natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK during transport.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK živih živali in zlasti za�čite živali med prevozom.
That reference, which lays down the conditions for the grant of refunds, cannot therefore be interpreted as covering all the provisions in Directive 91/628 and, in particular, those provisions which have no connection with the principle objective pursued by that directive.
Navedena napotitev, ki določa pogoje za dodelitev izplačil, se ne more razlagati tako, da se nana�a na vse določbe Direktive 91/628 in zlasti na tiste, ki niso v zvezi z glavnim ciljem navedene direktive.
(see paras 26-29) on the protection of animals during transport, as amended by Directive 95/29, which may result in a reduction in or forfeiture of export refunds relates to the provisions of that directive which have an impact on the welfare of animals, that is to say, their physical condition and/or their health, and does not relate to the provisions of that direct ive which, in principle, have no such impact.
(Glej točke od 26 do 29.) kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29, ki lahko povzroči zmanj�anje ali izgubo izvoznega nadomestila, nana�a na določbe te direktive, ki so v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, to je v zvezi z njihovim fizičnim stanjem in/ali njihovim zdravjem, in ne na tiste določbe, ki s tem načeloma niso povezane.
The conditions laid down in that provision are therefore consonant with the principle of proportionality.
Pogoji, ki so določeni v tej določbi, so torej v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti.
It is for the national court to assess whether the competent authorities have applied the relevant provisions of Regulation No 615/98 in a manner that is consonant with that principle.
Predložitveno sodi�če bo moralo preveriti, ali so pristojni organi upo�tevne določbe Uredbe �t. 615/98 uporabili v skladu z navedenim načelom.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport must be interpreted as meaning that noncompliance with Directive 91/628
Člen 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom je treba razlagati tako, da se nespo�tovanje Direk -tive 91/628 o za�čiti živali med prevozom,
(see paras 42, 43, 46)
(Glej točke 42, 43 in 46.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
MENGOZZIJA – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06
MENGOZZIdelivered on 13 September 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 13. septembra 20071
The national court also asks whether Article 5(3) of the regulation in question conforms with the principle of proportionality, in so far as it provides that export refunds are not to be paid for animals for which the competent authority considers, on the basis of the information available to it regarding compliance with Article 1 of that regulation, that Directive 91/628 was not complied with.
1968 o skupni ureditvi trga sektorja govedoreje, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo �t. 2634/975, določa, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za žive živali spo�tovanje zakonodaje Skupnosti v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, zlasti določb v zvezi z za�čito živali med prevozom.
2 — Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19).
4 — Uredba Sveta (EGS) z dne 18. decembra 1997, ki spreminja Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 805/68 z dne 27. junija 1968 o skupni ureditvi trga sektorja govedoreje (UL L 148, str. 24).
4 — OJ, English Special Edition 1968(I), p. 187.
2 — Uredba Komisije (ES) �t.
17), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52).
805/68 o skupni ureditvi trga sektorja govedoreje (UL L 356, str. 13).
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK the checks referred to in Article 4 and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1, that the directive on the protection of animals during transport was not complied with.’
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1, meni, da ni bila spo�tovana direktiva o za�čiti živali med prevozom.“
Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 provides that payment of export refunds in respect of live bovine animals is subject, in particular, to compliance with Directive 91/628 during transport to the first place at which the animals are unloaded in the nonmember country of final destination.
Člen 1 zadnjenavedene uredbe določa, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo zlasti spo�tovanje določb Direktive Sveta 91/628 med prevozom do prvega kraja iztovarjanja v tretji državi namembnega kraja.
Under Article 2 of Regulation No 615/98, a check is made on the animals when they leave the territory of the Community.
Na podlagi člena 2 Uredbe �t. 615/98 se opravi pregled živali takrat, ko zapustijo ozemlje Skupnosti.
An official veterinarian verifies and certifies (a) that the animals are fit, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 91/628, to make the intended journey, (b) that the means of transport in which the live animals are to leave Community territory complies with the provisions of that directive and (c) that all appropriate provisions had been made for the care of the animals during the journey, as prescribed by that directive.
Uradni veterinar preveri in potrdi, (a) ali so živali v skladu z določbami Direktive 91/628 sposobne za predvideni prevoz, (b) ali je prevozno sredstvo, v katerem bodo žive živali prepeljane z ozemlja Skupnosti, v skladu z določbami navedene direktive in (c) ali so bili sprejeti ustrezni ukrepi za zagotovitev oskrbe živali med prevozom, kot jih določa navedena direktiva.
Directive 91/628 lays down the criteria to be observed by the Member States for the protection of animals during transport.
Direktiva 91/628 določa merila, ki jih morajo države članice upo�tevati pri za�čiti živali med prevozom.
In particular, Chapter VII of the Annex to that directive indicates the watering and feeding intervals, journey times and rest periods that must be observed during the transport of live animals.
Poglavje VII priloge k navedeni direktivi posebej določa presledke za napajanje in krmljenje, čas na poti in čas počitka, ki jih je treba upo�tevati med prevozom živih živali.
For the transport of bovine animals, point 48(4)(d) and (5) of that chapter lays down the rule (known as the 29-hour rule) that the animals, after travelling for 14 hours, must be given a rest period of at least one hour, during which they must be given liquid and, if necessary, fed; they may then be transported for a further 14 hours, after which they must once again be unloaded, fed and watered and given a rest period of at least 24 hours.
Točka 48(4)(d) in (5) navedene priloge za prevoz goveda določa pravilo (imenovano pravilo devetindvajsetih ur), v skladu s katerim morajo imeti živali po �tirinajstih urah prevoza najmanj enourni počitek, med katerim jih je treba napojiti in po potrebi nakrmiti, potem pa so lahko na poti �e dodatnih �tirinajst ur, ko jih je treba ponovno iztovoriti, nahraniti in napojiti ter jim omogočiti najmanj �tiriindvajseturni počitek.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 provides:
Člen 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 določa:
‘The export refund shall not be paid for animals which died during transport or for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents referred to in paragraph 2, the reports on
„Izvozno nadomestilo se ne izplača za živali, ki so med prevozom poginile, ali za živali, glede katerih pristojni organ na podlagi dokumentov iz odstavka 2, poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka,
Finally, point 48(8) of Chapter VII of the Annex to the directive provides that in the interests of the animals the journey times referred to in point 48(3), (4) and (7)(b) may be extended by two hours, taking account, in particular, of the proximity of the place of destination.
Nazadnje, navedena točka 48(8) poglavja VII priloge k direktivi določa, da se v korist živali čas prevoza iz odstavkov 3, 4 in 7(b), iste točke 48 lahko podalj�a za dve uri zlasti zaradi upo�tevanja bližine namembnega kraja.
II — The facts, the questions submitted and the procedure before the Court of Justice at 1.30 pm and did not reach Prosecco until 4 pm the next day; the first leg of the journey lasted nine and a half hours and was followed by a break of two hours for the animals to recover; the second leg of the journey lasted 15 hours — longer than planned — because, in particular, of two stops, one to record the details of an accident and one for a roadside vehicle check.
II – Dejansko stanje, vprašanji za predhodno odločanje in postopek pred Sodiščem delu prevoza v trajanju petnajstih ur, med katerim se je prevoz podalj�al prek predvidenega časa zlasti zaradi dveh postankov zaradi nesreče in pregleda prevoza.
At Prosecco, according to the order for reference, the journey was resumed on instructions from the competent border veterinarian after a break of 20 hours, during which the animals were unloaded, fed and watered, finally reaching Rasa about four and a half hours later.
Kot je navedeno v predložitvenem sklepu, se je v Proseccu prevoz nadaljeval na podlagi naloga pristojnega obmejnega veterinarja po dvajsetih urah postanka, med katerim so živali iztovorili, nakrmili in napojili, in tovor je po približno �tirih urah in pol končno prispel v Raso.
The questions referred to the Court of Justice derive from two separate cases before the national court concerning the rules on export refunds for bovine animals.
Vpra�anji, ki ju je predložitveno sodi�če predložilo Sodi�ču, izhajata iz dveh ločenih nere�enih zadev glede sistema izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo.
In both cases, the applicants were denied export refunds for breach of the Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport.
V obeh zadevah je bila tožečima družbama zavrnjena pravica do izvoznih nadomestil zaradi neupo�tevanja zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju za�čite živali med prevozom.
In the first case in which a ruling is sought, the company Viamex Agrar Handels (‘Viamex’) submitted a declaration to the Hauptzollamt Kiel covering the export of 35 live bovine animals to Lebanon.
V prvi od zadev, iz katerih izhajata obravnavani vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, je družba Viamex Agrar Handels (v nadaljevanju: Viamex) pri Hauptzollamt Kiel prijavila izvoz 35 glav goveda v Libanon.
According to the original route declared to the Kiel authorities, the journey in question was to be from Neumünster to Rasa, lasting a total of 28 hours.
Na podlagi prvotnega načrta, ki je bil prijavljen organom v Kielu, bi se moral zadevni prevoz opraviti iz Neumünstra do Rase v skupnem trajanju osemindvajsetih ur.
It is apparent, however, from the order for reference that the cargo in question left the place of dispatch
Iz predložitvenega sklepa pa izhaja, da je zadevni tovor zapustil odpremni kraj ob 13.30 in prispel v Prosecco �ele ob 16. uri naslednjega dne po prvem delu prevoza v trajanju devetih ur in pol, ki mu je sledil dveurni odmor za oskrbo živali, in po drugem
By notice of 1 February 2001, the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (‘the Hauptzollamt’) rejected Viamex’s application for an export refund on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 because it considered that Viamex had breached Community animal welfare legislation during the journey.
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) je z odločbo z dne 1. februarja 2001 na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 zavrnil zahtevo za izvozno nadomestilo, ki jo je vložila družba Viamex, ker je menil, da je ta družba z zadevnim prevozom kr�ila zakonodajo Skupnosti na področju za�čite živali.
In particular, the Hauptzollamt observed that it was apparent from the details of the journey submitted by Viamex that it had not observed the maximum journey time laid down in point 48(4)(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 because the second leg of the journey had lasted more than 14 hours.
Hauptzollamt je posebej navedel, da iz prevoznega načrta, ki ga je predložila družba Viamex, izhaja, da ta družba ni spo�tovala določbe o najdalj�em trajanju prevoza iz točke 48(4)(d) poglavja VII priloge k Direktivi 91/628, saj se je drugi del prevoza podalj�al na več kot �tirinajst ur.
It also observed that, when the journey time of 29 hours was exceeded, no rest period of at least 24 hours was given as required by point 48(5) of that chapter, since the stop at Prosecca was of only 20 hours.
Poudaril je tudi, da pri prekoračitvi devetindvajseturnega prevoza ni bil upo�tevan najmanj �tiriindvajseturni počitek, ki je določen v točki 48(5) navedene priloge, glede na to, da je postanek v Proseccu trajal samo dvajset ur.
In the second case in which a ruling is sought, Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) declared to the Hauptzollamt Bamberg — Zollamt Coburg — its intention to export 32 live bovine animals to Egypt, for which it applied for and subsequently obtained advance payment of an export refund.
V drugi od zadev, iz katerih izhajata obravnavani vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, je družba ZVK pri Hauptzollamt di Bamberg – Zollamt Coburg – prijavila, da želi opraviti izvoz 32 glav goveda v Egipt, za kar je zahtevala in nato prejela izvozno nadomestilo v obliki predplačila.
The Hauptzollamt then dismissed Viamex’s complaint concerning the withholding of the export refund, rejecting as irrelevant Viamex’s explanation for its failure to observe the 24 hour rest period, namely that the breach was attributable solely to the conduct of the Italian border veterinarian, who had instructed the lorry driver to continue the journey after a break of only 20 hours, after ascertaining that the animals were fit to travel.
Hauptzollamt je zavrnil tudi ugovor družbe Viamex zoper odločbo o zavrnitvi izvoznega nadomestila, ker je menil, da ni pomembna okoli�čina, s katero je družba Viamex upravičevala nespo�tovanje �tiriindvajseturnega počitka, za kar naj bi bil po navedbah te družbe odgovoren izključno italijanski obmejni veterinar, ki naj bi, potem ko je ugotovil, da so živali sposobne za nadaljevanje poti, dal vozniku tovornjaka nalog, naj nadaljuje pot po samo dvajsetih urah postanka.
The Hauptzollamt observed, first, that it was not apparent from the documents produced by Viamex that it was the border veterinarian who gave instructions to continue the journey and that, in any event, it was the responsibility of the carrier to keep himself informed of the rest periods prescribed by the directive and to apply them correctly.
Hauptzollamt je najprej navedel, da iz dokumentov, ki jih je predložila družba Viamex, ne izhaja, da je dal obmejni veterinar nalog za nadaljevanje poti in da je v vsakem primeru dolžnost prevoznika, da se informira in pravilno uporabi v direktivi predpisni čas za počitek.
After completion of the journey, the competent customs office, after examining the details of the journey filed by ZVK, issued an amendment notice requiring reimbursement, under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, of the export refund granted to ZVK as an advance payment, together with a surcharge, for its failure to comply with the Community animalwelfare legislation in the transport operation in question.
Pristojni Hauptzollamt je po opravljenem prevozu in preučitvi potovalnega načrta, ki ga je predložila družba ZVK, izdal popravno odločbo, s katero je v skladu z določbo člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 zahteval povečano vračilo izvoznega nadomestila, ki je bilo dodeljeno družbi ZVK kot predplačilo, in sicer, ker pri zadevnem prevozu ni upo�tevala zakonodaje Skupnosti v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali.
In the order for reference, the national court took a decision on the differing views expressed in the administrative proceedings, concluding, on the basis of inquiries made of the driver responsible for the transport operation in question, that it was clear that the journey had been continued on instructions from the competent veterinarian and that the driver could not have had any influence on that decision; according to the national court, that was borne out by findings it had made in other cases involving similar issues of observance of the rest times laid down by the directive in question.
Čeprav predložitveni sklep glede poteka zadevnega prevoza ni preveč jasen, iz njega izhaja, (a) da naj družba ZVK po navedbah pristojnega Hauptzollamt pri zadevnem prevozu ne bi spo�tovala največjega trajanja prevoza, določenega v točki 48(4)(d) poglavja VII priloge k Direktivi �t. 91/628, in (b) da je zadevni prevoz vseboval skoraj sedemurni postanek pri izhodu iz carinskega ozemlja Skupnosti, in sicer zaradi pregleda obmejnega veterinarja.
Although the order for reference is not particularly clear regarding the details of the transport operation in question, it is apparent that (a) according to the competent Hauptzollamt, ZVK did not, in the transport operation in question, observe the limits on journey times laid down by point 48(4)(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 and (b) that the journey time concerned included a stop of almost seven hours at the exit point from the customs territory of the Community for the purposes of the check by the border veterinarian.
Predložitveno sodi�če je v predložitvenem sklepu preseglo razlike med stali�či pri upravnem organu z navedbo, da iz izjave voznika, ki je bil zadolžen za zadevni prevoz, izhaja, da se je prevoz nadaljeval na podlagi naloga pristojnega veterinarja in da na tako odločitev voznik nikakor ni mogel vplivati; predložitveno sodi�če meni, da slednje potrjujejo zagotovila, ki jih je prejelo v drugih postopkih o podobnih vpra�anjih glede spo�tovanja časa za počitek iz obravnavane direktive.
In response to the decisions dismissing the complaints submitted by Viamex against the decision withholding the export refund and by ZVK against the amendment notice requiring reimbursement of the advance payment of the refund, those companies appealed to the Finanzgericht Hamburg for their annulment, and that court, entertaining doubts as to the validity of Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 and the compatibility of Article 5(3) thereof with the principle of proportionality, stayed its proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Po prejetju zavrnilnih odločb o ugovorih, ki sta ju vložili družba Viamex zoper odločbo o zavrnitvi izvoznega nadomestila in družba ZVK zoper popravno odločbo o vračilu vnaprej plačanega nadomestila, sta zadevni družbi pri Finanzgericht Hamburg začeli postopek za razglasitev ničnosti teh odločb, ki je, zato ker je dvomilo o veljavnosti člena 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 in skladnosti člena 5(3) zadevne uredbe z načelom sorazmernosti, prekinilo postopek in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Under Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, observations were submitted by Viamex, ZVK, the Hauptzollamt, the Swedish Government and the Commission.
Na podlagi člena 23 Statuta Sodi�ča so družbi Viamex in ZVK, Hauptzollamt, �vedska vlada in Komisija predložili pisne izjave.
Viamex, ZVK, the German Government and the Commission were represented at the hearing.
Na obravnavi so bili prisotni zastopniki družb Viamex in ZVK, nem�ke vlade ter Komisije.
‘(1) Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 valid inasmuch as it links the grant of an export refund to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport?
Ali je člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 veljaven v delu, v katerem dodelitev izvoznih nadomestil pogojuje s spo�tovanjem Direktive 91/628/EGS o za�čiti živali med prevozom?
(2) If the first question should be answered in the affirmative: is Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 615/98, according to which export refunds are not to be paid for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of all elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98, that the directive on the
Če je odgovor na prvo vpra�anje pritrdilen, ali je z načelom sorazmernosti skladna določba člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, v skladu s katero se izvozno nadomestilo ne izplača za živali, glede katerih pristojni organ na podlagi drugih informacij o spo�tovanju člena 1 Uredbe
ZVK considers that the reference made by Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 is not valid in so far as it makes the grant of export refunds conditional upon compliance with provisions concerning an entirely different matter, namely the protection of animals.
Družba ZVK meni, da napotilo v členu 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 ni veljavno v delu, v katerem veže podelitev izvoznih nadomestil na spo�tovanje določb s povsem drugega področja, to je s področja za�čite živali.
Animal welfare should, in its view, be ensured by means of more appropriate instruments, such as, for example, a system of specific penalties.
Dobro počutje živali pa bi se moralo zagotavljati s primernej�imi instrumenti, kot je na primer sistem posebnih sankcij.
Moreover, that reference is contrary to the principle of a legal certainty, in that it relates generally and indiscriminately to the entire direct ive, including provisions which have only an indirect impact on animal welfare.
To napotilo naj bi bilo tudi v nasprotju z načelom pravne varnosti, ker se na splo�no in nerazdelno nana�a na celotno direktivo, vključno z določbami, ki le posredno vplivajo na dobro počutje živali.
In the alternative, ZVK asserts that Article 5(3) of the regulation in question, by providing for
Družba ZVK podredno navaja, da naj bi člen 5(3) zadevne uredbe s tem, da
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK ga Skupnost povsem upo�teva na področju skupne kmetijske politike in katerega bistveni instrument so sistemi izvoznih nadomestil.
forfeiture of the right to export refunds for any breach of the directive, regardless of its actual impact on animal welfare, is manifestly disproportionate to the aim pursued by the legislature, which was, precisely, to ensure effective protection of animal welfare and not, in contrast, to penalise conduct that does not detract from that objective.
določa izgubo izvoznih nadomestil zaradi kakr�nekoli kr�itve direktive in ne glede na konkretni vpliv na dobro počutje živali, povzročil očitno nesorazmerno spo�tovanje cilja, ki si ga je zastavil zakonodajalec, in sicer zagotovitev učinkovitega varstva dobrega počutja živali, ne pa sankcioniranje ravnanj, ki navedenega cilja ne ogrožajo.
Finally, the manifestly disproportionate nature of the provision in question is confirmed by the lack of any possibility of reimbursement being waived in cases of force majeure, in which ‘blatant injustices’ would be obviated if entitlement to the refunds were maintained.
In končno, očitno nesorazmernost obravnavane določbe naj bi potrjevalo to, da ni določbe o tem, da obveznost vračila ne nastane v primeru vi�je sile, ko bi se z ohranitvijo pravice do nadomestila preprečile „očitne krivice“.
Moreover, Article 5(3) of the regulation in question, on the basis of which export refunds are withheld for any failure to observe any provision of Directive 91/628, regardless of the gravity of that failure, is in conformity with the principle of proportionality since no measures exist for attainment of the aim of animal protection which are liable to have a lesser impact on exporters.
Poleg tega naj bi bila določba člena 5(3) obravnavane uredbe, na podlagi katere se zaradi nespo�tovanja katerekoli določbe Direktive 91/628 in ne glede na njegovo težo zavrne izvozno nadomestilo, v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti, ker naj za izvedbo cilja za�čite živali ne bi obstajali ukrepi, ki bi izvoznike manj prizadeli.