natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In my opinion, the Court of First Instance interpreted the right of access to
Menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nedopustno restriktivno razumelo pravico
30 — To that effect, Case T-30/91 Solvay [1995] ECR II-1775, paragraph 81, and Case C-199/99 P Corus UK v Commission [2003] ECR I-11177, paragraphs 125 to 128.
II-1775, točka 81) in sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 2. oktobra 2003 v zadevi Corus UK proti Komisiji (C-199/99 P, Recueil, str. I-11177, točke od 125 do 128).
That caselaw takes up a fundamental principle of general administrative law and of
Ta sodna praksa se navezuje na bistveno načelo splo�nega upravnega prava in uprav-
Community administrative procedural law, 33namely that a procedural irregularity justifies the judicial annulment of an administrative decision only when such annulment has a bearing on the content of the decision itself.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P nega procesnega prava Skupnosti, 33 v skladu s katerim kr�itev postopka utemeljuje sodno razveljavitev upravne odločbe le, če učinkuje na vsebino same odločbe.
to the file, that procedural defects are irrelevant if, in spite of everything, the person concerned has enjoyed the appropriate rights of defence.
spis pojasnil, da kr�itve postopka ne bi imele pomena, če bi imela zadevna oseba kljub temu na voljo primerna sredstva za obrambo.
The decision may be annulled only if it is found that, if the proper procedural routes had been scrupulously followed, the outcome could have been more advantageous for the person concerned or if, precisely because of the procedural defect, it is impossible to ascertain whether the decision would have been different.
Razglasitev ničnosti odločbe naj bi tako lahko sledila le, če je mogoče ugotoviti, da bi bil sklep – če bi se kar najbolj skrbno spo�tovala pravila postopka – za zadevno osebo ugodnej�i, ali če ravno zaradi te napake v obliki ni mogoče ugotoviti, ali bi bila odločba drugačna.
As Advocate General Mischo correctly stated in his Opinion in PVC, 34 access to the file is not an end in itself, but is designed to allow the person concerned effectively to exercise his rights of defence.
Kot je pravilno predstavil generalni pravobranilec Mischo v sklepnih predlogih v zadevi PVC, 34vpogled v spis ni sam sebi namen, ampak mora zadevni osebi ponujati možnost, da učinkovito uresničuje svoje pravice obrambe.
In essence, the Court of First Instance used that line of argument in paragraph 94 of the contested judgment when it rejected the allegation of infringement of the right of access to the file on the ground that, where documents which have not been used as the basis of a contested decision are not communicated, any failure to communicate them is in any event irrelevant, given that such documents cannot, in any case, have any bearing on the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v bistvenem uporabilo to argumentacijo, ko je v točki 94 izpodbijane sodbe zavrnilo očitek kr�itve pravice do vpogleda v spis z obrazložitvijo, da je v vsakem primeru neupo�tevno, če dokumenti, ki niso bili namenjeni utemeljitvi izpodbijane odločbe, niso bili sporočeni, ker taki dokumenti nikakor ne morejo vplivati na izpodbijano odločbo.
That conclusion forms part of the Court’s findings of fact and is unexceptionable in law.
Ta sklep spada k presoji dejstev, ki jo opravi Sodi�če prve stopnje, in ga pravno ni mogoče grajati.
33 — Thus, infringement of an ‘essential’ procedural requirement is necessary in order to justify an action for annulment, in which regard a distinction is not being made between ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ procedural requirements, but the decisive factor is the ‘essential character’ of the infringement.
33 – Tako je za utemeljenost ničnostne tožbe potrebna kr�itev „bistvenih“ določb postopka, pri čemer pa se ne razlikuje med „bistvenimi“ in „nebistvenimi“ določbami postopka, ampak je vse odvisno od „bistvenosti“ kr�itve.
Whether an essential infringement of procedural requirements exists is assessed according to the situation in each individual case, since the infringement of one and the same rule may be more or less serious depending on the circumstances.
V vsakem posameznem primeru se presoja, ali gre za bistveno kr�itev postopka, saj je lahko kr�itev istega predpisa glede na vsakokratne okoli�čine različno huda.
In general, the essential character of a procedural requirement is affirmed where the procedural defect could have influenced the formulation of the content of the measure or where the procedural requirement was adopted specifically to protect the person concerned (Rengeling, H.-W./Middeke, A./Gellermann, M., cited above (footnote 12), § 7, paragraph 98, p. 139).
Na splo�no se bistvenosti določbe postopka pritrdi takrat, ko bi napaka v obliki lahko vplivala na vsebino pravnega akta ali ko je bila določba postopka sprejeta ravno zaradi varstva zadevne osebe (Rengeling, H.-W., Middeke, A., Gellermann, M., na navedenem mestu (opomba 12), odstavek 7, točka 98, str. 139).
In Case 30/78 Distillers Company v Commission [1980] ECR 2229, paragraph 26, and Thyssen Stahl v Commission, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 31, the Court held that the rights of the defence are infringed where it is possible that the outcome of the administrative procedure conducted by the Commission may have been different as a result of an error committed by it.
Sodi�če je v sodbah z dne 10. julija 1980 v zadevi Distillers Company proti Komisiji (30/78, Recueil, str. 2229, točka 26) in Thyssen Stahl proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 20, točka 31) ugotovilo, da gre za kr�itev pravic obrambe, če zaradi napake Komisije obstaja možnost, da bi lahko upravni postopek, ki ga je vodila, privedel do drugačnega sklepa.
34 — Joined Cases C-244/99 P and C-251/99 P [2002] ECR I-8375, point 331.
34 – Sklepni predlogi generalnega pravobranilca Mischa, predstavljeni 25. oktobra 2001 v združenih zadevah PVC (C-244/99 P in C-251/99 P, sodba z dne 15. oktobra 2002, Recueil, str. I-8375, točka 331).
In regard to those documents on which the Commission based its decision, it should be pointed out that the Court of First Instance also noted that, at the consultation of the file relating to the Commission’s decision, which was carried out at the Commission’s offices on 6 August 2002, the appellant’s representative signed a written declaration expressly confirming that access had been granted to all documents directly or indirectly connected with the matter at issue.
Glede tistih dokumentov, s katerimi je Komisija utemeljila izpodbijano odločbo, je treba opozoriti na to, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni spregledalo okoli�čine, da je zastopnik pritožnice 6. avgusta 2002, ko je bil v prostorih Komisije omogočen vpogled v spis, ki je bil podlaga izpodbijani odločbi, podpisal pisno izjavo, v kateri je izrecno potrdil, da je imel dostop do vseh dokumentov, ki so bili v neposredni ali posredni zvezi s sporom.
A list was annexed to that declaration setting out all the documents to which that
Tej izjavi je bil priložen seznam, na katerem so bili navedeni vsi dokumenti, do katerih je imel dostop navedeni zastopnik. Kot je
C.A.S. v COMMISSION concerned, far from providing the appellant with an argument, were either unlikely to be relied upon by the appellant, because of their nature or subject-matter, or, because of their content, liable to confirm the Commission’s conclusions, or in any event not to contradict them in the slightest.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI dokumenti pritožnici ne le ne bi dali nobenih argumentov, ampak jih pritožnica bodisi zaradi njihove narave in njihovega predmeta ne bi mogla uveljavljati bodisi bi na podlagi njihove vsebine potrjevali ugotovitve Komisije ali vsaj ne bi omogočili nobenega protiargumenta.
representative had had access. As the Court expressly noted in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the contested judgment, that list included the UCLAF mission report of 9 December 1998 and the letter of the same date from the Commission/UCLAF to the Turkish Permanent Representation, which the appellant complains, again in the appeal, was not presented to it.
Sodi�če prve stopnje izrecno ugotovilo v točkah 99 in 100 izpodbijane sodbe, sta bila med njimi poročilo misije UCLAF z dne 9. decembra 1998 ter dopis Komisije/UCLAF z istega dne, namenjen tur�kemu stalnemu predstavni�tvu, katerih nepredložitev pritožnica v pritožbenem postopku ponovno graja.
Consequently, the Court was fully entitled to assume that the appellant, contrary to its assertions, was granted access to those documents.
Zato je lahko Sodi�če prve stopnje upravičeno izhajalo iz tega, da je pritožnica, v nasprotju z njenimi trditvami, imela vpogled v te dokumente.
I therefore consider that the Court essentially complied, in its method of ana -lysis, with the caselaw of the Court of Justice and that its conclusions are correct.
Zato menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pri svoji metodi preiskave v bistvenem upo�tevalo sodno prakso Sodi�ča in da so njegovi sklepi pravilni.
With regard to that request for access to the file, made by the applicant after the contested decision had been adopted and the proceedings initiated, in paragraph 102 of the contested judgment the Court pointed out that that is clearly irrelevant for the purposes of determining whether the applicant’s rights of defence may have been adversely affected during the administrative procedure and can have no bearing on the legality of that decision.
Kar zadeva zahtevek za vpogled v spis, ki ga je pritožnica vložila po sprejetju izpodbijane odločbe in po vložitvi tožbe, je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 102 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo na to, da ga ni mogoče upo�tevati pri presoji možne kr�itve pravic obrambe tožeče stranke med upravnim postopkom in da ne more vplivati na zakonitost navedene odločbe.
The Court’s explanations show that it examined whether the documents in question would have been of any use at all to the appellant.
Izvajanja Sodi�ča prve stopnje kažejo na to, da je raziskalo, ali bi zadevni dokumenti lahko vsaj v najmanj�i meri koristili pritožnici.
It did not therefore confine its appraisal to whether the failure to disclose the disputed documents had had an impact on the content of the final decision.
Zato se ni omejilo na vpra�anje, ali je neposredovanje zadevnih dokumentov vplivalo na vsebino končne odločbe.
In fact, its account has the effect, fundamentally, of showing that the documents
Izvajanja Sodi�ča prve stopnje namreč v bistvenem kažejo na to, da zadevni
Finally, the Court’s observations regarding the appellant’s partially inconsistent conduct in exercising its right of access to the file must be assessed.
Na koncu je treba presoditi izvajanja Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z deloma nekoherentnim ravnanjem pritožnice pri uresničevanju svoje pravice do vpogleda v spis.
In fact, in paragraph 102 of the contested judgment, the Court rightly drew attention to the fact that the applicant did not make any further request for access to other evidence in the file during the administrative procedure and also did not act in response to the Commission’s offer of access to the desired documents, made on 10 July 2003.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je namreč v točki 102 izpodbijane sodbe pravilno opozorilo na okoli�čino, da tožeča stranka v upravnem postopku sama ni vložila nobenega nadaljnjega zahtevka za dostop do drugih delov spisa in niti ni izkoristila ponudbe Komisije z dne 10. julija 2003, da lahko dostopi do želenih dokumentov.
Against that background, it appears contradictory for the appellant, despite being aware of those omissions in the exercise of its rights as the defendant at first instance, to complain that those rights were infringed and contest on appeal the unobjectionable grounds of the judgment given at first instance.
Glede na to se zdi protislovno, da pritožnica, čeprav ve za te pomanjkljivosti pri uveljavljanju svojih pravic obrambe v postopku na prvi stopnji, očita kr�itev prav teh in v pritožbenem postopku izpodbija razloge za odločitev prvostopenjske sodbe, ki jih pravno ni mogoče grajati.
The second ground of appeal must therefore be rejected.
Zato je treba drugi pritožbeni razlog zavrniti.
Consideration of this ground of appeal first requires some fundamental explanations regarding the allocation of the burden of proof in the context of the procedure for repayment or remission of import duties.
Obravnava tega pritožbenega razloga najprej zahteva nekaj temeljnih preudarkov o porazdelitvi dokaznega bremena v okviru postopka povračila oziroma odpusta uvoznih dajatev.
Third ground of appeal: allocation of the burden of pleading and proving the facts
Tretji pritožbeni razlog: porazdelitev trditvenega in dokaznega bremena
It should first be noted that, under the generally accepted rules of procedural law, the party relying on the conditions laid down in a provision must as a general rule prove that they have been satisfied.
Vnaprej je treba upo�tevati, da mora v skladu s splo�no priznanimi pravili procesnega prava praviloma tisti, ki se sklicuje na pogoje nekega predpisa, dokazati njihov obstoj.
37Lo-gically, as a rule, it is for the importer to plead and prove the existence of a ‘special situ -ation’ as referred to in Article 239 of the CCC, justifying a remission of import duties.
37 Dosledno mora praviloma uvoznik razložiti in dokazati, da obstaja „posebna okoli�čina“ v smislu člena 239 CZS, ki upravičuje odpust uvoznih dajatev.
38The same applies, for example, to the proof of origin of goods where the decision as to whether or not a repayment of import duties should be made depends on the clarification of that question. 39
38 Enako velja na primer za dokaz o poreklu blaga, če je od pojasnitve tega vpra�anja odvisno, ali so uvozne dajatve lahko povrnjene. 39
A finding of the existence of ‘circumstances’ within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239(1) of the CCC or of a ‘special situation’ within the meaning of Article 905(1) of the CCC implementing regulation presupposes the pleading, proof and appraisal of certain facts and circumstances.
Ugotovitev obstoja „okoli�čin“ v smislu člena 239(1), druga alinea, CZS oziroma „posebnega primera“ v smislu člena 905(1) uredbe za izvajanje CZS predpostavlja zatrjevanje, dokaz in presojo določenih dejstev in okoli�čin.
However, the question of the specific allocation of the burden of pleading and proof is in dispute between the parties, since the appellant claims that the burden of proof should be reversed or mitigated in its favour.
Med strankama pa je sporno vpra�anje konkretne porazdelitve trditvenega in dokaznega bremena, pri čemer pritožnica zase zahteva obrnitev dokaznega bremena oziroma njegovo zmanj�anje.
By ultimately alleging in its submissions that the Court of First Instance disregarded the procedural-law principles governing the burden of proof, the appellant relies on misapplication of Community law and thus on an admissible ground of appeal. 36
S tem da pritožnica s svojimi navedbami Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da ni upo�tevalo procesnopravnih načel o dokaznem bremenu, uveljavlja napačno uporabo prava Skupnosti in s tem dopusten pritožbeni razlog. 36
Conversely, it is for the Commission, in the context of its decision as to whether a ‘special situation’ exists, in which it has an
Obratno mora Komisija v okviru svoje odločitve, ali obstaja „posebna okoli�čina“, pri
38 — Also according to Alexander, S., Zollkodex, cited above (footnote 10), Vor Art. 220, paragraph 4, according to which the burden of pleading and proving the facts justifying an application for repayment rests upon the customs debtor.
38 – Tako tudi Alexander, S., Zollkodex, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), po členu 220, točka 4, carinski dolžnik nosi trditveno in dokazno breme za dejstva, ki utemeljujejo zahtevek za povračilo.
39 — See CT Control, cited in footnote 27, paragraph 39, according to which it is for the importer seeking to obtain repayment of import duties and not the Commission to establish that imported goods originate in an ACP State for which the Community provides for preferential arrangements.
36 – Rengeling, H., Middeke, A., Gellermann, M., na navedenem mestu (opomba 12), odstavek 28, str. od 502 do 504, �tejejo k procesnim določbam, na katerih kr�itev se lahko opira pritožba, poleg procesnih pravil iz pogodb, statutov in poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje tudi splo�na načela prava Skupnosti, ki se nana�ajo na postopek.
36 — According to Rengeling, H./Middeke, A./Gellermann, M., cited above (footnote 12), § 28, pp. 502 to 504, the pro -cedural norms on whose infringement the appeal may be based also include, in addition to the procedural provisions of the Treaties, the Statutes and the Rules of Pro -cedure of the Court of First Instance, the general principles of Community law which concern the proceedings.
Tako se lahko s pritožbo prav tako očita kr�itev pravice udeležencev postopka biti sli�an kot kr�itve zoper načeli dokaznega bremena ali dokaznega postopka. V zvezi s preverjanjem pravilne uporabe predpisov o dokaznem bremenu s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje glej sodbe z dne 8. julija 1999 v zadevi Anic (C-49/92 P, Recueil, str.
Thus, the appeal may allege infringement of the parties’ right to a fair hearing as well breaches of the principles governing the burden of proof or the taking of evidence.
I-4125, točka 96); z dne 6. januarja 2004 v združenih zadevah BAI in Komisija proti Bayer (C-2/01 P in C-3/01 P, Recueil, str.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION consideration, inter alia, that the Community cannot be made to bear the adverse consequences of infringements.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI čemer ima ustrezno diskrecijsko pravico, 40razložiti in dokazati, da so potrdila, ki jih je ni dolžna nositi negativnih posledic protipravnega ravnanja.
The Court has held that the receipt of invalid certificates of origin can, in principle, be considered to be one of the professional risks which a trader, by the very nature of his activity, runs and he is at liberty to seek compensation from the perpetrator of the fraud.
Sodi�če je ugotovilo, da je sprejem neveljavnih potrdil o poreklu v načelu mogoče �teti k poklicnim tveganjem, ki jim je gospodarski subjekt izpostavljen glede na naravo svoje dejavnosti, in ta sme vložiti od�kodninsko tožbo zoper avtorja ponaredka.
appropriate margin of discretion, 40to plead and prove that the certificates presented by the importer are forged or falsified.
predložil uvoznik, lažna oziroma ponarejena.
On the other hand, it is not required to prove that there is no special situation where the requirements of Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation are satisfied, since that provision already contains an assessment by the Community legislature, which is binding on the Commission, to the effect that any good faith on the part of the importer during the procedure under Article 239 of the CCC cannot be regarded as meriting protection.
Nasprotno pa ji ni treba dokazati, da ne gre za posebno okoli�čino, če so izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS, saj ta določba že vsebuje vrednotenje zakonodajalca Skupnosti, ki Komisijo zavezuje, da morebitne dobre vere uvoznika v postopku v skladu s členom 239 CZS ni mogoče varovati.
As I have already explained in my introductory observations on this case, 41the
Kot sem navedla že v uvodnih opombah k tej zadevi, 41je zakonodajalec Skupnosti, s
The Court of First Instance has recognised exceptions to that rule only in those cases of forgery which go beyond the normal commercial risk borne by the trader concerned, such as breaches by the Commission of its duty of supervision 43 or in the case of participation by customs employees in infringements.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je izjeme od tega pravila priznalo le v tistih primerih ponareditev, ki presegajo običajno poslovno tveganje zadevnega gospodarskega subjekta, na primer pri kr�itvah Komisije zoper svojo obveznost nadzora 43ali če so uslužbenci carinskih organov udeleženi pri protipravnem ravnanju.
44 That caselaw of the Court of First Instance is fully correct, since it takes account of the fact that, as a rule, the trader concerned, apart from those procedures which require his participation, has little opportunity to influence the course of the customs procedure and he must therefore rely on the due performance of their tasks by the competent authorities under a system of
44Tej prvostopenjski sodni praksi je treba v celoti pritrditi, saj upo�teva okoli�čino, da ima zadevni gospodarski subjekt, ne glede na dele postopka, ki zahtevajo njegovo udeležbo, praviloma le malo možnosti vplivanja na potek carinskega postopka in se mora zato zanesti na to, da bodo pristojni organi v okviru sistema upravnega sodelovanja izpolnjevali svoje
43 — Eyckeler & Malt v Commission, cited in footnote 24, paragraphs 189 to 191, and Kaufring and Others, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 218. Community legislature, by the formulation of that exclusion, adopted the Court’s previous settled caselaw according to which the fact that documents presented in good faith in order to obtain preferential tariff treatment for goods declared for free circulation are subsequently found to be falsified does not constitute a special circumstance justifying a remission of import duties. That caselaw has, since the judgment in the leading case, Van Gend und Loos, 42 been founded on the
43 – Sodbi Eyckeler & Malt proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 24, točke od 189 do 191) in Kaufring in drugi (navedena v opombi 9, točka 218). tem da je sprejel to izključitveno dejansko stanje, prevzel dosedanjo ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, po kateri ne gre za posebne okoli�čine, ki upravičujejo odpust uvoznih dajatev, če so bili predloženi dokumenti za odobritev preferencialne tarifne obravnave za blago, prijavljeno za sprostitev v prosti promet, za katere se naknadno izkaže, da so bili ponarejeni, kljub temu, da so bili predloženi v dobri veri.
44 — In Kaufring and Others, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 231, the Court of First Instance held that only errors attributable to acts of the competent authorities which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable to pay create entitlement to the waiver of postclearance recovery of customs duties.
44 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je v sodbi Kaufring in drugi (navedena v opombi 9, točka 231) ugotovilo, da zgolj take napake, ki jih je mogoče razložiti z aktivnim ravnanjem pristojnih organov in ki jih razumni zavezanec za dajatev ni mogel odkriti, utemeljujejo pravico do opustitve naknadne izterjave.
The central aspects of that case were a number of irregularities on the part of the Turkish authorities in the implementation of the Association Agreement and association law derived from it and the serious deficiencies in the Commission’s monitoring of the implementation of those provisions.
Ta zadeva se je nana�ala na več nepravilnosti pri prenosu pridružitvenega sporazuma in iz tega izhajajoče pridružitvene zakonodaje s strani tur�kih organov ter hude kr�itve obveznosti Komisije pri nadzoru nad izvajanjem teh določb.
In Case T-330/99 Rotermund [2001] ECR II-1619, paragraph 58, the ‘special situation’ as referred to in Article 239 of the CCC arose from the existence of fraudulent practices which could only reasonably be explained by the active complicity of an employee of the customs office at the destination, since the Court concluded in that regard that the Commission was not entitled to confine itself to requiring that the applicant adduce formal and definitive proof of such complicity.
V sodbi z dne 7. junija 2001 v zadevi Rotermund (T-330/99, Recueil, str. II-1619, točka 58) je „posebna okoli�čina“ v smislu člena 239 CZS obstajala zato, ker je bilo mogoče goljufive mahinacije razumno razložiti le z aktivno udeležbo uslužbenca namembne carinske službe, tako da je Sodi�če prve stopnje sklepalo, da se Komisija ne sme omejiti na to, da od tožeče stranke zahteva uradni in dokončni dokaz za tako udeležbo.
That caselaw was also mentioned in Case T-332/02 Nordspedizionieri [2004] ECR II-4405, paragraph 58.
Ta sodna praksa je omenjena tudi v sodbi z dne 14. decembra 2004 v zadevi Nordspedizionieri (T-332/02, ZOdl., str. II-4405, točka 58).
41 — See above, point 70.42 — Cited in footnote 11, paragraphs 15 to 17.
41 – Glej točko 70 zgoraj.42 – Navedena v opombi 11, točke od 15 do 17.