natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, the Italian authorities carried out postclearance checks on 103 A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant in the course of various import operations.
Italijanski organi so zato naknadno preverili 103 potrdila A.TR.1, ki jih je pritožnica predložila pri različnih uvozih.
In accordance with the relevant provisions, the request for verification of the authenticity of that certificate was sent to the Turkish authorities.
V skladu s členom 29 sklepa �t. 1/95 je bila zahteva za preverjanje pristnosti tega potrdila naslovljena na tur�ke organe.
By letter of 10 July 1998, the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Turkey to the European Union (‘the Turkish Perman- ent Representation’) notified the Commission that A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant, listed in an annex to that letter and concerning exports by the Turkish company Akman to Italy, were ‘false’.
Stalno predstavni�tvo Republike Turčije pri Evropski uniji (v nadaljevanju: tur�ko stalno predstavni�tvo) je z dopisom z dne 10. julija 1998 obvestilo Komisijo, da so potrdila A.TR.1 za izvoze tur�kega podjetja Akman v Italijo, ki jih je predložila pritožnica in ki so na�teta v prilogi k temu dopisu, lažna („false“).
The Commission forwarded that letter to the Italian customs authorities by letter of 20 July 1998.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 20. julija 1998 ta dopis posredovala italijanskim organom.
By letter of 15 May 1998, the Turkish authorities notified the Ravenna customs services that the checks carried out showed
Tur�ki organi so z dopisom z dne 15. maja 1998 obvestili carinsko službo Ravene, da iz opravljenega preverjanja izhaja, da to potrdilo ni pristno, saj ga niso izdali
Between 12 and 15 October 1998 and between 30 November and 2 December 1998, the European Commission’s Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention ((UCLAF), predecessor to OLAF) carried out checks in Turkey.
Enota za koordinacijo boja proti goljufijam (UCLAF, predhodnica OLAF) je od 12. do 15. oktobra 1998 ter od 30. novembra do 2. decembra 1998 opravila preverjanja v Turčiji.
By letter of 8 March 1999, the Turkish Permanent Representation notified the customs services in Ravenna that 32 A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant (‘the certificates at issue’), including 18 of the certificates listed in the annex to the letter of 10 July 1998, had been neither issued nor validated by the Turkish authorities.
Tur�ko stalno predstavni�tvo je z dopisom z dne 8. marca 1999 obvestilo carinsko službo Ravene, da 32 potrdil A.TR.1, ki jih je predložila pritožnica (v nadaljevanju: sporna potrdila), od tega 18 potrdil, na�tetih v dopisu z dne 10. julija 1998, tur�ki organi niso niti izdali niti potrdili.
By letter of 28 March 2000 to the Ravenna customs services, the appellant, relying on Article 220(2)(b) and Articles 236 and 239 of the CCC, claimed that import duties should not have been entered in the accounts postclearance and that the import duties claimed should be repaid.
Pritožnica je z dopisom z dne 28. marca 2000 s sklicevanjem na člene 220(2)(b), 236 in 239 CZS pri carinski službi Ravene zahtevala, naj se ne opravi naknadna vknjižba oziroma naj se povrnejo zahtevane uvozne dajatve.
In support of its claim, the appellant pleaded its good faith, errors on the part of the competent authorities that could not have been detected and deficiencies attributable to those authorities.
Da bi utemeljila svoj zahtevek, se je sklicevala na dobro vero, na napake pristojnih organov, ki jih ni bilo mogoče odkriti, in na njihovo kr�itev obveznosti.
By letter of 30 November 2001, the Italian Republic asked the Commission to decide whether it was appropriate to waive subsequent entry in the accounts of the import duties claimed from the appellant pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, or to repay those duties under Article 239 of the CCC.
Italijanska republika je z dopisom z dne 30. novembra 2001 Komisijo prosila, naj odloči, ali je upravičeno, da se v skladu s členom 220(2)(b) CZS ne opravi naknadna vknjižba uvoznih dajatev, ki jih je zahtevala pritožnica, ali da se v skladu s členom 239 CZS te dajatve povrnejo.
By letter of 3 June 2002, the Commission requested certain additional information from the Italian authorities. They replied by letter of 7 June 2002.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 3. junija 2002 prosila italijanske organe za dodatne informacije in ti so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 7. junija 2002.
By letter of 25 July 2002, the Commission informed the appellant of its intention not to consent to its claim.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. julija 2002 obvestila pritožnico o nameri, da ne bo ugodila njenemu zahtevku.
Before taking a final decision, however, the Commission invited the appellant to advise it of any observations it may have and to have access to the file so that it may inspect the non-confidential documents.
Pred sprejetjem dokončne odločitve pa je pritožnico pozvala, naj ji sporoči morebitne pripombe, in ji ponudila vpogled v spis v delu, ki se nana�a na dokumente, ki niso zaupni.
On 6 August 2002, the appellant’s representatives consulted the administrative
Zastopniki pritožnice so 6. avgusta 2002 v prostorih Komisije pregledali upravni spis. Podpisali
The Italian customs authorities took the view that it was clear from all the cor -respondence exchanged between themselves, the Commission, UCLAF and the Turkish authorities that the latter considered 48 A.TR.1 certificates, including the certificates at issue, relating to exports to Italy by the appellant through the Turkish company Akman, to be either forged or irregular.
Italijanski carinski organi so ugotovili, da iz vseh izmenjanih dopisov med njimi, Komisijo, UCLAF in tur�kimi organi izhaja, da so zadnjenavedeni menili, da je bilo 48 potrdil A.TR.1, med njimi sporna potrdila, o uvozih v Italijo v obliki dobav tur�kega podjetja Akman pritožnici lažnih ali nepravilnih.
In the present case, the 32 certificates at issue (corresponding to customs duties totalling ITL 3 296 190 371 or EUR 1 702 340.25) were considered to be forged, given that they had been neither issued nor validated by Turkish customs offices.
32 spornih potrdil (ki ustrezajo carini v skupnem znesku 3.296.190.371 ITL [italijanskih lir], to je 1.702.340,25 EUR) naj bi bilo ponarejenih, saj jih tur�ki carinski organi niso niti izdali niti potrdili.
On the other hand, the 16 other certificates (corresponding to customs duties totalling ITL 1 904 763 758 or EUR 983 728.38) were classified as invalid, given that, whilst they had been issued by the Turkish customs authorities, the goods concerned did not originate in Turkey.
Nasprotno naj bi bilo preostalih 16 potrdil (ki ustrezajo carini v skupnem znesku 1.904.763.758 ITL, to je 983.728,38 EUR), čeprav so jih izdali tur�ki carinski organi, neveljavnih, ker naj zadevno blago ne bi bilo tur�kega porekla.
Since all 48 certificates had been classified as either forged or invalid, the goods to which they related could not qualify for the preferential treatment accorded to imported Turkish agricultural products.
Ker je bilo za vseh 48 potrdil ugotovljeno, da so ponarejena ali neveljavna, za blago, ki jih ta zajemajo, ni moglo veljati preferencialno obravnavanje, predvideno za uvoz tur�kih kmetijskih proizvodov.
Accordingly, the Italian customs administration demanded the sum of ITL 5 200 954 129 or EUR 2 686 068.63 from the appellant by way of unpaid customs duties.
Italijanska carinska uprava je zato od pritožnice zahtevala plačilo dolgovane carine v skupnem znesku 5.200.954.129 ITL, to je 2.686.068,63 EUR.
B — The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgment file at the Commission’s offices. They also signed a declaration confirming that they had had access to the documents listed in an annex to that declaration.
B – Postopek pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba so tudi izjavo, s katero so potrdili, da so imeli dostop do dokumentov, navedenih v prilogi k tej izjavi.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 January 2003, the appellant brought an action against the Commission and claimed that the Court should annul Article 2 of the contested decision.
Pritožnica je s tožbo, vloženo v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje 29. januarja 2003, tožila Komisijo in zahtevala razglasitev ničnosti člena 2 izpodbijane odločbe.
It put forward three pleas in law in support of its action, alleging, firstly, infringement of the rights of the defence, secondly, infringement of Article 239 of the CCC and, thirdly, infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC.
Svoje zahtevke je utemeljila s tremi tožbenimi razlogi: prvič, s kr�itvijo pravic obrambe, drugič, s kr�itvijo člena 239 CZS in, tretjič, s kr�itvijo člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
By letter of 15 August 2002, the appellant submitted its observations to the Commission.
Pritožnica je z dopisom z dne 15. avgusta 2002 Komisiji predstavila svoja stali�ča.
It maintained, in particular, its position that the competent customs authorities had committed factual errors that it could not have detected, errors which it also likened to failings capable of giving rise to a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Vztrajala je zlasti pri tem, da so carinski organi z aktivnim ravnanjem storili napake, ki jih ni mogla odkriti in ki jih je mogoče enačiti s kr�itvijo obveznosti, kar je privedlo do posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS.
The Commission contended that the Court should dismiss the action and order the appellant to pay the costs.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se tožba zavrne in naj se pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka.
The Court dismissed the action in its entirety.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tožbo v celoti zavrnilo.
First plea in law
Prvi tožbeni razlog
By the first plea in law, the appellant maintained that its rights of defence had been infringed during the administrative proced- ure in that, although it had had access to the file containing the documents on which the Commission based the contested decision, it had not had access to documents which had
Pritožnica je s prvim tožbenim razlogom uveljavljala, da so bile njene pravice obrambe v upravnem postopku kr�ene s tem, da je sicer imela dostop do spisa, ki vsebuje dokumente, na katere je Komisija oprla izpodbijano odločbo, da pa ni imela vpogleda v tiste dokumente, ki so bili odločilni za skupno
On 18 October 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which was notified to the appellant on 21 November 2002.
Komisija je 18. oktobra 2002 sprejela izpodbijano odločbo, ki je bila pritožnici vročena 21. novembra 2002.
Firstly, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to enter in the accounts the import duties that were the subjectmatter of the claim.
Prvič, Komisija je ugotovila, da je vknjižba uvoznih dajatev, ki so predmet zahtevka, upravičena.
Secondly, however, it concluded that it was appropriate to repay import duties in respect of the part of the claim relating to the 16 invalid certificates since, in that regard, the appellant was in a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Drugič, ugotovila je, da je upravičeno povračilo uvoznih dajatev za del zahtevka, ki se nana�a na 16 neveljavnih potrdil, saj za pritožnico v tem pogledu obstaja poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Thirdly, with regard to the 32 certificates at issue, it concluded, on the other hand, that the circumstances relied on by the appellant could not give rise to a special situation within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC.
Glede 32 spornih potrdil pa je, tretjič, ugotovila, da okoli�čine, na katere se je sklicevala pritožnica, ne utemeljujejo posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Consequently, in Article 2 of the contested decision, the Commission decided that it was not appropriate to repay the import duties relating to those certificates, amounting to EUR 1 702 340.25.
Zato je Komisija v členu 2 izpodbijane odločbe odločila, da povračilo zadevnih uvoznih dajatev v znesku 1.702.340,25 EUR ni upravičeno.
With regard to the documents used by the Commission as the basis for the contested decision, the Court found, in paragraphs 98 to 100 of the contested judgment, that the appellant had consulted the file relating to the contested decision at the Commission’s offices and had signed a written declaration expressly confirming that access had been granted to all documents directly or indirectly connected with the matter at issue.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede dokumentov, ki jih je Komisija uporabila za utemeljitev sporne odločbe, v točkah od 98 do 100 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da je pritožnica v prostorih Komisije pregledala spis in podpisala pisno izjavo, v kateri je izrecno potrdila, da je imela dostop do vseh dokumentov, ki imajo neposredno ali posredno povezavo s sporno zadevo.
Furthermore, a list was annexed to that declaration setting out all the documents to which the appellant’s representative had had access.
Dalje naj bi bil tej izjavi priložen seznam, ki je vseboval vse dokumente, do katerih je imel zastopnik pritožnice dostop.
On the basis of that list, the Court concluded that the appellant had indeed consulted various documents which, according to its submissions, it had been unable to consult.
Na podlagi tega seznama je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je pritožnica dejansko imela vpogled v različne dokumente, za katere je navedla, da jih ni mogla pregledati.
Rejecting that plea in law, the Court held, in paragraph 88 of the contested judgment, that, in that context, the principle of respect for the rights of the defence implies only that the party concerned be placed in a position in which it may effectively make its views known as regards the evidence — including the documents — used against it by the Commission as a basis for the decision, and that there is therefore no requirement for Commission, acting on its own initiative, to grant access to all the documents which may have some connection with the case at issue when an application for remission is referred to it.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ta tožbeni razlog zavrnilo in v točki 88 izpodbijane sodbe odločilo, da na tem področju načelo spo�tovanja pravic obrambe obsega samo to, da lahko zadevna stranka primerno predstavi svoje stali�če glede dejstev, vključno z dokumenti, ki jih je Komisija v njeno breme uporabila za utemeljitev svoje odločbe, in da zato Komisiji ni treba po uradni dolžnosti omogočiti vpogleda v vse dokumente, ki so morebiti povezani z obravnavanim primerom, ki ji je predložen v okviru zahtevka za odpust.
As to the correspondence exchanged by the Commission and UCLAF with the Turkish authorities and the national customs authorities of the Member States, the Court held that there was no evidence to suggest that the Commission based the contested decision on any documents other than those in the file to which the applicant had access at the consultation on 6 August 2002.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede izmenjanih sporočil med Komisijo in UCLAF ter med tur�kimi organi in nacionalnimi carinskimi organi držav članic odločilo, da noben dokaz ne dopu�ča domneve, da je Komisija izpodbijano odločbo utemeljila z drugimi dokumenti, kot so tisti iz spisa, do katerega je imela tožeča stranka dostop med pregledom spisa 6. avgusta 2002.
The second plea in law
Drugi tožbeni razlog
The second plea in law, which alleged infringement of Article 239 of the CCC and was also rejected by the Court of First Instance, is composed of four parts.
Drugi tožbeni razlog, ki je bil oprt na kr�itev člena 239 CZS in ki ga je Sodi�če prve stopnje prav tako zavrnilo, je razdeljen na �tiri dele.
The first part concerns incorrect classification of A.TR.1 movement of goods certificate D 437214.
Prvi del se nana�a na nepravilno opredelitev potrdila o gibanju blaga A.TR.1 D 437214.
The second and third parts relate,
Drugi in tretji del se nana�ata na hude kr�itve obveznosti, ki se očitajo tur�kim
The Court then held, in paragraph 92, that the fact that the documents to which the appellant had been unable to obtain access during the administrative procedure were not expressly mentioned in the contested decision did not preclude the fact that the contested decision may have been based on some of those documents.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 92 nato odločilo, da okoli�čina, da dokumenti, v katere pritožnica v upravnem postopku ni imela vpogleda, niso izrecno navedeni v izpodbijani odločbi, ne izključuje možnosti, da bi lahko bili nekateri od teh dokumentov uporabljeni pri utemeljitvi izpodbijane odločbe.
This could not apply to all of the voluminous correspondence to which the appellant referred, since at least some of those documents simply related to the background to the case at issue.
To naj ne bi veljalo za vso obsežno korespondenco, na katero se sklicuje pritožnica, saj se vsaj nekateri od teh dokumentov nana�ajo zgolj na kontekst zadeve.
With regard to those documents ‘relating to the background’, the Court of First Instance held that, where documents which have not been used as the basis of a contested decision are not communicated, any failure to communicate them is irrelevant, given that such documents cannot, in any case, have any bearing on the contested decision.
Glede teh dokumentov, „ki se nana�ajo na kontekst zadeve“, je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo, da je morebitno neposredovanje dokumentov, na katerih ne temelji izpodbijana odločba, neupo�tevno, saj ti dokumenti nikakor ne morejo vplivati na izpodbijano odločbo.
Accordingly, it rejected the first plea in law as irrelevant, in so far as it concerned the failure to communicate such documents.
Zato je prvi tožbeni razlog, kolikor se nana�a na to, da taki dokumenti niso bili posredovani, zavrnilo kot neučinkovit.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION where the annulment of the decision could only lead to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the annulled decision (paragraph 133).
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI jo je imela odločba, ki je bila razgla�ena za nično (točka 133).
Lastly, the fourth part concerns lack of obvious negligence on the part of the appellant and the assessment of commercial risks.
Četrti del pa se nana�a na nemalomarnost pritožnice in na presojo poslovnega tveganja.
The Court then examined the second part of the second plea in law, alleging various deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities, which were essentially based on the proposition that the Turkish authorities did in fact issue and endorse the certificates at issue.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato preučilo drugi del drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na različne trditve o kr�itvi obveznosti tur�kih organov, ki so večinoma temeljile na tezi, da so ti organi dejansko izdali in potrdili sporna potrdila.
With regard to the first part of the second plea in law, the Court first recalled that determination of the origin of goods is based on a division of powers between the authorities of the exporting country and those of the importing country, origin being established by the authorities of the exporting country, and then examined the correspondence between the Commission, the Italian authorities and the Turkish authorities.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede prvega dela drugega tožbenega razloga najprej spomnilo na to, da določitev porekla blaga temelji na porazdelitvi pristojnosti med organi države izvoznice in organi države uvoznice, pri čemer prvi ugotavljajo poreklo, in nato preučilo korespondenco med Komisijo, italijanskimi in tur�kimi organi.
In that regard, the Court noted in paragraph 122 that the Commission based the part of its contested decision concerning the forged certificates essentially on the Turkish authorities’ letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs services.
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 122 ugotovilo, da se je Komisija v tistem delu izpodbijane odločbe, ki se nana�a na ponarejena potrdila, oprla predvsem na dopis tur�kih organov carinski službi Ravene z dne 8. marca 1999.
However, the Court noted that a comparison between the wording of that letter and the wording of subsequent communications from the Turkish authorities disclosed ambiguities as to the classification of certificate D 437214 and that the Commission was not in a position properly to conclude that certificate D 437214 had been forged prior to the adoption of the contested decision (paragraphs 124 and 128).
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je pri primerjavi vsebine tega dopisa s poznej�imi sporočili tur�kih organov ugotovilo, da opredelitev potrdila D 437214 ni popolnoma nedvoumna in da Komisija pred sprejetjem izpodbijane odločbe ni mogla pravilno sklepati, da je potrdilo D 437214 ponarejeno (točke od 124 do 128).
However, that consideration did not suffice to annul the contested decision, in the light of the content of a letter of 22 August 2003, that is, dating from the time after the decision at issue, in which the Turkish authorities confirmed their conclusions contained in their letter of 8 March 1999 because the appellant could not be regarded as having any legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision on the ground of a procedural defect
To pa naj glede na vsebino dopisa z dne 22. avgusta 2003, torej iz časa po sprejetju sporne odločbe, v katerem naj bi tur�ki organi potrdili sklepe iz njihovega dopisa z dne 8. marca 1999, �e ne bi moglo zadostovati za razglasitev ničnosti izpodbijane odločbe, saj naj pritožnica ne bi imela nobenega upravičenega interesa za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe zaradi napake v obliki, če bi se lahko po razglasitvi ničnosti odločbe znova sprejela le odločba z isto vsebino, kot
In this connection, in paragraphs 150 to 152 of the contested judgment, the Court first pointed out that, on the one hand, it lay within the exclusive competence of the Turkish authorities to determine whether documents they had issued were original or forged, and that, on the other, those author -ities had concluded that the certificates at issue were forged.
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej v točkah od 150 do 152 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da je po eni strani ugotovitev, ali so dokumenti, ki so jih izdali tur�ki organi, pristni ali ponarejeni, v izključni pristojnosti teh organov in da so po drugi strani ti organi sklepali, da so sporna potrdila ponarejena.
It then rejected the appellant’s argument that the stamps and signatures applied to the certificates at issue demonstrate that they were in all likelihood issued and authenticated by the Turkish authorities.
Nato je zavrnilo trditev pritožnice, da je mogoče na podlagi odtisov žigov in podpisov na spornih potrdilih sklepati, da so jih očitno izdali in overovili tur�ki organi.
Moreover, neither the Association Agreement nor the implementation provisions expressly provide that registers of the certificates issued by the Turkish authorities are to be kept (paragraph 161).
Niti sporazum o pridružitvi in določbe za njegovo izvajanje naj ne bi izrecno predvidevali vodenja registrov o potrdilih, ki so jih izdali tur�ki organi (točka 161).
The Court further observed that presentation of documents which prove to be forgeries does not of itself permit it to be concluded that there was some kind of collusion between the exporters and the customs authorities which issued them (paragraphs 167
Dalje je Sodi�če prve stopnje navedlo, da predložitev dokumentov, ki se izkažejo kot lažni, sama po sebi ne dopu�ča sklepanja o kakr�nem koli goljufivem sodelovanju med izvozniki in carinskimi organi, ki so jih izdajali (točki 167 in 168).
and 168). Finally, the Court held that the Turkish authorities had not failed to fulfil their obligations to provide administrative assistance and that the appellant’s argument was not substantiated by any evidence (paragraphs 216 to 218).
potem ko je ugotovilo, da se Komisija v delu izpodbijane odločbe, ki se nana�a na ponarejena potrdila, ni opredelila glede skrbnega ravnanja ali malomarnosti pritožnice (točki 295 in 296).
Next, the Court of First Instance examined the third part of the second plea in law, alleging a number of deficiencies attributable to the European Commission.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato preučilo tretji del drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na vrsto zatrjevanih kr�itev obveznosti Evropske komisije.