natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
However, nothing stated in points 44 and 45 detracts from the fact that the conditions for withholding the refund must be established on the basis of the answer given above for the first and second questions jointly — in points 18 to 42 — and that, in any event, the system of penalties provided for by Regulation No 615/98 may be applied only where to do so is considered consonant with the principle of proportionality.
Vse navedeno v točkah 44 in 45 pa ne vpliva na to, da morajo biti pogoji za zavrnitev izplačila v skladu z zgoraj podanim odgovorom na skupaj prvo in drugo vpra�anje – v točkah od 18 do 42 – in da je v Uredbi �t. 615/98 predvideni sistem sankcioniranja mogoče uporabiti le, če je združljiv z načelom sorazmernosti.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice give the following ruling in response to the questions submitted by the Finanzgericht Hamburg:
Glede na navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anja Finanzgericht Hamburg odgovori tako:
‘I t cannot be considered that Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport relates to a second part of the evidence which an applicant for an export refund in respect of bovine animals must provide in order to obtain payment.
Člena 5(3) Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom ni mogoče razumeti tako, da se nana�a na drugi del dokaza, ki ga mora predložiti tisti, ki zahteva izplačilo izvoznega nadomestila za govedo, zato da pridobi nadomestilo.
Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport imposes obligations to ensure compliance not only on the exporter but also on the Member States and their authorities.
Direktiva Sveta 91/628/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o za�čiti živali med prevozom nalaga obveznosti v zvezi z njenim upo�tevanjem ne le izvozniku, temveč tudi državam članicam in njihovim organom.
Where an application for payment is made, accompanied by the evidence provided for in Article 5(2) of the abovementioned regulation, the principle of proportionality is not observed where Article 5(3) is interpreted in such a manner as to authorise the authority responsible for the payment of such refund to withhold it on the basis of a doubt or a presumption of failure to comply with the directive during transport, and that is so regardless of the fact that that authority is not under a duty to demonstrate the specific harm suffered by the animals during the transport operation in question.’
V primeru zahteve za izplačilo, ki ji je predložen dokaz iz člena 5(2) te uredbe, razlaga člena 5(3) uredbe ni v skladu z načelom sorazmernosti, ki poobla�ča organ, pristojen za izplačilo, da izplačilo zavrne, s tem da se opira zgolj na dvom ali domnevo, da Direktiva med prevozom ni bila upo�tevana, četudi ni treba dokazati konkretne �kode, ki so jo utrpele živali med zadevnim prevozom.
13 March 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 13. marca 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decision of 23 January 2006, received at the Court on 17 February 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-96/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 23. januarja 2006, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 17. februarja 2006, v postopku
2008 — CASE C-96/06 having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 1 March 2007, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-96/06 na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 1. marca 2007, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Erlbacher, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 November 2007, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti F. Erlbacher, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 15. novembra 2007 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19).
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago člena 5(3) Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom (UL L 82, str. 19).
The reference was made in a dispute between Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (‘Viamex’) and the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Principal Customs Office, Hamburg-Jonas) (‘the Hauptzollamt’) concerning refunds in respect of the export of live bovine animals to Lebanon.
Predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Viamex) in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) glede izvoznih nadomestil za izvoz živega goveda v Libanon.
Regulation No 615/98
Uredba št. 615/98
13), provides that the payment of export refunds for live animals is subject to compliance with Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, with that concerning the protection of animals during transport.
13), je določeno, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za žive živali spo�tovanje prava Skupnosti v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, zlasti določb v zvezi z za�čito živali med prevozom.
Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 provides that the payment of export refunds for live bovine animals is to be subject to compliance, during the transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the non-member country of final destination, with that regulation and with Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and
V členu 1 Uredbe 615/98 je določeno, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo spo�tovanje določb Direktive Sveta 91/628/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o za�čiti živali med prevozom in o spremembi direktiv 90/425/EGS in 91/496/EGS (UL L 340, str. 17), kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/29/ES
2008 — CASE C-96/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-96/06 z dne 29. junija 1995 (UL L 148, str.
Under Article 2 of Regulation No 615/98, checks are to be carried out on animals at the point of departure from the customs territory of the Community.
Na podlagi člena 2 te uredbe se opravi pregled živali, ko zapustijo carinsko območje Skupnosti.
An official veterinarian is to verify and certify that the animals are fit for the intended journey in compliance with Directive 91/628, that the means of transport by which the animals are to leave the customs territory of the Community complies with that directive and that provisions have been made for the care of the animals during the journey in accordance with the directive.
Uradni veterinar mora preveriti in potrditi, da so živali sposobne za predvideno pot v skladu z določbami Direktive 91/628, da je prevozno sredstvo, s katerim bodo živali prepeljane s carinskega območja Skupnosti, v skladu z določbami te direktive in da so bili sprejeti ukrepi za oskrbo živali med potjo v skladu z določbami navedene direktive.
— Checks pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 satisfactory
„Če veterinar v kraju odhoda ugotovi, da so izpolnjeni pogoji iz drugega odstavka, to ugotovitev potrdi z navedbo
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL and by stamping and signing the document constituting evidence of exit from the customs territory of the Community, either in Section J of the control copy T 5 or in the most appropriate place on the national document.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL ter z žigom in podpisom na dokumentu, ki dokazuje zapustitev carinskega območja Skupnosti, v rubriki J kontrolnega izvoda T5 ali na najustreznej�em mestu nacionalnega dokumenta.
Where appropriate, the official veterinarian shall indicate:
Če je potrebno, uradni veterinar navede:
— the number of animals which were no longer fit for the intended journey and therefore were removed from the consignment, and/or
– �tevilo živali, za katere presodi, da niso sposobne za nadaljevanje predvidene poti in so bile zato umaknjene iz po�iljke in/ali
— the endorsement referred to in Article 3(3).’
– navedbo iz člena 3(3).“
Article 3(2) of Regulation No 615/98 provides:
Člen 3(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 določa:
‘The person responsible for the checks shall draw up a report indicating:
„Oseba, pristojna za nadzor, sestavi poročilo o pregledu, v katerem je navedeno:
— the number of live animals unloaded from the means of transport,
– �tevilo živali, ki so bile raztovorjene s prevoznega sredstva,
— the number of animals, among those referred to in the previous indent, which on the basis of their physical condition and/or state of health justify the conclusion that the Community provisions on the protection of animals during transport have not been complied with,
– �tevilo živali iz prej�nje alineje, katerih fizično stanje in/ali zdravje kaže na to, da določbe o za�čiti živali med prevozom niso bile spo�tovane,
2008 — CASE C-96/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-96/06
— whether or not the live animals have been put in quarantine.’
– ali so bile žive živali v karanteni.“
Article 5(1) of that regulation provides:
Člen 5(1) te uredbe se glasi:
The exporter shall inform the competent authority of the Member State where the export declaration is accepted about all necessary details of the journey, at the latest when the export declaration is lodged.
Izvoznik pristojnim organom države članice, v kateri je bila sprejeta izjava, predloži potrebne podatke glede poti najkasneje ob vložitvi izvozne izjave.
At the same time, or at the latest when he becomes aware [thereof], the exporter shall inform the competent authority about any possible change of the means of transport.’
Izvoznik istočasno ali najkasneje takrat, ko zanje izve, pristojne organe obvesti o vseh morebitnih zamenjavah prevoznega sredstva.“
Pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, applications for the payment of export refunds must be supplemented by proof that Article 1 of that regulation has been complied with, such proof to be furnished by the production of the control copy T 5 and the report drawn up by a control agency, together with the veterinary certificate.
Na podlagi člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 je treba zahtevku za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil priložiti dokaz, da je bil člen 1 te uredbe spo�tovan, in sicer je treba priložiti kontrolni izvod T5 ter poročilo o pregledu kontrolne službe skupaj z veterinarskim potrdilom.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 provides, however, that the export refund is not to be paid for animals which have died during transportation or for animals in respect of which the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents
Vendar pa je v členu 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 določeno, da se izvozno nadomestilo ne izplača za živali, ki so med prevozom poginile, ali za živali, glede katerih pristojni
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL referred to in Article 5(2) of the regulation, the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 thereof and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of the regulation, that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL organ na podlagi dokumentov iz navedenega člena 5(2), poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 te uredbe in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 navedene uredbe, meni, da je bila Direktiva 91/628 kr�ena.
Article 5(6) of Regulation No 615/98 provides that:
Člen 5(6) Uredbe �t. 615/98 določa, da:
Where the checks referred to in Article 3(1) could not be carried out owing to circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, the competent authority, on a justified request from the exporter, may accept other documents which justify to its satisfaction the conclusion that [Directive 91/628] has been complied with.’
Kadar zaradi okoli�čin, na katere izvoznik ne more vplivati, nadzora iz člena 3(1) ni bilo mogoče opraviti, lahko pristojni organ na obrazložen predlog izvoznika sprejme druge dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da je bila Direktiva [615/98] o za�čiti živali med prevozom spo�tovana.“
Pursuant to Article 5(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 91/628, Member States are to ensure that any natural or legal person transporting animals for the purpose of gain uses, for the transportation of animals covered by that directive, means of transport that will enable compliance with the requirements laid down in the annex thereto, and does not transport any animal, or cause any animal to be transported, in a way which is likely to cause injury or undue suffering to that animal.
Skladno s členom 5(1)(b) in (c) Direktive 91/628 države članice zagotovijo, da vsaka fizična ali pravna oseba, ki prevaža živali za dobiček, za prevoz živali, ki jih zajema ta direktiva, uporablja prevozna sredstva, ki izpolnjujejo zahteve, določene v prilogi te direktive, ter ne prevaža živali ali ne povzroča, da bi se živali prevažalo na način, ki lahko privede do po�kodb ali nepotrebnega trpljenja živali.
Point 17 of the Annex provides that the fittings of vessels are to be such that animals can be transported without injury or unnecessary suffering.
Točka 17 te priloge določa, da morajo biti plovila opremljena tako, da se živali med prevozom ne po�kodujejo ali da ne trpijo po nepotrebnem.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The order for reference relates that, on 8 March 1999, Viamex declared to the Hauptzollamt Kiel (Principal Customs Office, Kiel) the export to Lebanon of 35 live bovine animals on board the vessel ‘Al Hajj Moustafa II’ (‘the vessel’) and applied for an export refund in that respect.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je družba Viamex 8. marca 1999 pri Hauptzollamt Kiel (glavni carinski urad) prijavila izvoz 35 glav goveda v Libanon z ladjo „Al Haijj Moustafa II“ (v nadaljevanju: ladja) ter na tej podlagi od carinskega urada zahtevala dodelitev izvoznega nadomestila.
By notice of 1 February 2001, the Hauptzollamt refused that application on the ground that at the time of carriage the vessel appeared on a negative list, established by the Commission of the European Communities, of ships considered unfit for the carriage of live animals.
Hauptzollamt je z odločbo z dne 1. februarja 2001 ta zahtevek zavrnil z utemeljitvijo, da je bila ta ladja med prevozom na negativnem seznamu ladij, ki so bile ocenjene kot neprimerne za prevoz živine; seznam je sestavila Komisija Evropskih skupnosti (v nadaljevanju: negativni seznam).
In the course of a check carried out on board the vessel on 18 and 19 February 1997, the Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office (‘the FVO’) found that the vessel revealed serious shortcomings and that it did not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628.
Pri nadzoru, opravljenem na krovu ladje 18. in 19. februarja 1997, so namreč službe urada za prehrano in veterinarstvo Komisije presodile, da ima ladja velike pomanjkljivosti in da ne izpolnjuje zahtev iz Direktive 91/628.
The FVO plays an important role in the implementation and application of Community legislation on food safety, animal health, plant health and animal welfare.
Urad za prehrano in veterinarstvo igra pomembno vlogo pri izvajanju in uporabi zakonodaje Skupnosti o varnosti živil, zdravju živali in rastlin in dobrem počutju živali.
In particular, the FVO has the task — which it performs through its inspections in Member States and the evaluations that it carries out — of promoting effective control systems in the field of safety and quality of foodstuffs, the veterinary field and the plant health field, and of checking compliance with the requirements of Community legislation in those fields in the European Union and in non-member countries exporting to the European Union.
Njegova naloga je zlasti, da s pomočjo in�pekcij v državah članicah in opravljenih presoj pospe�uje učinkovite sisteme nadzora na področju varnosti in kakovosti živil in na veterinarskem in fitosanitanitarnem področju ter da preverja spo�tovanje zakonodaje Skupnosti na teh področjih v Evropski uniji in v tretjih državah, ki izvažajo v Evropsko unijo.
In addition, it has the task of contributing to the formulation of Community policy in those fields.
Poleg tega je njegova naloga prispevati k izdelavi skupnostne politike na teh področjih.
The check carried out on the vessel by the FVO revealed, first, that the gangways, the corridor access points and the pens were in such a state that they could cause injury to the animals and, second, that they made it impossible to ensure that the animals could not break loose.
Med nadzorom na ladji, ki so ga opravile službe tega urada, se je pokazalo, da so mostički, dostopi na hodnike in ograde v stanju, ki bi lahko povzročilo po�kodbe živali, in da ne morejo preprečiti, da živali ne bi pobegnile.
In addition, those gangways, corridor access points and pens were worn out and rusty, and their condition made them difficult to cleanse or disinfect.
Poleg tega so bili ti mostički, dostopi na hodnike in ograde izrabljeni, zarjaveli in so onemogočali kakr�nokoli či�čenje ali dezinfekcijo.
In that regard, it appears from the case-file that Viamex attached to its export refund application, first, a written declaration from the master of the vessel, dated 16 October 1997, noting repair works and countersigned by the chief frontier veterinary officer at Koper (Slovenia) and, second, a report from the average adjusters Kälher & Prinz AG of 22 September 1998. 21
V zvezi s tem iz spisa izhaja, da je družba Viamex k svojemu zahtevku za izvozna nadomestila priložila pisno izjavo kapitana ladje z dne 16. oktobra 1997 o popravljalnih delih, ki jo je sopodpisal vodja obmejne veterinarske službe Koper (Slovenija), in poročilo urada izvedencev za havarije Kähler & Prinz AG z dne 22. septembra 1998. 21
However, the vessel was not removed from the Commission’s negative list until 24 January 2000, following an inspection carried out in November 1999, approximately eight months after the export at issue in the main proceedings.
Kljub temu je bila ladja na negativnem seznamu Komisije vse do 24. januarja 2000 zaradi preverjanja novembra 1999, to je skoraj osem mesecev po izvozu v zadevi v glavni stvari.
Viamex brought an action against that decision on the ground that there is no provision to the effect that a vessel has to be authorised for the transportation of live cattle, whether among the provisions governing export refunds or in Directive 91/628.
Družba Viamex je zoper to odločbo o zavrnitvi vložila pritožbo, ker nobena izmed določb, ki se nana�ajo na nadomestila, niti nobena določba iz Direktive 91/628 ne zahteva, da mora imeti ladja dovoljenje za prevoz živine.
The Hauptzollamt states, for its part, that pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, for the competent authority to be able to refuse the right to a refund, it is sufficient for it to have at its disposal elements enabling it to conclude that Directive 91/628 was not complied with.
Hauptzollamt poudarja, da na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 zadostuje, da pristojni organ razpolaga s podatki, na podlagi katerih se ugotovi, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana, da se lahko zavrne pravico do nadomestila.
The Hauptzollamt thus considers that that provision does not require the competent authority to prove noncompliance with Directive 91/628.
Tako meni, da ta določba pristojnemu organu ne nalaga, da dokaže kr�itev te direktive.
In any event, the Hauptzollamt states that, on 3 December 1999, it received an update of the negative list indicating that the vessel had once again fallen short of the requirements imposed by Directive 91/628.
V vsakem primeru Hauptzollamt navaja, da je 3. decembra 1999 prejel posodobljen negativni seznam, v skladu s katerim naj ladja ponovno ne bi izpolnjevala pogojev, določenih z Direktivo 91/628, o za�čiti živali med prevozom.
That update had been made following an inspection in November 1999 by officials from the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
To posodobitev naj bi ob in�pekciji novembra 1999 opravili zastopniki britanskega ministrstva za kmetijstvo, ribolov in prehrano. Med drugim je iz nadzora britanskih organov izhajalo, da je dobila ladja le začasno dovoljenje, in to le za prevoz ovac.
Given the difference in size between sheep and cattle, the fact that a ship is suitable for the carriage of sheep does not support the conclusion that it is also suitable for the carriage of cattle.
Ob upo�tevanju razlike v velikosti med ovco in govedom dejstvo, da ladja lahko prevaža ovce, �e ne pomeni, da lahko ladja prevažala tudi govedo.
Consequently, in the light of that information, the Hauptzollamt formed the view that Directive 91/628 could not possibly have been complied with during the transport operation at issue in the main proceedings and that the conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 for refusing an export refund were satisfied.
Hauptzollamt je zato menil, da ob upo�tevanju teh informacij Direktive 91/628 ni bilo mogoče spo�tovati med prevozom iz zadeve v glavni stvari in da so bili pogoji za zavrnitev izvoznega nadomestila, določeni v členu 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, izpolnjeni.
Since it considered that the outcome of the case depended on the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Meneč, da je re�itev spora odvisna od razlage člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, je Fi -nanzgericht Köln prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
The first and second questions
Prvo in drugo vprašanje
By its first and second questions, which should be examined together, the national court is essentially asking whether, if all the documents required pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 have been produced by the exporter, it is for the exporter or the competent authority to establish that the conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of that regulation have been fulfilled.
Nacionalno sodi�če s prvim in drugim vpra�anjem, ki ju je treba preučiti skupaj, v bistvu spra�uje, ali je v primeru, v katerem je vse dokumente, ki se zahtevajo na podlagi člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98, predložil izvoznik, njegova naloga, da ugotovi, ali so pogoji iz člena 5(3) izpolnjeni, ali je to naloga pristojnega organa.
If the burden of proof is on the competent authority, the national court wishes to know on which elements that authority may legitimately base a finding that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with, and whether it is sufficient for that authority to refer to those elements or whether it is required to furnish proof of an actual and specific infringement of the directive.
Če ima dokazno breme pristojni organ, predložitveno sodi�če želi izvedeti, na katere podatke bi se lahko ta organ opiral pri presoji, da je bila Direktiva 91/628 kr�ena, in ali zadostuje, da te podatke navaja, ali mora dokazati kr�itev te direktive v konkretnem primeru.
In that regard, according to settled caselaw, since the system of export refunds is based on voluntary declarations, where the exporter decides on its own initiative to seek a refund, it must provide the relevant information necessary to establish its entitlement to the refund and to determine its amount.
V zvezi s tem, v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso, ker sistem izvoznih nadomestil temelji na neobveznih deklaracijah, mora izvoznik, če se odloči, da bi želel ta nadomestila uveljavljati, predložiti upo�tevne informacije, s katerimi se ugotovi pravica do nadomestila in se določi znesek.