natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In conclusion, it must be held that in this case neither the Turkish authorities nor the Commission failed in their duties and, therefore, in that respect, there is no ‘special situation’ within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC and Article 905 of the CCC implementing regulation.
Sklepno je treba ugotoviti, da v obravnavanem primeru niti tur�ki organi niti Komisija niso kr�ili svojih obveznosti in zato glede tega ne obstaja „poseben primer“ v smislu člena 239 CZS in člena 905 uredbe za izvajanje CZS. Zato je treba tudi peti pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
As regards the allegation of deficiency in clarifying and assessing the facts during the investigations in Turkey, the Court held in paragraph 284 of the contested judgment, without erring in law, that the appellant was not able to substantiate its argument.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi z očitkom kr�itve obveznosti pri ugotavljanju in presoji dejanskega stanja v okviru preiskav v Turčiji v točki 284 izpodbijane sodbe ob pravilni uporabi prava ugotovilo, da pritožnici svojih trditev ni uspelo podkrepiti z dokazi.
The Court had rightly concluded, in the course of assessing the facts, that the Commission had properly examined and then assessed all the relevant facts by means of missions.
Pri presoji dejanskega stanja je pravilno zaključilo, da je Komisija z misijami ustrezno raziskala in nato presodila celotno relevantno dejansko stanje.
Sixth ground of appeal: the Commission’s failure to call on the Customs Committee/Association Council
Šesti pritožbeni razlog: nevključitev carinskega odbora/pridružitvenega sveta s strani Komisije
In so far as, by this ground of appeal, the appellant again complains of a legally incorrect allocation of the burden of proof, this submission must, in the light of my observations on the third ground of appeal, be rejected.
Če pritožnica s tem pritožbenim razlogom znova prereka pravno zmotno porazdelitev dokaznega bremena, je treba to trditev zavrniti ob upo�tevanju preudarkov k tretjemu pritožbenemu razlogu.
Moreover, the appellant also bases its ground of appeal on inadmissible submissions, since its arguments expressly seek a renewed assessment of the facts and not exclusively a legal review of the grounds of the Court’s judgment.
Ugotoviti je �e treba, da pritožnica svoj pritožbeni razlog poleg tega opira na nedopustno trditev, saj se njene navedbe izrecno nana�ajo na ponovno presojo dejanskega stanja in ne izključno na pravni preizkus utemeljitvenih preudarkov Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
In particular, it is unable to explain clearly how the Court made an error of law.
Zlasti ji ni uspelo dovolj jasno pokazati, v kolik�ni meri naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo.
Since this submission does not satisfy the procedural requirements applicable to the grounds of an appeal, this argument must also be rejected.
Tudi to trditev je treba zavrniti, saj ne zadosti procesnim zahtevam glede utemeljitve pritožbe.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION the Commission on the basis of the facts adduced.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI stanja ne bi naredilo zahtevanih pravnih sklepanj za potrebno ravnanje Komisije.
59 without erring in law, that the applicant had not been able to establish that the Commission encountered difficulties concerning the administrative assistance agreed upon with the Republic of Turkey which would have justified discussion within those bodies of the adoption of specific measures to combat such difficulties.
59 ugotovilo, da tožeča stranka ni mogla dokazati, da se je Komisija v okviru dogovorjene upravne pomoči z Republiko Turčijo zna�la pred težavami, ki bi utemeljile razpravljanje v teh organih o sprejetju določenih ukrepov za odpravo teh težav.
That argument cannot be accepted, since in paragraph 239 of the contested judgment the Court certainly examined the facts of the main proceedings as to whether the conditions for calling in the Joint Customs Committee in this specific case were fulfilled.
Tej trditvi ni mogoče pritrditi, saj je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 239 izpodbijane sodbe dobro preučilo okoli�čine primera iz spora o glavni stvari v tem smislu, ali so v konkretnem primeru obstajali pogoji za vključitev me�anega carinskega odbora.
The Court was therefore entitled to take the view that no analogy could be drawn with the facts in Kaufring and Others, particularly as similar failings on the part of the Turkish authorities, which would have created a special situation, had not been established in relation to the movement certificates at issue. 60
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno menilo, da ni mogoče vzpostaviti analogije z dejanskim stanjem iz sodbe Kaufring in drugi, zlasti ker podobne kr�itve obveznosti s strani tur�kih organov, ki bi utemeljevale poseben primer, glede spornih potrdil o gibanju blaga niso bile dokazane. 60
The Commission was therefore not obliged to refer to the Customs Committee or the Association Council.
Komisija se zato ni bila dolžna obrniti na carinski odbor oziroma na pridružitveni svet.
Consequently, this ground of appeal should be rejected as unfounded.
Zato je treba ta pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot neutemeljen.
The legal basis for that body to act on the initiative of the Commission would have to be Article 52(2) of Decision No 1/95, under which the Parties are to consult within the Committee on any point relating to the implementation of the Decision which gives rise to a difficulty for either of them.
Kot pravno podlago za vključitev tega organa na pobudo Komisije bi bilo treba uporabiti člen 52(2) Sklepa �t. 1/95, v skladu s katerim se pogodbene stranke v tem odboru posvetujejo o vseh vpra�anjih, ki se nana�ajo na izvajanje tega sklepa in ki za eno od njih predstavljajo težave.
If such difficulties had arisen, that committee would have been competent to formulate appropriate recommendations to the Association Council with a view to ensuring the proper functioning of the Customs Union.
Ta odbor bi bil pri pojavu takih težav v skladu s členom 52(1) Sklepa �t. 1/95 pristojen, da pridružitvenemu svetu posreduje ustrezna priporočila za pravilno delovanje carinske unije.
However, there were obviously no indications of any great difficulties.
Ne glede na to pa očitno ni bilo nobenih dokazov o obstoju pomembnej�e težave.
On the contrary, it must be assumed that, in view of the willingness of the Turkish authorities to cooperate, recourse to those bodies was neither necessary nor justified.
Nasprotno je treba izhajati iz tega, da zaradi pripravljenosti sodelovanja tur�kih organov njihova vključitev ni bila niti potrebna niti upravičena.
Seventh ground of appeal: failure to take into account a legitimate interest of the appellant in relation to A.TR.1 movement certificate D 437214
Sedmi pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja upravičenega interesa pritožnice glede potrdila A.TR.1 WVB D 437214
Accordingly, in paragraph 239 of the contested judgment, the Court found,
Tako je Sodi�če prve stopnje v členu 239 izpodbijane sodbe ob pravilni uporabi prava
In so far as the appellant obviously relies, in connection with its seventh ground
Ker se pritožnica v povezavi s sedmim pritožbenim razlogom očitno sklicuje na
59 — Point 240 of the appeal.
59 – Točka 240 pritožbe.
60 — See above, point 148.
60 – Glej točko 148 zgoraj.
This case concerns two different types of procedure with differing formal and substantive requirements which must be examined independently of each other.
63V tem smislu je treba hipotetične preu- darke glede morebitne možnosti uporabe te določbe, če bi bila odločba Sodi�ča prve stopnje drugačna, zavrniti kot nepomembne.
63 its obligation to pay import duties, that argument must be answered by pointing out that it is founded on an incorrect interpretation of Community law.
uvoznih dajatev, je treba odvrniti, da ta trditev temelji na nepravilni razlagi prava Skupnosti.
On the one hand, it fails to take into account the fact that this case concerns the remission or repayment of duties pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC and not, as probably assumed by the appellant, the waiver of subsequent entry in the accounts under Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, to which Article 221(3) of the CCC is applicable. 62
Po eni strani ne upo�teva dejstva, da gre v obravnavanem sporu za odpust oziroma povračilo dajatev v skladu s členom 239 CZS in ne, kot očitno meni pritožnica, za primer opustitve naknadne vknjižbe v skladu s členom 220(2)(b) CZS, pri katerem se lahko uporabi člen 221(3) CZS. 62Pri tem gre za različni vrsti postopka z različnimi procesnimi in materialnimi predpostavkami, ki jih
61 — In point 254 of its appeal, the appellant refers to the ‘threeyear period under Article 218(3) of the CCC’, which, however, contrary to what the appellant suggests, is not a limitation period.
61 – Pritožnica v točki 254 pritožbe napotuje na „triletni rok iz člena 218(3) CZS“, ki pa v nasprotju z njenim mnenjem ni zastaralni rok.
On the contrary, that provision lays down a specific period within which the amount resulting from the customs debt must be entered in the accounts.
Ta določba namreč določa poseben rok, v katerem se mora opraviti vknjižba ustreznega zneska carinskega dolga.
It applies to cases other than the normal case of incurrence of the customs debt and thus applies also to the postclearance recovery of duties under Article 220 of the CCC, to which the appellant refers (see Alexander, S., Zollkodex, cited above, footnote 10, Article 218, paragraph 6).
Velja za druge primere, kot je običajni primer nastanka carinskega dolga, in s tem tudi za naknadno izterjavo dajatev v skladu s členom 220 CZS, ki jo je očitno imela v mislih pritožnica (glej Alexander, S., Zollkodex, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), člen 218, točka 6).
On the other, these considerations are based on the legally incorrect view that the Court of First Instance should have annulled the contested decision on procedural grounds.
Po drugi strani ti preudarki temeljijo na napačnem pravnem razumevanju, da bi moralo Sodi�če prve stopnje izpodbijano odločbo razglasiti za nično iz procesnih razlogov.
However, as the Court correctly explained in paragraph 133 of the contested judgment, even partial annulment could only have led to the adoption of another decision identical in substance.
Kot pa je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo v točki 133 izpodbijane sodbe, bi bilo tudi v primeru delne razglasitve ničnosti mogoče ponovno izdati le odločbo z enako vsebino.
It is admittedly true that, as held by the Court in paragraph 128 of the contested judgment, the Commission was not in a position properly to conclude, at the time of the adoption of the contested decision, that is, on 18 December 2002, in view of the unclear statements of the Turkish authorities, that certificate D 437214 had been forged.
Res je, da Komisija, kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo v točki 128 izpodbijane sodbe, ob sprejetju izpodbijane odločbe, to je 18. decembra 2002, zaradi nejasnih izjav tur�kih organov ni mogla pravilno zaključiti, da je bilo potrdilo D 437214 ponarejeno.
Nevertheless, that conclusion ultimately proved to be objectively correct, as the Turkish authorities’ letter of 22 August
Kljub temu pa se je ta sklep na koncu izkazal za objektivno pravilnega, kot je to končno potrdil dopis tur�kih organov z dne 22. avgusta 2003.
The latter assumes that subsequent entry in the accounts pursuant to Article 220 of the CCC, following a decision (favourable to the person liable) on the remission or repayment of import duties pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC, is possible only where the customs duty again becomes payable pursuant to Article 242 of the CCC because, for example, the remission or repayment was made in error.
Zadnji izhaja iz tega, da je naknadna vknjižba v skladu s členom 220 CZS neposredno po izdaji (za dolžnika ugodne) odločbe o odpustu oziroma o povračilu uvoznih dajatev v skladu s členom 239 CZS upo�tevna �ele takrat, ko carinski dolg v skladu s členom 242 CZS ponovno postane plačljiv, na primer zato, ker je bil odpust oziroma povračilo nepravilno izvedeno.
However, such a set of circumstances clearly does not exist in this case, since the Commission’s decision was not preceded by a favourable decision on remission or repayment pursuant to Article 239 of the CCC in respect of the movement certificates at issue.
V obravnavanem primeru pa je jasno, da ne gre za tak položaj, saj v zvezi s spornimi potrdili o gibanju blaga pred odločbo Komisije ni bila izdana nobena ugodna odločba o odpustu oziroma o povračilu v skladu s členom 239 CZS. Prav tako ne gre za take položaje, za katere Huchatz, W., Lehrbuch des Europäischen Zollrechts, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), str.
That is the case, first, where the amount of duty was not entered in the accounts by the administration within the time limits for entry in the accounts laid down in Art -icles 218 and 219 of the CCC; second, where the amount of duty was entered in the accounts at a level lower that the amount legally owed.
Za tak primer naj bi po eni strani �lo, če upravni organ zneska dajatve ni vknjižil v rokih za vknjižbo iz členov 218 in 219 CZS, po drugi strani pa, če je bil vknjižen znesek dajatve nižji, kot je zakonsko dolgovani znesek.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI odločbi, razgla�eni za nično.
The Court’s decision is therefore unexceptionable in law.
64V odločitvi Sodi�ča prve stopnje tako ni mogoče ugoto- viti pravnih napak.
As the appellant itself acknowledges in points 257 and 258 of the grounds of its appeal, traders’ confidence in the validity of import licences which subsequently prove to be forged is not, as a rule, protected by Community law, but is a general commercial risk.
Kot pritožnica sama ugotavlja v utemeljitvi pritožbe v točkah 257 in 258, pravo Skupnosti načeloma ne varuje zaupanja gospodarskih subjektov v veljavnost uvoznih licenc, ki se pozneje izkažejo za ponarejene, ampak ga uvr�ča v splo�no poslovno tveganje.
65In Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation, the Community legislature has already made a clear assessment of risks, by which the Community judicature is bound when interpreting Community law.
65Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je s členom 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS že sprejel jasno presojo tveganja, ki zavezuje sodi�ča Skupnosti pri razlagi prava Skupnosti.
Consequently, this ground of appeal also should be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti tudi ta pritožbeni razlog.
Eighth ground of appeal: balancing of fairness and risk
Osmi pritožbeni razlog: presoja pravičnosti in tveganja
In so far as the appellant infers from the caselaw that the Commission should have carried out a balancing of fairness and risk, it specifically cannot base its claim on the caselaw which it cites for that purpose.
Če pritožnica iz sodne prakse sodi�č Skupnosti izpeljuje, da bi Komisija morala opraviti splo�no presojo pravičnosti in tveganja, se ravno ne more opirati na sodno prakso, ki jo je za to navedla.
In the Bonn Fleisch case 66 cited by it, there was misconduct both on the part of the Member State’s customs authorities and on the part of the Commission in discharging their duties of care, any indication of which is absent in this case.
V sodbi Bonn Fleisch, 66 ki jo navaja, je �lo za nepravilnosti
As the Court noted in paragraph 295 of the contested judgment, the Commission had not, in the contested decision, expressed its view on the issue of the appellant’s due care or negligence.
Kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo v točki 295 izpodbijane sodbe, se Komisija v izpodbijani odločbi ni opredelila glede skrbnega ravnanja ali malomarnosti pritožnice.
On that basis, the Court concluded that the appellant’s plea that there was no obvious negligence on its part was of no consequence and should therefore be rejected.
Na podlagi tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da je trditev pritožnice, da ni ravnala malomarno, neutemeljena in jo je zato treba zavrniti.
In so far as the appellant submits that the Court erroneously omitted, in that respect, to carry out a balancing of fairness and risk, its argument cannot be accepted, since the Court was not in any way legally obliged to do so.
Če pritožnica trdi, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v tem smislu zmotno opustilo presojo pravičnosti in tveganja, se z njo ni mogoče strinjati, saj Sodi�če prve stopnje k temu nikakor ni bilo pravno zavezano.
Consequently, this ground of appeal also should be rejected as manifestly unfounded.
Torej je tudi ta pritožbeni razlog treba zavrniti kot očitno neutemeljen.
65 — See above, points 70 and 112 to 115.66 — Cited in footnote 23, paragraphs 115 to 117.67 — See above, points 163 and 169.68 — Cited in footnote 24.
65 – Glej točko 70 in točke od 112 do 115 zgoraj.66 – Navedena v opombi 23, točke od 115 do 117.67 – Glej zgoraj točki 163 in 169.68 – Navedena v opombi 24.
Ninth ground of appeal: infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC
Deveti pritožbeni razlog: kr�itev člena 220(2)(b) CZS
What is at issue between the parties to these proceedings is essentially the concept of ‘error’, in relation to which the appellant assumes the existence of such an error in this case.
Med strankama v sporu je v glavnem sporen pojem „napake“, pri čemer pritožnica v konkretnem primeru izhaja iz obstoja te dejanske predpostavke.
It complains that the Court failed to take into account the active involvement of the Turkish authorities in the issuing and use of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question here.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da ni upo�tevalo aktivnega sodelovanja tur�kih carinskih organov pri izdaji in uporabi 32 potrdil A.TR.1, ki so sporna v tem primeru.
By its ninth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges an infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, which, for reasons connected with the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, limits subsequent entry in the accounts (post-clearance recovery).
Pritožnica z devetim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje kr�itev člena 220(2)(b) CZS, ki iz razlogov varstva zaupanja v pravo in pravne varnosti omejuje naknadno vknjižbo (naknadno izterjavo).
69That provision is intended to protect the legitimate expectation of the person liable that all the information and criteria on which the decision to recover or not to recover duties is based are correct. 70
69Namen te določbe je varstvo upravičenega zaupanja carinskega dolžnika v pravilnost vseh vidikov, ki se upo�tevajo pri odločitvi o tem, ali se bodo dajatve naknadno izterjale. 70
For both legal and factual reasons, that argument cannot be accepted.
S to trditvijo se iz pravnih in dejanskih razlogov ni mogoče strinjati.
Under that provision, waiver of postclearance recovery by the national authorities is subject to three cumulative conditions.
Na podlagi te določbe lahko nacionalni organi opustijo naknadno izterjavo, le če so izpolnjeni trije kumulativni pogoji.
Provided that those three conditions are fulfilled, the person liable is entitled to waiver of postclearance recovery.
Če so ti trije pogoji izpolnjeni, je dolžnik upravičen, da se naknadna izterjava ne opravi.
71First, noncollection of the duties must have been as the result of an error made by the competent authorities.
71Prvič, neopravljena izterjava mora temeljiti na napaki pristojnih organov.
Second, the nature of their error must be such that it could not reasonably be detected by the person liable acting in good faith, despite his professional experience and the diligence shown by him.
Drugič, njihova napaka mora biti taka, da dolžnik, ki je ravnal v dobri veri, te napake ni mogel odkriti kljub svojim poklicnim izku�njam in skrbnemu ravnanju. Tretjič, dolžnik je moral upo�tevati
First, it should be noted that the presentation in good faith of forgeries of official documents, which is possible, in particular, in the case of preference certificates, cannot, in law, result in an ‘error’ within the meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC.
Najprej je treba upo�tevati, da dobroverna predložitev ponarejenih uradnih dokumentov, kar je mogoče zlasti pri ponarejenih dokazilih o preferencialnem dogovoru, pravno gledano ne more privesti do „napake“ v smislu člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
73 The Court’s caselaw requires, in order for such an ‘error’ to be assumed, an act attributable to the
73Sodna praksa Sodi�ča namreč za upo�tevanje take „napake“ zahteva ravnanje carinskih organov
69 — Case C-187/91 Belovo [1992] ECR I-4937, paragraph 14, and Case 210/87 Padovani [1988] ECR 6177, paragraph 6.
I-4937, točka 14) in z dne 5. oktobra 1988 v zadevi Padovani (210/87, Recueil, str. 6177, točka 6).
70 — Mecanarte, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 19, and Case C-251/00 Ilumitrónica [2002] ECR I-10433, paragraph 39.
70 – Sodbi Mecanarte (navedena v opombi 11, točka 19) in z dne 14. novembra 2002 v zadevi Ilumitrónica (C-251/00, Recueil, str. I-10433, točka 39).
72 — Hewlett Packard France, cited in footnote 71, paragraph 13; Faroe Seafood and Others, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 83; Case C-370/96 Covita [1998] ECR I-7711, paragraphs 25 to 28; and Case C-30/00 William Hinton & Sons [2001] ECR I-7511, paragraphs 68, 69, 71 and 72. 73 — To that effect also Alexander, S., Zollkodex, cited above (footnote 10), Article 220, paragraphs 18 and 65.
I-7711, točke od 25 do 28) in z dne 11. oktobra 2001 v zadevi William Hinton & Sons (C-30/00, Recueil, str. I-7511, točke 68, 69, 71 in 72). 73 – V tem smislu tudi Alexander, S., Zollkodex, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), člen 220, točki 18 in 65.
77 customs authorities and the causal connection between that act and their error. 74
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI in vzročno zvezo med tem ravnanjem in njihovo napako. 74
Taking that caselaw as a starting point, it is, in my view, reasonable to delimit the legal notion of ‘error’ in relation to that of ‘forgery’ in such a way that the former necessarily presupposes an act (even though an objectively incorrect one) on the part of the customs authorities within their sphere of competence, 75 whereas a forgery in principle implies a deliberate act on the part of unauthorised third parties.
Če izhajam iz te sodne prakse, je po mojem mnenju sprejemljivo razmejiti pravni pojem „napake“ od pravnega pojma „ponaredka“ tako, da prvi nujno predpostavlja (četudi objektivno napačno) ravnanje carinskih organov v okviru njihove pristojnosti, 75medtem ko „ponaredek“ v načelu kaže na naklepno ravnanje nepoobla�čenih tretjih oseb.
76It is clear from this that both concepts are associated with fundamentally different situations.
76 Iz tega izhaja, da so z obema pojmoma v osnovi povezana različna dejanska stanja.
That view is consistent with the caselaw of the Court of Justice regarding the scope of that provision.
niso deležni varstva zaupanja v pravo. 77 To stali�če se pokriva s sodno prakso Sodi�ča glede področja uporabe te določbe.
In accordance with the Court’s caselaw on the remission or repayment of import duties under Article 239 of the CCC, it is also acknowledged in the context of subsequent entry in the accounts that falsified preference certificates are part of the commercial risk and the importer himself must make the necessary arrangements in order to guard against that risk.
Ob ujemanju s sodno prakso Sodi�ča glede odpusta oziroma povračila uvoznih dajatev v skladu s členom 239 CZS je v okviru naknadne vknjižbe v skladu s členom 220 CZS prav tako priznano, da so ponarejena dokazila o preferencialnem dogovoru del poslovnega tveganja, glede katerega mora uvoznik sam sprejeti potrebne preventivne ukrepe. 78 Okoli�čina, da je uvoznik v dobri veri, ga ne odvezuje njegove odgovornosti v zvezi s poravnanjem carinskega dolga, saj je on prijavitelj uvoženega blaga.
The importer himself must answer for payment of the duties and the regularity of the documents presented to the customs authorities, even if he is no longer able to pass on his loss.
Za plačilo dajatev in pravilnost dokumentov, ki jih predloži carinskim organom, jamči uvoznik sam, četudi svoje �kode ne more več prevaliti.
79 The importer alone must therefore, in principle, be responsible for any insolvency resulting from the nonremission of duties.
79Za morebitno plačilno nesposobnost, ki je posledica tega, da carine niso bile odpu�čene, tako v načelu odgovarja samo uvoznik.
Nor, in itself, is the extent of the debt whose remission is sought a factor capable of influencing the assess-
Vi�ina dolga, katerega odpust se zahteva, kot taka ni niti merilo, ki bi lahko vplivalo na