natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The beneficiaries of those allowances are defined in the operational programme as farmers who work at least two hectares of usable agricultural area and undertake to pursue their farming activity for at least five years from the first application for and grant of the allowance and who are not in receipt of a retirement or early retirement pension.
Upravičenci do navedenih nadomestil so v operativnem programu opredeljeni kot kmetovalci, ki pridelujejo na vsaj dveh hektarjih kmetijskega zemlji�ča v uporabi in ki se zavezujejo, da bodo kmetijsko dejavnost v skladu s cilji iz člena 17 opravljali najmanj pet let od prve vloge in prvega nadomestila, ter ki ne prejemajo starostne pokojnine ali predčasne pokojnine.
According to the operational programme, the following may be released from the five-year undertaking referred to in the previous paragraph: farmers who:
V skladu z operativnim programom so lahko petletne obveznosti, določene v prej�njem odstavku, opro�čeni kmetovalci, ki:
— give up farming, on condition that farming activity continues;
– prenehajo opravljati kmetijsko dejavnost, pod pogojem, da je pridelovanje �e naprej zagotovljeno;
— give up farming in cases of force majeure and in particular in cases of compulsory purchase or purchase in the public interest;
– prenehajo opravljati kmetijsko dejavnost zaradi vi�je sile in zlasti takrat, ko gre za razlastitev ali nakup v javnem interesu;
— during the period of the undertaking receive a retirement or early-retirement pension.
– v obdobju trajanja njihove obveznosti prejemajo starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino.
Since his resignation, he has received the length-of-service social insurance benefit awarded by his former employer’s pension fund, which is made up of contributions paid by employees.
Po odpovedi je prejemal socialno dajatev za določeno doseženo delovno dobo, ki mu jo je dodelil pokojninski sklad njegovega nekdanjega delodajalca, ki je bil sestavljen iz prispevkov delojemalcev.
He received the allowance for the years 1994 and 1995, but he was refused the aid for the three subsequent years.
Nadomestilo je dobil za leti 1994 in 1995, za naslednja tri leta pa je bilo zavrnjeno.
By a decision of 4 June 1999 the Ispettorato Provinciale dell’Agricoltura di Enna refused his application for the compensatory allowance for the three years 1996 to 1998 on the ground that he was in receipt of an early retirement pension.
Ispettorato Provinciale dell’Agricoltura di Enna je namreč z odločbo z dne 4. junija 1999 njegovo vlogo za nadomestilo za tri leta, in sicer 1996, 1997 in 1998, zavrnilo, ker je D. Valvo prejemal predčasno pokojnino.
‘May a farmer be refused the compensatory allowance when he is also in receipt of a pension, in particular, a length-of-service pension?’
„Ali se kmetovalcu lahko zavrne izplačilo nadomestila, kadar prejema pokojnino, zlasti pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo?“
Preliminary observation
Uvodna ugotovitev
However, since the relevant provisions of the two regulations are substantially identical and the referring court, the Italian Government and the Commission of the European Communities refer only to Regulation No 950/97, it is sufficient to reply to the question referred on the basis of the provisions of that regulation alone.
Ker so upo�tevne določbe teh uredb vsebinsko enake in ker se predložitveno sodi�če, italijanska vlada in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti sklicujejo le na Uredbo �t. 950/97, zadostuje, da odgovorimo na postavljeno vpra�anje zgolj ob upo�tevanju določb zadnje navedene uredbe.
Nevertheless, the Italian Government contends that, in cases where the Member State concerned has chosen not to grant a compensatory allowance where the farmer is in receipt of a retirement or early-retirement pension, payment of that allowance is precluded if the farmer is receiving a pension, in particular a length-of-service pension.
Vendar italijanska vlada trdi, da je plačilo tega nadomestila, če je država članica odločila, da nadomestila ne bo odobrila kmetovalcu, ki prejema starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino, izključeno, če kmetovalec prejema pokojnino, zlasti pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo.
The Commission, for its part, considers that the regulation does not preclude a Member State from granting a compensatory allowance to a farmer who, while pursuing his farming activity, is at the same time in receipt of a pension, including a length-of-service pension.
Komisija pa meni, da navedena uredba ne nasprotuje temu, da država članica odobri nadomestilo kmetovalcu, ki medtem ko opravlja kmetijsko dejavnost, hkrati prejema pokojnino, vključno s pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo.
The reply of the Court
Odgovor Sodišča
Under Article 17 of Regulation No 950/97 Member States may introduce an aid scheme, in the form of a compensatory allowance, to encourage farming and to raise incomes in certain less-favoured areas.
V skladu s členom 17 Uredbe �t. 950/97 lahko države članice vzpostavijo program pomoči v obliki nadomestila, namenjenega spodbujanju kmetijskih dejavnosti in izbolj�anju dohodka kmetovalcev na območjih z omejenimi možnostmi.
Article 18(1) of that regulation provides that Member States may grant that compensatory allowance to farmers provided that they fulfil two conditions, that is, first, that they work a minimum usable agricultural area, which is two hectares in the Italian Mezzogiorno region including the islands, and, second, that they undertake to pursue a farming activity for at least five years in accordance with the aims of Article 17 of that regulation.
V členu 18(1) navedene uredbe je določeno, da lahko države članice to nadomestilo dodelijo kmetovalcem, če izpolnjujejo dva pogoja, in sicer da pridelujejo na minimalni povr�ini kmetijskega zemlji�ča v uporabi, ki je v italijanski regiji Mezzogiorno, vključno z otoki, dva hektara in da se zavežejo, da bodo kmetijsko dejavnost v skladu s cilji iz člena 17 te uredbe opravljali najmanj pet let.
It is apparent from the actual wording of Articles 17 and 18, and, in particular, the use of the word ‘may’ on a number of occasions, that Member States have the right to grant a compensatory allowance to farmers who fulfil the conditions laid down in those articles.
Iz besedila členov 17 in 18 ter zlasti iz večkratne uporabe besede „lahko“ izhaja, da imajo države članice pravico, da nadomestilo dodelijo kmetom, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v teh členih.
Moreover, Article 18(2) of Regulation No 950/97 expressly authorises Member States to lay down additional or limiting conditions for the grant of that allowance.
Poleg tega člen 18(2) Uredbe �t. 950/97 državam članicam izrecno dovoljuje, da določijo dodatne pogoje ali omejitve za pridobitev tega nadomestila.
The Community legislature thus conferred on Member States a discretion in that area (see Joined Cases C-9/97 and C-118/97 Jokela and Pitkäranta [1998] ECR I-6267, paragraphs 36 and 37).
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je državam članicam torej dal pravico odločati na tem področju (glej sodbo z dne 22. oktobra 1998 v združenih zadevah Jokela in Pitkäranta, C-9/97 in C-118/97, Recueil, str. I-6267, točki 36 in 37).
Furthermore, the first subparagraph of Article 18(1) and the first subparagraph of Article 19(3) of Regulation No 950/97 contain specific provisions relating to the receipt by farmers of a retirement or early-retirement pension.
Poleg tega člena 18(1), prvi pododstavek, in 19(3), prvi pododstavek, Uredbe �t.
Where a farmer is in receipt of such a pension, he is released from the undertaking to pursue a farming activity for five years.
950/97 zajemata posebne določbe v zvezi s kmetovalci, ki prejemajo starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino.
Further, no Community part-financing of the compensatory allowance is possible in those circumstances.
Kadar kmetovalec prejema tako pokojnino, je opro�čen obveznosti, da kmetijsko dejavnost opravlja pet let.
Those provisions concern not the right of Member States to grant a compensatory allowance where a farmer is in receipt of a retirement or early-retirement pension, but only the consequences of the receipt of such a pension both for the farmer and for the European Community.
Navedene določbe se ne nana�ajo na pravico držav članic, da dodelijo nadomestilo, kadar kmetovalec prejema starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino, ampak le na posledice tega prejemanja za kmetovalca in za Evropsko skupnost.
It follows that the Member States have the right to grant a compensatory allowance, or not, in cases where the farmer is in receipt of a retirement or early-retirement pension.
Iz tega sledi, da imajo države članice pravico odločati, ali nadomestilo dodelijo, če kmetovalec prejema starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino.
That finding applies equally where the farmer is in receipt of other social insurance benefits, such as a length-of-service pension, which are not covered by a specific scheme under Regulation No 950/97 and are therefore subject to the scheme referred to in Articles 17 and 18 of that regulation.
Ta ugotovitev velja tudi, kadar kmetovalec prejema druge socialne dajatve, kot je pokojnina za določeno doseženo delovno dobo, ki v Uredbi �t. 950/97 niso posebej urejene in se zanje torej uporablja ureditev iz členov 17 in 18 te uredbe.
Consequently, where a farmer is in receipt of another type of benefit, such as a length-of-service pension, the Member States retain the right to grant him, or not, a compensatory allowance.
Zato države članice, kadar kmetovalec prejema drugo dajatev, kot je pokojnina za določeno doseženo delovno dobo, ohranijo pravico odločati o dodelitvi nadomestila.
It is apparent from the national legislation, as it was presented to the Court, that the compensatory allowance is not granted where a farmer is in receipt of a retirement or early-retirement pension.
Iz nacionalne ureditve, kot je bila predložena Sodi�ču, izhaja, da se nadomestilo ne dodeli, kadar kmetovalec prejema starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino.
By contrast, it does not appear that such an exclusion extends to a case where the farmer is in receipt of a length-of-service pension such as that at issue in the main proceedings.
Nasprotno pa iz nje ne izhaja, da je ta izključitev raz�irjena tudi na primer, ko kmetovalec prejema pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo, kot je ta iz postopka v glavni stvari.
However, it is not for the Court to rule on the scope of national provisions, since that task is for the referring court.
Vendar Sodi�če ni pristojno, da odloča o obsegu nacionalnih določb, to je naloga predložitvenega sodi�ča.
The national court will therefore have to determine whether the national legislature, which exercised the right to grant a compensatory allowance to farmers who fulfil the conditions restated in paragraph 16 of this judgment and the power to include additional conditions for payment of that allowance, has precluded the grant of that allowance not only in cases where the farmer is in receipt of a retirement or early retirement pension, but also where he is in receipt of a length-of-service pension.
Zadnje bo moralo torej preučiti, ali nacionalni zakonodajalec – ki je uveljavljal pravico, da nadomestilo dodeli kmetovalcem, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, navedene v točki 16 obravnavane sodbe, in pravico, da določi dodatne pogoje za izplačilo tega nadomestila – izključi dodelitev tega nadomestila ne le v primerih, ko kmetovalec prejema starostno pokojnino ali predčasno pokojnino, ampak tudi kadar prejema pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo.
Having regard to the foregoing observations, the reply to the question referred must be that Articles 17 and 18 of Regulation No 950/97 confer on Member States the right to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer who fulfils the conditions laid down in those two articles.
Ob upo�tevanju zgoraj navedenega je treba na postavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da dajeta člena 17 in 18 Uredbe �t. 950/97 državam članicam pravico, da kmetovalcem, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v teh členih, dodelijo nadomestilo.
However, those articles do not preclude a Member State from refusing payment of such an allowance where that farmer is in receipt of a pension, in particular, a length-of-service pension.
Vendar ta člena ne nasprotujeta temu, da država članica zavrne plačilo takega nadomestila, kadar kmetovalec prejema pokojnino, zlasti pokojnino za določeno doseženo delovno dobo.
On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (sedmi senat) razsodilo:
Articles 17 and 18 of Council Regulation (EC) No 950/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the efficiency of agricultural structures confer on Member States the right to grant a compensatory allowance to a farmer who fulfils the conditions laid down in those two articles.
Člena 17 in 18 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 950/97 z dne 20. maja 1997 o izboljšanju učinkovitosti kmetijskih struktur dajeta državam članicam pravico, da kmetovalcem, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v teh členih, dodelijo nadomestilo.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE DECISIONS PUBLISHED FOR THE YEAR 2008
KRONOLOŠKO KAZALO ODLOČB, OBJAVLJENIH V LETNIKU 2008
Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH and Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Protection of bovine animals during transport — Payment of export refunds for bovine animals subject to compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Principle of proportionality — Forfeiture of export refunds) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) . .
Združeni zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH in Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas („Uredba (ES) št. 615/98 – Direktiva 91/628/EGS – Izvozna nadomestila – Zaščita goveda med prevozom – Pogoj spoštovanja določb Direktive 91/628/EGS za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za govedo – Načelo sorazmernosti – Izguba pravice do nadomestila“) (Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ju je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg) . .
Case C-256/06: Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-256/06: Theodor Jäger proti Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl („Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Davek na dediščino – Vrednotenje premoženja, vključenega v dediščino – Premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici – Manj ugodna metoda za vrednotenje premoženja in izračun dolgovanega davka“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . .
Opinion of Advocate General Mazák delivered on 11 September 2007 . .
Mazáka, predstavljeni 11. septembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-2/06: Willy Kempter KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Export of cattle — Export refunds — Final administrative decision — Interpretation of a judgment of the Court — Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision — Review and withdrawal — Timelimits — Legal certainty — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) . .
Zadeva C-2/06: Willy Kempter KG proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas („Izvoz goveda – Izvozna nadomestila – Pravnomočna upravna odločba – Razlaga sodbe Sodišča – Posledica sodbe, ki jo je Sodišče izdalo v postopku za predhodno odločanje po tej odločbi – Ponovna preučitev in odprava – Časovne omejitve – Pravna varnost – Načelo sodelovanja – Člen 10 ES“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-199/06: Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) and Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication v Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE) (State aid — Article 88(3) EC — National courts — Recovery of unlawfully implemented aid — Aid declared compatible with the common market) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil dÉtat (France)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-199/06: Centre d’exportation du livre français (CELF) in Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication proti Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE) („Državne pomoči – Člen 88(3) ES – Nacionalna sodišča – Vračilo nezakonito izvajanih pomoči – Pomoč, razglašena za združljivo s skupnim trgom“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Conseil d’État (Francija)) . . . . . . .
Case C-244/06: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH v Avides Media AG (Free movement of goods — Article 28 EC — Measures having equivalent effect — Directive 2000/31/EC — National rules prohibiting the sale by mail order of image storage media which have not been examined and classified by the competent authority for the purpose of protecting children and which do not bear a label from that authority indicating the age from which they may be viewed — Image storage media imported from another Member State which have been examined and classified by the competent authority of that State and bear an age-limit label — Justification — Child protection — Principle of proportionality) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Koblenz) . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-244/06: Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH proti Avides Media AG („Prosti pretok blaga – Člen 28 ES – Ukrepi z enakim učinkom – Direktiva 2000/31/ES – Nacionalna zakonodaja, ki prepoveduje prodajo po pošti tistih nosilcev slike, ki jih pristojni organ ni preizkusil in razvrstil za varstvo mladoletnikov in niso opremljeni z oznako tega organa, iz katere bi bila razvidna starost, od katere si je te nosilce slike dovoljeno ogledati – Nosilci slike, uvoženi iz druge države članice, ki so bili predmet preizkusa in razvrstitve pristojnega organa te države ter so opremljeni z oznako starostne omejitve – Utemeljitev – Varstvo otrok – Načelo sorazmernosti“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Landgericht Koblenz) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission (Electronic communications — Networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Appeals — Administrative market analysis procedure) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH proti Telekom-Control-Kommission („Elektronske komunikacije – Omrežja in storitve – Skupni regulativni okvir – Člena 4 in 16 Direktive 2002/21/ES (okvirna direktiva) – Pravno sredstvo – Upravni postopek analize trga“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungs -gerichtshof (Avstrija)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-425/06: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, formerly Ministero delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, company in liquidation, formerly Italservice Srl (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(a) and (d) — Leasing — Artificial division of the supply into a number of parts — Effect — Reduction of the taxable amount — Exemptions — Abusive practice — Conditions) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-425/06: Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, nekdanje Ministero delle Finanze proti Part Service Srl, družba v likvidaciji, nekdanja Italservice Srl („Šesta direktiva o DDV – Člena 11A(1)(a) in 13B(a) in (d) – Zakup – Umetna delitev storitve na več elementov – Učinki – Znižanje davčne osnove – Oprostitve – Zloraba – Pogoji“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Corte suprema di cassazione) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extra-judicial conciliation procedure — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision — Principles of equality and non-discrimination) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez proti Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) („Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Člena 3, prvi odstavek, in 10(a) – Odškodnina za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, dogovorjena v postopku izvensodne poravnave – Plačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Plačilo, pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe – Načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-506/06: Sabine Mayr v Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG (Social policy — Directive 92/85/EEC — Measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding — Meaning of ‘pregnant worker’ — Prohibition of dismissal of pregnant workers during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of the maternity leave — Woman dismissed where, at the date she was given notice of her dismissal, her ova had been fertilised in vitro, but not yet transferred to her uterus — Directive 76/207/EEC — Equal treatment for men and women — Woman undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment — Prohibition of dismissal — Scope) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria)) . . . .
Zadeva C-506/06: Sabine Mayr proti Bäckerei und Konditorei Gerhard Flöckner OHG („Socialna politika – Direktiva 92/85/EGS – Ukrepi za spodbujanje izboljšav na področju varnosti in zdravja pri delu nosečih delavk in delavk, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo – Izraz ‚noseča delavka‘ – Prepoved odpusta nosečih delavk med obdobjem od začetka njihove nosečnosti do konca porodniškega dopusta – Odpuščena delavka, katere jajčeca so bila na dan odpusta oplojena in vitro, ne pa še prenesena v njeno maternico – Direktiva 76/207/EGS – Enako obravnavanje delavcev in delavk – Delavka, pri kateri je bila opravljena oploditev in vitro – Prepoved odpusta – Obseg“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Oberster Gerichtshof (Avstrija)) . . .
Case C-398/05: AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH v Hauptzollamt Aachen (Common commercial policy — Countervailing duties — Protection against subsidies — Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 — Stainless steel wires — Injury to the Community industry — Causal link) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf) . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-398/05: AGST Draht- und Biegetechnik GmbH proti Hauptzollamt Aachen („Skupna trgovinska politika – Izravnalne dajatve – Protisubvencijski ukrepi – Uredba (ES) št. 1599/1999 – Žice iz nerjavnega jekla – Škoda za industrijo Skupnosti – Vzročna zveza“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Düsseldorf) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .