natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover the Court pointed out that it was also clear from caselaw that the administrative checks preceding on-the-spot checks must be carried out in such a way as to enable the national authorities to draw all possible conclusions, be they matters of certainty or of doubt, regarding compliance with the conditions for granting aid (see in particular Case C-41/94 Germany v Commission [1996] ECR I-4733, paragraph 17, and Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 40).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je poleg tega navedlo, da iz sodne prakse prav tako izhaja, da mora biti upravni nadzor, ki se opravi pred nadzorom na kraju samem, opravljen tako, da se nacionalnim organom omogoči, da pridejo do vseh mogočih ugotovitev, najsi gre za gotova ali negotova dejstva, zato da se upo�tevajo pogoji za odobritev pomoči (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, C-41/94, Recueil, str. I-4733, točka 17, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji, točka 40).
The Court then found in paragraph 55 of the judgment under appeal that, faced with the risk of loss for the EAGGF clearly identified during the administrative check, inaction on the part of the Belgian authorities would clearly amount to a failure to adopt the controls implicitly required in order to comply with one of the explicit rules in force at the relevant time.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako v točki 55 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da je glede na nevarnost izgub za EKUJS, ki je bila jasno ugotovljena med upravnim nadzorom, nedelovanje belgijskih organov očitno enakovredno nesprejetju ukrepov nadzora, ki so posredno potrebni, da bi bila spo�tovana izrecna pravila, ki so veljala v času dejanskega stanja.
The Court concluded in paragraph 57 of the judgment under appeal that the Belgian authorities were therefore required to take action in response to the anomalies detected by the GIS.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 57 izpodbijane sodne sklepalo, da bi se belgijski organi morali odzvati na nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS.
With regard to the measures adopted by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Court found in paragraph 62 of the judgment under appeal that, in those circumstances and in view of the facts established during the checks carried out in May 2001, the Commission was entitled to entertain serious doubts as to whether the areas declared were correct and whether the checks carried out were effective.
Glede ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela Kraljevina Belgija, pa je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 62 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da bi v teh okoli�činah in glede na dejstva, ki so bila ugotovljena med preverjanjem, ki je potekalo maja 2001, Komisija lahko podkrepila resne dvome o pravilnosti prijavljenih povr�in in učinkovitosti opravljenih nadzorov.
In paragraphs 65 to 70 of the judgment under appeal, the Court accepted the Commission’s argument that owing to the late input of the data into the GIS some files had escaped on-the-spot checking.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točkah od 65 do 70 izpodbijane sodbe sprejelo trditev Komisije, da bi se zaradi prepoznega vnosa podatkov v RGIS določeno �tevilo primerov lahko izmaknilo nadzoru na kraju samem.
The Court held in particular:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je med drugim menilo:
‘69 As the Belgian Government has failed to adduce relevant evidence to overturn the Commission’s findings regarding the absence of on-the-spot checks because of late input of data, the conclusion must be drawn that a number of files escaped such checking (see to that effect Case C-307/03 Italy v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 33 to 35).
„69 Ker belgijska vlada ni predložila relevantnih dokazov, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče zavrniti ugotovitve Komisije o neizvedbi nadzora na kraju samem zaradi prepoznega vnosa, je treba ugotoviti, da so se določeni primeri izmaknili takemu nadzoru (v tem smislu glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 10. novembra 2005 v zadevi Italija proti Komisiji, C-307/03, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točke od 33 do 35).
70 That finding is not called into question by the fact that no provision relating to the EAGGF required graphic data to be entered before 31 August of each year.
70 Te ugotovitve ni mogoče izpodbiti z dejstvom, da noben predpis v zvezi z EKUJS ne določa grafičnega vnosa pred 31. avgustom vsakega leta.
The absence of express obligations is not capable of dispelling doubts arising from the absence of on-the-spot checks.
Neobstoj izrecno določenih obveznosti namreč ne more odstraniti dvomov, ki so nastali zaradi neizvedenega nadzora na kraju samem.
In any event, since that delay leads to an absence of checks, it infringes the general obligation to be in a position to carry out such checks.
V vsakem primeru, kadar zaradi te zamude pride do neizvedbe nadzora, to kr�i splo�no obveznost izvedbe takega nadzora. Dejstvo, da je bil nadzor na kraju samem opravljen po 31. avgustu in da
August and gave rise to corrections does not mean that all the necessary checks were carried out and does not show that such on-the-spot checks were the result of an effective risk analysis carried out after 31 August.’
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI so bili izvedeni popravki, prav tako ne pomeni, da je bil opravljen ves potreben nadzor, in ne dokazuje, da je ta nadzor na kraju samem izhajal iz zanesljive analize tveganj, izvedene po 31. avgustu.“
Hence, the Court concluded, in paragraphs 71 and 72 of that judgment, that the applicant Member State had not adduced sufficient evidence to allay the Commission’s serious and reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the checks, those doubts arising from the failure to take sufficient account of the anomalies detected by the GIS and the absence of checks.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako v točkah 71 in 72 izpodbijane sodbe zaključilo, da država članica – tožeča stranka – ni predložila zadostnih dokazov, ki bi ovrgli resne in utemeljene dvome Komisije o zanesljivosti nadzora, ki so nastali zaradi nezadostnega upo�tevanja nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS, in zaradi neobstoja nadzora.
It therefore considered that the Commission was entitled to apply a financial correction.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako menilo, da je bila Komisija upravičena uporabiti finančni popravek.
In those circumstances, the first plea and the first part of the second plea were rejected.
V teh okoli�činah sta bila prvi tožbeni razlog in prvi del drugega tožbenega razloga zavrnjena.
As regards the second part of the second plea, alleging an absence of real risk of loss for the EAGGF, and the third plea, alleging that the flatrate correction is disproportionate to the loss actually suffered by the EAGGF, which the Court of First Instance decided to deal with jointly, the latter did not accept the method of calculation put forward by the Kingdom of Belgium to demonstrate the allegedly disproportionate nature of the financial corrections applied.
Glede drugega dela drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na neobstoj dejanske nevarnosti izgub za EKUJS, in tretjega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na nesorazmernost pav�alnega popravka glede na �kodo, ki naj bi jo EKUJS dejansko utrpel, v zvezi s katerima se je Sodi�če prve stopnje odločilo, da ju bo obravnavalo skupaj, Sodi�če prve stopnje ni sprejelo načina izračuna, ki ga je predstavila Kraljevina Belgija, da bi dokazala domnevno nesorazmernost uporabljenih finančnih popravkov.
It stated in particular, in paragraphs 88 and 90 of the judgment under appeal, that the extrapolations submitted by the Belgian Government, designed to show the maximum loss sustained by the EAGGF, failed to take into account the recovery of undue payments, and that it was impossible to know whether or not they included the files that were entered into the system late.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 88 in 90 izpodbijane sodbe med drugim poudarilo, da ekstrapolacije belgijske vlade, katerih namen je dokazati maksimalno �kodo, ki naj bi jo utrpel EKUJS, niso upo�tevale izterjave neupravičenih izplačil in da ni bilo mogoče vedeti, ali so vključevale primere, ki so bili predmet prepoznega vnosa.
Since that Member State was unable to show the maximum loss sustained by the EAGGF, the Court concluded in paragraphs 92 and 93 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission was entitled to impose a flatrate correction and that, as that correction had been set at 2%, the lowest rate provided for in the Guidelines, and the Guidelines had not been challenged by the Kingdom of Belgium, that correction could not by definition have infringed the principle of proportionality.
Ker ta država članica ni mogla dokazati maksimalne �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpel EKUJS, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah 92 in 93 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je Komisija pravilno določila pav�alni popravek in da s tem popravkom ni bilo kr�eno načelo sorazmernosti, ker je bil določen v najnižji mogoči vi�ini, ki jo predvidevajo Smernice, in sicer v vi�ini 2 %, in ker teh smernic Kraljevina Belgija ni izpodbijala.
The Court therefore rejected the second part of the second plea and the third plea.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako zavrnilo drugi del drugega tožbenega razloga in tretji tožbeni razlog.
In those circumstances, the application was dismissed and the Kingdom of Belgium was order to pay the costs.
V teh okoli�činah je bila tožba zavrnjena, Kraljevini Belgiji pa je bilo naloženo plačilo stro�kov.
In this appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium is asking the Court of Justice:
Kraljevina Belgija s to pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— to set aside the judgment under appeal and annul the contested decision;
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi, sporno odločbo pa naj razglasi za nično;
— in the alternative, to set aside the judgment under appeal and, under its unlimited jurisdiction, to reduce the financial correction to EUR 1 491 085;
– podredno razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo in naj na podlagi svoje neomejene pristojnosti zmanj�a finančni popravek na znesek 1.491.085 EUR;
— in the further alternative, to set aside the judgment under appeal and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance;
– �e bolj podredno razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo in vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje;
— to order the Commission to pay the costs incurred before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.
– Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, nastalih v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in Sodi�čem.
The Commission contends that the Court should dismiss the appeal and order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Komisija v odgovoru na pritožbo predlaga, naj se pritožba zavrne, Kraljevini Belgiji pa naj se naloži plačilo stro�kov.
V — The grounds of the appeal
V – Pritožbeni razlogi
In support of its appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium puts forward in essence five grounds on which the judgment under appeal should be set aside, alleging respectively:
Kraljevina Belgija se v utemeljitev pritožbe v bistvu sklicuje na pet pritožbenih razlogov za razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe, in sicer na:
— distortion of the facts;
– izkrivljanje dejstev;
— infringement of the obligation to provide adequate reasons;
– kr�itve dolžnosti obrazložitve;
— infringement of the principle of proportionality; and
– kr�itev načela sorazmernosti in
— an error of law concerning the absence of unlimited jurisdiction on the part of the Community Courts concerning the amounts of financial corrections imposed by the Commission in respect of the EAGGF.
– napačno uporabo prava glede neobstoja neomejene pristojnosti sodi�č Skupnosti na področju EKUJS v zvezi z zneski finančnih popravkov, ki jih je določila Komisija.
A — First ground of appeal: distortion of the facts
A – Prvi pritožbeni razlog: izkrivljanje dejstev
The Kingdom of Belgium submits that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in finding in particular, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, that ’where the GIS shows, during the administrative checks, that the area declared in an aid application is greater than the GIS area, that discrepancy constitutes an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in that application’, since, ’if the GIS area corresponds more closely to the actual area than the area declared in the aid application, the payment of area aid on the basis of the area claimed leads to undue payment to the applicant and hence a loss for the EAGGF.’
Kraljevina Belgija trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje izkrivilo dejstva, s tem da je v točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da, „ko je pri upravnem nadzoru ugotovljeno, da iz RGIS izhaja, da je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč večja od povr�ine RGIS, tak razkorak pomeni nepravilnost, ki kaže na morebitno nepravilnost tega zahtevka“, ker je, „če povr�ina RGIS bolj ustreza dejanski povr�ini kot povr�ini, prijavljeni v zahtevku za pomoč, plačilo pomoči na povr�ino na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine neupravičeno plačilo v korist vlagatelja zahtevka in torej izguba za EKUJS“.
Such an assertion demonstrates a misunderstanding as to how the GIS set up by the Kingdom of Belgium functions.
Taka trditev naj bi kazala na napačno razumevanje delovanja RGIS, ki ga je uvedla Kraljevina Belgija.
According to the appellant, it constitutes a distortion of the facts in so far as the Court of First Instance considers the GIS to be a measuring instrument providing data that is closer to the actual area data than the data declared by the farmers and that that system consequently made it possible to detect anomalies and identify clearly risks of losses for the EAGGF.
Kraljevina Belgija meni, da naj bi taka trditev pomenila izkrivljanje dejstev, ker Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da je RGIS sredstvo za merjenje, ki se bolj približuje dejanskim podatkom o povr�ini kot pa podatkom, ki so jih prijavili pridelovalci, in da zato ta sistem omogoča ugotavljanje nepravilnosti in jasno ugotovitev nevarnosti izgub za EKJUS.
According to that Member State, the GIS served only to identify agricultural parcels and to detect overlapping parcels and duplicate declarations and did not enable the actual areas of the parcels to be determined, in particular because some of the photographic images used were old.
Ta država članica pa meni, da je RGIS namenjen zgolj za identifikacijo enot rabe ali poljin ter odkrivanje prekrivanj enot rabe ali poljin in dvojnih prijav, ne da bi omogočal ugotavljanje dejanskih povr�in enot rabe ali poljin, zlasti zaradi zastarelosti določenih uporabljenih posnetkov.
The Commission for its part contends that the meaning the Court intended to convey in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal was not that the GIS was a measuring instrument but that the difference between the areas declared and the GIS areas raised serious doubts as to the accuracy of the areas declared by the farmers.
Komisija pa trdi, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe razumelo, da naj bi neskladnost med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS podkrepila resne dvome o pravilnosti velikosti povr�ine, ki jo je prijavil pridelovalec, ne pa da je RGIS sredstvo za merjenje.
Furthermore, the objective assigned to the GIS by the Kingdom of Belgium is inadequate
Poleg tega naj bi bil namen, ki ga je Kraljevina Belgija pripisovala RGIS, nezadosten glede na zahteve iz člena 6(2)(a) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ki
BELGIUM v COMMISSION as regards the requirements laid down by Article 6(2)(a) of Regulation No 3887/92, which provides that the administrative checks on aid applications must include in particular cross-checks.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI določa, da upravni nadzor zahtevkov za pomoč vsebuje zlasti navzkrižno preverjanje.
Use of the phrase ’in particular’ necessarily implies that the administrative checks include measures other than cross-checks.
Uporaba prislova „zlasti“ naj bi vsekakor pomenila, da upravni nadzor poleg navzkrižnega preverjanja vključuje tudi druge ukrepe.
In paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance proceeded on the basis that, where the area declared in the aid application was greater than the GIS area, that constituted an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in that application.
Ugotoviti je treba, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe izhajalo iz ugotovitve, da ko je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč večja od povr�ine RGIS, to pomeni nepravilnost, ki kaže na morebitno nepravilnost tega zahtevka.
In such a case and assuming the GIS area corresponded more closely to the actual area than the area declared in the aid application, the Court of First Instance merely intended to make the point that in those circumstances the payment of area aid on the basis of the area declared could lead to an undue payment to the applicant and, hence, a loss to the EAGGF.
Pod to predpostavko in predpostavko, da povr�ina RGIS bolj ustreza dejanski povr�ini kot povr�ini, ki je bila prijavljena v zahtevku za pomoč, je namreč Sodi�če prve stopnje zgolj ugotovilo, da lahko plačilo pomoči na povr�ino na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine povzroči neupravičeno plačilo v korist vložnika zahtevka in zato tudi izgubo za EKUJS.
However, the Court of First Instance did not state that the GIS constituted a reliable measuring instrument, as the Kingdom of Belgium appears to allege.
Sodi�če prve stopnje kljub temu nikakor ni potrdilo, da je RGIS zanesljivo sredstvo za merjenje, kot mu očita Kraljevina Belgija.
Responding to that Member State’s assertions regarding the lack of precision of GIS data, on the contrary it stated in paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal that the lack of precision of such data did not mean they were unimportant, but rather implied that the risk of loss for the EAGGF could not be discounted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v odgovor na trditve te države članice glede nenatančnosti podatkov RGIS v točki 48 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da zaradi nenatančnosti ti podatki niso brez pomena, temveč pomenijo, da nevarnosti izgube za EKUJS ni mogoče zanemariti.
The Court thus acknowledged that the GIS data lacked precision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako priznalo nenatančnost podatkov RGIS.
Nevertheless, making the point that such lack of precision meant it was not possible to know whether or not such loss had actually been incurred, it concluded that the anomalies thus revealed indicated a risk of loss for the EAGGF.
Kljub temu je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je ugotovilo, da zaradi take nenatančnosti ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali je ta izguba dejanska ali ne, ugotovilo, da tako dokazane nepravilnosti pomenijo nevarnost izgube za EKUJS.
In fact, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal in particular, the Court of First Instance inclined to regard the GIS not as a measuring instrument but as an instrument for checking, whereby areas declared could be determined.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v resnici zlasti v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe RGIS �telo za sredstvo nadzora, na podlagi katerega je mogoče oceniti prijavljene povr�ine, ne pa kot sredstvo za merjenje.
It did not therefore intend to attribute greater reliability to GIS area data than to data contained in aid applications.
Tako ni razumelo, da so podatki o povr�inah RGIS zanesljivej�i od podatkov v zahtevkih za pomoč.
As regards the capacity of the GIS to detect anomalies, both the areas declared and the GIS areas were ultimately derived from the declarations made by farmers, the areas declared being those indicated by the latter on the aid application forms, the GIS areas being those resulting from the hand-written markings made by the latter on aerial photographic images.
Glede zmožnosti RGIS, da pokaže nepravilnosti, je treba ugotoviti, da tako prijavljene povr�ine kot povr�ine RGIS navsezadnje izhajajo iz prijav pridelovalcev, pri čemer prve ustrezajo povr�inam, ki so jih pridelovalci navedli v obrazcih zahtevka za pomoč, druge pa izhajajo iz označitve meja, ki jo na letalskih posnetkih ročno zavedejo pridelovalci.
In the absence of on-the-spot checks or any other additional checks, neither the areas declared nor those extracted from the GIS could be confirmed as accurate.
Ker nadzor na kraju samem ali kakr�na koli druga dodatna preverjanja niso bila opravljena, pa niti prijavljenih povr�in niti povr�in, ki izhajajo iz RGIS, ni mogoče potrditi kot natančne.
Therefore, a contradiction between those two sources of information was likely to constitute an anomaly (see, to that effect, Case C-377/99 Germany v Commission [2002] ECR I-7421, paragraph 48, and Case C-183/03 Germany v Commission [2006] ECR I-2, paragraphs 61 and 62).
Protislovnost teh dveh virov informacij bi torej lahko pomenila nepravilnost (v tem smislu glej sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 19. septembra 2002 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, C-377/99, Recueil, str. I-7421, točka 48, in z dne 12. januarja 2006 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, C-183/03, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točki 61 in 62).
The Court of First Instance was therefore right, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, to find that, where the GIS revealed during an administrative check that the area declared was greater than the GIS area, that discrepancy constituted an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in the application.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe torej pravilno ugotovilo, da ko med upravnim nadzorom RGIS kaže, da je prijavljena povr�ina večja od povr�ine RGIS, ta neskladnost pomeni nepravilnost, ki kaže na morebitno nepravilnost tega zahtevka.
Consequently, the first ground of appeal must be rejected.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog je zato treba zavrniti.
B — Second ground of appeal: infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 3508/92 and Articles 6 and 9 of Regulation No 3887/92
B – Drugi pritožbeni razlog: kršitve člena 8 Uredbe št. 3508/92 ter členov 6 in 9 Uredbe št. 3887/92
This ground of appeal can be divided essentially into four parts, which must be considered separately.
Ta pritožbeni razlog je v bistvu sestavljen iz �tirih delov, ki jih je treba obravnavati ločeno.
First part: infringement of Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92
Prvi del: kr�itev člena 6(7) Uredbe �t.
(a) Arguments of the parties
3887/92 a) Trditve strank
The Kingdom of Belgium considers that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92 in considering that, by equipping itself with a GIS, that Member State had an appropriate instrument for measuring the area of agricultural parcels, when, on the one hand, the choice of measuring instruments is a matter solely for the Member States and, on the other hand, that Member State had opted for official measurement by a land surveyor or by photo-interpretation of satellite images.
Kraljevina Belgija meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo člen 6(7) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ker je menilo, da je ta država članica z uvedbo RGIS priskrbela pomembno sredstvo za merjenje povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin, medtem ko po eni strani izbira sredstev za merjenje pripada državi članici, po drugi strani pa se je ta država članica odločila za uradno merjenje ob pomoči geometra ali s fotointerpretacijo satelitskih posnetkov.
The Court of First Instance should not therefore have stated, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, that, with their GIS, the Belgian authorities had equipped themselves with a checking instrument capable of providing relevant information going beyond the express obligations laid down in Article 6(2) of that regulation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj tako v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe ne bi moglo ugotoviti, da so belgijski organi z uvedbo RGIS priskrbeli pomembno nadzorno sredstvo, ki lahko daje relevantne podatke, ki presegajo izrecne obveznosti, določene v členu 6(2) navedene uredbe.
The Commission notes that the Belgian authorities had opted, of their own volition, to use aerial photographic images in order to carry out the administrative checks required under Regulation No 3508/92.
Komisija opozarja, da so belgijski organi sami izbrali možnost uporabe letalskih posnetkov, da bi izvedli upravni nadzor, ki ga zahteva Uredba �t. 3508/92.
They therefore had to draw all the necessary conclusions in the event of discrepancies between an area declared and the GIS area, but they did not do so.
Zato bi morali ob neskladnosti med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS izhajati zgolj iz njih, česar pa niso storili.