natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Amt actually identified irregularities in terms of the provisions of Article 10c(1) of Regulation No 3887/92 concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals.
Amt je namreč ugotovil nepravilnosti glede na določbe člena 10c(1) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, kar zadeva identifikacijo in registracijo goveda, za katero ni bil vložen zahtevek za pomoč.
These certainly constitute ‘irregularities’ within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2988/95.
Gre torej prav za „nepravilnosti“ v smislu člena 1(2) Uredbe �t. 2988/95.
— that irregularity must give rise to the application of an administrative penalty within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95;
– ta nepravilnost mora privesti do uporabe upravne kazni v smislu člena 2(2) Uredbe �t. 2988/95;
— the Community rules which provided for that penalty must have been subject to a subsequent change;
– določbe Skupnosti, s katerimi je bila uvedena ta kazen, so se pozneje spremenile;
The existence of those irregularities gave rise to the application of Article 10c(3) of Regulation No 3887/92 which, let us recall, provides that if the difference found during an on-the-spot check is greater than 20% of the number of eligible animals established, no premium is to be granted for the 12 months prior to that on-the-spot check.
Obstoj nepravilnosti je privedel do uporabe člena 10c(3) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, v katerem je, naj ponovim, določeno, da se, če je odstopanje pri kontroli na kraju samem večje od 20 % ugotovljenega �tevila upravičenih živali, za obdobje dvanajstih mesecev pred kontrolo na kraju samem ne dodeli nikakr�na premija.
The reduction in the amount of or, indeed, cancellation of the ‘livestock’ aid clearly constitutes an ‘administrative penalty’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95. 22
Prav znižanje zneska pomoči „na žival“ oziroma ukinitev pomoči pomeni „upravno kazen“ v smislu člena 2(2) Uredbe �t. 2988/95. 22
20 — Campina, paragraph 33.
20 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Campina (točka 33).
See also point 27 of the Opinion of Advocate General Léger of 11 December 2003 in the case which gave rise to that judgment.
Glej tudi točko 27 sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca Légerja v tej zadevi z dne 11. decembra 2003.
22 — Gerken, paragraph 50.
22 – Zgoraj navedena sodba Gerken (točka 50).
That article is clearly designed to amend the rules on administrative sanctions in such a way as to reduce the severity of the penalty that applies if the Community rules applicable to the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals have not been respected. 23
Očitno je, da je namen te določbe sprememba določb glede upravnih kazni, s katero naj bi omilili kazen, ki se uporablja v primeru neskladnosti z določbami Skupnosti, kar zadeva identifikacijo in registracijo goveda, za katero ni bil vložen zahtevek za pomoč. 23
I too consider it incorrect to take the view that a failure to respect the rules applicable to the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals can no longer give rise to a penalty on the basis of Regulation No 796/2004.
Tudi sam menim, da je stali�če, da se na podlagi Uredbe �t. 796/2004 nespo�tovanje zahtev glede identifikacije in registracije goveda, za katero ni bil vložen zahtevek za pomoč, ne kaznuje več, napačno.
In point of fact, those requirements are now caught by the crosscompliance obligations that a farmer receiving direct payments is required to meet, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003.
Odslej namreč te zahteve spadajo v okvir navzkrižne skladnosti, ki jo mora v skladu s členom 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 spo�tovati vsak kmet, ki prejme neposredno plačilo.
I would point out here that according to Annex III(A)(8) to that regulation, Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation No 1760/2000 are included among the ‘statutory management requirements’, which are themselves a component of the rules which have to be respected in relation to cross-compliance.
Naj glede tega spomnim, da sta v točki A(8) Priloge III k tej uredbi navedena člena 4 in 7 Uredbe �t. 1760/2000, ki naj bi bila del „predpisanih zahtev ravnanja“, te pa so sestavni del pravil, ki jih je treba spo�tovati pri navzkrižni skladnosti.
It follows that, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, in which it has been established that those rules have not been respected in relation to unclaimed animals, the scheme of penalties which is relevant in cases of failure to respect these requirements pertaining to the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals is the scheme laid down in Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004. 24
Iz tega sledi, da je upo�tevni sistem kazni v primeru neskladnosti s pravili glede identifikacije in registracije goveda v dejanskem okviru, kakr�en je spor o glavni stvari, v katerem je neskladnost z zadevnimi pravili ugotovljena pri živalih, za katere ni bil vložen zahtevek za pomoč, sistem, ki je določen v členih 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004. 24
The Amt, by contrast, takes the view that it is objectively impossible to apply the penalties for which Regulation No 796/2004 provides, since the single payment had yet to be accorded during the year when the application was made, namely 2001.
Nasprotno Amt meni, da uporaba kazni, ki so določene z Uredbo �t. 796/2004, objektivno ni mogoča, saj enotno plačilo v letu, ko je bil vložen zahtevek, torej leta 2001, �e ni bilo odobreno.
Consequently, in order to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it, 25the question submitted should, as the Commission suggests, be rephrased to enable the Court to determine whether the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 must be interpreted as meaning that the scheme of penalties laid
Da bi lahko predložitvenemu sodi�ču dali uporaben odgovor, ki mu omogoča re�itev spora, o katerem odloča 25, bi bilo zato treba, kot predlaga Komisija, vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje preoblikovati, da
24 — That analysis is borne out by the second sentence of recital (68) in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004.
24 – To analizo potrjuje osemin�estdeseta uvodna izjava, drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 796/2004.
26 — I consider that were the scheme of penalties which is material in terms of the substantive scope to be the scheme which appears in Article 59 of Regulation No 796/2004, it should be pointed out that it is not, in any event, currently applicable in Germany, since that Member State opted to decouple ‘livestock’ premia, and is not, a fortiori,retroactively applicable.
26 – Menim, da bi bilo treba ob predpostavki, da je na ravni ratione materiæ upo�tevni sistem kazni sistem iz člena 59 Uredbe �t. 796/2004, ugotoviti, da se ta sistem zdaj nikakor ne more uporabljati v Nemčiji, saj se je ta država članica odločila za uveljavitev nevezanih premij „na žival“, zato ga je v tej državi �e toliko manj mogoče uporabljati retroaktivno.
As the Greek Government has indicated, that conclusion emerges clearly from recital (12) in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004, from which we can infer that Article 59 of the regulation could apply only in so far as Germany had opted to keep certain livestock premia, such as the suckler cow premium, linked to production.
Kot je navedla gr�ka vlada, ta sklep jasno izhaja iz dvanajste uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 796/2004, na podlagi katere lahko sklepamo, da bi se lahko člen 59 te uredbe uporabil samo, če bi se Nemčija odločila, da bi bile nekatere premije za živali, kakr�na je premija za krave dojilje, �e naprej vezane na proizvodnjo.
25 — Haug, paragraph 17, and Campina, paragraph 30.
25 – Zgoraj navedeni sodbi Haug (točka 17) in Campina (točka 30).
The Commission too considers that the penalties for which that regulation provides cannot be applied retroactively in this case.
Tudi Komisija meni, da v zadevnem primeru retroaktivna uporaba kazni, ki jih določa ta uredba, ni mogoča.
Furthermore, the Commission stated at the hearing that, in its view, a new assessment based on Regulation No 796/2004 is no longer feasible, particularly since it would be impossible to verify, when assessing the gravity of the infringement the farmer had committed, whether the latter had complied with all of the other rules on crosscompliance, notably environmental and animal welfare requirements.
796/2004 danes ne bi bila več mogoča, zlasti ker ne bi bilo mogoče preveriti, ali je kmet spo�toval vsa druga pravila navzkrižne skladnosti, predvsem zahteve glede okolja in za�čite živali, da bi tako ocenili resnost njegove kr�itve.
In that connection, to support its contention that a more lenient penalty may be applied retroactively only where it reflects a revised assessment of the legislature in relation to the irregularity in question, the Commission cites the Opinion of Advocate General Kokott in the case which produced the abovementioned judgment in Berlusconi. 27
Glede tega se pri utemeljevanju trditve, da je retroaktivna uporaba milej�e kazni mogoča samo, če gre za posledico spremembe presoje zakonodajalca glede zadevne nepravilnosti, Komisija opira na sklepne predloge generalne pravobranilke J. Kokott v zadevi, v kateri je bila izrečena zgoraj navedena sodba Berlusconi in drugi. 27
This actually involves, not amending or replacing earlier, similar provisions but, in essence, a new scheme based on a different philosophy and with different objectives.
Tako naj namreč ne bi �lo za spremembo ali zamenjavo podobnih predhodnih določb, ampak za vsebinsko nov sistem z drugačno filozofijo in drugačnimi cilji.
According to the Commission, neither the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004 nor the general context of that regulation allow of the conclusion that the penalties referred to in Articles 66 and 67 of that regulation were adopted for the purpose of penalising certain irregularities — such as those at issue in the main proceedings — less severely in the future.
Niti uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 796/2004 niti splo�no ozadje te uredbe naj ne bi dovoljevali sklepa, da naj bi bile kazni iz členov 66 in 67 te uredbe sprejete zato, da bi se v prihodnje milej�e kaznovalo določene nepravilnosti, kakr�ne so nepravilnosti iz spora o glavni stvari.
27 — The Commission refers, in particular, to points 159 to 161 of that Opinion.
27 – Sklicuje se zlasti na točke od 159 do 161 teh sklepnih predlogov.
In my view, the condition concerning the ‘subsequent amendment of the provisions which impose administrative penalties’, which appears in the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95, refers to the adoption of a new rule which is designed to change the nature and/or severity of the penalty, within a regulatory system the main features of which remain unchanged.
Po mojem mnenju se „poznej�a sprememba določb o upravnih kaznih“ iz člena 2(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe �t. 2988/95, nana�a na sprejetje nove določbe, katere cilj je sprememba vrste in/ali strogosti kazni znotraj sistema predpisov, v katerem se ohranijo glavne značilnosti tega sistema.
Consequently, if the system within which the new penalty is incorporated undergoes extensive reform and a new scheme of penalties is, therefore, established, then, in my view, that article cannot apply.
Posledično, ko se sistem, v katerega je vključena nova kazen, temeljito spremeni in je zato vzpostavljen nov sistem kazni, po mojem mnenju tega člena ni mogoče uporabiti.
Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 in fact introduce a new scheme of penalties which is very closely linked to the new direct support arrangements that have resulted from the 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy.
S členoma 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004 je namreč vzpostavljen nov sistem kazni, tesno povezan z novim sistemom neposredne podpore, ki izhaja iz reforme skupne kmetijske politike iz leta 2003.
In those circumstances, the changes to the scheme of penalties are made because that scheme has to be adapted to the new regulatory system, the proper implementation of which it secures, but they are not meant to reflect a revised assessment on the part of the Community legislature as to whether the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the irregularity.
V tak�nem primeru namreč spremembe sistema kazni temeljijo izključno na nujnosti, da se sistem prilagodi novemu sistemu predpisov in se zagotovi dobro izvajanje tega sistema, ne odražajo pa spremenjene presoje zakonodajalca Skupnosti, kar zadeva ustreznost kazni glede na resnost nepravilnosti.
That close link between the new scheme of penalties and the reformed regulatory system of which it forms part is reflected in a number of features specific to the new scheme which make it impossible simply to transpose it to an aid application which is caught by the temporal scope of Regulation No 3887/92, as this could alter the nature and coherence of the reformed system, as designed by the Community legislature.
Ta tesna povezava med novim sistemom kazni in reformiranim sistemom predpisov, v katerega je vključen, se kaže v določenem �tevilu značilnosti novega sistema, ki onemogočajo zgolj prenos tega sistema na zahtevek za pomoč, ki spada v področje uporabe ratione temporis Uredbe �t. 3887/92, saj bi lahko v primeru takega prenosa spremenili samo naravo in usklajenost prenovljenega sistema, kakor ga je zasnoval zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
Consequently, in my view, the link that exists between the new scheme of penalties and the reformed regulatory system of which it forms part precludes the retroactive application of this new scheme of penalties to facts pertaining to a previous regulatory system.
Zato po mojem mnenju sedanja povezava med novim sistemom kazni in reformiranim sistemom predpisov, v katerega je vključen, onemogoča retroaktivno uporabo novega sistema kazni za dejanska stanja, ki spadajo v predhodni sistem predpisov.
Those specific features of the new scheme of penalties essentially relate both to the aim it pursues and to the detailed rules for determining the penalty.
Te značilnosti novega sistema kazni se zlasti nana�ajo na, po eni strani, cilj, ki se s tem sistemom zasleduje, po drugi strani pa na podrobna pravila za določanje kazni.
We saw above that one of the cornerstones of the 2003 reform consists in the crosscompliance obligations linked to the aid and that, pursuant to Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003, those obligations apply to a farmer receiving direct payments, whether in the form of the single payment or under the other support schemes listed in Annex I to the regulation. 29
Povedal sem že, da je eden od ključnih elementov reforme iz leta 2003 navzkrižna skladnost pomoči in da se ta na podlagi člena 3(1) Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 uporablja za vsakega kmeta, ki prejema neposredna plačila, ne glede na to, ali jih prejema v enotnem plačilu ali znotraj drugih shem podpore, navedenih v Prilogi I k tej uredbi. 29
Those different fields of crosscompliance vary in nature.
Ta različna področja navzkrižne skladnosti so raznovrstna.
They are made up of the statutory management requirements referred to in Annex III to Regulation No 1782/2003, that is to say, 18 regulations and directives concerning the environment and public health, as well as animal and plant health, and the good agricultural and environmental condition which the Member States are to define.
Mednje spadajo predpisane zahteve ravnanja iz Priloge III k Uredbi �t. 1782/2003, to je iz 18 uredb in direktiv s področja okolja, javnega zdravja ter zdravja živali in rastlin, pa tudi dobri kmetijski in okoljski pogoji, ki jih morajo opredeliti države članice.
If a farmer fails to adhere to the crosscompliance obligations, the total amount of the direct payments to which he is entitled may be reduced or cancelled in accordance with the detailed rules set out in Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004.
Če kak kmet ne spo�tuje pravil navzkrižne skladnosti, se lahko celotni znesek neposrednih plačil, ki jih lahko zahteva, zniža ali prekliče v skladu s podrobnimi pravili iz členov 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004.
It is clear from recital (56) in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004 that, with regard to crosscompliance objectives, the system of reductions and exclusions
796/2004 jasno izhaja, da ima sistem znižanj in izključitev, povezan z obveznostmi glede navzkrižne skladnosti, točno določen cilj, ki se popolnoma sklada z novim
29 — See also, to the effect, recital (49) in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004.
29 – V tem smislu glej tudi devetin�tirideseto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t. 796/2004.
For instance, Article 9 of Regulation No 796/2004, which requires the Member States to set in place a system guaranteeing an effective control on the respect of crosscompliance, provides, in particular, in the first subparagraph of Article 9(d), that the system must include control reports containing, in particular, any detected noncompliance and an assessment of its severity, extent, permanence and repetition.
Tako je v členu 9 Uredbe �t. 796/2004, s katerim je državam članicam naložena vzpostavitev sistema za zagotovitev učinkovite kontrole spo�tovanja navzkrižne skladnosti, v prvem pododstavku, točka (d), zlasti določeno, da mora ta sistem vključevati poročila o kontroli, ki naj vsebujejo predvsem kakr�no koli ugotovljeno neskladnost in oceno njene resnosti, obsega, stalnosti in ponavljanja.
According to Article 48(1)(b) of that regulation, a control report must contain a part reflecting, separately, the checks carried out in respect of each of the relevant acts and standards pertaining to cross-compliance.
V členu 48(1)(b) iste uredbe je natančno opredeljeno, da mora poročilo o kontroli vsebovati del o izvedenih pregledih posebej za vsako zadevno zahtevo ali vsak zadevni standard glede navzkrižne skladnosti.
Moreover, according to the first subparagraph of Article 48(1)(c) of the regulation, the report must contain ‘an evaluation part giving an assessment of the importance of the noncompliance in respect of each act and/or standard on the basis of the criteria “severity”, “extent”, “permanence” and “repetition” in accordance with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003, with an indication of any factors that should lead to an increase or decrease of the reduction to be applied.’
Poleg tega je v členu 48(1)(c), prvi pododstavek, iste uredbe določeno, da poročilo vsebuje „ocenjevalni del z oceno pomembnosti neskladnosti v zvezi z vsakim aktom in/ali standardom na podlagi meril ‚resnosti‘, ‚obsega‘, ‚stalnosti‘ in ‚ponavljanja‘ v skladu s členom 7(1) Uredbe (ES) �t.
Furthermore, it should be pointed out that, given the general scope of the crosscompliance obligations within the new
Poleg tega je treba poudariti, da se glede na splo�ni doseg navzkrižne skladnosti v novem sistemu predpisov sistem kazni, ki je določen v členih 66 in 67 Uredbe
30 — Indeed, as well as the fact that crosscompliance control potentially concerns 18 regulations and directives, it also covers good agricultural and environmental conditions, which did not, as such, exist in 2001.
30 – Poleg dejstva, da lahko kontrola navzkrižne skladnosti vključuje 18 uredb in direktiv, se namreč nana�a tudi na dobre kmetijske in okoljske pogoje, ki leta 2001 kot taki �e niso obstajali.
31 — See, in that connection, Article 6 et seq of Regulation No 3887/92.
1782/2003, resnost, obseg, stalnost in ponavljanje ugotovljene neskladnosti.
The reductions and exclusions for which those articles provide thus apply to the total amount of the direct payments, as defined in Article 2(d) of Regulation No 1782/2003, that is to say, those payments granted directly to farmers under the income support systems listed in Annex I to that regulation.
Znižanja in izključitve, ki so določeni v teh členih, se tako uporabljajo za celotni znesek neposrednih plačil, kot so opredeljena v členu 2(d) Uredbe �t. 1782/2003, torej plačil, dodeljenih neposredno kmetom znotraj shem dohodkovne podpore iz Priloge I k zadnjenavedeni uredbi.
We have seen that, within that system, the direct aids to farmers are primarily granted by means of a single annual payment replacing most of the direct aids which existed previously and that, in determining which single payment scheme to apply, Regulation No 1782/2003 allows the Member States to choose from a number of options, namely an historic approach, a regional approach and a hybrid approach.
Kot sem že navedel, se s to shemo neposredne pomoči dodeljujejo kmetom zlasti kot enotno letno plačilo namesto večine neposrednih pomoči, ki so obstajale pred tem, in da imajo države članice za določitev sheme enotnega plačila, ki se bo uporabljala, v skladu z Uredbo �t. 1782/2003 na izbiro več možnosti, in sicer zgodovinski, regionalni in me�ani pristop.
The basis on which the reductions and exclusions apply is, therefore, different and much broader.
Osnova, na katero se nana�ajo znižanja in izključitve, je torej drugačna in veliko �ir�a.
The percentage reductions for which Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 provide take that factor into account.
Ta značilnost je upo�tevana v odstotkih znižanja iz členov 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004.
At the top of the list of those support systems is, in fact, the single payment system which the Member States should have imple-
Poleg tega je treba tudi poudariti, da celotni znesek neposrednih plačil, ki se odslej �teje za osnovo, na katero se nana�ajo znižanja in izključitve, določene v teh členih, ni več zgolj se�tevek neposrednih plačil, kot so obstajala pred tem.
32 — See Article 71(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003.
32 – Glej člen 71(1) Uredbe �t. 1782/2003.
The amount to which the reductions and exclusions contained in Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 apply actually includes the reductions consequent on modulation and financial discipline.
Znesek, na katerega se nana�ajo znižanja in izključitve iz členov 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004, vključuje znižanja, ki so posledica modulacije in finančne discipline.
Article 6(1) of Regulation No 1782/2003 in fact provides that, if crosscompliance obligations are not respected, the total amount of direct payments to be granted is to be reduced or cancelled, after application of Articles 10 and 11 of that regulation.
V členu 6(1) Uredbe �t. 1782/2003 je namreč določeno, da se v primeru neupo�tevanja pravil navzkrižne skladnosti celotni znesek neposrednih plačil, ki naj bi se odobrila, zmanj�a ali prekliče po uporabi členov 10 in 11 te uredbe.
There is one final factor that makes it impossible, in my view, to apply the scheme of penalties laid down by Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 796/2004 retroactively to aid applications which are not caught by the temporal scope of that regulation, that is to say, aid applications submitted for marketing years or premium periods commencing before 1 January 2005 — as to do so could alter the system which the Community legislature wished to set in place.
Nazadnje je treba omeniti �e zadnji element, ki po mojem mnenju onemogoča retroaktivno uporabo sistema kazni iz členov 66 in 67 Uredbe �t. 796/2004 za zahtevke za pomoč, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe ratione temporis te uredbe, torej zahtevke za pomoč, ki so bili vloženi v tržnih letih ali premijskih obdobjih z začetkom pred 1. januarjem 2005, saj bi lahko privedla do spremembe sistema, ki ga je želel vzpostaviti zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
Two further features of the new regulatory system are the compulsory modulation of direct payments and financial discipline.
Za novi sistem predpisov sta namreč značilni obvezna modulacija neposrednih plačil in finančna disciplina.
In my view, it would be contrary to the system which the Community legislature has introduced to apply the reductions consequent on modulation and financial discipline retroactively to aid applications which are not caught by the temporal scope of Regulation No 796/2004.
Zato menim, da bi bila retroaktivna uporaba znižanj, ki so posledica modulacije in finančne discipline, za zahtevke za pomoč, ki ne spadajo v področje uporabe ratione temporis Uredbe �t. 796/2004, v nasprotju s sistemom, ki ga je predvidel zakonodajalec Skupnosti.