbiti zahtjev pozivajući se na svoju raniju odluku o odbijanju, bez primjene članka 4:5. [...]
...Article 8:88
Članak 8:88
1. The court may, on application by one party, review a final judgment taking account of facts or circumstances which:
1. Sud može, na zahtjev jedne od stranaka, u ponovljenom postupku odlučivati o presudi koja je postala pravomoćna, uzimajući u obzir činjenice ili okolnosti koje:
"(a) occurred before the judgment;"
"(a) su se dogodile prije presude;"
(b) were not known, and could not reasonably have been known, by the applicant before the judgment was delivered and,
(b) tužitelj nije poznavao i nisu mu razumno mogle biti poznate prije nego je presuda donesena, i,
(c) if the court had been aware of them, could have led it to deliver a different judgment.
(c) da je sud znao za njih, mogle su ga navesti da donese drugačiju presudu.
2. Where necessary, Chapter 6 and Sections 8.2 and 8.3 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
2. Kad je potrebno, poglavlje 6. i odjeljci 8.2 i 8.3 primjenjuju se mutatis mutandis.ˮ
The main proceedings
Glavni postupak
5 From December 1986 to December 1987, Kühne & Heitz exported quantities of poultrymeat parts to non-member countries. In the declarations lodged with the Netherlands customs authorities, Kühne & Heitz designated those goods as falling under subheading 02.02 B II e) 3 ( legs and cuts of legs of other poultry) of the common customs tariff. On the basis of those declarations, the Productschap granted export refunds under that subheading and paid the various relevant amounts.
5 Od prosinca 1986. do prosinca 1987. Kühne & Heitz izvozio je određene količine komada mesa peradi u države nečlanice. U deklaracijama koje je dostavio carinskim tijelima Nizozemske, Kühne & Heitz razvrstao je tu robu u carinski podbroj 02.02 B II e) 3 („bataci i komadi od bataka ostale peradiˮ) zajedničke carinske tarife. Na temelju tih deklaracija Productschap je odobrio izvozne subvencije u okviru tog podbroja i isplatio različite relevantne iznose.
6 Having carried out checks, the Productschap reclassified the goods under subheading 02.02 B II ex g ( other). Following that reclassification, it demanded reimbursement of NLG 970 950.98.
6 Nakon verifikacije Productschap je navedenu robu uvrstio u podbroj 02.02 B II ex g („ostaloˮ). Na temelju tog ponovljenog razvrstavanja, Productschap je zahtijevao povrat iznosa od NLG 970 950,98.
7 Its objection to that claim for reimbursement having been rejected, Kühne & Heitz lodged an appeal against that decision to reject with the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven. By judgment of 22 November 1991 ( the judgment of 22 November 1991), that court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the goods in question were not covered by the term legs within the meaning of subheading 02.02 B II e) 3. During those proceedings, Kühne & Heitz did not request that a question be referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
7 Kad je prigovor protiv tog zahtjeva za povrat odbijen, Kühne & Heitz je protiv te odluke o odbijanju uložio žalbu pri College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven. Taj sud je presudom od 22. studenoga 1991. (dalje u tekstu: presuda od 22. studenoga 1991.) odbacio žalbu uz obrazloženje da dotična roba nije obuhvaćena pojmom „bataciˮ u smislu tarifnog podbroja 02.02 B II e) 3. Tijekom tog postupka Kühne & Heitz nije zahtijevao da se Sudu postavi prethodno pitanje.
8 Subsequently, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-151/93 Voogd Vleesimport en -export [1994] ECR I-4915, ruled:
8 U svojoj kasnijoj presudi od 5. listopada 1994., Voogd Vleesimport en -export (C-151/93, Zb., str. I-4915.), Sud je odlučio:
20 A leg to which a piece of back remains attached must therefore be described as a leg, within the meaning of tariff subheadings 02.02 B II e) 3 of the old nomenclature and 0207 41 51 000 of the new, if that piece of back is not sufficiently large to give the product its essential character.
„20. Batak na kojem je ostao dio leđa mora se opisati kao batak, u smislu tarifnog podbroja 02.02 B II e) 3 prethodne nomenklature i podbroja 0207 41 51 000 nove nomenklature, ako navedeni dio leđa nije dovoljno velik da proizvodu dâ bitna svojstva.
21 To determine whether that is so, in the absence of Community rules at the material time, it is for the national court to take into account national commercial practices and traditional cutting methods.
21. Kako bi se odredilo je li to tako, ako pravila Zajednice ne postoje u tom trenutku, na nacionalnom sudu je da uzme u obzir nacionalne poslovne običaje i tradicionalne metode rasijecanja.ˮ
9 Following the judgment in Voogd Vleesimport en -export, cited above, Kühne & Heitz requested from the Productschap payment of the refunds which the latter had, in its view, wrongly required it to reimburse and sought payment of a sum equivalent to the greater amount which it would have received by way of refunds if the chicken legs exported after December 1987 had been classified in accordance with that judgment.
9 Nakon gore navedene presude Voogd Vleesimport en -export, Kühne & Heitz podnio je Productschapu zahtjev za isplatu izvoznih subvencija čiji je povrat po mišljenju društva Kühne & Heitz on neopravdano zahtijevao, i pritom je Kühne & Heitz tražio isplatu većeg iznosa nego što je onaj koji bi primio na temelju subvencija da su bataci peradi izvezeni nakon prosinca 1987. bili razvrstani u skladu s tom presudom.
10 The Productschap rejected those requests and, ruling on the complaint submitted to it, upheld its earlier decision to reject, by decision of 21 July 1997. Kühne & Heitz then brought an action against that latter decision, which is the subject of the main proceedings.
10 Productschap je odbacio te zahtjeve i na temelju prigovora koji mu je dostavljen, odlukom od 21. srpnja 1997. potvrdio je svoju prijašnju odluku o odbijanju. Kühne & Heitz je tad protiv potonje odluke pokrenuo tužbu koja je predmet u glavnom postupku.
The order for reference and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
O zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku i prethodnom pitanju
11 In its order for reference, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven rejected the second head of claim submitted to it by Kühne & Heitz for payment of a sum equivalent to the greater amount to which, in its view, it is entitled in respect of its exports after December 1987.
11 U svojem zahtjevu za prethodnu odluku College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven je odbacio drugi zahtjev koji mu je Kühne & Heitz dostavio u vezi s plaćanjem višeg iznosa na koji ima pravo u pogledu izvoza nakon prosinca 1987.
12 With respect to the first head of claim submitted by Kühne & Heitz for payment of the refunds which, in its view, it had been wrongly required to reimburse, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven stated that under Netherlands law, administrative bodies, in principle, always have the power to reopen a final decision. The existence of such a power may, in certain circumstances, imply an obligation to withdraw such a decision.
12 U pogledu prvog zahtjeva koji je dostavio Kühne & Heitz, u vezi s plaćanjem subvencija za koje se, po vlastitom mišljenju toga društva, od njega neopravdano traži povrat, College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven navodi da prema nizozemskom pravu, upravno tijelo načelno uvijek ima ovlast ponovno razmotriti pravomoćnu odluku. Postojanje takve ovlasti može, u određenim okolnostima, podrazumijevati obvezu povlačenja takve odluke.
13 The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven takes the view that the Productschap failed to take account of those factors when it claimed that Kühne & Heitz could bring only one action for revision of the judgment of 22 November 1991 before that court. The Productschap therefore relied on a misinterpretation of the law.
13 College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven smatra da je Productschap propustio uzeti u obzir ta razmatranja kada je tvrdio da u pogledu presude od 22. studenoga 1991. Kühne & Heitz pred tim istim sudom može uložiti samo jedan prijedlog za ponavljanje postupka. Productschap se dakle oslanjao na pogrešno tumačenje prava.
14 However, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven considered that, although it was, in principle, possible to annul the decision of 21 July 1997 on that ground, such annulment would serve a purpose only if it were certain that the Productschap not only had the power to reopen its previous decision but also an obligation to review whether there is, in the case of each of the exported goods, a right to a refund and, if so, to determine the amount of that refund.
14 Međutim, College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven smatra da, iako je načelno bilo moguće poništiti odluku od 21. srpnja 1997. zbog tog razloga, takvo poništavanje ima smisla samo ako je sigurno da je Productschap ne samo imao ovlast ponovno razmotriti svoju prethodnu odluku, već također i obvezu ponovno provjeriti postoji li, u slučaju svake od izvezenih roba, pravo na subvenciju i, ukoliko postoji, odrediti iznos te subvencije.
15 The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven observes that the assessment of whether there is an obligation to review must be based on the principle that judicial decisions given subsequent to a final administrative decision cannot, in themselves, affect the finality of that decision. That applies equally in the case of preliminary rulings given by the Court of Justice to the effect that the law ought to have been applied in accordance with the interpretation given by the Court from the entry into force of the rule interpreted, unless the Court has expressly held otherwise. The national court states that the argument seeking to establish a rule that final decisions must be amended in order to make them consistent with subsequent case-law ─ in the present case, Community case-law ─ would give rise to administrative chaos, seriously impair legal certainty and therefore cannot be accepted.
15 College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven primjećuje da se procjena o tome postoji li obveza preispitivanja treba temeljiti na načelu da sudska praksa nastala nakon pravomoćne administrativne odluke ne može sama po sebi utjecati na pravomoćnost te odluke. To jednako vrijedi i u slučaju prethodnih odluka Suda, kako bi se pravo u skladu s tumačenjem koje je dao Sud primjenjivalo odmah nakon stupanja na snagu tumačenog pravila, osim ako Sud izričito ne odredi drukčije. Sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku navodi da bi argument kojim se zahtijeva uvođenje pravila da se pravomoćne odluke moraju izmijeniti radi usklađivanja s kasnijom sudskom praksom – u ovom slučaju, sudskom praksom Zajednice – doveo do upravnog kaosa, ozbiljnog narušavanja pravne sigurnosti i da stoga nije prihvatljiv.
16 However, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven points out that, under Netherlands law, subsequent case-law may, in certain circumstances, have an effect in cases in which the legal remedies have been exhausted. It refers to the case-law of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) on the effects in criminal-law cases of judgments given by the European Court of Human Rights. The Hoge Raad der Nederlanden thus held, in a judgment of 1 February 1991 (Nederlandse Jurisprudentie ─ NJ ─ 1991, p. 413), that the subsequent discovery of an infringement of a fundamental right laid down in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is one determining factor which may preclude enforcement of a decision given in a criminal law case which cannot be the subject of an appeal.
16 Međutim, College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven ističe da, u skladu s nizozemskim pravom, kasnija sudska praksa može u određenim okolnostima imati posljedice u predmetima u kojima su pravna sredstva iscrpljena. U vezi s tim podsjeća na sudsku praksu vrhovnog suda Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nizozemska) u pogledu učinaka koje presude koje je donio Europski sud za ljudska prava imaju u kaznenim predmetima. Tako je Hoge Raad der Nederlanden presudio, u presudi od 1. veljače 1991. (Nederlandse Jurisprudentie NJ 1991, str. 413.), da je naknadno otkriveno kršenje temeljnog prava, utvrđenog u članku 6. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, odlučujući razlog koji može spriječiti izvršenje odluke protiv koje nema pravnog lijeka donesene u kaznenoj stvari.
17 The College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven is uncertain whether the finality of an administrative decision must be disregarded in a case such as that which has been brought before it in which, first, Kühne & Heitz has exhausted the legal remedies available to it, second, its interpretation of Community law has proved to be contrary to a judgment given subsequently by the Court and, third, the person concerned complained to the administrative body immediately after becoming aware of that judgment of the Court.
17 College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven pita se može li se pravomoćnost upravne odluke zanemariti u slučaju kao što je onaj u kojem je, kao prvo, Kühne & Heitz iscrpio pravna sredstva koja su mu bila dostupna, drugo, tumačenje prava Zajednice se pokazalo suprotnim kasnijoj presudi Suda i, treće, dotična osoba se žalila upravnom tijelu čim je saznala za tu presudu Suda.
18 That question is justified in the light of, in particular, Article 234 EC, according to which a national court against whose decision there is no judicial remedy is obliged to refer the question to the Court for a preliminary ruling. In 1991, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven mistakenly took the view that it was released from that obligation because, in accordance with the judgment in Case 283/81 CILFIT [1982] ECR 3415, it considered that the interpretation of the customs tariff subheadings concerned left no room for doubt. The national court is therefore uncertain whether effective and full implementation of Community law requires that, in a case such as that which has been brought before it, the rule on the finality of administrative decisions be relaxed.
18 To je pitanje opravdano posebno s obzirom na članak 234. UEZ-a, u skladu s kojim sud protiv čije odluke nema pravnog lijeka ima obvezu uputiti Sudu prethodno pitanje. 1991. godine College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven pogrešno je smatrao da je oslobođen te obveze, jer je u skladu s presudom od 6. listopada 1982., Cilfit i dr. (283/81, Zb., str. 3415.) smatrao da tumačenje podbrojeva carinske tarife nije dvojbeno. Sud koji je uputio zahtjev za prethodnu odluku stoga želi znati pretpostavlja li učinkovita i potpuna provedba prava Zajednice, u slučaju kao što je onaj koji se vodi pred njim, jedan blaži oblik pravila o pravomoćnosti pravnih odluka.
19 In the light of those factors, the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven decided to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling: Under Community law, in particular under the principle of Community solidarity contained in Article 10 EC, and in the circumstances described in the grounds of this decision, is an administrative body required to reopen a decision which has become final in order to ensure the full operation of Community law, as it is to be interpreted in the light of a subsequent preliminary ruling?
19 S obzirom na ta razmatranja, College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven odlučio je prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeće prethodno pitanje: „U skladu s pravom Zajednice, a posebno u skladu s načelom lojalnosti iz članka 10. UEZ-a, i u okolnostima opisanima u ovoj odluci, zahtijeva li se od upravnog tijela da odluku koja je postala pravomoćna ponovno razmotri kako bi se osigurao potpuni učinak prava Zajednice, koje treba tumačiti s obzirom na kasnije donesenu prethodnu odluku?ˮ
20 As the Court has already held, it is for all the authorities of the Member States to ensure observance of the rules of Community law within the sphere of their competence (see Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraph 13).
20. Kao što je Sud već presudio, na tijelima država članica je da osiguraju poštovanje pravila Zajednice u okviru svojih nadležnosti (vidjeti presudu od 12. lipnja 1990., Njemačka/Komisija, C-8/88, Zb., str. I-2321., t. 13.).
21 The interpretation which, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on it by Article 234 EC, the Court gives to a rule of Community law clarifies and defines, where necessary, the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be or ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its coming into force (see, inter alia, Case 61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 16, and Case C-50/96 Deutsche Telekom [2000] ECR I-743, paragraph 43).
21 Tumačenje koje Sud da pravnom pravilu prava Unije, u izvršavanju nadležnosti koju mu povjerava članak 234. UEZ-a, objašnjava i precizira, kada za to postoji potreba, značenje i doseg tog pravnog pravila, onako kako ono treba ili je trebalo biti shvaćeno i primijenjeno nakon svog stupanja na snagu. (vidjeti osobito presude od 27. ožujka 1980., Denkavit italiana, 61/79, Zb., str. 1205., t. 16., i od 10. veljače 2000., Deutsche Telekom, C-50/96, Zb., str. I-6743., t. 43.).
22 It follows that a rule of Community law interpreted in this way must be applied by an administrative body within the sphere of its competence even to legal relationships which arose or were formed before the Court gave its ruling on the question on interpretation.
22 Iz toga proizlazi da tako protumačeno pravilo Zajednice upravno tijelo mora primijeniti u okviru svojih nadležnosti čak i na pravne odnose koji su nastali i bili formulirani prije odluke Suda o zahtjevu za tumačenje.
23 The main proceedings raise the question whether that obligation must be complied with notwithstanding that a decision has become final before the application for review of that decision in order to take account of a preliminary ruling by the Court on a question of interpretation has been lodged.
23 U predmetu u glavnom postupku postavlja se pitanje je li poštovanje te obaveze nužno bez obzira na činjenicu da je upravna odluka postala pravomoćna prije prijedloga ponavljanja postupka u pogledu te odluke kako bi se uzela u obzir presuda Suda o prethodnom pitanju u vezi s tumačenjem.
24 Legal certainty is one of a number of general principles recognised by Community law. Finality of an administrative decision, which is acquired upon expiry of the reasonable time-limits for legal remedies or by exhaustion of those remedies, contributes to such legal certainty and it follows that Community law does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final in that way.
24 Pravna sigurnost jedno je od općih načela priznatih pravom Zajednice. Pravomoćnost upravne odluke stečena istekom razumnih rokova za pokretanje žalbe ili nakon što su pravna sredstva iscrpljena pridonosi pravnoj sigurnosti, što znači da pravo Zajednice ne zahtijeva da upravna tijela imaju obvezu, načelno, ponovno razmatrati upravnu odluku koja je na taj način postala pravomoćna.
25 However, the national court stated that, under Netherlands law, administrative bodies always have the power to reopen a final administrative decision, provided that the interests of third parties are not adversely affected, and that, in certain circumstances, the existence of such a power may imply an obligation to withdraw such a decision even if Netherlands law does not require that the competent body reopen final decisions as a matter of course in order to comply with judicial decisions given subsequent to those final decisions. The aim of the national court's question is to ascertain whether, in circumstances such as those of the main case, there is an obligation to reopen a final administrative decision under Community law.
25 Međutim, sud koji je uputio zahtjev navodi da, u skladu s nizozemskim pravom, pod uvjetom da se ne šteti interesima trećih osoba, upravno tijelo uvijek ima ovlast ponovno razmotriti pravomoćnu upravnu odluku i da u određenim okolnostima postojanje takve ovlasti može podrazumijevati obvezu povlačenja takve odluke čak i ako nizozemsko pravo ne zahtijeva od nadležnog tijela ponovno razmatranje pravomoćnih odluka radi usklađivanja s kasnijom sudskom praksom. Svrha pitanja nacionalnog suda je ustanoviti proizlazi li iz prava Zajednice, u okolnostima kao što su one u glavnom predmetu, obveza ponovnog razmatranja pravomoćne sudske odluke.