natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, where the customs debt arises as a result of circumstances in which neither deception nor obvious negligence may be attributed to the principal, Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, which is a general equitable provision, permits the principal to apply for the remission of duties.
2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku, ki vsebuje splo�no klavzulo pravičnosti, omogoča, da vloži zahtevek za odpust dajatev.
To that end, Articles 899 to 905 of Regulation No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Customs Code provide for a procedure for administrative cooperation between the customs authorities and the Commission.
Členi od 899 do 905 Uredbe �t. 2454/93 o določbah za izvajanje carinskega zakonika zato določajo postopek upravnega sodelovanja med carinskimi organi in Komisijo.
It is not contrary to the principle of proportionality to hold a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, liable for a customs debt, regardless of the extent of that debt in relation to the fees he receives when acting as customs
Dejstvo, da je carinski zastopnik kot glavni zavezanec, odgovoren za carinski dolg, ne glede na vi�ino tega dolga v primerjavi s koristmi, ki jih prejme, ko deluje kot carinski zastopnik, ni v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti. Glavni zavezanec je namreč kot imetnik
(see paras 48-51, operative part 3)
(Glej točke od 48 do 51 in točko 3 izreka.)
2008 — CASE C-230/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-230/06
MILITZER & MÜNCH Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: B. Fülöp, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 6 December 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
MILITZER & MÜNCH generalna pravobranilka: V. Trstenjak, sodni tajnik: B. Fülöp, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 6. decembra 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili: – za Militzer & Münch GmbH W. Wielander, odvetnik, – za italijansko vlado I. M.
— Militzer & Münch GmbH, by W. Wielander, Rechtsanwalt, — the Italian Government, by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, and G. Albenzio, avvocato dello Stato,
Braguglia, zastopnik, skupaj z G. Albenziem, avvocato dello Stato,
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 215 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Commu-
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 215 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti (UL L 302,
2008 — CASE C-230/06 nity Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
2008 – ZADEVA C-230/06 str.
1) (‘the Customs Code’), Articles 378 and 379 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p.
1, v nadaljevanju: carinski zakonik) ter členov 378 in 379 Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 2454/93 z dne 2. julija 1993 o določbah za izvajanje Uredbe �t. 2913/92 (UL L 253, str.
The reference was made in proceedings between Militzer & Münch GmbH (‘M & M’) and the Ministero delle Finanze (Ministry of Finance) concerning the recovery of customs duties. Legal context
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Militzer & Münch GmbH (v nadaljevanju: M & M) in ministero delle Finanze glede izterjave carine. Pravni okvir
Article 96 of the Customs Code provides as follows:
Člen 96 carinskega zakonika določa:
(a) production of the goods intact at the customs office of destination by the prescribed timelimit and with due observance of the measures adopted by the customs authorities to ensure identification;
Odgovoren je za: a) predložitev nedotaknjenega blaga namembnemu carinskemu uradu v predpisanem roku, pri čemer je dolžan spo�tovati ukrepe, ki so jih carinski organi sprejeli za zagotovitev prepoznavanja; b) spo�tovanje določb skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka.
Notwithstanding the principal’s obligations under paragraph 1, a carrier or recipient of goods who accepts goods knowing that they are moving under Community transit shall also be responsible for production of the goods intact at the customs office of destination by the prescribed timelimit and with due observance of the measures adopted by the customs authorities to ensure identification.’
Ne glede na obveznosti glavnega zavezanca iz odstavka 1, je tudi prevoznik ali prejemnik, ki blago sprejme in ve, da je v skupnostnem tranzitu, odgovoren za predložitev nedotaknjenega blaga namembnemu carinskemu uradu v predpisanem roku, pri čemer je dolžan spo�tovati ukrepe, ki so jih carinski organi sprejeli za zagotovitev prepoznavanja.“
Articles 203 and 204 of the Customs Code provide as follows:
Člena 203 in 204 carinskega zakonika določata:
A customs debt on importation shall be incurred through:
Carinski dolg pri uvozu nastane:
— the unlawful removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duties.
– z nezakonito odstranitvijo blaga, zavezanega uvoznim dajatvam, izpod carinskega nadzora.
The customs debt shall be incurred at the moment when the goods are removed from customs supervision.
Carinski dolg nastane v trenutku odstranitve blaga izpod carinskega nadzora.
The debtors shall be:
Dolžniki so:
— the person who removed the goods from customs supervision,
– oseba, ki je odstranila blago izpod carinskega nadzora,
— any persons who participated in such removal and who were aware or should reasonably have been aware that the goods were being removed from customs supervision,
– osebe, ki so bile udeležene pri odstranitvi in so vedele ali bi morale vedeti, da gre za odstranitev blaga izpod carinskega nadzora,
— any persons who acquired or held the goods in question and who were aware or should reasonably have been aware at the time of acquiring or receiving the goods that they had been removed from customs supervision, and
– osebe, ki so zadevno blago pridobile ali posedovale in so v trenutku pridobitve ali prejema tega blaga vedele ali bi morale vedeti, da gre za blago, ki je bilo odstranjeno izpod carinskega nadzora, kakor tudi
— where appropriate, the person required to fulfil the obligations arising from temporary storage of the goods or from the use of the customs procedure under which those goods are placed.
– po potrebi oseba, ki mora izpolniti obveznosti, izhajajoče iz zadrževanja blaga v začasni hrambi ali uporabe carinskega postopka, v katerega je bilo dano to blago.
(a) nonfulfilment of one of the obligations arising, in respect of goods liable to import duties, from their temporary storage or from the use of the customs procedure under which they are placed, or
Carinski dolg pri uvozu nastane: a) z neizpolnitvijo ene od obveznosti, ki izhaja za blago, zavezano uvoznim dajatvam, iz zadrževanja v začasni hrambi ali iz uporabe carinskega postopka, v katerega je bilo blago dano, ali
MILITZER & MÜNCH (b) non-compliance with a condition governing the placing of the goods under that procedure or the granting of a reduced or zero rate of import duty by virtue of the end-use of the goods, in cases other than those referred to in Article 203 unless it is established that those failures have no significant effect on the correct operation of the temporary storage or customs procedure in question.
MILITZER & MÜNCH b) z neupo�tevanjem enega od pogojev za vnos blaga v ta postopek ali za odobritev znižane uvozne dajatve ali stopnje nič zaradi uporabe blaga v posebne namene, v primerih, ki niso na�teti v členu 203, razen če se dokaže, da te kr�itve niso bistveno vplivale na pravilno izvajanje začasne hrambe ali zadevnega carinskega postopka. 2.
The debtor shall be the person who is required, according to the circumstances, either to fulfil the obligations arising, in respect of goods liable to import duties, from their temporary storage or from the use of the customs procedure under which they have been placed, or to comply with the conditions governing the placing of the goods under that procedure.’
Dolžnik je oseba, ki mora, odvisno od primera, izpolnjevati obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz zadrževanja blaga, zavezanega uvoznim dajatvam, v začasni hrambi ali iz uporabe carinskega postopka, v katerega je bilo to blago dano, ali spo�tovati pogoje za vnos blaga v ta postopek.“
Article 215 of the Customs Code provides as follows:
Člen 215 carinskega zakonika določa:
A customs debt shall be incurred at the place where the events from which it arises occur.
Carinski dolg nastane na kraju storitve dejanj, ki povzročijo nastanek tega dolga.
Where it is not possible to determine the place referred to in paragraph 1, the customs debt shall be deemed to have been incurred at the place where the customs authorities conclude that the goods are in a situation in which a customs debt is incurred.
Če kraja iz odstavka 1 ni mogoče določiti, se �teje, da je carinski dolg nastal na kraju, na katerem carinski organi ugotovijo, da se blago nahaja v položaju, ki je povzročil nastanek carinskega dolga.
Where a customs procedure is not discharged for goods, the customs debt shall be deemed to have been incurred at the place where the goods:
Če carinski postopek za blago ni zaključen, se �teje, da je carinski dolg nastal:
— were placed under that procedure, or
– na kraju, kjer je bilo blago dano v postopek, ali
— enter the Community under that procedure.
– na kraju, kjer blago v okviru zadevnega postopka vstopi v Skupnost.
Where the information available to the customs authorities enables them to establish that the customs debt was already incurred when the goods were in another place at an earlier date, the customs debt shall be deemed to have been incurred at the place which may be established as the location of the goods at the earliest time when existence of the customs debt may be established.’
Če lahko carinski organi na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij ugotovijo, da je carinski dolg že nastal, ko se je blago prej nahajalo na nekem drugem kraju, se �teje, da je carinski dolg nastal na kraju, na katerem je mogoče ugotoviti, da se je blago nahajalo v najbolj zgodnjem trenutku, za katerega se lahko dokaže obstoj carinskega dolga.“
Article 239 of the Customs Code states as follows:
Člen 239 carinskega zakonika določa:
Import duties or export duties may be repaid or remitted in situations other than those referred to in Articles 236, 237, and 238:
Uvozne ali izvozne dajatve se lahko povrnejo ali odpustijo v drugih primerih, kot so predvideni v členih 236, 237 in 238:
— to be determined in accordance with the procedure of the committee;
– ki se morajo določiti skladno s postopkom odbora;
— resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned.
– ki izhajajo iz okoli�čin, pri katerih ne gre niti za malomarnost niti za goljufivo ravnanje udeleženega.
The situations in which this provision may be applied and the procedures to be followed to that end shall be defined in accordance with the Committee procedure.
Primeri, v katerih je mogoče uporabiti to določbo, in podrobnosti postopka, ki jih je treba v ta namen upo�tevati, se določijo skladno s postopkom odbora.
Repayment or remission may be made subject to special conditions.
Povračilo ali odpust sta lahko odvisna od izpolnjevanja posebnih pogojev.
Duties shall be repaid or remitted for the reasons set out in paragraph 1 upon submission of an application to the appropriate customs office within 12 months from the date on which the amount of the duties was communicated to the debtor.
Povračilo ali odpust dajatev zaradi razlogov, opisanih v odstavku 1, se odobri na podlagi zahtevka, vloženega pri pristojnem carinskem uradu pred potekom roka dvanajstih mesecev, ki se �teje od dneva posredovanja sporočila teh dajatev dolžniku.
However, the customs authorities may permit this period to be exceeded in duly justified exceptional cases.’
Vendar lahko carinski organi v primerno utemeljenih izjemnih primerih dovolijo prekoračitev tega roka.“
Article 378 of the implementing regulation provides as follows:
Člen 378 izvedbene uredbe določa:
Without prejudice to Article 215 of the Code, where the consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, such offence or irregularity shall be deemed to have been committed:
Kadar po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu in kadar ni mogoče določiti kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti, se brez poseganja v člen 215 zakonika �teje, da je kr�itev ali nepravilnost nastala:
— in the Member State to which the office of departure belongs, or
– v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, ali
— in the Member State to which the office of transit at the point of entry into the Community belongs, to which a transit advice note has been given, unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2), to be determined, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
– v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad tranzita na vstopu v Skupnost, ki je prejel potrdilo o prehodu, če v roku, ki ga je treba določiti v skladu s členom 379(2), dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju, kjer je kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala, ni predloženo v skladu z zahtevami carinskih organov.
Where no such proof is furnished and the said offence or irregularity is thus deemed to have been committed in the Member State of departure or in the Member State of entry as referred to in the first paragraph, second indent, the duties and other charges relating to the goods concerned shall be levied by that Member State in accordance with Community or national provisions.
Kadar tako dokazilo ni predloženo in se s tem �teje, da je navedena kr�itev ali nepravilnost nastala v državi članici odhoda ali v vstopni državi članici iz druge alinee prvega odstavka, ta država članica za tako blago obračuna carino in druge dajatve v skladu s predpisi Skupnosti ali nacionalnimi predpisi.
Under Article 379 of the implementing regulation:
Člen 379 izvedbene uredbe določa:
Where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place where the offence or irregularity occurred cannot be established, the office of departure shall notify the principal of this fact as soon as possible and in any case before the end of the 11th month following the date of registration of the Community transit declaration.
Če po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu in kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti ni mogoče določiti, urad odhoda o tem čim prej obvesti glavnega zavezanca, najpozneje pa pred iztekom enajstega meseca po vpisu deklaracije za skupnostni tranzit.
The notification referred to in paragraph 1 shall indicate, in particular, the timelimit by which proof of the regularity of the transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed must be furnished to the office of departure to the satisfaction of the customs authorities.
V obvestilu iz odstavka 1 navede predvsem rok, v katerem je treba uradu odhoda predložiti dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju, v katerem je kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala, tako da ustreza zahtevam carinskih organov. Ta rok zna�a tri mesece od dneva obvestila iz odstavka 1.
If the said proof has not been produced by the end of that period, the competent Member State shall take steps to recover the duties and other charges involved.
Če navedeno dokazilo ni predloženo v roku, pristojna država članica ukrepa tako, da pridobi plačilo pripadajočih carin in drugih dajatev.
In cases where that Member State is not the one in which the office of departure is located, the latter shall immediately inform the said Member State.’
Kadar ta država članica ni tista, v kateri je urad odhoda, jo ta o tem takoj obvesti.“
Those provisions in Article 379 of the implementing regulation are essentially the same as those in Article 11a of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the implementation of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (OJ 1987 L 107, p.
Določbe člena 379 izvedbene uredbe so v bistvu enake kot tiste v členu 11a Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 1062/87 z dne 27. marca 1987 o določbah za izvedbo tranzitnega postopka in o ukrepih za njegovo poenostavitev (UL L 107, str.
1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 of 29 May 1990 (OJ 1990 L 137, p.
1), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (EGS) �t. 1429/90 z dne 29. maja 1990 (UL L 137, str.
Article 905 of the implementing regulation states as follows:
Člen 905 izvedbene uredbe določa:
Where the decision-making customs authority to which an application for repayment or remission under Article 239(2) of the Code has been submitted cannot take a decision on the basis of Article 899, but the application is supported by evidence which might constitute a special situation resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned, the Member State to which this authority belongs shall transmit the case to the Commission to be settled under the procedure laid down in Articles 906 to 909.
Če carinski organ odločanja, ki mu je bil predložen zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust v skladu s členom 239(2) zakonika, ne more odločiti na podlagi člena 899 in so bila zahtevku priložena dokazila, na podlagi katerih se lahko sklepa, da gre za poseben primer, ki izhaja iz okoli�čin, ki ne vključujejo niti goljufivega ravnanja niti malomarnosti udeleženega, država članica, h kateri spada ta organ, primer posreduje Komisiji, da ga ta re�i v skladu s postopkom iz členov 906 do 909.
The term “the person concerned” shall be interpreted in the same way as in Article 899.
Izraz ‚udeleženi‘ je treba razumeti enako kakor v členu 899.
In all other cases, the decision-making customs authority shall refuse the application.
V vseh drugih primerih carinski organ zavrne zahtevek.
The case sent to the Commission shall include all the facts necessary for a full examination of the case presented.
Primer, poslan Komisiji, mora vsebovati vse podatke, ki so potrebni za popolno obravnavo predloženega primera.
As soon as it receives the case the Commission shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly.
Komisija zadevni državi članici nemudoma potrdi prejem tega primera.
Should it be found that the information supplied by the Member State is not sufficient to enable a decision to be taken on the case concerned in full knowledge of the facts, the Commission may ask for additional information to be supplied.
Če se izkaže, da so podatki, ki jih je posredovala država članica, nezadostni, da bi lahko Komisija ob celotnem poznavanju stvari odločila o predloženem primeru, lahko ta zahteva predložitev dodatnih podatkov.
Without awaiting completion of the procedure laid down in Articles 906 to 909, the decision-making customs authority may, if requested, permit the customs formalities relating to the re-export or destruction of the goods to be carried out before the Commission has given a ruling on the application in question.
Carinski organ odločanja lahko, ne da bi počakal na dokončanje postopka iz členov 906 do 909, na zahtevo dovoli, da se carinske formalnosti za ponovni izvoz blaga ali njegovo uničenje izvedejo, preden Komisija odloči o tem primeru.
Such permission shall be entirely without prejudice to the final decision on the application.’
Tak�no dovoljenje v ničemer ne vpliva na končno odločitev o tem primeru.“
M & M is a customs forwarding agent established in Germany. Between 23 April and 16 July 1993, it issued 20 T1 Community transit documents for the transport of butter originating in the Czech Republic from Waidhaus (Germany) to Venice and Milan (Italy).
Družba za carinsko zastopanje M & M je bila ustanovljena v Nemčiji. Med 23. aprilom in 16. julijem 1993 je izdala 20 dokumentov za skupnostni tranzit T1 za prevoz masla, ki je izviralo iz Republike Če�ke, iz Waidhausa (Nemčija) v Benetke in Milano (Italija). 12
After receiving copies of the transit documents bearing the stamps and serial numbers of the Venice and Milan customs offices, the Waidhaus customs office discharged those consignments.
Carinski urad v Waidhausu je po prejemu kopij tranzitnih dokumentov, opremljenih s pečati in opravilnimi �tevilkami carinskih uradov v Benetkah in Milanu, potrdil prejem teh računov.
Subsequently, the Customs Fraud Prevention Service of the Guardia di Finanza ascertained that the goods had not arrived at their destination due to a forgery in which M & M was not implicated and which, to all appearances, had been carried out with the collusion of members of the Italian customs authorities.
Kasneje je služba za boj proti goljufijam Guardie di Finanza ugotovila, da blago ni prispelo v namembni kraj zaradi goljufije, pri kateri M & M ni bila udeležena, vendar so bili po vsej verjetnosti vanjo vpleteni italijanski cariniki. 14
On 17 November 1995, the Italian customs authorities ordered M & M to pay the sum of ITL 4 601 255 310 by way of customs duty on the goods dispatched.
Italijanski carinski organi so 17. novembra 1995 M & M naložili plačilo kazni 4.601.255.310 ITL na podlagi carine za poslano blago. I - 1909
The Italian customs authorities rejected the application for remission of duties submitted by M & M pursuant to Article 239 of the Customs Code. The Tribunale (District Court) and then the Corte d’Appello di Trento (Court of Appeal, Trento) rejected the appeal lodged by M & M, which subsequently lodged an appeal in cassation.
Italijanski carinski organi so zavrnili zahtevo M & M za odpust dajatev na podlagi člena 239 carinskega zakonika. Tribunale ter nato Corte d’appello di Trento sta zavrnila tožbo M & M, ki je nato vložila kasacijsko pritožbo. 16
By judgment delivered on 27 September 2002 in the main proceedings, the Combined Chambers of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation) held that the Italian authorities’ decision not to allow M & M’s application for remission of duties under Article 239 of the Customs Code was not open to review by the courts, since it ‘entailed choices and decisions of a political nature’. As to the remainder, the case was remitted to the tax chamber of that court for a ruling on the other grounds of the appeal.
S sodbo združenega senata je 27. septembra 2002 Corte suprema di cassazione v zadevi v glavni stvari odločilo, da odločba italijanskih organov, da ne ugodijo zahtevi M & M za odpust dajatev na podlagi člena 239 carinskega zakonika, ne spada v sodno pristojnost, saj „vključuje izbiro in odločanje, ki je politične narave“. Poleg tega je bila zadeva poslana finančnemu senatu tega sodi�ča, da bi odločil o drugih pritožbenih razlogih. 17
It was in those circumstances that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Corte suprema di cassazione prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
‘(1) Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 1062/87, as amended by [the implementing regulation], to be interpreted as meaning that the 11-month timelimit within which the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible?
„1) Ali je treba člen 11a(1) Uredbe �t. 1062/87, kot je bila spremenjena z [izvedbeno uredbo], razlagati tako, da omogoča sklicevanje na rok enajstih mesecev, ki ga imajo carinski organi odhoda, da sporočijo, da glede blaga, ki je v tranzitnem postopku Skupnosti, postopek ni bil končan, če se izkaže, da je bil zaključek carinskega urada namembnega kraja izkazan s ponarejenimi dokumenti, katerih ponarejenosti ni bilo lahko ugotoviti; ali je treba za razlago te določbe uporabiti načela, ki jih je uveljavilo […] Sodi�če [sodbe z dne 12. decembra 2002 v zadevi Cipriani, C-395/00, Recueil, str. I-11877, in z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi British American Tobacco, C-222/01, Recueil, str.