natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Not later than 30 days after submission of the proof that the total quantity of wine covered by the contract has been distilled, the intervention agency shall pay the producer the aid referred to in Article 6 …’
Najkasneje trideset dni po predložitvi dokaza, da je bila celotna količina vina, ki je navedena v pogodbi, destilirana, intervencijski organ izplača proizvajalcu pomoč, navedeno v členu 6 […]“
Article 11 of that regulation provides:
Člen 11 te uredbe določa:
9 — The third subparagraph of Article 9(2) has been declared invalid by the Court of Justice ‘in so far as it penalises with total loss of aid any failure to meet the timelimit within which the distiller must pay the minimum buyingin price to the producer’: see Case C-118/89 Lingenfelser [1990] ECR I-2637.
9 – Tretji pododstavek člena 9(2) je bil razveljavljen s sodbo Sodi�ča, „ker kaznuje s popolno izgubo pomoči vsako neizpolnitev roka, v katerem mora destilater plačati proizvajalcu minimalno nakupno ceno“; glej sodbo z dne 27. junija 1990 v zadevi Lingenfelser (C-118/89, Recueil, str. I-2637).
— and, if the advance has been paid to the distiller, that the latter has paid the producer the minimum buyingin price referred to in the first subparagraph of Article 5(1).
in da je destilater, če mu je bil izplačan predujem, proizvajalcu plačal minimalno nakupno ceno, določeno v prvi alinei člena 5(1).
However, if the proofs referred to in the first subparagraph are furnished after the date specified therein but before 1 June 1984, the amount to be released shall be 80% of the security, the difference being forfeit.
Če se dokazi iz prve alinee predložijo po datumu, določenem v tej alinei, a pred 1. junijem 1984, se vrne znesek v vi�ini 80% zavarovanja, razlika pa zapade.
In the context of preventive distillation in respect of the 1982/83 marketing year, they entered into contracts with an approved distillery, DAI, to deliver wine.
V okviru preventivne destilacije za tržno leto 1982/1983 so sklenile pogodbe o dobavi vina s poobla�čeno destilarno DAI.
Those contracts were approved by AIMA in accordance with Article 1 of Regulation No 2499/82.
Te pogodbe je potrdila AIMA v skladu s členom 1 Uredbe �t. 2499/82.
If such proofs are not furnished before 1 June 1984, the security shall be forfeit in its entirety.’
Če ti dokazi niso predloženi pred 1. junijem 1984, zavarovanje v celoti zapade.“
Article 2(1) of Regulation No 352/78 10provides that any security which is forfeited is to be used in its entirety by the paying authorities or bodies in the Member States to reduce the expenditure of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (‘EAGGF’).
V členu 2(1) Uredbe �t. 352/78 10 je določeno, da zasežene var�čine v celotni vi�ini uporabijo plačilne službe ali telesa v državah članicah za zmanj�anje izdatkov Evropskega kmetijskega usmerjevalnega in jamstvenega sklada (v nadaljevanju: EKUJS).
Invoices produced by the applicants, expressly mentioning the ‘AIMA premium’ (‘premio AIMA’ or ‘premio comunitario, a carico della AIMA’) included in the minimum buyingin price laid down by Regulation No 2499/82 to be paid by DAI for wine delivered for preventive distillation in respect of the 1982/83 marketing year, show that the amount of Community aid was ITL 866 860 142 in total (equivalent to EUR 447 696) 11for a minimum buyingin price of ITL 1 275 523 803 (EUR 658 753), including VAT, for wine delivered by all the applicants.
Iz računov, ki so jih predložile tožeče stranke in izrecno navajajo znesek „premije AIMA“ („premio AIMA“ ali „premio comunitario, a carico della AIMA“), vključene v minimalno nakupno ceno, ki je določena z Uredbo �t. 2499/83 in bi jo DAI morala plačati za vino, ki je bilo dobavljeno v okviru preventivne destilacije za tržno leto 1982/1983, izhaja, da je pomoč Skupnosti zna�ala skupno 866.860.142 ITL (kar ustreza 447.696 EUR) 11za minimalno nakupno ceno 1.275.523.803 ITL (658.753 EUR), vključno z DDV, za vino, ki so ga dobavile vse tožeče stranke.
The Community aid thus represented some 68% percent of the total minimum buyingin price. 12
Pomoč Skupnosti je zna�ala približno 68 % skupne minimalne nakupne cene. 12
The facts
Dejansko stanje
According to information supplied by the applicants and not challenged by the Commission, the wine was delivered
V sodbi Sodi�ča prve stopnje je opisano naslednje dejansko stanje.
The facts as set out in the judgment of the Court of First Instance are as follows.
Po podatkih, ki so jih predložile tožeče stranke in jim Komisija ni ugovarjala, je bilo vino dobavljeno med januarjem in marcem
11 — Self-evidently, the events with which this appeal is concerned took place well before the advent of the euro.
11 – Očitno so se dogodki, ki so predmet obravnavane pritožbe, zgodili precej pred uvedbo eura.
Since the reader is likely now to be more familiar with euros than with ITL as a measure of value, I have given the euro equivalents of these sums to show the magnitude of the amounts at stake.
Ker so sedaj bralcu kot merilo vrednosti verjetno bližje euri kot lire, sem ob zneskih v lirah navedla ustrezen znesek v eurih, da prikažem razsežnost vpletenih zneskov.
The applicants, who are wine cooperatives, are producers of wine in Sardinia
Tožeče stranke, ki so vinogradni�ke zadruge, so proizvajalci vina na Sardiniji
Later in its judgment, however, the Court of First Instance frequently uses the term ‘Community aid’ or ‘aid’ to mean either both those payments taken together or, more specifically, payment of the minimum buyingin price.
12 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je pravilno ugotovilo, da ima potek plačil dve stopnji, namreč, ko destilater plača proizvajalcu minimalno nakupno ceno in ko intervencijski organ plača destilaterju „pomoč Skupnosti“ v pravem pomenu.
I have followed that usage, on the basis that it is clear from the context what is meant.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je kasneje v sodbi pogosto uporabilo pojem „pomoč Skupnosti“ ali „pomoč“, da bi tako označilo ali obe plačili skupaj ali, natančneje, plačilo minimalne nakupne cene.
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS between the months of January and March 1983.
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI
The timelimit laid down in Article 9(1) of that regulation for DAI to pay the producers therefore expired in June 1983.
Rok, ki ga za plačilo minimalne nakupne cene za vino, ki bi ga morala DAI opraviti proizvajalcem, določa člen 9(1) te uredbe, se je torej iztekel junija 1983.
The court to which the matter was subsequently referred, the Tribunale (District Court) d’Oristano, granted that application.
Sodi�če, na katero je bil naslovljen ta predlog, to je Tribunale (prvostopenjsko sodi�če) d’Oristano, je predlogu ugodilo.
DAI therefore suspended all its payments, including those owed to the producers who had delivered wine to it.
DAI je zato ustavila vsa svoja izplačila, vključno s tistimi, ki jih je bila dolžna proizvajalcem, ki so ji dobavili vino.
On 22 June 1983 DAI asked AIMA to make an advance payment of Community aid, under Article 11 of Regulation No 2499/82, in respect of the wine which had been delivered, by the applicants in particu- lar, and distilled.
DAI je 22. junija 1983 od AIMA zahtevala, naj na podlagi člena 11 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 izplača predujem pomoči Skupnosti za vino, ki so ga dobavile tožeče stranke in je bilo destilirano.
To that end, DAI provided the required security equal to 110% of the amount of the aid, in the form of a bond issued by Assicuratrice Edile SpA (‘Assedile’) for the benefit of AIMA.
V ta namen je DAI zagotovila predpisano zavarovanje v vi�ini 110 % zneska pomoči v obliki police, ki jo je izdala Assicuratrice Edile S pA (v nadaljevanju: Assedile) v korist AIMA.
That security was ITL 1 169 040 262 (EUR 603 759).
To zavarovanje je zna�alo 1.169.040.262 ITL (603.759 EUR).
Although it had been informed that that procedure had been initiated, AIMA requested DAI to reimburse the advance of Community aid that it had received, less any sums already duly paid to the abovementioned producers, on the ground that DAI had not supplied it within the timelimit laid down in Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2499/82 with proof that it had paid the minimum buyingin price for wine within the time-limit, laid down in Article 9(1) of that regulation, of 90 days after the entry of the wine into the distillery.
Čeprav je bila obve�čena o začetku tega postopka, je AIMA zahtevala od DAI, naj vrne predujem pomoči Skupnosti, ki ga je prejela, zmanj�an za vse zneske, ki so že bili pravilno izplačani zgoraj navedenim proizvajalcem, ker ji DAI v roku, določenem v členu 9(2) Uredbe �t. 2499/82, ni predložila dokazila o plačilu minimalne nakupne cene za vino v roku, določenem v členu 9(1) te uredbe, v devetdesetih dneh po dobavi vina v destilarno. DAI predujma ni vrnila.
AIMA therefore applied to Assedile for payment of the security.
AIMA je zato zahtevala, naj ji Assedile izplača znesek var�čine.
On 10 August 1983 AIMA paid ITL 1 062 763 876 (EUR 548 872) to DAI, under Article 11 of Regulation No 2499/82, by way of an advance on the Community aid.
AIMA je 10. avgusta 1983 izplačala DAI 1.062.763.876 ITL (548.872 EUR) predujma pomoči Skupnosti, v skladu členom 11 Uredbe �t. 2499/82.
At DAI’s request, on 26 July 1984 the Pretore (Magistrates’ Court) di Terralba made an interim order prohibiting Assedile from paying the security to AIMA.
Na podlagi zahteve DAI je Pretore di Terralba 26. julija 1984 izdalo začasno odredbo, s katero je Assedile prepovedalo plačati var�čino AIMA.
It gave DAI 60 days to bring an action on the merits of the case.
DAI je določilo rok �estdeset dni za vložitev tožbe v glavni stvari.
Owing to financial difficulties, DAI failed to pay, either in full or in part, the producers, including the applicants, who had delivered wine for distillation.
DAI zaradi finančnih težav ni poplačala proizvajalcev v celoti ali delno, odvisno od primera, med njimi tožečih strank, ki so dobavile vino za destilacijo.
On 17 October 1983 DAI applied for administration under Italian insolvency law.
DAI je 17. oktobra 1983 predlagala začetek postopka prisilnega upravljanja, ki
In September 1984 DAI brought such an action before the Tribunale civile di Roma (Civil District Court, Rome).
DAI je septembra 1984 vložila tako tožbo pri Tribunale civile di Roma (civilno prvostopenjsko sodi�če v Rimu).
It claimed inter alia that that court should declare that the producers were the intended ultimate recipients of the security, to the extent of the sums remaining to be paid to them, and, in the alternative, that AIMA’s rights could at most be exercised in respect of the residual amount
Med drugim je ugovarjala, naj sodi�če ugotovi, da bi morali biti proizvajalci tisti, ki bi bili končni prejemniki var�čine v okviru zneskov, ki jim jih je �e treba izplačati, podredno pa, da bi se pravice AIMA lahko izpolnile največ s preostalim zneskom cene, ki ga DAI �e ni
AIMA pleaded that, with the exception of those three producers, DAI had not paid the minimum buyingin price to the producers, that it had not in any event proved that the payment had been made within the timelimit laid down in Article 9(1) of Regulation No 2499/82 and, lastly, that it had not supplied that proof within the timelimit laid down in Article 9(2) of that regulation.
2499/82, DAI v skladu s predpisi Skupnosti predložila dokazilo o plačilu minimalne nakupne cene le trem proizvajalcem, v skupni vi�ini 111.602.075 ITL (57.638 EUR).
AIMA stated that, in that context, ‘the security was forfeit in its entirety, under Article 11 of the abovementioned regulation, and therefore the unpaid producers could only assert their rights as against the distillery …’.
AIMA je zatrjevala, da razen tem trem proizvajalcem DAI ni plačala minimalne nakupne cene proizvajalcem, da v vsakem primeru ni dokazala, da je bilo to plačilo opravljeno v roku, ki ga določa člen 9(1) Uredbe �t.
It therefore submitted a counterclaim seeking an order that Assedile should pay it ITL 1 047 084 185 (EUR 540 774) from the security, plus interest.
AIMA je poudarila, da je v teh okoli�činah „zavarovanje v celoti zapadlo na podlagi člena 11 prej navedene uredbe in da lahko posledično proizvajalci, ki niso dobili plačila, svoje pravice uveljavljajo le od destilarne […]“ Zato je z nasprotno tožbo zahtevala, naj se Assedile naloži, naj ji izplača var�čino 1.047.084.185 ITL (540.774 EUR), skupaj z obrestmi.
of the price which DAI had not yet paid to the producers.
izplačala proizvajalcem.
It argued that in that instance it had paid the producers approximately half of the advance which had been paid to it by AIMA, without however claiming before the court — as the latter observes in its judgment of 27 January 1989 — that it had made those payments within the timelimit laid down in Regulation No 2499/82 (see point 29 below).
Ugovarjala je, da je v navedenem primeru proizvajalcem plačala približno polovico zneska predujma, ki ji ga je izplačala AIMA, vendar pred sodi�čem ni trdila, kot je to ugotovilo v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1989, da je ta plačila izvedla v roku, ki ga določa Uredba �t. 2499/88 (glej spodaj navedeno točko 29).
It proposed that questions concerning the interpretation of the Community regulations should be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Predlagala je, naj se Sodi�ču postavi vpra�anje za sprejetje predhodne odločbe glede razlage uredb Skupnosti, ki se uporabljajo v tej zadevi.
It could not be accused of non-compliance, because it was not in a position to make all the payments.
Ni ji mogoče očitati opustitve, ker se je zna�la v položaju, v katerem ni mogla izvr�iti vseh plačil.
It maintained that the security was intended to guarantee payment of the minimum buyingin price to producers, in proportion to the amount of production delivered, in the event of the distiller failing to comply with its obligations.
Zatrjevala je, da je bilo zavarovanje namenjeno zavarovanju plačila minimalne nakupne cene proizvajalcem v sorazmerju z dobavljeno proizvodnjo, če destilater ne izpolni svojih obveznosti.
It pointed out that, under the relevant Community provisions, if aid was repaid to AIMA it would have to be refunded to the relevant Community body.
Poudarila je, da bi morala biti v skladu z veljavnimi predpisi Skupnosti pomoč, če bi bila vrnjena AIMA, vrnjena pristojnemu organu Skupnosti.
It argued that the chances of producers who had an individual entitlement to aid would thus be undermined by the action of a third party (that is to say a person other than DAI).
Zatrjevala je, da bi bile zato možnosti proizvajalcev, imetnikov posamične pravice do izplačila pomoči, ogrožene zaradi dejanja tretjega (to je zaradi dejanja osebe, ki ni DAI).
The interveners in the proceedings before the Tribunale civile di Roma 13
Intervenienti v postopku pred Tribunale civile di Roma 13so se strinjali z navedbami
Assedile and AIMA were the defendants.
Assedile in AIMA sta bili toženi stranki.
The producers concerned — namely the applicants, another wine cooperative and a consortium of wine cooperatives — were interveners in those proceedings.
Udeleženi proizvajalci, to je tožeče stranke, �e ena vinogradni�ka zadruga in konzorcij vinogradni�kih zadrug, pa so bili intervenienti v tem postopku.
supported DAI’s case (see point 25 above).
DAI (glej spodaj navedeno točko 24).
They contended that the sums to which the security provided by Assedile related were due to them in proportion to the amount of wine delivered.
Navajali so, da jim zneski, ki so predmet var�čine, ki jo je dala Assedile, pripadajo v sorazmerju z dobavljenim vinom.
They therefore sought a ruling from the Tribunale civile di Roma, that Assedile should pay them the amount of the unpaid debts owed to them by DAI, plus the monetary revaluation and
Zahtevali so, naj Tribunale civile di Roma odloči, da jim je Assedile dolžna izplačati znesek njihovih revaloriziranih neplačanih terjatev do DAI, skupaj z obrestmi, podredno pa, da jim je
13 — Namely, the present applicants, another wine cooperative and a consortium of wine cooperatives.
13 – Namreč, sedanje tožeče stranke, �e ena vinogradni�ka zadruga in konzorcij vinogradni�kih zadrug.
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI člen 9 Uredbe �t.
[the procedure provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82] — the intended recipients of the aid whilst the wine and grape producers are the intended ultimate recipients.
2499/82], so destilaterji prejemniki pomoči, medtem ko so proizvajalci vina in grozdja tisti, ki jim je pomoč v končni fazi namenjena.
It is clear from this that the regulation in question is easy to interpret and that it is not necessary to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Iz navedenega izhaja, da je zadevno uredbo mogoče razlagati preprosto in da Sodi�ču ni treba predložiti vpra�anja za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
interest, and, in the alternative, that AIMA was required to pay them those sums.
Še posebej so tožeče stranke navedle, da znesek njihovih neplačanih terjatev, ki izhaja iz pogodb, potrjenih v skladu z določbami Uredbe �t. 2499/82, zna�a 106.571.589 ITL (55.040 EUR) za Cantina sociale di Dolianova, 79.483.181 ITL (41.050 EUR) za Cantina Trexenta, 506.921.061 ITL (261.803 EUR) za Cantina sociale Marmilla, 192.954.189 ITL (99.653 EUR) za Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma in 54.812.419 ITL (28.308 EUR) za Cantina sociale del Vermentino.
The total sum at stake was thus ITL 940 742 439 (EUR 485 854).
Skupni znesek v postopku je tako zna�al 940.742.439 ITL (485.854 EUR).
Meanwhile, by judgment of 27 February 1986, the Tribunale d’Oristano declared DAI insolvent.
V vmesnem času je Tribunale d’Oristano s sodbo z dne 27. februarja 1986 zoper DAI uvedlo stečajni postopek.
In its judgment of 27 January 1989, the Tribunale civile di Roma held as follows:
Tribunale civile di Roma je v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1989 ugotovilo:
As regards relations between Assedile and AIMA, Article 2 of the general conditions of insurance of [the security bond issued by Assedile] provides that Assedile guarantees AIMA, up to the value of the sum insured (which is ITL 1 169 040 262 [EUR 603 759]), reimbursement of any sums which may be owed to it by the contracting party [DAI] as a refund in whole or in part of the advance paid by AIMA in the event of it being found that there is no entitlement to exceptional aid for distillation for all or some of the quantities shown in the application for an advance or in the distillation contract.
Glede odnosa med Assedile in AIMA [polica za var�čino, ki jo je izdala Assedile,] člen 2 splo�nih zavarovalnih pogojev predvideva, da Assedile jamči AIMA do vi�ine zavarovanega zneska (to je 1.169.040.262 ITL [603.759 EUR]) za povračilo zneskov, ki bi ji jih bila morda dolžna pogodbena stranka [DAI] kot celotno ali delno povrnitev predujma, ki ga je izplačala AIMA, če bi se izkazalo, da ni pravice za izredno pomoč pri destilaciji za celoto ali dela količin, navedenih v predlogu za predplačilo ali v pogodbi za destilacijo.
‘In short, Regulation … No 2499/82 confers entitlement to aid on condition that the strictly imposed timelimits and conditions are observed; failure to observe those timelimits and conditions entails recovery in whole or in part of the aid paid in advance.
„V končni fazi Uredba […] �t. 2499/82 podeljuje pravico do pomoči, če se spo�tujejo strogo postavljeni roki in pogoji; nespo�tovanje teh rokov in pogojev pa povzroči, da se del pomoči ali vsa pomoč, ki je bila izplačana s predujmom, vrne.
The distillers are — according to the pro -cedure adopted by the Italian Republic
Na podlagi postopka, ki ga je sprejela Italijanska republika [postopek, ki ga določa
Article 3 of the general conditions provides that AIMA must send DAI the request for repayment of the sum unduly paid; DAI is required to pay the sum sought within 15 days.
Člen 3 določa, da mora AIMA od DAI zahtevati povračilo neupravičeno prejetih zneskov, ta pa je dolžna izplačati zahtevani znesek v petnajstih dneh.
If on expiry of this timelimit no action has been taken on that request AIMA may request the company [Assedile] to pay that sum; the company is required to make that
Če po poteku tega roka zahteva ni imela učinka, lahko AIMA zahteva plačilo tega zneska od družbe [Assedile], ki je
It is established that the applicant distillery failed to meet its obligations on three different counts: (1) it did not pay (as is shown by the absence of any proof of payment among the documents before the Court) the minimum price to the producers, apart from ITL 110 795 870 [EUR 57 221]; (2) it did not pay the aid to the producers within 90 days of the entry of the wine into the distillery (a timelimit which expired in June 1983) and, whether it did or not, (3) it did not provide proof before 1 June 1984 that it had made the payments.
Ugotovljeno je namreč, da tožeča destilarna ni izpolnila treh obveznosti iz različnih naslovov: 1. ni izplačala (kot to izhaja iz neobstoja dokazov o plačilu v spisu) minimalne cene proizvajalcem, razen 110.795.870 ITL (57.221 EUR); 2. ni izplačala pomoči proizvajalcem v devetdesetih dneh po sprejetju vina v destilarno (rok, ki se je iztekel junija 1983) in ne glede na to, ali se je to zgodilo, 3. pred 1. junijem 1984 ni predložila dokazov, da je izvr�ila plačila.
The penalty for such failures is that the security is to be forfeited in its entirety.
Sankcija za opustitev teh obveznosti je, da zavarovanje v celoti zapade.
The contractual clauses cited above are clear and easy to interpret: it is accepted in particular that the guarantee is given for the benefit of AIMA and not for the benefit of other persons such as the producers and that therefore the latter do not have any rights against Assedile in respect of the sum guaranteed.
Na podlagi določbe člena 4 se na družbo [Assedile] v mejah plačanega zneska prenesejo vse pravice, regresi in pravna sredstva, ki jih ima AIMA do pogodbene stranke in njenih pravnih naslednikov.
Furthermore, the court cannot accept the points put forward in mitigation by the distillery in order to justify the failure to make the payments (that it was impossible for it to make the payments because it was in administration, and respect for the principle of equal treatment for creditors), since the expiry of the timelimits for making those payments (June 1983) and for repaying the aid (July 1983) was before the date on which the decision had been taken to apply for it to go into administration (October 1983).
Navedene pogodbene določbe so jasne in se razlagajo preprosto: �e posebej je jasno, da je jamstvo dano v korist AIMA in ne v korist drugih oseb, kot so proizvajalci, ter da ti zato nimajo nobene pravice do Assedile glede zajamčenega zneska.
It is also clear from the wording of Article 3, which requires the company [Assedile] to pay within 15 days of receiving the application for payment from the unpaid beneficiary, that the guarantor cannot raise any objections against the beneficiary.
Poleg tega sodi�če ne more sprejeti razlogov, ki jih je navedla destilarna, da bi upravičila svoje neplačilo (nemožnost izvedbe plačil zaradi postopka prisilnega upravljanja in zaradi spo�tovanja načela enakosti upnikov), ker so se roki za izvedbo teh plačil (junij 1983) in za vrnitev pomoči (julij 1983) iztekli pred dnem, na katerega je bilo odločeno, da predlaga svoje nadzorovano upravljanje (oktober 1983).
AIMA should therefore be reimbursed, under the abovementioned Community provisions, up to 110% of the amount of aid paid by way of an advance, less the aid which it was proved had been actually paid, which is ITL 1 047 084 185 [EUR 540 774] (the total amount of the contracts in respect of
Zato je treba AIMA povrniti, na podlagi prej navedenih določb Skupnosti, znesek v vi�ini 110 % pomoči, izplačane kot predujem, od katerega se od�teje pomoč, katere dejansko izplačilo je bilo dokazano, to je 1.047.084.185 ITL [540.774 EUR] (ves znesek pogodb, za katere ni bil predložen dokaz o plačilu, povečan za 10 % – to je