natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Should on-the-spot checks reveal significant irregularities in a region or part of a region the competent authority shall make additional checks during the current year in that area and shall increase the percentage of applications to be checked in the following year.
Če pregledi na kraju samem pokažejo bistvene nepravilnosti v regiji ali delu regije, pristojni organi opravijo dodaten nadzor v tekočem letu in za to regijo ali del regije povi�ajo odstotek zahtevkov, ki jih je treba preveriti v naslednjem letu.
Applications subjected to on-the-spot checking shall be selected by the competent authority on the basis of a risk analysis and an element of representativeness of the aid applications submitted.
Zahtevke, ki so predmet nadzora na kraju samem, določi pristojni organ zlasti na podlagi analize tveganj ter dejavnika reprezentativnosti vloženih zahtevkov za pomoč.
— the amount of aid involved,
– zneske pomoči,
— the number of parcels and the area or number of animals for which aid is requested,
– �tevilo enot rabe ali poljin, povr�ino ali �tevilo živali, za katere je zahtevana pomoč,
— changes from the previous year,
– napredek v primerjavi s prej�njim letom,
— the findings of checks made in past years,
– ugotovitve nadzorov v prej�njih letih,
— other factors to be defined by the Member States,
– druga merila, ki jih določijo države članice,
— infringements of Regulation (EC) No 820/97.
– kr�itve Uredbe (ES) �t. 820/97.
Agricultural parcel areas shall be determined by any appropriate means defined by the competent authority which ensure measurement of a precision at least equivalent to that required for official measurements under the national rules.
Povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin se ugotovijo s katerim koli primernim načinom, ki ga je predvidel pristojni organ in ki zagotavlja meritve vsaj z enakovredno natančnostjo, kot se zahteva za uradne meritve skladno z nacionalnimi določbami.
The eligibility of agricultural parcels shall be verified by any appropriate means.
Upravičenost enot rabe oziroma poljin se ustrezno preveri.
To this end additional proof shall be requested where necessary.
V ta namen se po potrebi zahteva dodatno dokazilo.
Article 9 of Regulation No 3887/92 provides:
Člen 9 Uredbe �t. 3887/92 določa:
If the area actually determined is found to be greater than that declared in the “area” aid application, the area declared shall be used for calculation of the aid.
Če se izkaže, da je dejansko ugotovljena povr�ina večja od povr�ine, ki je prijavljena v zahtevku za pomoč na povr�ino, se znesek pomoči izračuna na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine.
If the area actually determined is found to be less than that declared in an “area” aid application, the area actually determined on inspection shall be used for calculation of the aid. …
Če se izkaže, da povr�ina, prijavljena v zahtevku za pomoč na povr�ino, presega ugotovljeno povr�ino, se znesek pomoči izračuna na podlagi povr�ine, ugotovljene med pregledom. […]
11) provides:
11) določa:
II — Facts of the case as given in the judgment under appeal
II – Dejansko stanje kot izhaja iz izpodbijane sodbe
The Belgian authorities adopted with effect from 1996 an identification system for agricultural parcels based on aerial photographic images extracted from a GIS, as provided in Article 4 of Regulation No 3508/92.
Belgijski organi so leta 1996 sprejeli identifikacijski sistem enot rabe ali poljin, izveden na podlagi letalskih posnetkov po metodah RGIS, kot je določeno v členu 4 Uredbe �t. 3508/92.
The parcels were identified on the aerial photographic images by means of hand-written markings made by the farmers themselves, then the authorities entered the graphic data into the GIS.
Enote rabe ali poljine so bile na letalskih posnetkih identificirane tako, da so pridelovalci na njih ročno označili meje, upravni organi pa so nato poskrbeli za grafični vnos teh podatkov v RGIS.
BELGIUM v COMMISSION arable crop sector for purposes of clearing the accounts for financial years 1999, 2000 and 2001.
2001 preverjale sektor polj�čin zaradi potrditve proračunskih let 1999, 2000 in 2001.
Those services found that there were anomalies in the checks carried out by the Belgian authorities.
Te službe so ugotovile nepravilnosti pri izvajanju nadzora belgijskih organov.
6), and an attempt at conciliation under Commission Decision 94/442/EC of 1 July 1994 setting up a conciliation procedure in the context of the clearance of the accounts of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee Section (OJ 1994 L 182, p.
6) in po poskusu sprave v skladu z odločbo Komisije z dne 1. julija 1994 o določitvi spravnega postopka v zvezi s potrjevanjem obračuna Jamstvenega oddelka Evropskega kmetijskega usmerjevalnega in jamstvenega sklada (EKUJS) (UL L 182, str.
45), the Commission adopted a summary report on 30 September 2003 (‘the summary report’).
45) 30. septembra 2003 sprejela zbirno poročilo (v nadaljevanju: zbirno poročilo).
Secondly, the Commission identified an infringement of the abovementioned provisions since there had been no reduction in the area of the parcels declared in the aid applications (‘the area declared’) and/or no on-the-spot checks had been carried out where the administrative checks carried out had shown that the area declared was greater than the areas of the same parcels as entered in the GIS (‘the GIS area’).
Komisija je po drugi strani ugotovila kr�itev zgoraj navedenih določb, ker prijavljena povr�ina enot rabe ali poljin v zahtevku za pomoč (v nadaljevanju: prijavljena povr�ina) ni bila zmanj�ana in/ali ker ni bil opravljen nadzor na kraju samem v tistih primerih, ko je iz izvedenega upravnega nadzora izhajalo, da je prijavljena povr�ina večja od povr�ine istih enot rabe ali poljin, ki so bile vnesene v RGIS (v nadaljevanju: povr�ina RGIS).
In that connection, point B.7.1.1. of that report reads:
V zvezi s tem je v točki B.7.1.1 tega poročila navedeno:
‘The Commission services investigated anomalies detected by Belgium’s administrative checking system for harvest years 1999 to 2001.
„Službe Komisije so opravile preiskavo glede nepravilnosti, ki so se pokazale prek belgijskega sistema upravnega nadzora, za letine od 1999 do 2001. Jasno je bilo, da
Belgium’s Geographical Information System (GIS) was a useful tool in determining potential anomalies or irregularities.
2008 – ZADEVA C-418/06 P je belgijski geografski informacijski sistem (GIS) koristno sredstvo za ugotavljanje morebitnih anomalij ali nepravilnosti.
However, where differences were signalled between the data held in the GIS and farmers’ area declarations, appropriate action was not always taken.
Toda ko je bilo opozorjeno na razlike med podatki iz RGIS in povr�inami, ki so jih prijavili poljedelci, ustrezne meritve niso bile vedno opravljene.
Follow-up checks were performed on-the-spot in only a limited number of cases where the difference was in excess of 5% at crop group level.
Nadaljnji nadzor na kraju samem se je nana�al zgolj na omejeno �tevilo primerov, pri katerih je bil razkorak večji od 5 % na stopnji skupine kmetijskih rastlin.
Some aid applications with apparent differences in excess of 5% were not subject to further enquiry but simply paid on the basis of the area declared.
Določeni zahtevki za pomoč, pri katerih so očitne razlike presegale 5 %, niso bili predmet dodatne preiskave, pomoči pa so bile izplačane na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine.
If the difference was less than 5%, the applications were not deemed in any way irregular and were paid without further enquiry on the basis of the area declared.
Če je bila razlika manj�a od 5 %, se zahtevki sploh niso �teli za nepravilne, pomoči pa so bile izplačane, ne da bi bila opravljena dodatna preiskava na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine.
Furthermore, for all such cases not subject to on-the-spot checks, the area declared by the farmer was accepted by the system to be indicated in the following year’s preprinted application sent to the farmer.
Poleg tega je v vseh primerih, glede katerih ni bil opravljen nadzor na kraju samem, sistem sprejel povr�ino, ki jo je prijavil poljedelec in ki je bila navedena na že natiskanem obrazcu za zahtevek, ki je bil poljedelcu poslan za naslednje leto. […]
The Belgian authorities explained that, in their opinion, only surfaces actually measured on-the-spot may be used to (re-)calculate aid.
Belgijski organi so pojasnili, da menijo, da je za (ponovni) izračun zneska pomoči mogoče uporabiti zgolj povr�ine, ki so dejansko izmerjene na kraju samem.
The Commission services do not agree that discrepancies revealed by administrative checks using the GIS may not be used to legally justify a reduction in aid, and thus consider that the follow-up of anomalies detected after administrative controls was not performed with the necessary rigour.
Službe Komisije se ne strinjajo s trditvijo, da razlik, ugotovljenih pri upravnem nadzoru zahvaljujoč RGIS, ni mogoče uporabiti za pravno utemeljitev znižanja vi�ine pomoči; menijo torej, da nepravilnosti, ki so bile ugotovljene med upravnim nadzorom, niso bile ustrezno preiskane.
The failure [of the Belgian authorities] to reduce aid and/or apply sanctions has clearly caused a loss to the Fund.’
Jasno je, da dejstvo, da belgijski organi niso znižali zneska pomoči in/ali niso izrekli sankcij, pomeni izgubo za sklad.“
Paragraph B.7.1.3. of the summary report reads as follows:
V točki B.7.1.3 zbirnega poročila je navedeno:
‘It is concluded that Belgium did not adequately or properly perform certain ancillary controls to the required regulatory standard.
„Belgija določenih sekundarnih nadzorov torej ni izvedla primerno ali v skladu z uporabljivo normativno določbo.
In not reducing area declarations and/or not conducting on-the-spot checks where the administrative control indicated anomalous declarations, Belgium has caused the Fund to be over-charged.’
Belgija je odgovorna za presežek odhodkov za sklad, ker ni zmanj�ala prijavljenih povr�in in/ali izvedla nadzora na kraju samem, ko je upravni nadzor pokazal nepravilnosti v prijavah.“
On 4 February 2004 the Commission adopted the contested decision, providing that, with regard to arable crops, expenditure of the paying agency or agencies accredited by the Kingdom of Belgium declared under the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF in respect of financial years 2000-2002 were to be subject to a 2% flatrate reduction, corresponding to EUR 9 322 809, as a result of deficiencies in the ancillary checks.
Komisija je 4. februarja 2004 sprejela sporno odločbo, ki določa, da so glede polj�čin odhodki poobla�čenih plačilnih agencij Kraljevine Belgije za poslovna leta od 2000 do 2002, ki so bili prijavljeni v okviru jamstvenega oddelka EKUJS, zaradi pomanjkljivosti sekundarnega nadzora predmet pav�alnega zmanj�anja 2 %, ki ustreza znesku 9.322.809 EUR.
III — Procedure before the Court of First Instance and judgment under appeal
III – Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
By order of 8 June 2004 the Court of Justice referred the case to the Court of First Instance, which registered it as Case T-221/04.
Sodi�če je s sklepom z dne 8. junija 2004 zadevo poslalo Sodi�ču prve stopnje, ki jo je vpisalo pod opravilno �tevil- ko T-221/04.
2008 — CASE C-418/06 P to comply with the conditions laid down in the Guidelines concerning serious deficiency in the compliance with Community rules and real risk of loss for the EAGGF and, thirdly, infringement of the principle of proportionality in the determination of the amount of the financial correction.
EKUJS ter, tretjič, da je bilo pri določanju zneska finančnega popravka kr�eno načelo sorazmernosti.
It asked the Court of First Instance partially to annul the contested decision inasmuch as it provided, in respect of the Kingdom of Belgium, for a flatrate correction of 2% or, in the alternative, under its unlimited jurisdiction, to reduce the amount of expenditure excluded from financing to EUR 1 079 814 and to order the Commission to pay the costs.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje je predlagala, naj sporno odločbo razglasi za nično v delu, v katerem je za Kraljevino Belgijo določen pav�alni popravek 2 %, ali naj podredno na podlagi svoje neomejene pristojnosti zniža znesek odhodkov, izključenih iz financiranja, na 1.079.814 EUR in Komisiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
The Commission contended that the Court of First Instance should dismiss the application and order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Komisija je Sodi�ču prve stopnje predlagala, naj tožbo zavrne in Kraljevini Belgiji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held first of all that the head of claim seeking a reduction of the financial correction was inadmissible, stating that there was no provision in respect of the EAGGF conferring unlimited jurisdiction on the Community Courts under Article 229 EC.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je z izpodbijano sodbo najprej razsodilo, da so glavni tožbeni predlogi v zvezi z zahtevo za znižanje finančnega popravka nedopustni, ker je ugotovilo, da nobena določba sodi�čem Skupnosti ne daje neomejene pristojnosti v zvezi z EKUJS v skladu s členom 229 ES.
Next, ruling on the substance, the Court of First Instance recalled EAGGF caselaw as follows:
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato pri odločanju o temelju opozorilo na sodno prakso v zvezi z EKUJS:
‘29 It must be pointed out first of all that the EAGGF finances only intervention undertaken in accordance with the Community rules within the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets (see Case C-300/02 Greece v Commission [2005] ECR I-1341, paragraph 32, and caselaw cited therein).
„29 Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da EKUJS financira le intervencije, izvedene v skladu z določbami Skupnosti v okviru skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov (glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 24. februarja 2005 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, C-300/02, ZOdl., str. I-1341, točka 32 in navedena sodna praksa).
30 It should also be noted that it is for the Commission to prove an infringement of the rules on the common organisation of the agricultural markets (see Greece v Commission, paragraph 29 above, paragraph 33, and caselaw cited therein).
30 Ravno tako je treba opozoriti, da mora Komisija dokazati obstoj kr�itve pravil skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov (glej zgoraj v točki 29 navedeno sodbo Grčija proti Komisiji, točka 33 in navedena sodna praksa).
However, the Commission is required not to show exhaustively that the checks carried out by the national authorities were inadequate or that the figures they have transmitted are irregular, but to produce evidence of its serious and reasonable doubt regarding such checks or figures (see Greece v Commission, paragraph 29 above, paragraph 34 and caselaw cited therein).
Vendar Komisija ni dolžna izčrpno dokazati pomanjkljivosti nadzorov, ki jih opravijo nacionalni upravni organi, ali nepravilnosti zneskov, ki jih leti sporočijo, temveč mora dokazati resen in utemeljen dvom, ki ga ima glede teh nadzorov ali zneskov (glej zgoraj v točki 29 navedeno sodbo Grčija proti Komisiji, točka 34 in navedena sodna praksa).
31 The Member State concerned, for its part, cannot rebut the Commission’s findings by mere assertions which are not substantiated by evidence of a reliable and operational inspection system.
31 Po drugi strani zadevna država članica ne more ovreči ugotovitev Komisije, ne da bi svoje trditve podprla z dokazi, ki izkazujejo obstoj zanesljivega in uporabnega sistema nadzora.
If it is not able to show that they are inaccurate, the Commission’s findings can give rise to serious doubts as to the existence of an adequate and effective series of supervisory measures and inspection procedures (see Greece v Commission, paragraph 29 above, paragraph 35 and caselaw cited therein).
Če ji ne uspe dokazati, da so ugotovitve Komisije nepravilne, te lahko povzročijo resne dvome o vzpostavitvi primerne in učinkovite celote ukrepov spremljanja in nadzora (glej zgoraj v točki 29 navedeno sodbo Grčija proti Komisiji, točka 35 in navedena sodna praksa).
32 The reason for this mitigation of the burden of proof on the Commission is that it is the Member State which is best placed to collect and verify the data required for the clearance of EAGGF accounts; consequently, it is for that State to adduce the most detailed and comprehensive evidence that its inspections or figures are accurate and, if appropriate, that the Commission’s statements are incorrect (see Greece v Commission, paragraph 29 above, paragraph 36, and caselaw cited therein).
32 To ublažitev dokaznega bremena za Komisijo je mogoče pojasniti z dejstvom, da je država članica v najprimernej�em položaju za zbiranje in preverjanje podatkov, potrebnih za potrditev obračuna EKUJS, in je zato dolžna predložiti najpodrobnej�i in najpopolnej�i dokaz o pravilnosti svojih nadzorov in zneskov ter, odvisno od okoli�čin primera, o nepravilnosti trditev Komisije (glej zgoraj v točki 29 navedeno sodbo Grčija proti Komisiji, točka 36 in navedena sodna praksa).
33 That definition of the burden of proof given in caselaw is not affected by the condition laid down in the Guidelines that a flatrate financial correction requires there to be “a serious deficiency in the compliance with explicit Community rules”.
33 Pogoj, določen v Smernicah, v skladu s katerim se za uporabo pav�alnega finančnega popravka zahteva obstoj ‚pomembne neuporabe izrecnih določb prava Skupnosti‘ ,ne vpliva na to opredelitev sodne prakse glede dokaznega bremena.
On one hand, that condition should be read in the light of the condition
Po eni strani je ta pogoj treba razumeti ob upo�tevanju pogoja iz
2008 — CASE C-418/06 P laid down in the preceding paragraph of the Guidelines that flatrate corrections should be considered when the Commission finds a failure adequately to effect any control which is explicitly required by a regulation, “or implicitly required in order to respect an explicit rule”.
2008 – ZADEVA C-418/06 P predhodnega odstavka Smernic, v skladu s katerim je pav�alne popravke treba določiti, ko Komisija ugotovi, da ukrep nadzora, ki se z uredbo izrecno zahteva ‚ali ki se posredno zahteva zato, da bi bilo spo�tovano izrecno pravilo‘, ni bil ustrezno izveden.
On the other hand, to require the Commission not only to adduce evidence of serious and reasonable doubt on its part but also to demonstrate the existence of a serious deficiency in the compliance with explicit Community rules would be contrary to the consistent caselaw of the Court concerning the burden of proof, caselaw that was maintained after the Guidelines had been adopted (see, regarding concurrent application of that caselaw and the Guidelines, Case C-157/00 Greece v Commission [2003] ECR I-153, paragraphs 28, 29, 35 and 36, and Case C-318/02 Netherlands v Commission, not published in the ECR, paragraphs 34 and 35).’
Po drugi strani bi od Komisije zahtevati, naj poleg tega, da predloži dokaz o resnem in utemeljenem dvomu, ki ga ima, dokaže tudi obstoj pomembne neuporabe izrecnih določb prava Skupnosti, v nasprotju z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča glede dokaznega bremena, ki se je oblikovala po sprejetju Smernic (glede sočasne uporabe te sodne prakse in Smernic glej sodbi Sodi�ča z dne 9. januarja 2003 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, C-157/00, Recueil, str. I-153, točke 28, 29, 35 in 36, in z dne 24. februarja 2005 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Komisiji, C-318/02, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točki 34 in 35).“
The Court stated in paragraph 34 of the judgment under appeal that it was in the light of those considerations that the Belgian Government’s arguments against the grounds on which the Commission had based the contested decision should be examined.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako v točki 34 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da je trditve belgijske vlade zoper razloge, na podlagi katerih je Komisija sprejela sporno odločbo, treba preizkusiti ob upo�tevanju teh ugotovitev.
Carrying out a joint examination of the first plea and the first part of the second plea, the Court of First Instance found, in paragraphs 47 to 50 of the judgment under appeal, under the heading ‘Seriousness of the anomalies detected by the Commission’, that the discrepancies between the area declared and the GIS area, discovered at the administrative checking stage, constituted anomalies indicating potential irregularities in aid applications involving a risk of loss for the EAGGF.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je pri skupnem preizkusu prvega tožbenega razloga in prvega dela drugega tožbenega razloga v točkah od 47 do 50 izpodbijane sodbe z naslovom „pomen nepravilnosti, ki jih je odkrila Komisija“ menilo, da so razkoraki med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS, ki so se izkazali med upravnim nadzorom, nepravilnosti, ki kažejo na morebitne nepravilnosti v zahtevkih za pomoč, ki pomenijo nevarnosti izgub za EKUJS.
The Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 49 of that judgment that the legislation in force at the relevant time did not require Member States to use a GIS.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da predpisi, ki so veljali v času dejanskega stanja, držav članic niso zavezovali, da morajo uporabljati RGIS.
However, it held that, by adopting a GIS at an early stage before it was made compulsory or obsolete as a result of widespread satellite monitoring the Belgian authorities had adopted a monitoring instrument capable of supplying relevant information
Kljub temu je razsodilo, da so belgijski organi z uvedbo RGIS, preden je postal obvezen ali zastarel zaradi posplo�itve nadzora s satelitskim daljinskim zaznavanjem, priskrbeli nadzorno sredstvo, ki lahko daje relevantne podatke, ki presegajo izrecne
BELGIUM v COMMISSION which went further than the express obligations laid down in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 3887/92.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI obveznosti, določene v členu 6(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92.
In the view of the Court, the Commission could not ignore this element establishing the existence of serious and reasonable doubt, which clearly indicated a risk of loss for the EAGGF, simply because the system which detected it was not compulsory or was not intended for that purpose.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da Komisija ni mogla zanemariti tega dejstva, zaradi katerega prihaja do resnega in utemeljenega dvoma, ki jasno kaže na nevarnost izgub za EKUJS, zgolj zato, ker sistem, ki jih je razkril, ni bil obvezen ali temu namenjen.
The Court of First Instance then accepted, at paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, that the legislation in force at the relevant time did not expressly require Member States to use the inspection procedures prescribed by the Commission in its summary report.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točki 52 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da predpisi, ki so veljali v času dejanskega stanja, državam članicam niso izrecno nalagali, naj uporabijo podrobna pravila nadzora, ki jih je določila Komisija v zbirnem poročilu.
However, according to the Court’s reasoning, based on Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraph 16, and Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 35, those obligations to take action in response to anomalies detected by a GIS stemmed, in some cases implicitly, from the rules in force, whereby it is for the Member States to organise an effective system of checks and supervision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je kljub temu menilo, pri čemer se je oprlo na sodno prakso, ki izhaja iz sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 12. junija 1990 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-8/88, Recueil, str. I-2321, točka 16) in iz sodbe z dne 14. aprila 2005 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-468/02, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 35), da te obveznosti ukrepanja zoper nepravilnosti, ki jih pokaže RGIS, morda posredno izhajajo iz veljavnih predpisov, na podlagi katerih so države dolžne organizirati učinkovit sistem nadzora in spremljanja.
The Court of First Instance stated in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the judgment under appeal that it followed from those rules that Member States are required to organise a series of administrative and on-the-spot checks to ensure that the substantive and formal conditions for granting aid are correctly observed.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 53 in 54 izpodbijane sodbe pojasnilo, da iz te ureditve izhaja, da so države članice dolžne organizirati celoten upravni nadzor in nadzor na kraju samem, ki zagotavlja pravilno upo�tevanje materialnih in formalnih pogojev za odobritev pomoči.