natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Even if the view were to be taken that a finding that there is no entitlement (full or partial) to aid for distillation is a precondition for any reimbursement, there is no doubt that such entitlement is extinguished due to the failure by the appellant, DAI, to observe the timelimits and conditions laid down in the Community regulation.
Tudi če bi domnevali, da je pogoj za kakr�no koli povračilo ugotovitev, da pravica do pomoči pri destilaciji ne obstaja (v celoti ali delno), ni nobenega dvoma, da je ta pravica ugasnila, ker tožeča stranka DAI ni upo�tevala rokov in pogojev, ki jih je določila uredba Skupnosti.
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS which no proof has been furnished that they were paid, plus 10% — ITL 1 046 277 980 [EUR 540 357] — to which should be added the difference between the aid which it was proved had been paid and the aid paid in advance — ITL 806 205 [EUR 416]).
1.046.277.980 ITL [540.357 EUR], k čemur se pri�teje razlika med pomočjo, za plačilo katere je bil predložen dokaz, in pomočjo, izplačano kot predujem, to je 806.205 ITL [416 EUR]).
On 27 September 1989 four of the applicants (the exception being Cantina sociale del Vermentino) appealed against that judgment before the Corte d’appello (Court of Appeal) in Rome.
Štiri tožeče stranke (izjema je Cantina sociale del Vermentino) so 27. septembra 1989 vložile pritožbo zoper to sodbo pri Corte d’appello (pritožbeno sodi�če) v Rimu.
By judgment of 19 November 1991 that court held that the appeal was inadmissible because the applicants had not correctly notified lodgement of the appeal to DAI’s official receiver, but had notified DAI itself (which was then in receivership), and they had not subsequently properly made further notification within the timelimit imposed on them by the judge investigating the case.
Pritožbeno sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 19. novembra 1991 odločilo, da pritožba ni dopustna, ker tožeče stranke pritožbe niso pravilno vročile stečajnemu upravitelju DAI, temveč DAI sami (ki je bila takrat v stečaju) in ker nato niso pravilno opravile vročitve v roku, ki jim ga je postavil sodnik, ki je bil zadolžen za spis.
It should be pointed out that DAI has never disputed those amounts: although it has stated that it paid producers approximately half of the aid obtained it has not claimed, let alone proved, that it paid that aid within the timelimits laid down in Regulation No 2499/82.
Pripomniti je treba, da DAI ni nikoli izpodbijala teh zneskov: čeprav je zatrjevala, da je izplačala približno polovico prejetih pomoči, ni nikoli zatrjevala, kaj �ele dokazala, da je izplačala te pomoči v rokih, ki jih predvideva Uredba �t. 2499/82.
In the meantime, on 16 January 1990, Assedile paid the sums owing to AIMA under the security.
V vmesnem obdobju je Assedile 16. januarja 1990 plačala zneske, ki jih je dolgovala AIMA na podlagi zavarovanja.
It may be appropriate to point out that the applicant distillery is in no position to complain that the cooperative wine-cellars which have delivered their production are having difficulty in obtaining payment of their debts since by its own action it has placed itself in a situation in which those debts cannot be paid, by filing for insolvency immediately after obtaining the Community aid that should in turn be paid to the producers.
Navesti je treba, da tožeča destilarna ni v položaju, v katerem bi se lahko sklicevala na to, da imajo zadružne vinske kleti, ki so dostavile svoje proizvode, težave z izpolnitvijo svojih terjatev, ker se je sama spravila v položaj, v katerem ni mogla odplačevati terjatev, ker je predlagala stečajni postopek takoj po prejemu pomoči Skupnosti, ki bi jih morala izplačati proizvajalcem.
The four applicants referred to above appealed to the Corte di Cassazione (Court of Cassation).
Štiri zgoraj navedene tožeče stranke so vložile zahtevo za revizijo pri Corte di Cassazione (kasacijsko sodi�če).
They claimed, in particular, that they had appealed against the abovementioned judgment of the Tribunale civile di Roma in order to obtain a declaration that that judgment was incorrect not as regards DAI but solely as regards AIMA and Assedile.
Trdile so zlasti, da so se pritožile zoper zgoraj navedeno sodbo Tribunale civile di Roma, da bi se ugotovilo, da sodba ni bila pravilna, in sicer ne v zvezi z DAI, ampak izključno glede AIMA in Assedile.
They therefore argued that the procedural error was one that should not operate so as to bar their appeal.
Ugovarjale so torej, da jim zaradi postopkovne napake ne bi smelo biti onemogočeno vložiti pritožbo.
14 By judgment of 28 November 1994, the Corte di Cassazione dismissed their appeal against the judgment of the Corte d’appello.
14 Kasacijsko sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 28. novembra 1994 zavrnilo njihovo zahtevo za revizijo zoper sodbo pritožbenega sodi�ča.
14 — So far as one can deduce from the papers before the Court, this must have been the essence of their argument before the Corte di Cassazione.
14 – Kot je mogoče sklepati iz dokumentov predloženih Sodi�ču, je to moralo biti bistvo njihovih trditev pred kasacijskim sodi�čem.
The cooperative wine-cellars may — as may the guarantor if it decides to take the applicant’s place — obtain satisfaction of their rights to receive payment in the course of the insolvency proceedings, together with all the other creditors and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment for creditors.’
Zadružne vinske kleti lahko, kot tudi porok, če se odloči, da bo uveljavljal regresni zahtevek, dobijo poplačilo svojih terjatev v okviru stečajnega postopka, skupaj z drugimi upniki in v skladu z načelom enakega obravnavanja upnikov.“
The five applicants duly registered their claims among DAI’s liabilities in the context of the insolvency proceedings that had been brought against it.
Pet tožečih strank je pravilno prijavilo svoje terjatve do DAI v okviru postopka zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti, ki je potekal v zvezi s to družbo.
by the intervention bodies to reduce the expenditure of the EAGGF (in other words, it must be entered in the EAGGF accounts).
zasežene var�čine uporabiti za zmanj�anje izdatkov EKUJS (z drugimi besedami, te morajo biti knjižene v korist EKUJS).
The Commission stated that its officials would make the necessary investigations, in particular at AIMA, in order to determine the actual recipient of the security retained by AIMA.
Komisija je navedla, da bodo njene službe opravile potrebne poizvedbe, predvsem pri AIMA, da ugotovijo dejanskega prejemnika zneska var�čine, ki ga je prejela AIMA.
By letter of 22 January 1996 the four applicants requested AIMA to honour the debts owed to them by DAI.
Z dopisom z dne 22. januarja 1996 so �tiri tožeče stranke od AIMA zahtevale, naj izpolni njihove terjatve do DAI. Navedle so, da je bila AIMA neupravičeno obogatena s prejemom var�čine.
AIMA rejected that complaint, pointing out that it was entitled to the security and that the producers had no right to bring a direct action against it for payment of the debts owed to them by DAI.
AIMA je zavrnila to zahtevo z navedbo, da ji var�čina pripada in da proizvajalci nimajo nobenega neposrednega pravnega sredstva, s katerim bi lahko od nje zahtevali izpolnitev terjatev, ki so jih imeli do DAI.
On 16 February 1996 the applicants brought an action before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italy), against AIMA for unjust enrichment.
Tožeče stranke so 16. februarja 1996 na Tribunale civile di Cagliari (Italija) vložile tožbo zoper AIMA zaradi neupravičene obogatitve.
By letter of 8 December 1997, the Commission informed the applicants of the results of its investigations at AIMA.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 8. decembra 1997 obvestila tožeče stranke o izidih poizvedbe, opravljene pri AIMA. AIMA je Komisijo obvestila, da je 21. februarja 1991 vrnila bančno nakazilo v znesku 1.047.084.185 ITL (540.774 EUR), izdano na ime Assedile 16. januarja 1990, in da je v poslovnem letu 1991 ta znesek – „ki verjetno ustreza znesku var�čine“ – vknjižila v korist EKUJS.
On 13 November 1996 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Commission.
Tožeče stranke so 13. novembra 1996 pri Komisiji vložile pritožbo.
They alleged that AIMA had infringed Community regulations, in particular Regulation No 2499/82, and requested the Commission to call on AIMA and the Italian Republic to repay them the amounts which they had not received by way of Community aid for the 1982/83 wine year.
Trdile so, da je AIMA domnevno kr�ila predpise Skupnosti, �e posebej Uredbo �t. 2499/82, in predlagale Komisiji, naj AIMA in Italijanski republiki naloži, naj jim povrneta zneske, ki jih niso prejele iz naslova pomoči Skupnosti za vinsko tržno leto 1982/1983.
By letter of 25 June 1997 the Commission informed the applicants that Assedile had paid AIMA the amount of the security, plus interest, on 16 January 1990.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 25. junija 1997 tožeče stranke obvestila, da je Assedile 16. januarja 1990 izplačala AIMA znesek var�čine, skupaj z obrestmi.
It added that under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 352/78 any security which is forfeited is to be used
Dodala je, da morajo v skladu s členom 2(1) Uredbe �t. 352/78 intervencijski organi vse
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS the distiller was intended to ensure that the preventive distillation operation as a whole was in order, in particular as regards actual payment of the aid to producers.
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI celotnega postopka preventivne destilacije, predvsem glede dejanskega izplačila pomoči proizvajalcem.
Any other interpretation would amount to a breach of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 12 EC.
Vsaka drugačna razlaga bi bila kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja, ki ga določa člen 12 ES.
That view was, they argued, confirmed by the successive Commission regulations laying down provisions relating to preventive distillation in respect of the following wine years.
To mnenje je bilo, kot zatrjujejo, potrjeno z nadaljnjimi predpisi Komisije, ki določajo pravila, ki se nana�ajo na naslednja vinska tržna leta.
The Commission pointed out that, in its judgment of 27 January 1989, which had acquired the force of res judicata, the Tribunale civile di Roma had not accepted that the applicants had a claim to the security.
Komisija je poudarila, da v sodbi z dne 27. januarja 1989, ki je že postala pravnomočna, Tribunale civile di Roma ni sprejelo ugotovitve, da imajo tožeče stranke pravico zahtevati var�čino.
The Commission inferred from this that, as the applicants had no claim over the security retained by AIMA, there could likewise be no entitlement once that amount had been refunded to the Commission.
Iz tega je sklepala, da tožeče stranke nimajo nobene pravice do zneska var�čine, ki jo je obdržala AIMA, ta pravica pa tudi ne more nastati, ko se ta znesek vrne Komisiji.
In the alternative, the Commission observed that AIMA’s approval of the contracts entered into between the applicants and DAI did not alter the private law nature of those contracts.
Podredno je Komisija navedla, da potrditev pogodb s strani AIMA, ki so jih sklenile tožeče stranke in DAI, ne spremeni zasebne narave teh pogodb.
It followed that the Commission’s alleged obligations with regard to the applicants were of a noncontractual nature.
Iz tega izhaja, da bi bile zatrjevane obveznosti Komisije do tožečih strank nepogodbene narave.
Consequently, any action against the Community was timebarred under Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, as the security was paid to AIMA on 16 January 1990 and refunded to the EAGGF during the 1991 financial year.
Posledično je vsaka tožba proti Skupnosti zastarala na podlagi člena 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, ker je bila izplačana AIMA 16. januarja 1990 in vrnjena EKUJS v proračunskem letu 1991.
Moreover, according to the applicants’ written replies to the questions from the Court of First Instance, the proceedings for unjust enrichment brought before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari were suspended in order to enable the parties to reach amicable agreement on the apportionment of the costs, following the results of the Commission investigation mentioned in point 37 above.
Med drugim je bil, kot je navedeno v pisnih odgovorih tožečih strank na vpra�anja Sodi�ča prve stopnje, postopek zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, ki je bil začet pred Tribunale civile di Cagliari, na podlagi rezultatov poizvedbe Komisije, navedene zgoraj v točki 37, prekinjen, da bi stranke lahko dosegle poravnavo glede stro�kov.
That investigation had revealed that AIMA had, contrary to what it claimed before and during the abovementioned proceedings, refunded the security to the EAGGF.
Ta poizvedba je pokazala, da je AIMA, v nasprotju s tem, kar je zatrjevala pred začetkom tega postopka in med njim, povrnila znesek var�čine EKUJS.
In the applicants’ view, those proceedings had thereby become devoid of purpose, since it was apparent that AIMA therefore could not have gained any unjust enrichment.
Po mnenju tožečih strank zato ta postopek ni bil več smiseln, ker je postalo jasno, da se AIMA ni mogla neupravičeno obogatiti.
By letter of 31 July 1998, signed by the Director-General of the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture, which reached the applicants on 14 August 1998 (‘the contested letter’), the Commission rejected that request.
Komisija je to zahtevo zavrnila z dopisom z dne 31. julija 1998, ki ga je podpisal generalni direktor in so ga tožeče stranke prejele 14. avgusta 1998 (v nadaljevanju: izpodbijani dopis).
It maintained that, under the procedure for payment of the aid to the distiller applicable in the present case, the aid was primarily for the benefit of the distiller, enabling him to offset the high buyingin price of the wine.
Navedla je, da je bil postopek plačila pomoči destilaterju, ki se je uporabljal v obravnavanem primeru, primarno v korist destilaterju, ki mu omogoča kompenzacijo visoke nakupne cene vina.
The security was made out for the benefit of AIMA, and the producers could not claim any rights to that security.
Var�čina je bila zagotovljena v korist AIMA in proizvajalci ne morejo uveljavljati nobene pravice do njenega zneska.
The choice afforded to Member States between that procedure (provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82) and the procedure for direct payment of the aid to the producer (provided for in Article 10 of that regulation) did not mean that those two provisions should be interpreted uniformly as meaning that the producers were always the recipients of the aid.
Izbira, prepu�čena državam članicam, med tem postopkom (ki ga določa člen 9 Uredbe �t. 2499/82) in postopkom neposrednega plačila pomoči proizvajalcu (ki ga določa člen 10 te uredbe) ne pomeni, da je treba ti določbi razlagati na enak način v smislu, da so proizvajalci vedno prejemniki pomoči.
Moreover, the Commission contended that the difference between the procedures did not infringe the principle of equal treatment.
Med drugim je Komisija navedla, da razlika v postopkih ni v nasprotju z načelom enakega obravnavanja.
The difference in treatment arose out of differing factual circumstances (administrative systems and numbers of producers which differed between Member States, and which in some Member States justified centralised payment of the aid to distillers).
Razlika v obravnavanju je nastala zaradi dejanskih razlik (različni upravni sistemi in različno �tevilo proizvajalcev v posameznih državah članicah lahko v nekaterih državah članicah utemeljijo centralizacijo plačila pomoči pri destilaterjih).
The Court of First Instance ruled that the first two heads of claim were inadmissible. 16
Sodi�če prve stopnje je odločilo, da prvi točki zahtevka nista dopustni. 16
With regard to the third head of claim, the Commission put forward three grounds of inadmissibility.
Glede tretje točke zahtevka je Komisija izpostavila tri razloge za nedopustnost.
Lastly, in a written reply to a question from the Court of First Instance, the applicants stated that the insolvency proceedings had been concluded during 2000.
Nazadnje so tožeče stranke v pisnem odgovoru na vpra�anje Sodi�ča prve stopnje navedle, da je bil postopek zaradi plačilne nesposobnosti končan leta 2000.
They had taken part in the distribution as preferential creditors due to their status as an agricultural cooperative, under Article 2751a(5a) and Article 2776 of the Italian Civil Code.
Pri delitvi so sodelovale kot privilegirani upniki zaradi svojega položaja kmetijske zadruge v skladu s členom 2751(a)(5)(a) in členom 2776 italijanskega civilnega zakonika.
Under that distribution they received payment of 39% of the acknowledged debts owed by DAI.
V delitvi so prejele plačilo svojih priznanih terjatev do DAI, in sicer 39 % zneska teh terjatev.
Following that distribution, the amounts of their outstanding debts were: ITL 72 797 022 (EUR 37 597) in the case of Cantina sociale di Dolianova, ITL 54 412 685 (EUR 28 102) in the case of Cantina Trexenta, ITL 350 554 208 (EUR 181 046) in the case of Cantina sociale Marmilla, ITL 133 888 664 (EUR 69 148) in the case of Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma and ITL 37 212 737 (EUR 19 219) in the case of Cantina sociale del Vermentino.
Po tej delitvi so njihove neplačane terjatve zna�ale: 72.797.022 ITL (37.597 EUR) za Cantina sociale di Dolianova, 54.412.685 ITL (28.102 EUR) za Cantina Trexenta, 350.554.208 ITL (181.046 EUR) za Cantina sociale Marmilla, 133.888.664 ITL (69.148 EUR) za Cantina sociale Santa Maria La Palma in 37.212.737 ITL (19.219 EUR) za Cantina sociale del Vermentino. Tako je zna�al skupni neporavnani dolg 648.865.316 ITL (335.094 EUR).
First, it argued that in the management of the support measures provided for under the common agricultural policy, there was no direct relationship between the Community and economic operators.
Prvič je trdila, da pri urejanju podpornih ukrepov, ki so predvideni v okviru skupne kmetijske politike, ni bilo nobenega neposrednega razmerja med Skupnostjo in gospodarskimi subjekti.
In the present case, there was therefore no conduct attributable to the Commission, so that the conditions for referral of the matter to the Court under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC were not met. 17
V tej zadevi torej ni bilo ravnanja, ki bi ga bilo mogoče pripisati Komisiji, tako da niso bili izpolnjeni pogoji za tožbo pred Sodi�čem na podlagi drugega odstavka člena 288. 17
The Court of First Instance found that the conduct for which the Commission was criticised was in essence that, under the
Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da je bilo Komisiji očitano ravnanje predvsem to, da s sistemom izplačil pomoči, ki ga je določal
15 — Article 235 EC confers jurisdiction on the Community judicature in disputes relating to compensation for damage provided for in the second paragraph of Article 288 EC.
15 – Na podlagi člena 235 ES je v sporih glede nadomestila �kode, ki jih predvideva drugi odstavek člena 288 ES, pristojno sodstvo Skupnosti.
That paragraph provides that, in the case of noncontractual liability, ‘the Community shall, in accordance with the general principles common to the laws of the Member States, make good any damage caused by its institutions or by is servants in the performance of their duties’.
Ta odstavek določa, da pri nepogodbeni odgovornosti „Skupnost v skladu s splo�nimi načeli, ki so skupna pravnim ureditvam držav članic, nadomesti kakr�no koli �kodo, ki so jo povzročile njene institucije ali njeni uslužbenci pri opravljanju svojih dolžnosti“.
16 — Paragraphs 58 to 84 of the judgment of the Court of First Instance.
16 – Točke od 58 do 84 sodbe Sodi�ča prve stopnje.17 – Točka 85.
By application to the Court of First Instance lodged on 12 October 1998 the applicants brought proceedings against the Commission (i) seeking annulment of the contested letter under Article 230 EC; (ii) alleging that the Commission’s failure to adopt a decision regarding the grant of the Community aid concerned to the applicants was an unlawful failure to act contrary to Article 232 EC and (iii) ordering the Commission on the ground of unjust enrichment
Tožeče stranke so 12. oktobra 1998 pri Sodi�ču prve stopnje vložile tožbo zoper Komisijo, s katero so zahtevale, (i) naj se izpodbijani dopis razglasi za ničen na podlagi člena 230 ES; (ii) naj se ugotovi, da je Komisijino nesprejetje odločbe glede dodelitve pomoči Skupnosti tožečim strankam nezakonita opustitev v nasprotju s členom 232 in (iii) naj se Komisiji naloži, naj na podlagi neupravičene obogatitve in/ali z nadome-
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS system for payment of aid provided for in Article 9 — which differed in that aspect from the system provided for in Article 10 — of Regulation No 2499/82 did not guarantee, particularly in the event of the insolvency of the distiller, payment to the producers concerned of the aid included in the minimum buyingin price for wine delivered to that distiller and distilled in accordance with the provisions of that regulation.
KOMISIJA PROTI CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA IN DRUGI člen 9 Uredbe �t. 2499/82, ki se je glede tega razlikoval od sistema, ki ga je določal člen 10 te uredbe, predvsem pri plačilni nesposobnosti destilaterja ni zagotovila izplačila pomoči, vključene v minimalno nakupno ceno, zadevnim proizvajalcem za vino, ki je bilo dobavljeno destilaterju in destilirano v skladu z določbami te uredbe.
The Commission was the author of Regulation No 2499/82.
Komisija je bila avtorica Uredbe �t. 2499/82.
The unlawfulness thus alleged was therefore attributable to the Commission.
Tako zatrjevano nezakonitost je torej mogoče pripisati Komisiji.
18 The Commission has not challenged that ruling in the present appeal.
18Komisija v obravnavani pritožbi ni izpodbijala te odločitve.
Secondly, the Commission argued that the applicants enjoyed effective judicial protection before the national courts.
Drugič je Komisija trdila, da bi lahko tožeče stranke dosegle učinkovito sodno varstvo pred nacionalnimi sodi�či.
In particular, they could have brought an action for payment against the intervention agency before a national court as in Unifrex.
Zlasti bi lahko pri nacionalnem sodi�ču proti intervencijskemu organu vložile tožbo za izplačilo v skladu s sodbo v zadevi Unifrex.
19In their action for unjust enrichment in the present case against AIMA (pending before the Tribunale civile di Cagliari), the applicants would be able to suggest to the national court that it should refer a question for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC in order to enable the Court of Justice to consider the validity of the regulatory provisions concerned. 20
19Tožeče stranke bi lahko v okviru tožbe zaradi neupravičene obogatitve proti organu AIMA (ki je vložena pri Tribunale civile di Cagliari) predlagale nacionalnemu sodi�ču tudi, naj postavi vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje na podlagi člena 234 ES, da bi Sodi�če lahko preverilo veljavnost zadevnih določb uredbe. 20
The Court of First Instance referred to settled caselaw to the effect that an action for damages under Article 235 EC must be appraised with regard to the entire system for the judicial protection of the individual established by the Treaty.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je sklicevalo na ustaljeno sodno prakso, da je treba od�kodninsko tožbo na podlagi člena 235 ES presojati glede na celoten sistem sodnega varstva posameznikov, ki ga uvaja Pogodba.
Where an individual considered that he had been harmed by the lawful application of Community legislation which he considered to be unlawful and the event giving rise to the alleged damage was therefore attributable exclusively to the Community, the admissibility of such an action for damages could, in certain cases, be subject to the prior exhaustion of national remedies.
Kadar je posameznik menil, da mu je bila povzročena �koda zaradi pravilne uporabe predpisa Skupnosti, za kateri je menil, da ni zakonit, in da je bilo dejstvo, ki je povzročilo zatrjevano �kodo, mogoče pripisati izključno Skupnosti, je bila lahko dopustnost take od�kodninske tožbe v določenih primerih pogojena z izčrpanjem nacionalnih pravnih sredstev.