natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Articles 36 to 43 of Regulation No 2419/2001, which come under Title IV, entitled ‘Basis for the calculation of the aid, reductions and exclusions’, contain the rules applicable to findings in relation to ‘livestock’ aid applications.
V členih od 36 do 43 Uredbe �t. 2419/2001, ki spadajo pod naslov IV „Osnova za izračun pomoči, znižanj in izključitev“, so pravila za ugotavljanje v zvezi z zahtevki za pomoč „na žival“.
Under the heading ‘Non-compliance with the provisions concerning the identification and registration of unclaimed bovine animals’, the first subparagraph of Article 39(1) of that regulation states as follows:
V členu 39 te uredbe z naslovom „Kr�itve določb o identifikaciji in registraciji goveda, za katero ni vložen zahtevek“, je v odstavku 1, prvi pododstavek, določeno:
In accordance with that paragraph 2, the amount of the reduction is determined by applying to the total amount of aid to which the farmer is entitled under the bovine aid schemes for the premium period concerned a coefficient corresponding to the relationship between the number of cases of noncompliance and the number of bovine animals present on the holding at the time of the on-the-spot check, that coefficient being weighted to take into account the average number of bovine animals on the holding during the year in which the on-the-spot check is carried out.
V skladu s tem drugim odstavkom se znesek znižanja določi tako, da se za celoten znesek pomoči, do katere je nosilec kmetijskega gospodarstva upravičen na podlagi sheme pomoči za govedo za zadevno premijsko obdobje, uporabi koeficient, ki ustreza razmerju med �tevilom kr�itev in �tevilom goveda, prisotnega na kmetijskem gospodarstvu med kontrolo na kraju samem, pri čemer se ta koeficient ponderira tako, da se upo�teva povprečno �tevilo goveda, prisotnega na kmetijskem gospodarstvu med letom, v katerem se opravi kontrola na kraju samem.
7) added the following sentence to the first subparagraph of Article 39(1):
7) je bil s členom 1(11)(a) v navedenem členu 39(1), prvi pododstavek, dodan stavek:
‘However, the amount of aid to be reduced shall not be more than 20% of [the] total amount [of the aid] to which the farmer is entitled [under the bovine aid schemes for the premium period concerned].’
„Vendar pa se znesek pomoči ne zniža za več kakor za 20 % skupnega zneska [pomoči], do katerega je nosilec kmetijskega gospodarstva upravičen [za zadevno premijsko obdobje v okviru shem pomoči za govedo].“
— Regulation No 796/2004
– Uredba �t. 796/2004
Regulation No 796/2004 repealed Regulation No 2419/2001.
Uredba �t. 796/2004 je razveljavila Uredbo �t. 2419/2001.
Recitals 12, 55 and 56 in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004 are worded as follows:
V dvanajsti, petinpetdeseti in �estinpetdeseti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 796/2004 je določeno:
Regulation … No 1782/2003 leaves a choice for the Member States with regard to the application of certain of the aid schemes provided for therein.
Uredba […] �t. 1782/2003 omogoča državam članicam, da izbirajo glede uporabe nekaterih shem pomoči, predvidenih v tej uredbi.
This regulation, therefore, has to make provisions for the administration and control needs in view of any possible choice that might be taken.
Ta uredba mora zato določiti določbe o potrebah upravljanja in nadzora v zvezi z možnimi izbirami, ki se lahko sprejmejo.
These provisions to be established in this Regulation may, therefore, only apply to the extent as the Member States have taken such choices.
Določbe, ki naj bi se določile v tej uredbi, se torej lahko uporabljajo le v obsegu, v katerem so države članice take izbire sprejele.
To protect the Community’s financial interests effectively adequate measures should be adopted to combat irregularities and fraud.
Za za�čito finančnih interesov Skupnosti bi bilo treba sprejeti ustrezne ukrepe za boj proti nepravilnostim in goljufijam.
Separate provisions should be made in cases of irregularities found with regard to eligibility criteria for the different aid schemes concerned.
Sprejeti bi bilo treba posebne določbe za nepravilnosti, ki se ugotovijo v zvezi z merili o izpolnjevanju pogojev za različne zadevne sheme pomoči.
The system of reductions and exclusions envisaged in Regulation … No 1782/2003 with regard to crosscompliance obligations however targets … a different aim, namely to set an incentive for farmers to respect the, already existing, legislation in the different fields of cross-compliance.’
Sistem znižanj in izključitev, predviden v Uredbi […] �t. 1782/2003 glede obveznosti navzkrižne skladnosti, pa ima drug cilj, in sicer spodbuditi […] kmete, da spo�tujejo obstoječo zakonodajo na različnih področjih navzkrižne skladnosti.“
Title III of Regulation No 796/2004, dealing with controls, contains a Chapter III, entitled ‘Controls relating to cross-compliance’.
V naslovu III Uredbe �t. 796/2004, ki ureja preverjanja, je poglavje III z naslovom „Preverjanja v zvezi z navzkrižno skladnostjo“.
In that chapter, Article 48(1) and its
V tem poglavju člen 48(1), prvi in
2008 — CASE C-420/06 subparagraphs (b) and (c) provide that every on-the-spot check is to be the subject of a control report to be established by the competent control authority, which includes a number of parts.
2008 – ZADEVA C-420/06 drugi pododstavek, točki (b) in (c), določa, da je vsak pregled na kraju samem predmet poročila, ki ga pripravi pristojni organ in vsebuje več delov.
One of those must reflect separately the checks carried out in respect of each of the acts and standards, while another part, called ‘evaluation’, must give an assessment of the importance of the noncompliance in respect of each act and/or standard on the basis of the criteria ‘severity’, ‘extent’, ‘permanence’ and ‘repetition’ with an indication of any factors that should lead to an increase or decrease of the reduction to be applied.
Eden od teh mora ločeno opisati izvedene preglede posebej za vsak akt in standard, medtem kot mora en del, imenovanocenjevalni, oceniti pomembnost neskladnosti v zvezi z vsakim aktom in/ali standardom na podlagi meril resnosti, obsega, stalnosti in ponavljanja, z navedbo dejavnikov, ki imajo za posledico povečanje ali zmanj�anje znižanja, ki ga je treba uporabiti.
Title IV of Regulation No 796/2004 defines the rules concerning the basis for the calculation of the aid, reductions and exclusions.
V naslovu IV Uredbe �t. 796/2004 so določena pravila na področju podlage za izračun pomoči, znižanj in izključitev.
Under that title, Chapter I, entitled ‘Findings in relation to eligibility criteria’, contains, at Articles 57 to 63, provisions which apply in that regard to livestock premia, including Article 59, fixing the ‘reductions and exclusions in respect of bovine animals claimed for aid’.
V okviru tega naslova so v poglavju I z naslovom „Ugotovitve v zvezi z merili o izpolnjevanju pogojev“ v členih od 57 do 63 določbe, ki se uporabljajo glede premij „na žival“, med njimi tudi člen 59, ki določa znižanja in izključitve glede goveda, za katero se zaprosi za pomoč.
Chapter II of that same title, entitled ‘Findings in relation to cross-compliance’ contains inter alia the following provisions:
V poglavju II, ki je pod istim naslovom „Ugotovitve v zvezi z navzkrižno skladnostjo“, so med drugim te določbe:
Without prejudice to Article 71, where a noncompliance determined results from the negligence of the farmer, a reduction shall be applied on the overall amount
Brez vpliva na člen 71, kadar je ugotovljena neskladnost zaradi malomarnosti kmeta, se uporabi znižanje za celotni znesek neposrednih plačil, kakor je opredeljeno
JAGER of direct payments, as defined in Article 2(d) of Regulation … No 1782/2003, that has been, or has to be, granted to the farmer concerned following aid applications he has submitted or will still submit in the course of the calendar year of the finding.
JAGER v členu 2(d) Uredbe […] �t. 1782/2003, ki je bil ali mora biti odobren za zadevnega kmeta po zahtevku za pomoč, ki ga je predložil ali ga �e bo predložil v koledarskem letu ugotovitve.
That reduction shall, as a general rule, be 3% of that overall amount.
To znižanje je praviloma 3 % celotnega zneska.
However, the Paying Agency may, on the basis of the assessment provided by the competent control authority in the control report in accordance with Article 48(1)(c), decide either to reduce that percentage to 1% or to increase it to 5% of that overall amount or, in the cases referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 48(1)(c), not to impose any reductions at all.
Plačilna agencija lahko na podlagi ocene, ki jo zagotovi pristojni organ v poročilu o kontroli v skladu s členom 48(1)(c), sklene znižati odstotek na 1 % ali ga povečati na 5 % celotnega zneska ali v primerih iz drugega pododstavka člena 48(l)(c) ne uvesti nobenih znižanj.
Where more than one noncompliance with regard to different areas of crosscompliance have been determined, the procedure for the fixing of the reduction as set out in paragraph 1 shall be applied individually to each noncompliance.
Kadar je bila ugotovljena več kakor ena neskladnost v zvezi z različnimi področji navzkrižne skladnosti, se postopek za določitev znižanja, naveden v odstavku 1, uporabi posamično za vsako neskladnost.
The resulting percentages of reductions shall be added together.
Posledični odstotki znižanj se se�tejejo.
However, the maximum reduction shall not exceed 5% of the overall amount referred to in paragraph 1.
Največje znižanje pa ne presega 5 % skupnega zneska iz odstavka 1.
Without prejudice to cases of intentional noncompliance in accordance with Article 67, where repeated noncompliances have been determined, the percentage fixed in accordance with paragraph 1 with regard to the first noncompliance shall, in respect of the first repetition, be multiplied by the factor three.
Kadar so bile ugotovljene ponovne neskladnosti, se brez vpliva na primere namerne neskladnosti v skladu s členom 67, odstotek, določen v skladu z odstavkom 1 pri prvi neskladnosti, pomnoži s faktorjem tri v zvezi s prvo ponovitvijo.
For this purpose, the Paying Agency shall, in the case where that percentage was fixed in accordance with paragraph 2 determine the percentage that would have been applied to the first noncompliance with the requirement or standard concerned.
V primeru, ko je bil ta odstotek določen v skladu z odstavkom 2, plačilna agencija za ta namen ugotovi odstotek, ki bi bil uporabljen za prvo neskladnost z zadevno zahtevo ali standardom.
In the case of further repetitions the multiplication factor three shall be applied each time to the result of the reduction fixed in respect of the previous repeated noncompliance.
Pri nadaljnjih ponovitvah se večkratnik tri uporablja za vsak rezultat znižanja, določenega v zvezi s prej�njo ponovljeno neskladnostjo.
Once the maximum percentage of 15% has been reached, the Paying Agency shall inform the farmer concerned that if the same noncompliance is determined again, it shall be considered that he has acted intentionally within the meaning of Article 67.
Ko je dosežen odstotek 15 %, plačilna agencija obvesti zadevnega kmeta, da se �teje, če se ista neskladnost ponovno ugotovi, da je deloval namerno v smislu člena 67.
Where a further noncompliance is determined thereafter, the percentage reduction to be applied shall be fixed by multiplying the result of the previous multiplication, where applicable, before the limitation to 15% as provided for in the last sentence of the second subparagraph has been applied, by a factor of three.
Če se pozneje ugotovi nadaljnja neskladnost, se odstotek znižanja, ki ga je treba uporabiti, določi tako, da se rezultat prej�nje pomnožitve, kjer je to primerno, pomnoži s faktorjem tri, preden se uporabi omejitev 15 %, kakor je predvideno v zadnjem stavku drugega pododstavka.
Without prejudice to Article 71, where the noncompliance determined has been committed intentionally by the farmer, the reduction to be applied to the overall amount referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 66(1) shall, as a general rule, be 20% of that overall amount.
Kadar je ugotovljeno neskladnost kmet povzročil namerno, je brez vpliva na člen 71 znižanje, ki ga je treba uporabiti za celotni znesek iz prvega pododstavka člena 66(1), praviloma 20 % tega celotnega zneska.
Temporal application of the administrative penalties for which the Community acts provide
Časovna uporaba upravnih kazni, predvidenih z akti Skupnosti
Article 1 of Regulation No 2988/95 states:
V členu 1 Uredbe �t. 2988/95 je določeno:
For the purposes of protecting the European Communities’ financial interests, general rules are hereby adopted relating to homogenous checks and to administrative measures and penalties concerning irregularities with regard to Community law.
Za za�čito finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti se sprejmejo splo�na pravila za enotne preglede ter upravne ukrepe in kazni v zvezi z nepravilnostmi, ki se nana�ajo na zakonodajo Skupnosti.
The second sentence of Article 2(2) of that regulation is worded as follows:
V členu 2(2), drugi stavek, iste uredbe je določeno:
‘In the event of a subsequent amendment of the provisions which impose administrative penalties and are contained in Community rules, the less severe provisions shall apply retroactively.’
„Če so se določbe o upravnih kaznih v predpisih Skupnosti pozneje spremenile, se za nazaj uporabljajo milej�e določbe.“
In Germany, the Law transposing the reform of the common agricultural policy (Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik) of 21 July 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, p.
V Nemčiji je v zakonu o prenosu reforme skupne kmetijske politike (Gesetz zur Umsetzung der Reform der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik) z dne 21. julija 2004 (BGBl. 2004 I, str.
1763), provides that, as from 1 January 2005, the suckler cow premium must be paid as part of the single payment scheme referred to in Title III of Regulation No 1782/2003.
1763) določeno, da je premijo za kravo dojiljo od 1. januarja 2005 treba plačati kot premijo, ki spada k shemi enotnega plačila iz naslova III Uredbe �t. 1782/2003.
In addition, that law applies the single payment scheme to the regions.
Poleg tega ta zakon določa regionalno izvajanje sheme enotnega plačila.
By a decision of 24 January 2002, the Amt rejected his application in its entirety, on the ground that an on-the-spot check had revealed irregularities within the meaning of Article 10c(1) of Regulation No 3887/92, and that the discrepancy which had been found represented more than 20% of the eligible animals.
Amt je z odločbo z dne 24. januarja 2002 v celoti zavrnil ta zahtevek z obrazložitvijo, da so bile med kontrolo na kraju samem ugotovljene nepravilnosti v smislu člena 10c(1) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, pri čemer je bilo odstopanje večje od 20 % �tevila upravičenih živali.
Articles 57 to 63 of that regulation, which largely reproduce the provisions of Articles 36 to 43 of Regulation No 2419/2001, do not, however, contain a provision analogous to Article 39 of the latter regulation.
Členi od 57 do 63 te uredbe, ki naj bi sicer v pretežnem delu povzeli določbe členov od 36 do 43 Uredbe �t. 2419/2001, naj namreč ne bi vsebovali določbe, ki bi bila analogna členu 39 zadnjenavedene uredbe.
The least severe penalty imaginable for Mr Jager is the absence of any penalty.
Tako naj bi bil neobstoj kazni najmilej�a kazen, ki bi lahko doletela R. Jager.
The Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin queries, however, whether that more favourable provision applies in the case in the main proceedings, because, in Germany, since 1 January 2005, the suckler cow premium has been granted in the form of a single payment, with the result that the provisions relating to ‘livestock’ premia contained in Articles 57 to 63 of Regulation No 796/2004 are not applicable in that Member State.
Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin pa se vendarle spra�uje, ali bi bilo treba to ugodnej�o določbo uporabiti v postopku v glavni stvari, ker se v Nemčiji od 1. januarja 2005 premija za kravo dojiljo dodeli kot enotno plačilo, tako da se določbe o premijah „na žival“ iz členov od 57 do 63 Uredbe �t. 796/2004 v tej državi članici ne uporabljajo.
‘Is a provision imposing a more favourable penalty (concerning livestock aid) to be applied retroactively even if that provision in principle only applies for a period of
„Ali je treba določbo, ki predvideva milej�e kazni (kar zadeva premije za živali), uporabiti retroaktivno, čeprav se ta določba načeloma uporablja samo za obdobje,
JAGER time during which livestock aid in the Member State concerned is no longer granted, as a direct payment has been introduced?’
JAGER v katerem se v zadevni državi članici, v kateri je bil vzpostavljen sistem neposredne podpore, premije za živali ne dodeljujejo več?“
Preliminary observations on the scope of the question for a preliminary reference
Uvodne ugotovitve glede obsega vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
In the procedure laid down by Article 234 EC providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it.
V postopku sodelovanja med nacionalnimi sodi�či in Sodi�čem, uvedenem s členom 234 ES, je naloga Sodi�ča dati nacionalnemu sodi�ču uporaben odgovor, ki mu omogoča re�itev spora, o katerem odloča.
Moreover, the Court has a duty to interpret all provisions of Community law which national courts need in order to decide the actions pending before them, even if those
Poleg tega je naloga Sodi�ča razložiti vse določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jih nacionalna sodi�ča potrebujejo za odločanje v sporih, čeprav te določbe niso izrecno navedene
2008 — CASE C-420/06 provisions are not expressly indicated in the questions referred to the Court of Justice by those courts (see Case C-304/00 Strawson and Gagg & Sons [2002] ECR I-10737, paragraph 58, and Campina, paragraph 31). 48
2008 – ZADEVA C-420/06 v vpra�anjih, ki jih postavijo ta sodi�ča (glej sodbo z dne 19. novembra 2002 v zadevi Strawson in Gagg & Sons, C-304/00, Recueil, str. I-10737, točka 58, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Campina, točka 31). 48
As Mr Jager, the Greek Government and the Commission of the European Communities rightly submit, that premiss is false.
Vendar je predpostavka napačna, kot so pravilno zatrjevali R. Jager, gr�ka vlada in Komisija Evropskih skupnosti.
However, it cannot be deduced from this that Regulation No 796/2004 no longer contains any provision to that effect.
Vendar iz tega ni mogoče sklepati, da Uredba �t. 796/2004 glede tega ne vsebuje več nobene določbe.
Consequently, noncompliance with the rules on identification and registration laid down by Regulation No 1760/2000, in respect of bovine animals which, as in the case in the main proceedings, are not claimed for aid, falls under Articles 66 and 67 on cross-compliance.
Zato nespo�tovanje pravil o identifikaciji in registraciji, ki so določena z Uredbo �t. 1760/2000, glede goveda, za katero se – kot v postopku v glavni stvari – pomoč ne zahteva, urejata navedena člena 66 in 67, ki se nana�ata na navzkrižno skladnost.
On the other hand, Articles 57 to 63 of Regulation No 796/2004, to which the national court refers, are not applicable in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, since they provide for reductions and exclusions applicable in the case of noncompliance with eligibility criteria concerning applications for ‘livestock’ aid.
Nasprotno se členi od 57 do 63 Uredbe �t. 796/2004, na katere se sklicuje predložitveno sodi�če, ne uporabljajo v položaju, kakr�en je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, ker predvidevajo znižanja in izključitve, ki se uporabljajo takrat, kadar merila o upravičenosti v zvezi z zahtevki za pomoč „na žival“ niso spo�tovana.
Second, and for the same reason, such provisions, as is clear from recital 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004, will apply only in Member States which have opted for the partial ‘recoupling’ of payments for beef and veal, so that they do not apply in Member States, like the Federal Republic of Germany, which have, from the outset, adopted the single payment scheme.
Na drugi strani in iz istega razloga so take določbe, kot izhaja iz dvanajste uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 796/2004, edine, ki se lahko uporabljajo v državah članicah, ki so se odločile za delno „vezavo“ plačil za govedino, tako da se ne uporabljajo v državah – kot na primer v Zvezni republiki Nemčiji – ki so že na začetku sprejele shemo enotnega plačila.
Interpretation of the second sentence of Article 2(2) of Regulation No 2988/95
Razlaga člena 2(2), drugi stavek, Uredbe št. 2988/95
According to the Court’s caselaw, the principle of the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty forms part of the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and, accordingly, must be considered to be one of the general principles of Community law, which the Court ensures are respected and which national courts are required to abide by (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-387/02, C-391/02 and C-403/02 Berlusconi and Others [2005] ECR I-3565, paragraphs 67 to 69, and Campina, paragraph 32).
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča je načelo retroaktivne uporabe milej�e kazni del skupnih ustavnih tradicij držav članic, tako da mora biti upo�tevano kot splo�no načelo prava Skupnosti, katerega spo�tovanje zagotavlja Sodi�če in po katerem se mora ravnati nacionalno sodi�če (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 3. maja 2005 v združenih zadevah Berlusconi in drugi, C-387/02, C-391/02 in C-403/02, ZOdl., str. I-3565, točke od 67 do 69, ter zgoraj navedeno sodbo Campina, točka 32).
It must be ascertained whether the conditions set out at paragraph 60 of this judgment are fulfilled in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings.
Zato je treba preskusiti, ali so izpolnjeni pogoji iz točke 60 te sodbe v okoli�činah, kot so te iz postopka v glavni stvari.
Article 39(1), which replaced Article 10c, is aimed, in the context of the rules on aid for bovine animals established by Regulation No 1254/1999, at limiting the severity of the penalties applicable for that irregularity (see, by analogy, Campina, paragraphs 36 to 38).
Namen člena 39(1), ki je nadomestil navedeni člen 10c, je namreč v okviru sheme pomoči za govedo, ki je bila uvedena z Uredbo �t. 1254/1999, omejiti intenzivnost kazni, ki se uporabljajo za to nepravilnost (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Campina, točke od 36 do 38).
The Commission contends that application of the latter provision implies a revised assessment by the Community legislature as regards the irregularity concerned.
Komisija zatrjuje, da uporaba zadnjenavedene določbe pomeni spremenjeno presojo zakonodajalca Skupnosti v razmerju do zadevne nepravilnosti.
Neither the recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 796/2004 nor the general context of that regulation justify the conclusion that the penalties referred to in Articles 66 and 67 of that regulation were adopted with the aim of penalising less severely in the future certain irregularities committed under the previous system.
Niti uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 796/2004 niti njen splo�ni okvir naj ne bi omogočali zaključka, da naj bi bile kazni iz členov 66 in 67 navedene uredbe sprejete s ciljem v prihodnje kaznovati mileje določene nepravilnosti, ki so bile storjene po prej�nji ureditvi.
The national court and the competent national authorities are obliged to take the regulation into account as far as possible, in order to determine, by a comparative calculation based on the facts specific to the case in the main proceedings, whether application of Articles 66 and 67 thereof results in a less severe penalty for the irregularity found.
Predložitveno sodi�če in pristojni nacionalni organi naj bi namreč morali v največji možni meri upo�tevati navedeno uredbo, da bi s primerjalnim izračunom na podlagi podatkov, ki se nana�ajo na postopek v glavni stvari, določili, ali njena člena 66 in 67 privedeta do milej�e kazni za zadevno ugotovljeno nepravilnost.