natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the Court of First Instance, that does not in fact mean that ‘all the necessary checks were carried out and does not show that such on-the-spot checks were the result of an effective risk analysis carried out after 31 August’. 40
31. avgustu in da so bili izvedeni popravki. Ta okoli�čina namreč po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje ne pomeni, „da je bil opravljen ves potreben nadzor, in ne dokazuje, da je nadzor na kraju samem privedel do zanesljive analize tveganj, opravljene po 31. avgustu“. 40
— set aside the judgment under appeal and, allowing the application made at first instance, annul the contested decision;
– izpodbijano sodbo razveljavi, ugotovi, da je tožba, vložena na prvi stopnji, dopustna, ter razglasi ničnost sporne odločbe;
Finally, the Court of First Instance also rejected the second part of the second plea, based on the lack of any real risk of loss for the EAGGF — a further condition for the imposition of a financial correction under the Guidelines — and the third plea concerning a breach of the principle of proportionality.
Na koncu je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo tudi drugi del drugega tožbenega razloga, s katerim je pritožnica uveljavljala neobstoj resničnega tveganja izgub za EKUJS, kar je naknaden pogoj za uporabo finančnih popravkov v smislu Smernic, in tretji tožbeni razlog v zvezi s kr�itvijo načela sorazmernosti.
— in the further alternative, set aside the judgment under appeal, and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance.
– podredno, razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo in zadevo vrne Sodi�ču prve stopnje;
IV — Procedure before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought
IV – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi Strank
— order the Commission to pay the costs of both the appeal proceedings and the proceedings at first instance.
Komisiji naloži plačilo pritožbenih stro�kov in stro�kov, nastalih na prvi stopnji.
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 13 October 2006, the Kingdom of Belgium brought an appeal against the abovementioned judgment.
Pritožnica je 13. oktobra 2006 pri sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložila pritožbo zoper navedeno sodbo.
— dismiss the appeal;
– pritožbo zavrne;
The representatives of the parties were heard at the hearing which took place on 21 June 2007.
Zastopniki strank so bili zasli�ani na obravnavi 21. junija 2007.
40 — Ibidem, paragraph 70.
40 – Enako, točka 70.
— order the appellant to pay the costs.
– pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov.
A — The appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
A – Pritožba zoper sodbo Sodišča prve stopnje
The appellant adduces four grounds in support of its appeal.
Pritožnica v utemeljitev pritožbe uveljavlja �tiri pritožbene razloge.
The first alleges distortion of the facts.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na izkrivljanje dejstev.
The third alleges infringement of the principle of proportionality.
Tretji pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na kr�itev načela sorazmernosti.
The fourth ground of appeal alleges error of law as regards the unlimited jurisdiction of the Community Courts in the matter at issue.
Četrti pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na nepravilno uporabo prava glede neomejene pristojnosti sodi�ča Skupnosti na obravnavanem področju.
The first ground of appeal alleging distortion of the facts photographic images (and not maps or land registers). By identifying agricultural parcels, the GIS was designed to make it possible to carry out cross-checks when carrying out administrative checks on the aid applications, for the purpose of identifying and eliminating overlap between parcels and preventing aid being granted more than once for the same parcel.
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: izkrivljanje dejstev je moral omogočiti z individualizacijo enot rabe ali poljine izvedbo navzkrižnega preverjanja pri upravnem nadzoru zahtevkov za pomoč, na podlagi katerih bi bilo mogoče odkriti in odstraniti prekrivanje enot rabe ali poljin in preprečiti izplačilo več pomoči za isto enoto rabe ali poljino.
However, in the crop years covered by the contested decision (1999-2001; ‘the material period’), the Belgian authorities never envisaged the GIS as an instrument for measuring the exact area of the agricultural parcels.
Nasprotno pa naj pri letinah, na katere se nana�a sporna odločba (1999 –2001, v nadaljevanju: zadevno obdobje), belgijski organi ne bi nikoli zasnovali RGIS kot sredstvo za merjenje natančne povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin.
The GIS area was imprecise because, instead of being based on measurements made on the ground or using remote sensing, it is based on a plan of the parcels which the farmers trace by hand on aerial photographic images.
Povr�ina RGIS naj bi bila nenatančna, ker je, čeprav temelji na meritvah, opravljenih na terenu ali z uporabo daljinskega zaznavanja, izračunana na podlagi risb enot rabe ali poljin, ki so jih pripravili pridelovalci na zračnih fotografijah z ročno označitvijo meja.
Errors or inaccuracies could be made by farmers or technical staff of the Bureau provincial (provincial office) in the manual tracing or the encoding of that tracing into the GIS and, although limited, those errors could have a significant impact on the calculation of the areas, given that the photographic images were on the scale of 1:10 000.
Pri ročnem označevanju ali pri vnosu v RGIS so se lahko pridelovalci ali tehniki Bureau provincial (Urad province) zmotili ali je pri�lo do nenatančnosti, ki so, čeprav manj�e, lahko močno vplivale na izračun povr�in, glede na to da so bile fotografije v merilu 1 : 10 000.
Furthermore, during the material period, the GIS area did not necessarily correspond with the situation on the ground because the manual demarcation was effected on photographic images which could be as much as five years old, whereas, every year, 25-30% of the agricultural parcels changed in area, depending on the crops grown on the land.
Poleg tega med zadevnim obdobjem povr�ina RGIS ni nujno ustrezala stanju na terenu, tudi zato, ker je bilo ročno označevanje opravljeno na fotografijah, ki so bile lahko stare tudi do pet let, medtem ko je vsako leto od 25 do 30 % enot rabe ali poljin spreminjalo povr�ino glede na kmetijske rastline, ki so rasle na zemlji�ču.
In the appellant’s view, the GIS therefore provided only an approximate estimate of the areas, while the exact area could be calculated, in Belgium, as in the other Member States, only by means of measurements taken on the spot by suitably qualified individuals or through the photo interpretation of satellite images (remote sensing).
Po mnenju pritožnice je RGIS torej omogočal samo približno oceno povr�in, medtem ko je točna povr�ina bila in je lahko bila izračunana, in sicer v Belgiji in v drugih državah članicah, samo z uporabo meritev, ki so jih na kraju samem opravile usposobljene osebe, ali s fotointerpretacijo satelitskih posnetkov (daljinsko zaznavanje).
The appellant alleges that, in the light of those features of the GIS adopted by
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi glede na navedene značilnosti RGIS, ki so ga sprejeli
BELGIUM v COMMISSION that Article 6(1) lays down that the administrative and on-the-spot checks are to be made in such a way as to ensure effective verification of compliance with the terms under which aids and premiums are granted.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI upravni nadzor in nadzor na kraju samem izvajata tako, da se lahko zanesljivo preveri, ali so bili upo�tevani pogoji, pod katerimi se pomoč odobri.
For my part, I fail to perceive any distortion of the facts by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal.
Po mojem mnenju Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi ni izkrivilo dejanskega stanja.
the Belgian authorities, the Court of First Instance distorted the facts when, in paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, it took the view that the GIS more closely reflected reality than the area declared by the farmers in the aid applications.
belgijski organi, izkrivilo dejansko stanje, ko je v točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da povr�ina RGIS bolj ustreza resničnemu stanju kot povr�ina, ki so jo pridelovalci prijavili v zahtevkih za pomoč.
The Court of First Instance had further distorted the way in which the GIS operated by considering, on the one hand, that the discrepancy between the GIS area and the declared area, ascertained in the course of the administrative checks, constituted an anomaly indicative of a potential irregularity in the aid application and, on the other, that the imprecise nature of the GIS area made it impossible to ascertain whether there had been an actual loss for the EAGGF and that the GIS made it possible clearly to identify risks of loss for the EAGGF in the context of the administrative checks.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tudi izkrivilo delovanje RGIS s tem, da je na eni strani ugotovilo, da je razhajanje med povr�ino RGIS in prijavljeno povr�ino, ki je bilo ugotovljeno pri upravnem nadzoru, nepravilnost, ki kaže na potencialne nepravilnosti zahtevka za pomoč, in na drugi strani, da je nenatančnost povr�ine RGIS onemogočala ugotovitev, ali je pri�lo do resnične izgube za EKUJS, in da je RGIS omogočal jasno ugotovitev tveganja izgub za EKUJS pri upravnem nadzoru.
According to the appellant, the judgment under appeal is generally based on the incorrect premise that the GIS is capable of revealing anomalies in relation to the declared areas.
Izpodbijana sodba naj bi v celoti temeljila na nepravilni predpostavki, da je RGIS primeren za razkrivanje nepravilnosti v zvezi s prijavljenimi povr�inami.
At paragraph 47 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance does not assert either that the GIS area reflects the actual area of the agricultural parcels or that it corresponds more exactly to the real area than does the declared area.
V točki 47 izpodbijane sodbe ni navedeno niti to, da povr�ina RGIS izraža dejansko povr�ino enot rabe ali poljin, niti to, da ta bolj ustreza dejanski povr�ini kot prijavljena povr�ina.
The second part of that paragraph, according to which ‘if the GIS area corresponds more closely to the actual area than the area declared in the aid application, the payment of area aid on the basis of the area declared leads to undue payment to the applicant and hence, a loss for the EAGGF’, is drafted in theoretical terms (introduced as it is by ‘if’).
Drugi stavek navedene točke – v katerem je navedeno, da „če povr�ina RGIS bolj ustreza dejanski povr�ini kot povr�ina, prijavljena v zahtevku za pomoč, je potem plačilo pomoči na povr�ino na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine neupravičeno plačilo v korist vlagatelja zahtevka in torej izguba za EKUJS“ – je hipotetičen (začne se s „če“).
It is, therefore, intended to imply that if the GIS area is smaller than the declared area, disbursement of the aid based on the latter results in a loss for the EAGGF if the actual area corresponds more accurately to the GIS area than to the declared area. 41
Pomen tega stavka je, da kadar je povr�ina RGIS manj�a od prijavljene povr�ine, plačilo pomoči na podlagi slednje opredeljuje izgubo za EKUJS v primeru, da povr�ina bolj ustreza povr�ini RGIS kot prijavljeni povr�ini. 41
41 — The wording of that sentence is certainly unfortunate because it expresses in unhelpfully complicated terms the clear idea that there is a loss for the EAGGF if the aid is disbursed on the basis of the declared area and that area is greater than the actual area.
41 – Formulacija navedenega stavka seveda ni posrečena, ker s po nepotrebnem zapletenimi izrazi izraža očiten koncept, zaradi katerega ima EKUJS izgubo, kadar je pomoč plačana na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine in je ta večja od dejanske.
The Commission considers that the Court of First Instance did not distort the facts.
Komisija meni, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni izkrivilo dejanskega stanja.
It contends that the Court of First Instance did not in fact consider the GIS to be a measuring instrument, but merely considered that the fact that the GIS areas and the declared areas did not tally prompted serious doubt in regard to the latter.
Ne strinja se s tem, da Sodi�če prve stopnje RGIS ni �telo za sredstvo za merjenje, ampak samo, da je neujemanje med povr�ino RGIS in prijavljeno povr�ino vzbudilo resne dvome o prijavljeni povr�ini.
Furthermore, according to the Commission, the purpose of the GIS could not, as the appellant maintained, consist merely in identifying the agricultural parcels, establishing where they overlapped and uncovering duplicated declarations.
Poleg tega po mnenju Komisije cilji RGIS niso samo, kot trdi pritožnica, identifikacija enot rabe ali poljin, odkrivanje prekrivanja in dvojnih prijav. Glede tega poudarja, da po določbah člena 6(2)(a) Uredbe �t.
It points out, in that context, that, according to Article 6(2)(a) of Regulation No 3887/92, the administrative checks are to include ‘in particular’, and thus not exclusively, cross-checks on the declared parcels to avoid undue payments, and notes
3887/92 upravni nadzor vsebuje „zlasti“, in torej ne samo, navzkrižno preverjanje prijavljenih enot rabe ali poljin, da bi se preprečila neupravičena plačila, in opozarja, da odstavek 1 istega člena določa, da se
This is, consequently, a point of law which falls within the Court’s jurisdiction in the context of appeal proceedings, and which the appellant raises more specifically and in greater detail in its second ground of appeal, which I shall now consider.
Gre torej za pravno vpra�anje, ki sodi v pristojnost Sodi�ča v okviru odločanja o pritožbi, ki jo pritožnica natančneje in izčrpneje navaja v drugem pritožbenem razlogu, ki ga preučujem v nadaljevanju.
On the other hand, the statement contained in the first sentence of paragraph 47 — according to which ‘where the GIS shows, during the administrative checks, that the area declared in an aid application is greater than the GIS area, that discrepancy constitutes an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in the application’ — seems to me to represent an assessment by the Court of First Instance and not a finding of fact.
Na drugi strani se mi zdi, da trditev, ki jo vsebuje prvi stavek iste točke 47 – da je, „ko je pri upravnem nadzoru ugotovljeno, da izhaja iz RGIS, da je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč večja od povr�ine RGIS, zadevno razhajanje nepravilnost, ki kaže na potencialne nepravilnosti zahtevka“ – pomeni presojo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, in ne ugotovitev dejanskega stanja.
The judgment under appeal shows clearly that the Court of First Instance took into account the ‘lack of precision of the GIS data’ 42 and did not consider that data to be absolutely accurate.
Izpodbijana sodba jasno kaže, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje upo�tevalo „nenatančnost podatkov RGIS“ 42in da tem podatkom ni pripisalo lastnosti absolutne resnice.
The question whether the discrepancy at issue could validly be regarded as an ‘anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in the application’, does not, therefore, in my view, concern the finding of the facts.
Vpra�anje, ali bi bilo navedeno razhajanje mogoče veljavno �teti za „nepravilnost, ki kaže na potencialne nepravilnosti zahtevka“, torej po mojem mnenju ni ugotovitev dejanskega stanja.
Consequently, does that question concern an assessment of the facts, which may not be reviewed in the context of an appeal, or a legal characterisation of the facts which might be open to criticism by the Court?
To vpra�anje zadeva presojo dejanskega stanja, ki je v okviru pritožbe ni mogoče preizkusiti, ali njegovo pravno kvalifikacijo, ki pa je lahko predmet preizkusa s strani Sodi�ča.
Ultimately, the question seems to me to concern the definition of scope of the obligation incumbent upon the Member States to organise an effective
Po mojem mnenju gre nedvomno za opredelitev obsega obveznosti držav
The second ground, as set out in the appeal, is divided into five limbs.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog je v skladu z opredelitvijo v pritožbi sestavljen iz petih delov.
By the first three limbs, the appellant contests the assessments of the Court of First Instance in relation to the complaint that the Belgian authorities had failed adequately to respond to the anomalies revealed by the GIS when the administrative checks were carried out.
V prvih treh delih pritožnica izpodbija ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede očitka nezadostnega odziva belgijskih organov na nepravilnosti, ki so se z uporabo RGIS pokazale pri upravnem nadzoru.
The fourth limb concerns the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the complaint based on late entering of graphic data.
Četrti del zadeva ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi z očitkom prepoznega grafičnega vnosa. V
43 — Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission [1990] ECR I-2321, paragraph 16, and Spain v Commission, paragraph 35.
43 – Sodba z dne 12. junija 1990 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-8/88, Recueil, str. I-2321, točka 16) in zgoraj navedena sodba Španija proti Komisiji, točka 35.
42 — See, for example, paragraph 48 of the judgment under appeal, according to which ‘the lack of precision of the GIS data does not mean that it is unimportant’.
42 – Glej na primer točko 48 izpodbijane sodbe, iz katere izhaja, da „nenatančnost podatkov RGIS ne pomeni, da ti podatki nimajo pomena“.
BELGIUM v COMMISSION of the obligation to state reasons in relation to specific issues addressed in the judgment under appeal.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI petem delu pritožnica uveljavlja kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve v zvezi z nekaterimi vpra�anji, ki jih obravnava izpodbijana sodba.
Since, even accepting that they exist, the alleged flaws in the reasoning in the judgment under appeal — which are cited in the fifth limb of the second ground of appeal — do not prevent the Court from examining in detail the arguments set out in the first four limbs of that second ground of appeal, I shall begin by considering the first four limbs.
Ker zatrjevane kr�itve obveznosti obrazložitve izpodbijane sodbe, ki jih pritožnica uveljavlja v petem delu obravnavanega pritožbenega razloga, tudi če zares obstajajo, Sodi�ču ne preprečujejo, da bi meritorno preizkusilo očitke iz prvih �tirih delov tega pritožbenega razloga, začenjam s preučitvijo slednjih.
(a) The first three limbs of the second ground of appeal (the complaint that the Belgian authorities failed adequately to respond to the anomalies revealed by the GIS when the administrative checks were carried out)
a) Prvi trije deli tega pritožbenega razloga (očitki v zvezi z nezadostnim odzivom belgijskih organov na nepravilnosti, ki so se z uporabo RGIS pokazale pri upravnem nadzoru) i) Trditve strank
(i) Arguments of the parties
– Prvi del: kr�itev člena 6(7) Uredbe �t.
— The first limb, concerning a breach of Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92 in relation to the definition of the appropriate means for determining the area of agricultural parcels
3887/92 glede opredelitve primernih sredstev za določanje povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin
The Commission does not consider Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92 to be relevant in this case, since, in its view, as far as the measurement of agricultural parcels is concerned, Article 6(7) applies to on-the-spot checks but not to administrative checks.
Komisija meni, da v obravnavanem primeru ni pomemben člen 6(7) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ker naj bi se ta določba, ki zadeva merjenje enot rabe ali poljin, uporabljala za nadzor na kraju samem, in ne za upravni nadzor.
In any event, the Commission points out that since 1996 the Belgian authorities have freely opted for a system for identifying agricultural parcels — and, therefore, administrative checks — which is based on aerial photographic images, an option which is specifically permitted by Article 4 of Regulation No 3508/92; those authorities were, consequently, required to draw the necessary conclusions in the event of a discrepancy between the area declared and the GIS area, and to take the appropriate action.
V vsakem primeru Komisija navaja, da so se belgijski organi od leta 1996 svobodno odločili za identifikacijski sistem enot rabe ali poljin – in torej za upravni nadzor –, ki temelji na fotografijah iz zraka, kar je možnost, ki jo izrecno daje člen 4 Uredbe �t. 3508/92, in so bili zato ti organi v primeru razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS dolžni priti do vseh potrebnih ugotovitev ter se temu primerno odzvati.
The appellant contends that by taking the view, in paragraph 49 of the judgement under
Pritožnica zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe s tem, da je RGIS �telo za „nadzorno sredstvo, ki
— The second and third limbs, alleging infringement of Article 8 of Regulation No 3508/92 and of Articles 6(1) and 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92
– Drugi in tretji del tega pritožbenega razloga: kr�itev člena 8 Uredbe �t. 3508/92 ter členov 6(1) in 9(2) Uredbe �t.
First Instance erred in neglecting to consider that the inspection system which they had adopted went well beyond the requirements of the Community legislation, since they had prepared a risk analysis based on 13 criteria and not just the four criteria explicitly set out in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 3887/92, as well as a system for identifying agricultural parcels that was based on individual parcels and not groups of parcels.
3887/92 navedeni organi, precej presegal tisto, kar je določalo pravo Skupnosti, saj so navedeni organi pripravili analizo tveganj, temelječo na trinajstih merilih, in ne samo na �tirih, ki so izrecno določeni v členu 6(4) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ter identifikacijski sistem za enote rabe ali poljine, temelječ na posamezni enoti rabe ali poljini, in ne na skupinah enot rabe ali poljin.
The Court of First Instance wrongly applied those provisions in the belief that they required the Belgian authorities adopt the measures omitted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi nepravilno uporabilo te določbe, ko je ugotovilo, da bi belgijski organi morali na njihovi podlagi sprejeti opu�čene ukrepe.
Secondly, requiring the Belgian authorities to take the measures omitted would be incompatible with the explicit provisions of secondary Community law.
Drugič, obveznost belgijskih organov, da izvedejo opu�čene ukrepe, naj bi bila nezdružljiva z izrecnimi določbami sekundarnega prava Skupnosti.
On the one hand, that requirement is incompatible with Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92, which requires on-the-spot checks only in respect of a significant sample equivalent to 5% of the aid applications.
Na eni strani na bi bila ta obveznost v nasprotju z določbo člena 6(3) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ki predpisuje nadzor na kraju samem samo za znatni vzorec, enak 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč.
To impose the measures omitted would, in practice, mean making the remote sensing method compulsory in the context of the administrative checks, when remote sensing was in fact a form of on-the-spot check.
Naložiti opu�čene ukrepe naj bi v praksi pomenilo določitev obvezne metodologije daljinskega zaznavanja v fazi upravnega nadzora, kadar bi bilo daljinsko zaznavanje dejansko oblika nadzora na kraju samem.
On the other hand, that same requirement is also incompatible with Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, which provides that the declared area should be reduced if it is greater than the area ‘actually determined’, that is to say, within the meaning of the judgment in Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, 45the area ascertained using on-the-spot checks.
Na drugi strani naj bi bila ta obveznost v nasprotju s členom 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ki določa zmanj�anje prijavljene povr�ine, kadar je ta večja od „dejansko ugotovljene“ povr�ine, to je v smislu sodbe Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, 45povr�ina, ki je določena z nadzorom na kraju samem.
The requirement to reduce the area in the event of a positive discrepancy between the area declared and the area determined during an administrative check was not introduced until the beginning
Obveznost zmanj�anja povr�ine v primeru pozitivnega razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino, ki je bila ugotovljena med upravnim nadzorom, naj bi bila uvedena �ele
However, in ascertaining whether, in the exercise of that discretion, the Belgian authorities secured an effective inspection system, the Court of
Pri preverjanju, ali so belgijski organi pri izvajanju te pravice zagotovili zanesljiv sistem nadzora, pa naj Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno ne bi ugotovilo, da je sistem nadzora, ki so ga sprejeli