natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Cantine, another wine cooperative and a consortium of wine cooperatives intervened in the proceedings in support of the form of order sought by DAI.
Vinske kleti, �e ena vinogradni�ka zadruga in konzorcij vinogradni�kih zadrug so intervenirali v tem postopku, pri čemer so se strinjali z navedbami DAI.
They contended that the sums to which the security provided by Assedile related were due to them in proportion to the amount of wine delivered and they therefore sought a ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma requiring Assedile to pay them the outstanding amounts of the debts owed to them by DAI, and, in the alternative, a ruling requiring AIMA to pay them those sums.
Navajali so, da jim zneski, ki so predmet var�čine, ki jo je dal Assedile, pripadajo v sorazmerju z dobavljenim vinom, zato so zahtevali, naj Tribunale civile di Roma odloči, da jim je bil Assedile dolžan izplačati znesek njihovih neplačanih terjatev do DAI, podredno pa, da jim je organ AIMA dolžan izplačati te zneske.
Meanwhile, by judgment of 27 February 1986, the Tribunale di Oristano declared DAI insolvent.
Medtem je Tribunale di Oristano s sodbo z dne 27. februarja 1986 zoper DAI uvedlo stečajni postopek.
In its judgment of 27 January 1989, the Tribunale civile di Roma held essentially that the claims put forward by the cooperatives intervening in support of DAI were unfounded, stating in particular that Regulation No 2499/82 was easy to interpret,
Tribunale civile di Roma je v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1989 ugotovilo, da so bile zahteve zadrug, ki so intervenirale v podporo DAI, neutemeljene, pri čemer je ugotovilo, da je Uredbo �t. 2499/82 mogoče razlagati, prav tako pa tudi vse pogodbene
2008 — CASE C-51/05 P like the contractual clauses concerning the security provided by Assedile in favour of AIMA, and that therefore it was not necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
2008 – ZADEVA C-51/05 P klavzule v zvezi z var�čino, ki jo je dal Assedile v korist AIMA, in da torej Sodi�ču ni treba predložiti vpra�anja za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
Having ruled out any alleged right of those cooperatives to receive the amount of the security provided by Assedile, the Tribunale civile di Roma held that DAI’s insolvency proceedings constituted the appropriate framework within which the cooperatives could obtain payment of their debts.
Tribunale civile di Roma je po izključitvi vseh domnevnih pravic teh zadrug do prejema zneska var�čine, ki ga zagotavlja Assedile, presodilo, da je stečajni postopek DAI ustrezen okvir za to, da bi navedene zadruge lahko dosegle izplačilo svojih terjatev.
On 27 September 1989 the Cantine, with the exception of Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. Coop. arl Monti-Sassari, appealed against that judgment to the Corte d’appello di Roma (Court of Appeal, Rome) (Italy).
Vinske kleti, z izjemo Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari, so 27. septembra 1989 vložile pritožbo zoper to sodbo pred Corte d’appello di Roma.
By judgment of 19 November 1991 that court held that the appeal was inadmissible on the grounds that the applicants had notified lodgement of the appeal, not to DAI’s official receiver, but to DAI itself, which was then in insolvency, and that they had not subsequently effected proper notification within the timelimit imposed on them.
To je s sodbo z dne 19. novembra 1991 odločilo, da pritožba ni dopustna, ker vinske kleti pritožbe niso pravilno vročile stečajnemu upravitelju DAI, temveč DAI samemu, ki je bil takrat v stečaju, in ker niso pravilno opravile vročitve v določenem roku.
In the meantime, on 16 January 1990, Assedile paid the sums owing to AIMA.
Medtem je Assedile 16. januarja 1990 organu AIMA plačal dolgovane zneske.
The Cantine duly registered their claims among DAI’s liabilities in the context of the insolvency proceedings that had been brought against it and, at the conclusion of those proceedings in 2000, took part in the distribution of assets as preferential creditors.
Vinske kleti so pravilno prijavile svoje terjatve do DAI v okviru stečajnega postopka, ki je potekal v zvezi s to družbo, in ob koncu tega postopka, leta 2000, sodelovale pri delitvi kot privilegirani upniki.
Under that distribution they obtained payment of 39% of the acknowledged debts owed to them by DAI.
V delitvi so prejele plačilo svojih priznanih terjatev do DAI, in sicer 39 % zneska teh terjatev.
By letter of 22 January 1996 the Cantine called on AIMA to honour the debts owed to them by DAI, contending that AIMA had benefited from unjust enrichment through receipt of the security provided by Assedile.
Z dopisom z dne 22. januarja 1996 so vinske kleti od organa AIMA zahtevale, naj izpolni njihove terjatve do DAI, pri čemer so navedle, da organ AIMA ni bil upravičeno obogaten s prejemom var�čine.
AIMA rejected that complaint, pointing out that it was entitled to the security and that the producers had no right
Organ AIMA je zavrnil to zahtevo z navedbo, da mu var�čina pripada in da proizvajalci nimajo nobenega neposrednega pravnega
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS to bring a direct action against it for payment of the debts owed to them by DAI.
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI sredstva, s katerim bi lahko od njega zahtevali izpolnitev terjatev, ki so jih imeli do DAI.
On 16 February 1996, the Cantine brought an action before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Civil District Court, Cagliari) (Italy), against AIMA on the ground of unjust enrichment, which was, however, subsequently stayed in order to enable the parties to reach an amicable agreement.
Vinske kleti so 16. februarja 1996 na Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italija) vložile tožbo zoper AIMA zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, vendar je bil ta postopek prekinjen zaradi iskanja možnosti poravnave strank.
On 13 November 1996 the Cantine lodged a complaint with the Commission in which they alleged that AIMA had infringed Community legislation, in particular Regulation No 2499/82, and requested the Commission, inter alia, to call on AIMA and the Italian Republic to pay them the amounts which they had not received by way of Community aid for the 1982/1983 wine year.
Vinske kleti so 13. novembra 1996 naslovile prijavo na Komisijo, v kateri so navedle, da je organ AIMA domnevno kr�il predpise Skupnosti, �e posebej Uredbo �t. 2499/82, in predlagale Komisiji, naj naloži organu AIMA in Italijanski republiki, naj jim povrneta zneske, ki jih niso prejele na podlagi pomoči Skupnosti za tržno vinsko leto 1982/1983.
By letter of 25 June 1997, the Commission indicated to the Cantine that Assedile had paid the amount of security provided by it, plus interest, to AIMA on 16 January 1990.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. junija 1997 vinske kleti obvestila, da je Assedile 16. januarja 1990 izplačal AIMA znesek var�čine, skupaj z obrestmi. Nato jih je z dopisom z dne 8. decembra 1997 obvestila, da je AIMA februarja 1991 unovčil znesek te var�čine in ga vknjižil v korist Evropskega kmetijskega usmerjevalnega in jamstvenega sklada (EKUJS) v poslovnem letu 1991.
By letter of 23 January 1998, which reached the Commission on 5 February 1998, the Cantine requested the Commission to pay them the sum corresponding to the amount of the debts owed to them by DAI on the ground that the security acquired by AIMA had been refunded to the EAGGF.
Vinske kleti so z dopisom dne 23. januarja 1998, ki je na Komisijo prispel 5. februarja 1998, od te institucije zahtevale, naj jim nakaže znesek, ki ustreza vsoti terjatev, ki so jih imele do DAI, ker je bila var�čina, izplačana organu AIMA, povrnjena EKUJS.
They argued that it was clear from the purpose of Regulation No 2499/82, which was to benefit wine producers, that the latter should be regarded as the actual and sole recipients of the aid provided for in that regulation.
Zatrjevale so, da iz Uredbe �t. 2499/82, katere namen je koristiti proizvajalcem vina, izhaja, da bi ti morali biti dejanski in edini prejemniki pomoči, ki jo predvideva ta uredba.
By letter of 31 July 1998, signed by the Director-General of the Commission’s Dir -ectorate-General for Agriculture, which reached the Cantine on 14 August 1998, the Commission rejected that request.
Komisija je to zahtevo zavrnila z dopisom z dne 31. julija 1998, ki ga je podpisal generalni direktor Generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo Komisije in so ga tožeče stranke prejele 14. avgusta 1998.
It maintained that, in the present case, the aid was primarily for the benefit of the distiller in order to enable it to offset the high buyingin price of the wine.
Navedla je, da je bil postopek plačila pomoči destilaterju, ki se je uporabljal v obravnavanem primeru, primarno v korist destilaterju, da bi lahko kompenziral visoko nakupno ceno vina.
The security was provided by Assedile for the benefit of AIMA, and the producers could not claim any rights to that security.
Zavarovanje je bilo zagotovljeno v korist organa AIMA in proizvajalci ne morejo uveljavljati nobene pravice do njegovega zneska.
In that letter, the Commission also pointed out that the approval by AIMA of the contracts entered into between the Cantine and DAI did not alter the private-law nature of those contracts, with the result that the Commission’s alleged obligations towards the applicants were of a noncontractual nature.
Komisija je v istem dopisu poleg tega navedla, da potrditev pogodb, ki so jih sklenile tožeče stranke in DAI, ki jo je opravil organ AIMA, ne spremeni zasebne narave teh pogodb, tako da bi bile zatrjevane obveznosti Komisije do vinskih kleti nepogodbene.
Consequently, any action against the Community was henceforth timebarred, under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, as the amount of the security provided by Assedile was paid to AIMA on 16 January 1990 and refunded to the EAGGF during the 1991 financial year.
Posledično je vsaka tožba proti Skupnosti zastarala na podlagi člena 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, ker je bil znesek var�čine, ki jo zagotavlja Assedile, organu AIMA izplačan 16. januarja 1990 in vrnjen EKUJS med proračunskim letom 1991.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 12 October 1998, the Cantine brought an action seeking, first, annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 July 1998 under Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC), second, a declaration that the Commission’s failure to adopt a decision regarding the grant of the Community aid to the Cantine which should have been paid to them by DAI was an unlawful failure to act contrary to Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232 EC) and, third, an order that the Commission pay to the Cantine, on the ground of unjust enrichment and/or pursuant to Article 178 of the EC Treaty (now Article 235 EC), compensation equivalent to the outstanding amounts owed to them by DAI.
Vinske kleti so v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje 12. oktobra 1998 vložile tožbo, s katero so predlagale, prvič, razglasitev ničnosti dopisa Komisije z dne 31. julija 1998 na podlagi člena 230 ES, drugič, ugotovitev nedelovanja navedene institucije v nasprotju s členom 232 ES, ki jo pomeni dejstvo, da ni sprejela odločbe v zvezi z dodelitvijo, v njihovo korist, pomoči Skupnosti, ki bi jim jo moral izplačati DAI, in, tretjič, naj se Komisiji naloži, da na podlagi neupravičene obogatitve in/ali ob uporabi člena 235 ES vinskim kletem plača nadomestilo, ki je enakovredno zneskom, ki jim jih je dolgoval DAI.
The Commission contended that the action should be dismissed as being inadmissible and, in the alternative, as unfounded.
Komisija predlaga, naj se tožba zavrže kot nedopustna in, podredno, naj se zavrne kot neutemeljena.
By the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance, in paragraphs 80 and 83 thereof respectively, dismissed as inadmissible the Cantines’ requests for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 31 July 1998 and for a declaration that the Commission had unlawfully failed to act.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 80 in 83 izpodbijane sodbe kot nedopustni zavrglo zahtevi vinskih kleti glede razglasitve ničnosti dopisa Komisije z dne 31. julija 1998 in ugotovitve nedelovanja institucije.
It also rejected, in paragraph 84 of that judgment, the request that the Court find against the Commission on the basis of unjust enrichment.
Prav tako je v točki 84 navedene sodbe zavrglo zahtevo za naložitev Komisiji, naj na podlagi neupravičene obogatitve plača nadomestilo.
On the other hand, the Court of First Instance found, in paragraph 150 of the judgment under appeal, that the claim for compensation under Article 235 EC was admissible and held, in paragraph 1 of the operative part of the judgment, that ‘[t]he Commission is required to make good the damage sustained by the [Cantine] following the bankruptcy of [DAI], as a result of the absence of a procedure that would guarantee, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Regulation [No 2499/82], payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for in that regulation.’
Sodi�če prve je v točki 150 izpodbijane sodbe nasprotno presodilo, da je od�kodninski zahtevek, vložen na podlagi člena 235 ES, dopusten, ter ugotovilo, v točki 1 izreka navedene sodbe, da „Komisija mora povrniti �kodo, ki je nastala [vinskim kletem] zaradi stečaja [DAI], ker ni bil vzpostavljen mehanizem, ki bi lahko v okviru ureditve iz člena 9 Uredbe [�t. 2499/82], zagotavljal izplačila pomoči Skupnosti zadevnim proizvajalcem, ki jih določa ta uredba“.
In particular, with regard to the admissibility of the claim under Article 235 EC, the Court of First Instance, in the context of the plea raised by the Commission alleging that the proceedings against the Community for noncontractual liability were timebarred, first stated, in paragraph 129 of the judgment under appeal, that the limitation period laid down by Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice could not begin to run before all the requirements governing the obligation to make good the damage had been satisfied, namely the existence of unlawful conduct on the part of the Community institutions, the fact of the damage alleged and the existence of a causal link between that conduct and the damage claimed.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zlasti v zvezi z dopustnostjo zahtevka, vloženega na podlagi člena 235 ES v okviru tožbenega razloga Komisije, ki se nana�a na zastaranje tožbe zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti Skupnosti, v točki 129 izpodbijane sodbe najprej poudarilo, da zastaralni rok, ki ga predvideva člen 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, ne začne teči, dokler niso izpolnjeni vsi pogoji, ki jim je podrejena obveznost povračila �kode, in sicer obstoj nezakonitega ravnanja institucij Skupnosti, obstoj zatrjevane �kode in vzročna zveza med tem ravnanjem in zatrjevano �kodo.
The Court of First Instance then stated, in paragraph 130 of the judgment under appeal, that in cases in which the Community’s liability stemmed from a legislative measure, as in this instance, the limitation period could not begin to run before the injurious effects of the measure had been produced and hence before the time at which the persons concerned had suffered certain damage.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato v točki 130 navedene sodbe pojasnilo, da kadar je, kot v tej zadevi, primer, v katerem odgovornost Skupnosti izhaja iz normativnega akta, zastaralni rok ne začne teči pred nastankom �kodljivih učinkov tega akta in posledično ne pred trenutkom, ko so o�kodovanci utrpeli nedvomno �kodo.
The Court of First Instance then held, in paragraph 131 of the judgment under appeal, that, in the case under examination, the limitation period had begun to run when the damage resulting from the total or partial absence of payment of Community aid had been suffered for certain by the Cantine.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zato v točki 131 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je v obravnavanem primeru zastaralni rok začel teči, ko so vinske kleti nedvomno utrpele �kodo zaradi delnega ali popolnega neizplačila pomoči Skupnosti.
It observed, in paragraph 132 thereof, that it was not disputed in the case that the last deliveries of wine by the Cantine took place in March 1983 and that DAI should have paid them the minimum buyingin price for wine under Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 not later than 90 days after the entry of the wine into the distillery, that is to say, not later than the end of June 1983.
V točki 132 navedene sodbe je ugotovilo, da v obravnavanem primeru ni sporno, da so bile zadnje po�iljke vina vinskih kleti dobavljene marca 1983 in da bi jim moral DAI na podlagi člena 9(1) Uredbe �t. 2499/82 minimalno nakupno ceno za vino izplačati najkasneje v devetdesetih dneh po prejemu vina v destilarno, torej najkasneje junija 1983.
In paragraph 133 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held, however, that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the damage suffered by the Cantine at the end of June 1983 due to the total or partial absence of payment of the minimum buyingin price within the timelimit laid down could not be regarded as being certain, that is to say, imminent and foreseeable from that date on.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 133 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da v posebnih okoli�činah tega spora �kode, ki so jo utrpele vinske kleti na koncu meseca junija 1983 zaradi delnega ali popolnega neizplačila pomoči Skupnosti v predpisanem roku, ni mogoče obravnavati, kot da je že od tega datuma imela nedvomno naravo, torej da je bila neizbežna in predvidljiva.
The Court of First Instance added, in paragraphs 136 and 145 of the judgment under appeal, that, in order to assess whether damage was certain, it was necessary to take account of the proceedings brought by DAI before the Italian courts specifically concerning the fate of the security provided by Assedile, in light of the complexity of the system introduced by Regulation No 2499/82 and the exceptional circumstances of the case, in which it was extremely difficult for a prudent and wellinformed economic operator to be certain, before the outcome of those proceedings, that he could not obtain payment of the aid concerned by means of that security before a national court.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah 136 in 145 izpodbijane sodbe dodalo, da je treba za presojo nedvomne narave �kode upo�tevati tiste postopke, ki jih je DAI sprožil pri italijanskih sodi�čih in ki se specifično nana�ajo na usodo var�čine, ki jo zagotavlja Assedile, ob upo�tevanju zapletenosti sistema, ki ga je uvedla Uredba �t. 2499/82, in izjemnih okoli�čin te zadeve, v katerih je bilo izredno težko, da bi se skrben in dobro obve�čen gospodarski subjekt pred koncem teh postopkov zavedal tega, da ne bo mogel doseči izplačila zadevnih pomoči pred nacionalnim sodi�čem iz navedene var�čine.
In paragraph 146 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance held that, in the case before it, the beneficiary of the security provided by Assedile was not finally decided by the national courts until after the Corte suprema di Cassazione had delivered its judgment on 28 November 1994 and that, therefore, the damage suffered by the Cantine could not have been certain before that date.
Sodi�če je v točki 146 izpodbijane sodbe �telo, da so v obravnavanem primeru nacionalna sodi�ča �ele po sodbi Corte suprema di cassazione z dne 28. novembra 1994 dokončno odločila, kdo je prejemnik var�čine, ki jo je izplačal Assedile, ter da zato �koda, ki so jo utrpele vinske kleti, ni mogla biti nedvoumna pred tem datumom.
The Court of First Instance concluded, in paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal, that the fiveyear limitation period provided for in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice could not have begun to run before 28 November 1994, with the result that the action under Article 235 EC brought in 1998 could not be considered to be out of time.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 147 navedene sodbe ugotovilo, da petletni zastaralni rok, ki ga določa člen 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, ni mogel začeti teči pred 28. novembrom 1994, tako da od�kodninska tožba, ki je bila na podlagi člena 235 ES vložena leta 1998, ni prepozna. Zato je v točki 148 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da je treba ugovor zastaranja tožbe, ki ga je navedla Komisija, zavrniti, v točki 150 pa, da je navedeni od�kodninski zahtevek dopusten.
Forms of order sought before the Court of Justice
Predlogi strank pred Sodiščem
— set aside the judgment under appeal in so far as it upholds the claim for compensation against it;
– razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo v delu, v katerem je bilo z njo ugodeno od�kodninski tožbi proti Komisiji;
— by giving final judgment in the matter, dismiss the appeal as inadmissible; and
– dokončno razsodi v zadevi in navedeno tožbo zavrže kot nedopustno, in
— order the Cantine to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those incurred before the Court of First Instance.
– vinskim kletem naloži plačilo stro�kov tega postopka in postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
— dismiss the appeal;
– zavrne pritožbo;
— in the alternative, if the appeal is allowed, uphold the judgment under appeal in so far as it orders the Commission to pay compensation for damage by dismissing the objection of limitation raised by the latter; and
– podredno, če bi se pritožbi ugodilo, potrdi izpodbijano sodbo v delu, kjer je bilo Komisiji naloženo povračilo �kode, ter zavrne ugovor zastaranja, ki ga je vložila Komisija, in
In support of its appeal the Commission raises a single plea alleging infringement, in paragraphs 129 to 150 of the judgment under appeal, of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and of the principle of legal certainty.
Komisija v utemeljitev pritožbe navaja en sam tožbeni razlog, ki se nana�a na kr�itev člena 46 Statuta Sodi�ča in načela pravne varnosti, v točkah od 129 do 150 izpodbijane sodbe.
The Commission submits that the settled caselaw of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance lays down the principle that the fiveyear limitation period for proceedings against the Community for noncontractual liability provided for in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice does not begin to run until the damage to be made good has materialised.
Komisija navaja, da ustaljena sodna praksa Sodi�ča in Sodi�ča prve stopnje uvaja načelo, v skladu s katerim petletni zastaralni rok postopkov zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti zoper Skupnost, določen v členu 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, začne teči �ele v trenutku nastanka �kode.
If that liability has its origin in a legislative measure, the limitation period can begin to run only once the persons concerned were bound to have incurred damage which was certain in character.
Ko odgovornost Skupnosti izvira iz zakonodajnih ukrepov, zastaralni rok ne more začeti teči, dokler tožečim strankam ni povzročena nedvomna �koda.
In particular, the Commission criticises the Court of First Instance for failing to take account, in the judgment under appeal, of the fact that since 1983 Regulation No 2499/82 had caused actual damage to the Cantine by failing to provide for the possibility of Community aid being paid directly to the producer if the distiller became insolvent.
Komisija Sodi�ču prve stopnje zlasti očita, da v izpodbijani sodbi ni upo�tevalo dejstva, da je z Uredbo �t. 2499/82 dejansko povzročena �koda vinskim kletem s tem, da v njej ni predvidena možnost neposrednega nakazila pomoči Skupnosti proizvajalcu ob plačilni nesposobnosti destilaterja.
The point at which that limitation period began to run should therefore have been fixed as the day on which, because of DAI’s insolvency, the Cantine were unable to obtain payment of that aid within the 90-day period after the entry of the wine into the distillery provided for by that regulation.
Začetek navedenega roka bi torej moral biti določen na dan, ko zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti DAI vinske kleti niso mogle prejeti plačila navedene pomoči v roku devetdesetih dni po prejetju vina v destilarni, določenem v navedeni uredbi.
According to the Commission, the Court of First Instance based its judgment, to the contrary, on the perception that the Cantine had suffered harmful effects from Regulation No 2499/82.
Po mnenju Komisije je Sodi�če prve stopnje nasprotno utemeljilo na tem, kako so vinske kleti dojemale �kodljive učinke Uredbe �t. 2499/82.