natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Therefore, as the Court of First Instance stated in paragraphs 120 to 128 of the judgment under appeal, a comparison between the wording of the letter of the Turkish authorities of 8 March 1999 and that of subsequent communications from those authorities, such as the letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 22 April 1999, discloses ambiguities as to the allegedly inauthentic nature of cer -tificate D 437214.
Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 120 do 128 izpodbijane sodbe, iz primerjave vsebine dopisa tur�kih organov z dne 8. marca 1999 z vsebino poznej�ih sporočil teh organov, kot je dopis tur�kega stalnega predstavni�tva z dne 22. aprila 1999, naslovljen na UCLAF, izhaja dvoumnost glede domnevne nepristnosti potrdila D 437214.
As regards two other A.TR.1 certificates whose authenticity was assessed by the Turkish authorities in the course of the same postclearance check, even though they are not amongst the certificates at issue, the Court of First Instance also found, in paragraphs 198 to 201 of the judgment under appeal, some inconsistencies in that the Turkish authorities had classified them, at different stages of the procedure, as falsified, incorrect and also partially incorrect.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 198 do 201 izpodbijane sodbe v zvezi z dvema drugima potrdiloma A.TR.1, katerih pristnost so tur�ki organi ocenili v okviru naknadnega preverjanja, čeprav nista del spornih potrdil, ugotovilo nekatera neskladja, ker so jih tur�ki organi v različnih fazah postopka opredelili ali kot ponarejene, ali kot nepravilne, ali kot delno nepravilne.
Furthermore, as is apparent from the judgment under appeal, the use by those authorities of a variety of terms to describe the outcome of their checks of the certificates, such as, inter alia ‘false’ (letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 10 July 1998, mentioned in paragraph 41 of the judgment under appeal), ‘not correct and … not issued and endorsed by [the Turkish] customs office’ (letter from the Turkish General Directorate of Customs of 8 March 1999, mentioned in paragraph 123 of the judgment under appeal), ‘not correct and … not issued according to the rules’ (letter from the Turkish Permanent Representation to UCLAF of 22 April 1999, mentioned in paragraph 124 of the judgment under appeal)
Poleg tega je, kot izhaja iz izpodbijane sodbe, do dvoumnosti privedlo tudi dejstvo, da so navedeni organi uporabili �tevilne izraze za opis rezultata njihovih preverjanj potrdil, kot na primer izraz „lažni“ (dopis tur�kega stalnega predstavni�tva z dne 10. julija 1998, naslovljen na UCLAF, naveden v točki 41 izpodbijane sodbe), „[niso] pravilna in [tur�ki] carinski urad jih [ni] izdal in overovil“ (dopis generalne direkcije tur�ke carinske uprave z dne 8. marca 1999, naveden v točki 123 izpodbijane sodbe), „nepravilne in niso v skladu s pravili o poreklu“ (dopis tur�kega stalnega predstavni�tva, naslovljen na UCLAF, z dne 22. aprila 1999, naveden v točki 124 izpodbijane
C.A.S. v COMMISSION and ‘incorrect’ (letter from the Turkish General Directorate of Customs of 16 July 1999, mentioned in paragraph 200 of the judgment under appeal), also gave rise to ambiguities.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI sodbe), „nepravilno“ (dopis generalne direkcije tur�ke carinske uprave z dne 16. julija 1999, naveden v točki 200 izpodbijane sodbe).
The ambiguities and inconsistencies described above should have led the Commission to question the assessments made by the Turkish authorities.
Zgoraj navedene dvoumnosti in neskladja bi morala Komisijo spodbuditi, da bi podvomila o presoji tur�kih organov.
In those circumstances, it was the task of the Commission to satisfy itself, in the course of its task of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, that the Turkish authorities had correctly classified those certificates as either irregular or inauthentic.
V teh okoli�činah bi se morala Komisija v okviru svojih nalog spremljanja in nadzora pravilne uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi prepričati, da so tur�ki organi pravilno opredelili navedena potrdila kot nepravilna ali kot nepristna.
However, clearly the Commission did not make full use of the rights and powers conferred upon it by the Association Agreement and its implementing provisions.
Vendar je treba ugotoviti, da Komisija ni v celoti uporabila svojih pooblastil iz sporazuma o pridružitvi in njegovih izvedbenih določb.
First, although it is true that UCLAF carried out two investigations in Turkey from 12 to 15 October 1998 and from 30 November to 2 December 1998, clearly the Court of First Instance erred in holding, in paragraph 218 of the judgment under appeal, that there was no conclusive evidence which would give grounds for assuming that UCLAF was not able to carry out a thorough investigation, in particular at the customs administration in Mersin.
Čeprav je res, da je UCLAF opravila dve preiskavi v Turčiji med 12. in 15. oktobrom 1998 ter med 30. novembrom in 2. decembrom 1998, je treba najprej ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 218 izpodbijane sodbe napačno presodilo, da noben dokaz ne dopu�ča predpostavke, da UCLAF zlasti na carinski upravi v Mersinu ni mogla opraviti temeljite preiskave.
It is clear from UCLAF’s mission reports of 9 and 23 December 1998 that the customs office from which the goods at issue were exported to the Community, namely that of Mersin, was not one of the organisations visited by its investigators in Turkey.
Iz poročil z misije UCLAF z dne 9. in 23. decembra 1998 namreč jasno izhaja, da med organi, ki so jih obiskovali njeni preiskovalci v Turčiji, ni bil carinski urad, iz katerega so bili zadevni proizvodi izvoženi v Skupnost, torej carinski urad iz Mersina.
Therefore, they were not able to check whether the certificates at issue were authentic or not.
Tako niso mogli preveriti pristnosti ali nepristnosti spornih potrdil.
UCLAF’s two mission reports of 9 and 23 December 1998 do not deal with whether the certificates at issue were in fact falsified or, by contrast, incorrectly issued by the Turkish authorities.
Obe poročili z misije UCLAF z dne 9. in 23. decembra 1998 namreč ne obravnavata vpra�anja, ali so bila sporna potrdila dejansko ponarejena ali pa so jih tur�ki organi izdali v zmoti.
That finding is borne out by a letter of 9 December 1998, that is to say subsequent to the investigations carried out by UCLAF in Turkey, in which UCLAF’s Director, Mr Knudsen, ‘urged’ the Turkish authorities to agree to a joint investigation in the Mersin customs office in order to obtain details of all the exports of fruit juice concentrates Akman had made since the end of 1993.
To ugotovitev potrjuje dopis z dne 9. decembra 1998, torej iz obdobja po preiskavah, ki jih je UCLAF opravila v Turčiji, v katerem je direktor UCLAF, P. Knudsen, zahteval, naj tur�ki organi „takoj“ dajo soglasje k skupni preiskavi v carinskem uradu v Mersinu, da bi ugotovil podrobnosti v zvezi z vsemi izvozi koncentratov sadnih sokov od leta 1993, ki jih je opravila družba Akman.
In that regard, it cannot be disputed that in order to carry out an investigation in the respective offices of the Turkish customs authorities, the Commission had to have the agreement of those authorities pursuant to Article 7(3) of Annex 7 to Decision No 1/95.
V zvezi s tem ni sporno, da bi Komisija za izvedbo preiskave v prostorih tur�kih carinskih organov v skladu s členom 7(3) priloge 7 k Sklepu �t. 1/95 potrebovala soglasje navedenih organov.
It is sufficient to point out that the Commission has not referred to any lack of agreement on the part of the Turkish authorities which prevented it from carrying out such an on-the-spot check.
Dovolj je poudariti, da Komisija ni ugotovila nobenega nasprotovanja tur�kih organov, ki bi ji preprečevalo izvedbo take preiskave na kraju samem.
Moreover, it is apparent from paragraphs 244 to 259 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission did not request specimen impressions of the stamps used in the Mersin customs offices from the Turkish authorities and did not send them to the customs authorities of the Member States.
Dalje, iz točk od 244 do 259 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da Komisija od tur�kih organov ni zahtevala vzorcev žigov, ki jih uporablja carinski urad v Mersinu, in jih ni posredovala carinskim organom držav članic.
The Court of First Instance found in that regard that, during the entire period covering the importations at issue, the Republic of Turkey and the Commission were not under any obligation to provide each other with specimen impressions of the stamps used by the customs offices.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi s tem odločilo, da Republika Turčija in Komisija v celotnem obdobju izvajanja spornih uvozov nista imeli obveznosti medsebojnega posredovanja vzorcev žigov, ki jih uporabljajo carinski uradi.
However, it is the sending of specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures used in those offices that makes it possible to supervise compliance with the customs rules relating to tariff preferences effectively.
Vendar ravno posredovanje vzorcev žigov in podpisov, ki jih uporabljajo ti carinski uradi, omogoča učinkovit nadzor glede spo�tovanja carinske zakonodaje v zvezi tarifnimi preferenciali.
The Commission’s obligation to ensure that the Association Agreement is properly implemented means that the Commission, and through it the customs authorities of the Member States, should always have all the information to enable it to carry out an effective check, and specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures unquestionably constitute such information.
Zaradi obveznosti Komisije, da skrbi za pravilno izvajanje sporazuma o pridružitvi, morajo ta in, z njenim posredovanjem, carinski organi držav članic vedno razpolagati z vsemi podatki, ki ji omogočajo učinkovit nadzor, pri čemer so vzorci žigov in podpisi, ki jih uporabljajo carinski uradi, nedvomno taki podatki.
18), which entered into force on 1 September 1997, namely during the period covering the imports at issue, that ‘the customs authorities of the Member States of the Community and of [the Republic of] Turkey shall provide each other, through the Commission …, with specimen impressions of stamps used in their customs offices for the issue of A.TR. movement certificates’.
18), ki je začel veljati 1. septembra 1997, torej v obdobju, ko so se izvajali sporni uvozi, nedvomno izhaja, da „si carinski organi držav članic, Komisija in [Republika] Turčija s posredovanjem Komisije medsebojno posredujejo […] vzorce žigov, ki jih uporabljajo carinski uradi za izdajo potrdil o gibanju blaga A.TR.“
In any event, even before the entry into force of that decision, the Commission should, in order to facilitate the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, have requested that the Turkish authorities provide it with those specimens on the basis of Article 7(3) of Decision No 1/95 which authorises it to request ‘any information which may enable it to ensure that customs legislation is correctly applied’.
Komisija bi vsekakor morala, tudi pred začetkom veljavnosti tega sklepa, da bi omogočila pravilno izvajanje sporazuma o pridružitvi, zahtevati od tur�ki organov posredovanje navedenih vzorcev na podlagi člena 3 priloge 7 k Sklepu �t. 1/95, s katerim je poobla�čena, da „zahteva od tur�kih organov vse podatke, ki ji omogočajo zagotavljanje pravilnega izvajanja carinskih predpisov“.
The fact that the Republic of Turkey sent the impressions of stamps used for A.TR.1 certificates voluntarily, as stated by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 258 of the judgment under appeal, does not call in question the finding that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligation to request that the Turkish authorities provide it with specimen impressions of the stamps and signatures used in the Mersin customs office and to send them, in turn, to the customs authorities of the Member States.
Dejstvo, da je Republika Turčija prostovoljno posredovala odtise žigov, ki jih je uporabila za potrdila A.TR.1, kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 258 izpodbijane sodbe, ne povzroča dvomov o sklepanju, da Komisija ni izpolnila obveznosti, da od tur�kih organov zahteva posredovanje odtisov žigov in podpisov, ki so jih uporabili v carinskem uradu v Mersinu, in da jih nato sama posreduje carinskim organom držav članic.
Lastly, it is also apparent from paragraphs 153 to 160 of the judgment under appeal that the Commission merely observed that neither the Association Agreement nor the implementing provisions expressly required registers to be kept in Turkey for the entry of customs certificates and that, in any case, the possible existence of such registers did not imply that certificates were authentic, given that forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Končno, tudi iz točk od 153 do 160 izpodbijane sodbe izhaja, da se je Komisija le zadovoljila z ugotovitvijo, da niti sporazum o pridružitvi niti določbe za njegovo izvajanje v Turčiji izrecno ne predvidevajo vodenja registrov, v katere bi bila vpisana carinska potrdila, in da vsekakor tudi morebiten obstoj takih registrov ne bi predpostavljal, da gre za pristna potrdila, saj imajo ponarejevalci interes, da pri ponarejenih potrdilih uporabijo �tevilko registracije, ki se ujema z zakonitim potrdilom.
That reasoning was accepted by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 161 and 162 of the judgment under appeal.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je to razlogovanje podalo v točkah 161 in 162 izpodbijane sodbe.
That argument cannot, however, succeed.
Vendar tej tezi ni mogoče pritrditi.
In that regard, it must be stated that the registration of certificates issued by the customs authorities is indispensable in international trade.
V zvezi s tem je namreč treba poudariti, da je registracija potrdil, ki jih izdajo carinski organi, neizogibna praksa v mednarodni trgovini.
Failure to keep such registers is likely to render worthless the effectiveness of any postclearance check on certificates issued by the respective customs authorities.
V bistvu neobstoj takih registrov pomeni tveganje, da se izniči učinkovitost naknadnega nadzora potrdil, ki jih izdajo carinski organi.
Furthermore, the obligation on the Turkish authorities to register A.TR.1 certificates stems, contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 161 of the judgment under appeal, from the implementing provisions of the Association Agreement.
Poleg tega obveznost tur�kih organov, da registrirajo potrdila A.TR.1, izhaja – v nasprotju z odločitvijo Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 161 izpodbijane sodbe – iz določb za izvajanje sporazuma o pridružitvi.
Article 13 of Decision No 1/96 provides that, where there is division of certificates, box 12 of the extract must show, in particular, the registration number of the ‘initial certificate’.
Člen 13 Sklepa �t. 1/96 namreč določa, da če so potrdila deljena, je v razdelku 12 izpiska posebej navedena �tevilka registracije „prvotnega potrdila“.
Even though Article 13 applies to the specific case of division of certificates, it is clear that the registration number of the ‘initial certificate’ must appear in box 12 of the A.TR.1 certificate, that is to say that the initial certificate must, in any event, also be registered in the customs registers of the country of export.
Čeprav se ta člen 13 uporabi za poseben primer deljenega potrdila, je jasno, da mora biti v razdelku 12 obrazca za potrdilo A.TR.1 navedena �tevilka registracije „prvotnega potrdila“, torej je treba tudi prvotno potrdilo vsekakor registrirati v carinskem registru države izvoznice.
The Court of First Instance’s statement in paragraph 162 of the judgment under appeal, that forgers would have every interest in using a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate which had already been registered, is not such as to relieve the Commission of its obligation to ensure that the Association Agreement is properly implemented.
Trditev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točki 162 izpodbijane sodbe, po kateri imajo ponarejevalci interes, da uporabijo �tevilko registracije, ki se ujema z zakonitim potrdilom, ki je bilo že registrirano, ne razbremenjuje Komisije obveznosti, da skrbi za pravilno izvajanje sporazuma o pridružitvi.
On the contrary, given that that statement implies a double importation into the Community under cover of A.TR.1 certificates with the same registration number, one authentic and the other inauthentic, the Commission should have checked whether such a double importation into the Community under cover of A.TR.1 certificates bearing the same registration number had actually taken place.
Ker pa ta trditev pomeni, da bi se lahko opravil dvojen uvoz v Skupnost na podlagi potrdil A.TR.1, ki imata isto �tevilko registracije, od katerih je eno pristno in drugo nepristno, bi morala Komisija preveriti, ali se je dejansko zgodil dvojen uvoz v Skupnost na podlagi potrdil A.TR.1, ki imata isto �tevilko registracije.
It may be inferred from the Commission’s arguments both before the Court of First Instance and before the Court of Justice that it did not do so.
Vendar je mogoče iz trditev Komisije pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in pred Sodi�čem sklepati, da se to ni zgodilo.
Furthermore, given that neither of UCLAF’s two missions was carried out at the Mersin customs office, as was pointed out in paragraph 113 of this judgment, they
Ker nobena od misij UCLAF ni bila v carinskem uradu v Mersinu, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 113 obravnavane sodbe, te misije niso mogle preveriti, ali ti registri obstajajo, niti tega, ali so bila sporna potrdila vpisana v te registre.
It follows from all of the above considerations that the Commission failed to fulfil its obligations to supervise and monitor the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Iz predhodno navedenih preudarkov izhaja, da Komisija ni izpolnila svoje obveznosti spremljanja in nadzora pravilnega izvajanja sporazuma o pridružitvi.
Had the Commission not failed to fulfil its obligations, the forgeries of the certificates at issue could have been discovered and elucidated as soon as the first imports into the Community were made and the scale of the financial loss, both for the Community budget and for the appellant, could have been limited.
Če Komisija ne bi kr�ila te obveznosti, bi lahko ponareditve spornih potrdil odkrili in pojasnili že pri prvih uvozih v Skupnost ter omejili stopnjo finančne izgube tako za proračun Skupnosti kot za pritožnico.
Furthermore, the Commission could, as soon as those forgeries were discovered, have warned importers in good time and, if necessary, have brought the matter before the Joint Committee.
Poleg tega bi Komisija ob odkritju teh ponareditev lahko pravočasno opozorila uvoznike in po potrebi vključila me�ani odbor.
In any event, if the Commission had made full use of the rights and powers which it has under the Association Agreement, the doubts as to the inauthentic or irregular nature of the certificates at issue could have been dispelled and their authenticity or inauthenticity could have been established with certainty.
Če bi Komisija v celoti uporabila pooblastila, ki jih ima v okviru sporazuma o pridružitvi, bi lahko odpravili dvome o nepristnosti ali nepravilnostjo spornih potrdil in z gotovostjo ugotovili, ali so ponarejena.
It follows that that failure to fulfil obligations on the part of the Commission constitutes a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Iz navedenega sledi, da ta neizpolnitev obveznosti Komisije utemeljuje poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Therefore, in holding that it had not been proved that a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC existed, the Court of First Instance misapplied that article and thus erred in law.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je s tem, da je presodilo, da ni posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS, napačno uporabilo člen 239 in je zato napačno uporabilo pravo.
Consequently, this plea is well founded.
Zato je ta pritožbeni razlog utemeljen.
Having regard to the above, there is no need to examine the pleas alleging infringement of the right of access to the file and infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC.
Ob upo�tevanju vsega navedenega ni treba preučiti pritožbenih razlogov v zvezi s kr�itvijo pravice do vpogleda v spis in kr�itvijo člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
The consequences of the setting aside of the judgment under appeal
Posledice razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, if the appeal is well founded, the Court of Justice must quash the decision of the Court of First Instance.
Sodi�če v skladu s členom 61, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča razveljavi odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, če je pritožba utemeljena.
It may then itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
Če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, lahko samo dokončno odloči o zadevi.
That is the case here.
V tem primeru je tako.
It follows from all the considerations set out in paragraphs 85 to 133 of this judgment that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the conditions set out in Article 239 of the CCC had not been met and that, consequently, there was no need to repay or remit the import duty relating to the certificates at issue.
Iz vseh preudarkov, navedenih v točkah od 85 do 133 obravnavane sodbe, izhaja, da je Komisija storila očitno napako pri presoji, ko je menila, da pogoji iz člena 239 CZS niso bili izpolnjeni in da zato ni bilo treba povrniti ali odpustiti uvoznih dajatev v zvezi s spornimi potrdili.
Article 2 of the contested decision must therefore be annulled.
Zato je treba člen 2 sporne odločbe razglasiti za ničnega.
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is well founded and the Court of Justice itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.
Člen 122, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika določa, da če je pritožba utemeljena in če Sodi�če samo dokončno odloči v sporu, odloči tudi o stro�kih.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which applies to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those rules, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs, if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V skladu s členom 69(2) istega poslovnika, ki velja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the appellant has applied for costs and the Commission has been unsuccessful, it must be ordered to pay the costs at both instances.
Pritožnica je predlagala, naj se Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s predlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka na obeh stopnjah.
Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 CAS v Commission;
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih Skupnosti z dne 6. februarja 2007 v zadevi CAS proti Komisiji (T-23/03) se razveljavi.
Annuls Article 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01);
Člen 2 odločbe Komisije z dne 18. oktobra 2002 (REC 10/01) se razglasi za ničnega.
Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at both instances.
Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti se naloži plačilo stroškov postopka na obeh stopnjah.
Case C-237/07
Zadeva C-237/07
(Directive 96/62/EC — Ambient air quality assessment and management — Fixing of limit values — Entitlement of a third party, whose health has been impaired, to have an action plan drawn up)
„Direktiva 96/62/ES – Ocenjevanje in upravljanje kakovosti zunanjega zraka – Določitev mejnih vrednosti – Pravica tretjega, ki je zdravstveno ogrožen, do priprave načrta ukrepanja“
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 25 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 25. julija 2008
Environment — Ambient air quality assessment and management — Directive 96/62 (Council Directive 96/62, as amended by Regulation No 1882/2003, Art. 7(3))
Okolje – Ocenjevanje in upravljanje kakovosti zunanjega zraka – Direktiva 96/62 (Direktiva Sveta 96/62, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 1882/2003, člen 7(3))
SUMMARY — CASE C-237/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-237/07