natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The statement at the end of the preceding paragraph is not inconsistent with the statements made earlier in paragraphs 23 and 24 above about the difficulties that would be encountered by an interpretation of Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628 which would require a transporter of animals in a vehicle loaded onto a ferry to unload the animals for a rest period of 12 hours at the port of destination in a third country, since that would entail cooperation by the authorities of that country and, in the absence of such cooperation, would face the impossibility of imposing the application of Community rules outside ‘Community territory’.
Kar je navedeno v prej�nji točki, ni v nasprotju s predhodnimi navedbami v točkah 23 in 24 zgoraj glede težav, s katerimi bi se soočila razlaga točke 48(7)(b) Priloge k Direktivi, ki bi nalagala prevozniku živali na vozilu, natovorjenem na trajekt, raztovarjanje teh živali zaradi 12-urnega počitka v namembnem pristani�ču tretje države, ker bi to zahtevalo sodelovanje organov te države, in v odsotnosti tega sodelovanja bi trčilo ob nemožnost naložiti uporabo skupnostnih pravil onkraj „ozemlja Skupnosti“.
But in addition to this source of weakness in the idea in question, there is another more decisive factor: even if the directive does not contain any provision on transport by road in the territory of a third country, the general spirit of the system suggests that the 29-hour rule should also apply to such transport.
Vendar se tej pomanjkljivosti, zadevni trditvi, dodaja �e odločilnej�i element. Tudi če Direktiva ne določa ničesar v zvezi s prevozom, ki ga je treba opraviti po cesti na ozemlju tretje države, splo�ni duh sistema govori v prid temu, da velja minimalni 29-urni čas na poti tudi glede tega prevoza.
If it were not so, the general ob -jective of the legislation in question, which is to ensure the welfare of the animals, would be undermined.
Če ne bi bilo tako, bi bil zlorabljen splo�ni cilj zadevne ureditve, da se zagotovi dobro počutje živali.
The rest period of at least one hour prescribed in Chapter VII 48 point 4(d) would not in fact require any cooperation on the part of the authorities of such a third country since, as mentioned in paragraph 45 above, Article 2(2)(h) of Directive 91/628 defines ‘rest period’ as ‘a continuous period in the course of a journey during which animals are not being moved by a means of transport’.
Enourni počitek, ki je določen v točki 48(4)(d), namreč ne bi zahteval nobenega sodelovanja organov tretje države, ker, kot je bilo navedeno v točki 46 zgoraj, je čas počitka v členu 2(2)(h) Direktive 91/628 opredeljen kot „neprekinjen čas med potjo, ko se živali ne prevažajo s prevoznim sredstvom“.
This implies that giving the animals a rest period does not involve unloading.
Torej omogočanje časa počitka živalim ne zahteva nobenega iztovarjanja.
It follows that in classifying the period of transport of animals on vehicles loaded onto a ferry as neutral when the conditions mentioned in paragraphs 39 to 41 above are met, there is no risk that if the transport of such animals continues immediately by land it could continue for several days without a break, since that subsequent transport can continue unconditionally only for 14 hours,
Posledica tega je, da z nevtraliziranjem časa prevoza živali, ki se je opravil na vozilih, natovorjenih na trajekt, kadar obstajajo zgoraj navedeni pogoji v točkah od 39 do 41, ni nevarnosti, da bi se prevoz teh živali s takoj�njim nadaljevanjem po kopnem podalj�al za nekaj dni brez prekinitev, ker bo ta nadaljnji prevoz lahko trajal brezpogojno
I therefore propose that the Court reply to the third question that in the case of
Zato predlagam, naj Sodi�če odgovori na tretje vpra�anje s pojasnilom, da pri prevozu
It is clear from the logical order of the two points raised by the referring court that the main purpose of its question is to ascertain whether the transporter’s general conduct complies with the directive — and not merely with the specific provision that is the subject of its first question — general conduct consisting not only of what was presented by way of a programme in the pretyped statement on the route plan but also (a) the subsequent signature of the route plan by which the transporter claims to have confirmed at the end of the journey that the animals really had been given the care specified in the plan at the prescribed times and in the prescribed manner and (b) an affidavit to the same effect which, according to a statement on page 3 of the order for reference, was submitted by the person in charge of the transport and was considered by the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, to be irrelevant.
Iz logičnega vrstnega reda dveh vpra�anj predložitvenega sodi�ča očitno izhaja, da je osrednji predmet njegovega vpra�anja presoja skladnosti celotnega ravnanja prevoznika z Direktivo – in ne le skladnosti s posebno določbo, ki je predmet njegovega prvega vpra�anja; to ravnanje ne temelji samo na tem, kar je bilo v skladu z načrtom vsebovano v predhodno natipkanem vpisu v načrt poti, ampak tudi na: (a) poznej�em podpisu na načrtu poti, s katerim prevoznik ob koncu prevoza potrjuje, da je živalim ob vsakem predvidenem času in na predpisan način dejansko nudil oskrbo, navedeno v načrtu poti; in (b) zapriseženi izjavi v enakem smislu, glede katere je na str. 3 predložitvene odločbe navedeno, da jo je podal odgovorni za prevoz in da jo je Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, �telo za neupo�tevno.
D — The fourth question
E – Četrto vprašanje
To reply properly to that question, understood in the terms indicated in the preceding paragraph, it is necessary to interpret Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Dir -ective 91/628, in the light of the second indent of that provision, and of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of that directive.
Da bi se ustrezno odgovorilo na to vpra�anje, pod pogoji, ki so navedeni v prej�nji točki, je treba člen 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 razlagati ob upo�tevanju druge alinee točke (d)(ii) in točke (f) člena 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) te direktive.
Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Direct- ive 91/628 establishes that the transporter must ensure that the staff in charge of the transport ‘state in the route plan the times and places at which the animals transported have been fed and watered during the journey’
Člen 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 določa, da mora prevoznik zagotoviti, da osebje, odgovorno za prevoz „navede v načrtu poti čas in kraje, kjer so bile živali, ki se prevažajo, med potjo nakrmljene in napojene“; prva alinea te točke pa predvideva,
By the fourth question, the referring court asks, on the one hand, whether ‘the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Dir -ective 91/628 [is] to be understood as meaning that the staff in charge of the transport are required to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the ferry journey’ and, on the other, whether ‘a pretyped statement’ indicating that during the ferry journey, ‘animals are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’ does not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628, with the effect in law ‘that the failure to state the measures actually taken to care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export refund in so far as the proof required cannot be provided by any other means’.
Predložitveno sodi�če s četrtim vpra�anjem po eni strani spra�uje, „ali je treba člen 5(A)(2)(d)(ii), prva alinea, Direktive 91/628 razlagati tako, da mora osebje, odgovorno za prevoz, vpisati v načrt poti, kdaj so bile živali krmljene in napojene med potjo“, po drugi strani pa, ali „vnaprej natipkan vpis besedila“, v skladu s katerim se med prevozom na trajektu „napajanje in krmljenje živali opravita zvečer, zjutraj, opoldne, zvečer, zjutraj“, ni v s skladu z zahtevami Direktive 91/628, tako „da ima odsotnost vpisov v zvezi z izvedeno oskrbo za pravno posledico izgubo pravice do izvoznega nadomestila, če ni mogoče predložiti drugega potrebnega dokaza“.
SCHWANINGER and Article 5A point 2(d)(i) provides that the original copy of the route plan must be ‘duly drawn up and completed by the appropriate persons at the appropriate time’. 13
SCHWANINGER da mora biti izvirnik načrta poti „ustrezno izdelan in so ga ob ustreznem času izpolnile ustrezne osebe“ 13.
The applicant in the main proceedings, in its written observations submitted to the Court, made the most of the distinction in the provision in question between ‘drawing up’ and ‘completing’ and the fact that it spe -cifies that both these formalities, and therefore each of them, must be completed at the ‘appropriate time’.
Pritožnik v postopku v glavni stvari je v pisnih stali�čih pred Sodi�čem izpostavil, da zadevna določba razlikuje med „izdelavo“ in „izpolnitvijo“ in da predvideva, da morata biti ti formalnosti, in torej tudi vsaka od njiju, opravljeni „ob ustreznem času“.
with the repetition of the expressions ‘in the evenings and mornings’ that it contained, could legitimately be understood not as a general statement but as referring to various identifiable times in the actual journey to be made which, as the documents show, lasted 41 and a half hours and therefore specifically covered ‘the evening and morning, midday’ and another ‘evening’ and ‘morning’, and (b) the programme set out in the route plan was so specific as to render a detailed account of its execution unnecessary and cause the end of the journey to be the ‘appropriate’ time to complete the statement to be included in the route plan by appending the final signature.
vsebuje, je bilo mogoče upravičeno razumeti kot podatek, ki ni bil splo�en, ampak se je nana�al na različne in časovno določene trenutke konkretnega prevoza, ki ga je treba opraviti, ki, kot izhaja iz spisa, je trajal 41 ur in pol in je torej natančno vključeval poleg „večera, jutra, opoldneva“ �e „večer“ in „jutro“, in (b) taka natančnost načrta, začrtanega v načrtu poti ni zahtevala pojasnila v zvezi z njegovim spo�tovanjem in je lahko napravila za „ustreznega“ čas zaključka poti, kot časa za izpolnitev z zadnjim podpisom izjave, ki jo je treba vključiti v načrt poti.
It is clearly because it holds the view set out in the preceding two paragraphs that the applicant in the main proceedings does not invoke in its observations the possible probative value of the affidavit which point 3 in the order for reference states that it produced in vain, ex post, before the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen.
Očitno, ker pritožnik v postopku v glavni stvari zagovarja stali�če, navedeno v prej�njih dveh točkah, se v pripombah ne sklicuje na dokazno moč, ki bi jo lahko imela zaprisežena izjava, glede katere točka 3 predložitvene odločbe navaja, da je bila neutemeljeno predložena ex post Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen.
Having noted, as already stated, in point 5.2 of the order for reference that by signing the route plan at the end of the journey the transporter had confirmed that the animals really had been given the requisite care at the prearranged times, the applicant in the main proceedings claims to infer that, while the pretyped indication in the route plan of the times when the animals were to be fed and watered represented the required ‘drawing up’, the subsequent signature represented the required ‘completion’.
Pritožnik v postopku v glavni stvari po navajanju tega, kar je že opisano v točki 5.2 predložitvene odločbe, tj. da je prevoznik ob koncu prevoza s podpisom na načrtu poti potrdil, da je dejansko nudil oskrbo živalim v vsakem predhodno predvidenem času, sklepa, da poznej�i podpis ustreza zahtevani izpolnitvi, medtem ko predhodno v načrt poti natipkan vpis časa, ko so morale biti živali nakrmljene in napojene, ustreza zahtevani izdelavi.
It meant, clearly, that the completion effected by the signature met the requirement laid down in the provision in question by means of the connection between the signature and the pretyped route plan.
Očitno meni, da izpolnitev s podpisom izpolnjuje pogoj, predviden v zadevnem določilu zaradi povezave med samim podpisom in predhodno natipkanim načrtom poti.
The reason being that (a) the specification that the operations in question were to be carried out ‘in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings’,
In to zato, ker: (a) navedbo, da so zadevna opravila morala biti izvedena „zvečer, zjutraj, opoldne, zvečer, zjutraj“, s ponavljanjem izrazov „zvečer, zjutraj“, ki jih
The manner in which the applicant in the main proceedings might thus be deemed to have complied with the provisions of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628 certainly does not correspond exactly to the provision contained in subparagraph (ii), according to which the transporter must ensure that ‘the staff in charge of the transport state in the route plan the times and places at which the animals transported have been fed and watered during the journey’, because (apart from the fact that it is not easy during transport by sea to state the ‘places’ at which the operations are carried out) the detailed rules which the loading
Način, v skladu s katerim pritožnik v postopku v glavni stvari zatrjuje, da je ravnal v skladu z določili člena 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628, seveda točno ne ustreza v njej vsebovani določbi točke (ii), v skladu s katero prevoznik zagotavlja, da „osebje, odgovorno za prevoz, navede v načrtu poti čas in kraje, kjer so bile živali, ki se prevažajo, med potjo nakrmljene in napojene“. To zato, ker (poleg tega, da pri prevozu po morju ni enostavno navesti „krajev“, kjer so bila izvedena opravila), pravila, glede katerih je mogoče predpostavljati, da jim je odgovorni za prevoz nameraval slediti, niso taka, da bi bila primerna
13 — My emphasis.
13 – Moj poudarek.
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-207/06
MENGOZZIJA – ZADEVA C-207/06 za navedbo ure, ko se je izvedlo krmljenje in napajanje.
Community legislature, the essential element that the transporter must furnish is actual evidence that ‘the animals’ needs for food and water [have been met] during the journey’.
krmi med potjo“ zadovoljene, ki je v skladu z namenom zakonodajalca Skupnosti bistveni element, ki ga mora prevoznik zagotoviti.
If however, as indicated in paragraph 55 above, Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Direct- ive 91/628 and the second indent of that provision are considered in conjunction with Article 5A point 2(f), it cannot be inferred from the fact that the way in which the applicant claims that it complied with point 2(d)(ii) did not correspond exactly with the terms of that provision — as, according to the order for reference (in point 3), the Zollamt Salzburg did infer — that the animals had not been fed or watered for 46 hours and that the exporter had therefore forfeited the right to the export refund.
Vendar če, kot je navedeno v točki 55 zgoraj, povežemo presojo člena 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 in presojo druge alinee te točke (d) s tem, kar je predvideno v točki (f) te točke (2), iz tega nenatančnega ujemanja ni mogoče sklepati – kot je navedeno v predložitveni odločbi (v točki 3), da je to storil Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen –, da živali niso bile nakrmljene in napojene 46 ur ter da zato izvoznik izgubi pravico do izvoznih nadomestil.
To infer from the failure to comply exactly with Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628 the absolute value attributed to that provision by the Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, would also conflict with the approach of assessing all the elements of fact in the particular case, including the elements supplied by the exporter, which the Court of Justice held in Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK 14to be the approach that should be followed in interpreting and applying the reference made by Article 1 and Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628.
Poleg tega bi sklep, da člen 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 ni bil v celoti spo�tovan, to je sklep Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen, o absolutni vrednosti te določbe, trčil ob to, kar se zdi pristop – ki izpostavlja vsa dejstva obravnavanega primera, vključno s tistimi, ki jih je predložil izvoznik –, glede katerega je Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti v sodbi, ki jo je izdalo v zadevah Viamex Agrar in Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) 14, poudarilo, da mu je treba slediti glede na namen in ob uporabi napotila iz členov 1 in 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 na Direktivo 91/628.
Article 5A point 2(f) of Directive 91/628, which must naturally be borne in mind in the context of a systematic interpretation of the whole of point 2, provides that Member States shall ensure that the transporter ‘demonstrates … that steps have been taken to meet the animals’ needs for food and water during the journey, even where the route plan is changed’.
V istem členu 5(A)(2)(f)(ii) zadevne Direktive 91/628 (ki jo je kot tako seveda treba upo�tevati v okviru sistematične razlage točke (2) v celoti) je določeno, da „prevoznik […] dokaže, da so bili sprejeti vsi ukrepi za zadovoljitev potreb živali, ki se prevažajo po vodi in krmi med potjo, tudi kadar pride do spremembe načrta poti“.
In the national proceedings which led to the request for that ruling, the question had been raised as to the validity of that reference, as being contrary to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality, in view of the fact that both provisions (a) make the payment of export refunds for live bovine animals subject to compliance, during the transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the third country of final des -tination, with the provisions of that directive, and (b) were understood to preclude such refunds in the event of any infringement of even one of those provisions.
V nacionalnih postopkih, ki so zahtevali navedeno razsodbo, je bilo sproženo vpra�anje veljavnosti – v nasprotju z načeli pravne varnosti in sorazmernosti – navedenega napotila glede na dejstvo, da ena in druga določba (a) pogojujeta izplačilo nadomestil za izvoz živega goveda s spo�tovanjem določb Direktive med prevozom do prvega kraja iztovarjanja živali v tretji državi končnega namembnega kraja in da (b) se ju je razlagalo tako, da izključujeta navedene omejitve tudi pri kr�itvah samo ene od navedenih določb.
14 — Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK [2008] ECR I-69.
14 – Sodba z dne 17. januarja 2008 v združenih zadevah C-37/06 ZOdl., str. I-69.
By that provision, the Community legislature indicated unequivocally that it did not wish to attribute absolute value to the manner in which it is demonstrated, in accordance with Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628, that the animals have been regularly fed and watered.
S tem je skupnostni zakonodajalec jasno nakazal, da ne želi pripisati absolutne vrednosti pravilu, v skladu s katerim člen 5(A)(2)(d)(ii) Direktive 91/628 predvideva, da mora biti dokazano, da se je krmljenje in napajanje redno izvajalo.
(1) to interpret provisions of the direct- ive, designed to be taken together and in conjunction with the whole body of the act in which they are contained, by attributing differing degrees of importance to each of those provisions and to the reference made to them by Regulation No 615/98, depending on whether the direct objective of the provision is to achieve the principal aim of the directive or whether the provision has a purely instrumental function with respect to that aim, and
določbe Direktive, ki se morajo dopolnjevati med seboj in s celotnim osrednjim delom akta, v katerem so vsebovane, je treba razlagati tako, da se vsaki od njih in napotilu iz Uredbe �t. 615/98 pripisuje drugačen pomen glede na to, ali je njihov neposredni cilj zagotoviti doseg glavnega cilja Direktive ali pa imajo v zvezi s tem samo instrumentalno vlogo, in
The Court replied to the questions referred to it by pointing out, first, that ‘the purpose of the general reference made by Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628 is to ensure … compliance with the relevant provisions of that directive on the welfare of live animals and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport’ 15; it concluded that the reference in question cannot be held to be invalid since it cannot be interpreted as covering all the provisions of Directive 91/628 and, in particular, those provisions which have no connection with the principal objective pursued by that directive.
Sodi�če je odgovorilo na vpra�anja, ki so mu bila zastavljena, prvič, z ugotovitvijo, „da je cilj splo�nega napotila iz Uredbe �t. 615/98 na Direktivo 91/628 zagotoviti spo�tovanje določb navedene direktive glede dobrega počutja živih živali in zlasti glede njihove za�čite med prevozom“ 15; iz tega je sklepalo, da ni mogoče ugotoviti neveljavnosti zadevnega napotila, ker ga ni mogoče razlagati tako, da se nana�a na vse določbe Direktive 91/628 in zlasti na tiste, ki niso v zvezi z glavnim ciljem navedene direktive 16.
16Then, after recalling the character traditionally attributed to the principle of proportionality as a principle according to which ‘when there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse must be had to the least onerous and the disadvantages caused must not be disproportionate to the aims pursued’, 17 it ruled that the national authorities must apply the relevant provisions of Regulation No 615/98 in a manner that is consistent with that principle. 18
Drugič, po navedbi značilnosti, ki se tradicionalno pripisuje izvr�evanju načela sorazmernosti kot načelu, v skladu s katerim „se v primeru več primernih ukrepov izbere najmanj obremenilnega in da povzročene neugodnosti niso nesorazmerne z zasledovanimi cilji“ 17, je poudarilo, da morajo pristojni nacionalni organi spo�tovati to načelo v okviru uporabe določb Uredbe �t. 615/98 18.
(2) to apply the provisions of the directive by choosing, from several ways of doing so, the way that ensures that any disadvantages that may be caused are not disproportionate to the objective which is pursued of protecting the health of the animals.
njene določbe je treba uporabiti tako, da se med več načini izbere tistega, ki zagotavlja, da morebitne povzročene neugodnosti niso čezmerne glede na zasledovani cilj varstva zdravja živali.
The approach which the Court indicates that the national courts should follow in interpreting and applying the provisions which link the system of refunds with the protection of health of bovine animals during transport is clear.
Pristop, ki ga Sodi�če nakazuje nacionalnim sodi�čem pri razlagi in uporabi določb, ki povezujejo ureditev nadomestil z ureditvijo varstva zdravja goveda med njegovim prevozom, je jasen. Zaznamujeta ga naslednji merili:
15 — Ibidem, paragraph 29.16 — Ibidem.17 — Ibidem, paragraph 35.18 — Ibidem, paragraph 46.
15 – Prav tam (točka 29).16 – Prav tam.17 – Prav tam (točka 35).18 – Prav tam (točka 46).
There is no doubt that the propositions contained in paragraphs 6264 above represent the criteria which, as the Court specified in the judgment referred to in paragraphs 63-66 above, must be followed.
To, kar je bilo nakazano v točkah od 62 do 64 zgoraj, nedvomno ustreza merilom, glede katerih je Sodi�če v sodbi, navedeni v točkah od 63 do 66 zgoraj, pojasnilo, da jih je treba upo�tevati.
In the light of the normative data referred to above and the considerations as to their interpretation suggested by an analysis of the features of the present case and the criteria indicated in the judgment of the Court of Justice referred to in paragraphs 63-66 above, I suggest that the Court reply as follows to the questions referred by the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat for a preliminary ruling:
Glede na zgoraj navedene normativne podatke in ugotovitve, ki jih pri njihovi razlagi predlaga analiza značilnosti obravnavanega primera in meril, navedenih v sodbi Sodi�ča Evropskih skupnosti iz točk od 63 do 66 zgoraj, predlagam Sodi�ču, naj na vpra�anja, ki jih je v predhodno odločanje predložilo Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, odgovori:
SCHWANINGER at which the animals transported were fed and watered as an essential condition for obtaining an export refund.
SCHWANINGER živali, ki se prevažajo, nakrmljene in napojene, kot bistveni pogoj za pridobitev izvoznih nadomestil.