natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to the fifth applicant, the analysis I have proposed above leads to the conclusion that time began to run on the date of the judgment of the Tribunale civile di Roma, that is to say on 27 January 1989.
Na podlagi analize, ki sem jo predlagala zgoraj, v zvezi s peto tožečo stranko sklepam, da je rok zanjo začel teči na dan sodbe Tribunale civile di Roma, to je 27. januarja 1989.
The fifth applicant’s action against the Commission is accordingly timebarred.
Tožba pete tožeče stranke zoper Komisijo je v skladu s tem zastarala.
That would be otherwise only if the Court were to take the view that, as in Adams, it would in the exceptional circumstances of the present case be appropriate for it essentially to rule that the timelimit laid down in Article 46 of the Statute is inapplicable to any of the applicants.
Drugačen sklep bi bil mogoč le, če bi Sodi�če zavzelo stali�če, kot v zadevi Adams, da bi moralo v izjemnih okoli�činah obravnavane zadeve v bistvu odločiti, da se rok, določen v členu 46 Statuta, ne uporablja za nobeno od tožečih strank.
In the present case, the applicants took the decision, entirely reasonably at the time and in the context, to intervene in the proceedings brought by DAI against Assedile and AIMA in September 1984 before the Tribunale civile di Roma.
V obravnavani zadevi so se tožeče stranke v času in okoli�činah zadeve popolnoma upravičeno odločile, da intervenirajo v postopku, ki ga je DAI začela septembra 1984 pred Tribunale civile di Roma zoper Assedile in AIMA.
The duration of those proceedings was not, and could not have been, within the applicants’ control.
Tožeče stranke niso in niso mogle nadzorovati trajanja tega postopka.
That court refused to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice.
To sodi�če je zavrnilo vložitev predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe pri Sodi�ču.
Had it done so, the matter would have become clear at that stage.
Če bi ga, bi bila zadeva pojasnjena že na tej stopnji.
In the context of such a reference, the Court would necessarily have reviewed the structure of Regulation No 2499/82.
V okviru predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe bi moralo Sodi�če preveriti zgradbo Uredbe �t. 2499/82.
In so doing, it would have identified the lacuna in that regulation (as the Court of First Instance subsequently did), namely that if a Member State took one of the two available options for channelling aid, funds earmarked for the producers as ultimate recipients would in circumstances such as those of the present case be refunded to the Community rather than paid to the producers.
Pri tem bi prepoznalo pravno praznino v tej uredbi (kot jo je kasneje Sodi�če prve stopnje), to je če država članica izbere eno od dveh možnosti za posredovanje pomoči, se v okoli�činah, kot so v obravnavani zadevi, sredstva, namenjena proizvajalcem kot končnim prejemnikom, povrnejo Skupnosti, namesto da bi se izplačala proizvajalcem.
For the sake of completeness, I should add that the applicants subsequently brought an action against AIMA before the national courts for unjust enrichment.
Za popolno presojo moram dodati, da so tožeče stranke pri nacionalnih sodi�čih kasneje vložile tožbo zoper AIMA zaradi neupravičene obogatitve.
56 As the applicants themselves realised, once they had approached the Commission and ascertained that the funds derived from the Assedile security had been transferred by AIMA to the Commission and credited to the EAGGF account, 57 that claim was also bound to fail: there had been no unjust enrichment of AIMA.
56Tožeče stranke so, potem ko so se pri Komisiji prepričale, da je AIMA prenesla sredstva iz var�čine Assedile na Komisijo in jih nakazala na račun EKUJS, 57same ugotovile, da tudi s tem zahtevkom ne bi uspele – neupravičene obogatitve AIMA ni bilo.
An argument could be made out for saying that it was only at that point that the last, flickering hope of success via the national courts was extinguished.
Lahko bi trdila tudi, da je �ele v tem trenutku ugasnilo zadnje upanje na uspeh pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
I do not think it necessary or appropriate to go that far.
Menim, da to ni nujno niti primerno.
In the absence of a reference leading to such a review, however, it was only at the final conclusion of the national proceedings (the judgment of the Corte di Cassazione of 28 November 1994) that those four out of the five applicants who had appealed against the judgment of the Tribunale civile di Roma 55knew that their attempt to obtain payment of the Community aid that was rightfully theirs through the national courts could not succeed.
Brez predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, na podlagi katerega bi se opravilo opisano preverjanje, so �tiri od petih tožečih strank, ki so vložile pritožbo zoper sodbo Tribunale civile di Roma, 55 �ele ob zaključku nacionalnega postopka (sodba Corte di Cassazione z dne 28. novembra 1994) vedele, da njihov poskus, da bi dosegle izplačilo pomoči Skupnosti, ki jim je zakonito pripadala, prek nacionalnih sodi�č, ne more uspeti.
That seems to me to be the appropriate point to hold that time had begun to run for the purposes of Article 46 of the Statute.
Menim, da je to primeren trenutek, da se ga določi za začetek teka roka v skladu s členom 46 Statuta.
56 — On 16 February 1996: see paragraph 38 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance, mentioned above at point 34.
56 – 16. februarja 1996; glej točko 38 sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje, navedeno zgoraj v točki 34.
57 — See paragraphs 39 and 40 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
55 – Glej zgoraj navedeni točki 30 in 32.
55 — See points 30 and 32 above.
57 – Glej točki 39 in 40 sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
It therefore seems to me that, objectively, the failure of the appeal to the Corte di Cassazione spelled the end of any realistic chance that the applicants could succeed before the national courts.
Tako se mi zdi, da je neuspeh pritožbe pred Corte di Cassazione objektivno pomenil konec vsake realne možnosti, da bi tožeče stranke uspele pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
58It follows that that was when the damage suffered could be regarded as ‘certain’.
58To pomeni, da je bila takrat �koda, ki so jo utrpele tožeče stranke, lahko obravnavana kot „nedvomna“.
At that point, the damage was indeed both imminent and foreseeable, even if it could not yet be accurately determined. 59
V tistem trenutku je bila �koda neizbežna in predvidljiva, čeprav je �e ni bilo mogoče natančno določiti. 59
Here, if the applicants had brought a claim against the Commission at the outset it is highly likely that the Commission would have taken the view that the correct forum was the national court, both because Community aid in the agricultural sector is normally paid via the national intervention board and because national insolvency proceedings were under way.
Če bi v tej zadevi tožeče stranke že na začetku vložile tožbo proti Komisiji, je zelo verjetno, da bi ta zavzela stali�če, da je pravilno mesto nacionalno sodi�če, ker se pomoč Skupnosti v kmetijskem sektorju običajno izplača prek nacionalne intervencijske uprave in ker je tekel nacionalni postopek zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti.
In that context, I find it significant that, even in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the Commission continued to argue that national procedures did provide the applicants with an effective remedy.
V tem okviru je po mojem mnenju pomembno, da je Komisija tudi v postopku pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje �e vedno zatrjevala, da so nacionalni postopki zagotovili učinkovito pravno varstvo tožečim strankam.
I accept that the present case does not fit neatly into the existing caselaw, referred to by both the Court of First Instance in its judgment and the Commission in its appeal.
Priznam, da obravnavana zadeva ne sodi povsem v obstoječo sodno prakso, na katero se sklicujeta Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbi in Komisija v pritožbi.
That caselaw was not, however, developed in the context of circumstances such as those giving rise to the present case, where the situation falls uncomfortably between the national and Community legal systems.
Vendar pa se ta sodna praksa ni razvila na podlagi okoli�čin, kakr�ne so povzročile obravnavano zadevo, v katerih je problematika nerodno postavljena med nacionalni pravni sistem in pravni sistem Skupnosti.
In the caselaw to date, in contrast, the basic problem of determining which of those systems was the appropriate forum for proceedings was not at issue.
Nasprotno, v dosedanji sodni praksi se �e ni postavilo osnovno vpra�anje, kateri od obeh sistemov je ustrezno pristojno mesto za začetek postopkov.
If the prescription defence were to succeed in the present case, the result would be to deny the applicants access to the courts and hence to justice.
Če bi morali sprejeti ugovor zastaranja v tej zadevi, bi bil tožečim strankam onemogočen dostop do sodi�č in s tem do pravice.
Such a result would run counter to the fundamental principle that Community law operates in a way that affords effective judicial protection to persons on whom it confers rights.
To bi bilo v nasprotju s temeljnim načelom, da pravo Skupnosti nudi učinkovito pravno varstvo osebam, ki jim podeljuje pravice.
The applicants are persons who are entitled to receive payment of Community aid in respect of the wine that they sent to DAI for distillation and who have been deprived of their money through a lacuna in Regulation No 2499/82 for which the Court of First Instance has held the Commission responsible.
Tožeče stranke so osebe, ki imajo pravico do izplačila pomoči Skupnosti za vino, ki so ga poslale DAI v destilacijo, in ki so bile prikraj�ane za svoj denar zaradi pravne praznine v Uredbi �t. 2499/82, za katero je po ugotovi -tvah Sodi�ča prve stopnje odgovorna Komisija.
There is no challenge before the Court on the merits.
Pred Sodi�čem se utemeljenost pravic ni izpodbijala.
It would in my view be wholly wrong for the prescription defence to succeed in the exceptional circumstances of the present case.
Po mojem mnenju bi bilo povsem narobe, sprejeti ugovor zastaranja glede na izjemne okoli�čine obravnavane zadeve.
58 — In so saying, I bear in mind that the applicants were aware of the risk that the sum derived from forfeiture of the se curity would at some stage be paid by AIMA to the Commission and credited to the EAGGF account.
58 – Pri tem mislim, da so bile tožeče stranke seznanjene s tveganjem, da bo znesek, ki izvira iz zapadle var�čine, na eni stopnji AIMA izplačala Komisiji in ga nakazala na račun EKUJS.
Their hope, in the main national proceedings, was that the security would not be declared forfeit and/or that the national court could be persuaded to make some other order that would result in their receiving payment of the aid.
V nacionalnem postopku v glavni stvari so upale, da var�čina ne bo označena za zapadlo in/ali da bodo nacionalno sodi�če lahko prepričale, naj sprejme sklep, na podlagi katerega bi prejele izplačilo pomoči.
For the reasons I have given, I accept that, objectively, it was reasonable for them to try that route.
Iz razlogov, ki sem jih navedla, dopu�čam možnost, da je bilo zanje objektivno upravičeno, da poskusijo to pot.
In contrast, I regard the unjust enrichment proceedings against AIMA as being more in the nature of a forlorn last hope.
Nasprotno pa menim, da je postopek zoper AIMA zaradi neupravičene obogatitve imel bolj naravo izgubljenega zadnjega upanja.
59 — See paragraphs 129 and 130 and paragraph 149 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
59 – Glej točki 129 in 130 ter točko 149 sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
The exact extent of the applicants’ losses could only be quantified after, as preferential creditors, they had recovered part of the unpaid debts owed to them by DAI at the conclusion of the insolvency proceedings in 2000.
Natančen obseg izgub tožečih strank se je lahko določil �ele, ko so po zaključku nesolventnega postopka v letu 2000 kot privilegirani upniki prejele del neplačanega dolga, ki jim ga je dolgoval DAI.
I would accordingly dismiss the appeal and uphold the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
V skladu z navedenim predlagam zavrnitev pritožbe in potrditev sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
Na podlagi člena 69(2) Poslovnika se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni. Tožeče stranke so priglasile stro�ke. Menim, da je peta tožeča stranka
In appeal with regard to all five applicants.
(Cantina sociale del Vermentino), v nasprotju s prvimi �tirimi, neuspela stranka.
For the reasons given above, I consider that the Court should:
Iz zgoraj navedenih razlogov menim, da bi moralo Sodi�če:
— dismiss the appeal;
– zavrniti pritožbo;
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal.
– naložiti Komisiji, naj plača stro�ke pritožbenega postopka.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (četrti senat) z dne 17. julija 2008*
In Case C-51/05 P,
V zadevi C-51/05 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, ki je bila vložena 7. februarja 2005,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 7 February 2005,
Komisija Evropskih skupnosti, ki jo zastopata C. Cattabriga, zastopnica, in L.
Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, appellant, the other parties to the proceedings being:
Visaggio, zastopnik, z naslovom za vročanje v Luxembourgu, pritožnica, druge stranke v postopku
JUDGMENT OF 17. 7.
SODBA Z DNE 17. 7.
2008 — CASE C-51/05 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-51/05 P
Advocate General: E. Sharpston, Registrar: R. Grass, having regard to the written procedure, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 November 2007,
Grass, na podlagi pisnega postopka, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 22. novembra 2007
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS gives the following
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI izreka naslednjo
16), payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for by that regulation.
16), izplačilo pomoči Skupnosti, določene s to uredbo zadevnim proizvajalcem.
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 sets the minimum buyingin price for wines for distillation.
Člen 5(1) Uredbe �t. 2499/82 določa minimalno nakupno ceno vina, ki je namenjeno destilaciji.
According to the 8th recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2499/82, that price normally renders it impossible to market the products of distillation at market prices.
Na podlagi osme uvodne izjave Uredbe �t. 2499/82 ta cena običajno ne omogoča trženja proizvodov, pridobljenih z destilacijo, po tržnih pogojih.
The regulation therefore laid down a compensation procedure whereby the
Zato Uredba predvideva mehanizem kompenzacije, ki je določen tako, da intervencijski organ izplača
2008 — CASE C-51/05 P intervention agency would pay fixed aid for distilled wine, the amount of which is set out in Article 6 thereof.
2008 – ZADEVA C-51/05 P pomoč, katere vi�ina je za destilirano vino določena v prvi in drugi alinei člena 6 navedene uredbe.
Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides:
Člen 9 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 določa:
The intervention agency shall pay to the distiller the aid provided for in Article 6(1) and, where appropriate, the increase in the minimum buyingin price referred to in the second subparagraph of Article 5(1) within 90 days of submission of proof that the total quantity of wine specified in the contract has been distilled.
Intervencijski organ destilaterju najkasneje v devetdesetih dneh po predložitvi dokaza, da je bila celotna količina vina, določenega v pogodbi, destilirana, izplača pomoč, določeno v členu 6(1), ter, kadar je to primerno, povi�anje minimalne nakupne cene določene v drugi alinei člena 5(1).
The distiller shall be required to supply the intervention agency with proof that he has paid the minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1) within the period specified in paragraph 1 and, where appropriate, the increase in the said price within the period referred to in the fourth paragraph.
Destilater mora intervencijskemu organu predložiti dokazilo, da je plačal minimalno nakupno ceno iz prve alinee člena 5(1) v roku, določenem v prvem odstavku, ter povi�anje navedene cene v roku, določenem v četrtem odstavku.
If such proof is not submitted within 120 days of the date of submission of the proof referred to in the first paragraph, the amounts paid shall be recovered by the intervention agency. …’
Če tega dokaza ne predloži v stodvajsetih dneh po dnevu, ko predloži dokaz iz prvega odstavka, intervencijski organ izterja že plačane zneske.
Article 11 of Regulation No 2499/82 provides:
Člen 11 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 določa:
The distiller in the case referred to in Article 9 … may ask for an amount equal to the aid referred to in the first paragraph of Article 6 to be paid to him by way of advance on condition that he has provided a security equal to 110% of the said amount in the name of the intervention agency.
Destilater, v primeru, ki ga določa člen 9, ali proizvajalec v primeru, ki ga določa člen 10, lahko zahteva, da se mu izplača znesek, ki je enak pomoči, določeni v prvem odstavku člena 6, kot predujem, pod pogojem, da zagotovi zavarovanje v korist intervencijskega organa v vi�ini 110 % tega zneska.
The security shall be provided in the form of a guarantee by an establishment meeting the criteria laid down by the Member State to which the intervention agency is responsible.
To zavarovanje je zagotovljeno v obliki jamstva, ki ga da družba, ki ustreza merilom, ki jih je določila država članica, ki ji pripada intervencijski organ.
Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice provides:
Člen 46 Statuta Sodi�ča določa:
‘Proceedings against the Communities in matters arising from noncontractual liability shall be barred after a period of five years from the occurrence of the event giving rise thereto.
„Tožbe proti skupnostim v zadevah, ki izhajajo iz nepogodbene odgovornosti, zastarajo po petih letih od nastanka kr�itve.
The period of limitation shall be interrupted if proceedings are instituted before the Court or if, prior to such proceedings, an application is made by the aggrieved party to the relevant institution of the Communities.
Zastaralni rok se prekine, če se pri Sodi�ču vloži tožba ali če je o�kodovanec predhodno naslovil svojo zahtevo na pristojno institucijo Skupnosti.
In the latter event the proceedings must be instituted within the period of two months provided for in Article 230 of the EC Treaty and Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty; the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 232 of the EC Treaty and the second paragraph of Article 148 of the EAEC Treaty, respectively, shall apply where appropriate.’
V tem primeru je treba postopek sprožiti v dvomesečnem roku, predvidenem v členu 230 Pogodbe ES in členu 146 Pogodbe ESAE; kjer je to primerno, se uporabljajo določbe drugega odstavka člena 232 Pogodbe ES oziroma drugega odstavka člena 148 Pogodbe ESAE.“
Facts of the dispute
Dejansko stanje
The facts of the dispute, as set out in paragraphs 16 to 44 of the judgment under appeal, may be summarised as follows.
V nadaljevanju sledi povzetek dejanskega stanja, kot izhaja iz točk od 16 do 44 izpodbijane sodbe.
The Cantine, which are wine cooperatives, are producers of wine in Sardinia (Italy).
Vinske kleti so vinogradni�ke zadruge, ki so proizvajalci vin na Sardiniji (Italija).
In the context of preventive distillation in respect of the 1982/1983 marketing year they delivered, between January and March 1983, wine to DAI which was distilled within the timelimit laid down by the provisions of Article 4 of Regulation No 2499/82.
V okviru preventivne destilacije za tržno leto 1982/1983 so med januarjem in marcem 1983 DAI dobavile vino, ki je bilo destilirano v rokih, ki jih določa člen 4 Uredbe �t. 2499/82.
The 90-day period laid down by Article 9(1) of that regulation within which DAI was required to pay the Cantine expired in June 1983.
Devetdesetdnevni rok, ki ga ima DAI na podlagi člena 9(1) navedene uredbe za plačilo vinskim kletem, se je iztekel junija 1983.
On 10 August 1983, AIMA paid the advance requested to DAI in accordance with Article 11.
AIMA je 10. avgusta 1983 v skladu s členom 11 izplačal DAI zahtevani predujem pomoči Skupnosti.
Due to financial difficulties, DAI failed to pay, either in full or in part, the producers, including the Cantine, who had delivered wine for distillation.
DAI zaradi finančnih težav ni poplačal, odvisno od primera, v celoti ali delno, proizvajalcev, med njimi vinskih kleti, ki so dobavile vino, namenjeno destilaciji.
In October 1983 DAI applied for administration under Italian bankruptcy law.
DAI je oktobra 1983 predlagal začetek postopka prisilnega upravljanja, ki ga predvideva italijansko stečajno pravo.
As the court to which the matter was subsequently referred, the Tribunale di Oristano (District Court, Oristano) (Italy), granted that application, DAI suspended all its payments, including those still owed to the producers who had delivered wine to it.
Ker je sodi�če, na katero je bil naslovljen ta predlog, to je Tribunale d’Oristano (Italija), predlogu ugodilo, je DAI ustavil vsa izplačila, vključno s tistimi, ki jih je bila dolžan proizvajalcem, ki so mu dobavili vino.
AIMA requested DAI to reimburse the Community aid, less the sums duly paid to the abovementioned producers, on the ground that DAI had not supplied it, within the timelimit laid down in Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2499/82, with proof that
Organ AIMA je zahteval od DAI, naj vrne pomoč Skupnosti, od katere bi od�tel zneske, ki so bili pravilno izplačani zgoraj navedenim proizvajalcem, ker mu DAI
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS it had paid the other producers the minimum buyingin price for wine within the period of 90 days after the entry into the distillery laid down in Article 9(1) thereof.
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI v roku, določenem v členu 9(2) Uredbe �t. 2499/82, ni predložil dokazila o plačilu minimalne nakupne cene za vino drugim proizvajalcem v devetdesetih dneh po dobavi v destilarno, predvidenem v členu 9(1) te uredbe.
As DAI did not reimburse that aid, AIMA applied to Assedile for payment of the security.
Ker DAI te pomoči ni vrnil, je organ AIMA zahteval, naj mu Assedile izplača znesek var�čine.
At the request of DAI, the Pretore di Terralba (Magistrate’s Court, Terralba) (Italy) made an interim order on 26 July 1984 prohibiting Assedile from paying the security to AIMA.
Na podlagi zahteve DAI je Pretore de Terralba (Italija) 26. julija 1984 izdalo začasno odredbo, s katero je Assedile prepovedalo plačati var�čino organu AIMA.
It gave DAI a period of 60 days within which to bring an action on the merits of the case.
Za DAI je bil določen rok �estdesetdnevni rok za vložitev tožbe v glavni stvari.
In September 1984 DAI brought such an action before the Tribunale civile di Roma (Civil District Court, Rome) (Italy).
DAI je septembra 1984 vložil tako tožbo pred Tribunale civile v Rimu (Italija).
It claimed inter alia that that court should declare that the producers were the intended ultimate recipients of the security provided by Assedile, to the extent of the sums still owed to them.
Predlagal je predvsem, naj to sodi�če ugotovi, da bi bili proizvajalci končni prejemniki var�čine, ki je bila zagotovljena pri Assedile v okviru zneskov, ki jim jih je �e treba izplačati.
It maintained that that security was intended to guarantee payment of the minimum buyingin price to producers in proportion to the amount of production delivered in the event of the distiller failing to meet its obligations.
Zatrjeval je, da je bila var�čina namenjena zavarovanju plačila minimalne nakupne cene proizvajalcem, sorazmerno z dobavljeno proizvodnjo, če destilater ne izpolni svojih obveznosti.
It proposed that questions concerning the interpretation of the relevant Community regulations should be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Predlagal je, naj se Sodi�ču postavi vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje glede razlage uredb Skupnosti, ki se uporabljajo v tej zadevi.