natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING AND OTHERS purpose of safeguarding the Community’s financial interests.
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING IN DRUGI le splo�na načela nadzorovanja in sankcioniranja za varstvo finančnih interesov Skupnosti.
Recovery must therefore be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1).
Vračila se morajo tako izvajati na podlagi navedenega člena 23(1).
It follows from those considerations that the answer to the first and seventh questions referred to the Court should be that Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 requires the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law.
Iz zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev izhaja, da je treba na prvo in sedmo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člen 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 države članice zavezuje, da zahtevajo vračilo sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, ne da bi bila za to potrebna pravna podlaga v nacionalnem pravu.
The questions concerning the application of the principles of the protection of legit­imate expectations and legal certainty, the effect of the fact that the recipient of the subsidies is a public­law person and the repayment to the Community of those subsidies
Vprašanja v zvezi z uporabo načel upravičenega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti, posledice dejstva, da je upravičenec do subvencij oseba javnega prava, in vračila teh subvencij Skupnosti
Thus, it would be useful for the national court to know whether the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, as they are understood in Community law, are to be taken into account when applying Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88.
Tako je treba upo�tevati, da bi bilo za predložitveno sodi�če koristno izvedeti, ali je treba pri uporabi člena 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 upo�tevati načeli pravne varnosti in upravičenega pričakovanja, kot se razlagata v pravu Skupnosti.
If that is the case, the national court is unsure as to whether those principles may be understood in a broader sense in national law than in Community law and, in particular, whether a recipient of funds who has acted negligently or wrongfully within the meaning of Article 23(1) may rely on those principles when the administrative authority responsible for granting such funds committed an error in so doing.
Če to drži, navedeno sodi�če spra�uje, ali je mogoče ti načeli v notranjem pravu razlagati �ir�e kot v pravu Skupnosti in zlasti ali se lahko upravičenec do sredstev, ki jih je pridobil na podlagi malomarnosti ali zlorabe v smislu navedenega člena 23(1), sklicuje na ti načeli, če je pristojna uprava storila napako pri dodeljevanju teh sredstev.
In addition, the national court, in its fifth and sixth questions, wishes to know whether the fact that the recipient is a publiclaw person or that the Member State has repayed the funds to the Community can have an influence on the application of those same principles to the recovery of the funds.
Poleg tega želi predložitveno sodi�če s petim in �estim vpra�anjem izvedeti, ali lahko dejstvo, da je upravičenec do sredstev oseba javnega prava ali da je država članica Skupnosti že vrnila navedena sredstva, vpliva na uporabo teh načel pri vračilu sredstev.
Gemeente Rotterdam and Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant claim that there is no Community legitimate expectation in this case which takes precedence over the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in national law.
Gemeente Rotterdam in Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant zatrjujeta, da v obravnavanem primeru ni upravičenega pričakovanja Skupnosti, ki bi imelo prednost pred notranjim načelom upravičenega pričakovanja. Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant meni tudi, da to, da upravičenec ne vrne sredstev, ne vpliva na interese Skupnosti.
The Netherlands Government considers that, in so far as recovery takes place under the rules of national law, the national principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations may be wider in scope than the same general principles at Community level.
Nizozemska vlada meni, da lahko, če se izterjava izvaja na podlagi pravil nacionalnega prava, notranji načeli pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja veljata v �ir�em obsegu, kot veljata isti splo�ni načeli na ravni Skupnosti.
The conduct of the authority which granted the funds may be taken into account when applying those principles.
V zvezi s tem je mogoče pri uporabi teh načel upo�tevati tudi ravnanje organa, ki je dodelil sredstva.
The Netherlands Government pointed out at the hearing that the sums improperly granted from the Structural Funds had been repaid to the Community.
Ta vlada je na obravnavi navedla, da so bili zneski, ki so bili nezakonito dodeljeni iz strukturnih skladov, vrnjeni Skupnosti.
The Commission suggests merging the questions and answering them on the basis of the principles laid down by the Court in Deutsche Milchkontor and Others, cited above, and in Case C-336/00 Huber [2002] ECR I-7699.
Komisija predlaga, da se vpra�anja združijo in da se nanje odgovori na podlagi načel, ki jih je Sodi�če izoblikovalo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi in sodbi z dne 19. septembra 2002 v zadevi Huber (C-336/00, Recueil, str. I-7699).
In the contrary case, Community law does not prevent those principles being taken into account when recovering funds unduly paid where the national authorities have committed faults or have been negligent, on condition, however, that the interests of the Community are fully taken into account.
V nasprotnem primeru naj pravo Skupnosti – če so napake in malomarnost posledica ravnanja nacionalnih organov – ne bi nasprotovalo temu, da se navedeni načeli upo�tevata pri vračilu sredstev, dodeljenih brez pravne podlage, vendar le pod pogojem, da se v celoti upo�teva interes Skupnosti.
All the interveners before the Court consider that the fact that the recipient of the funds is a publiclaw person is irrelevant to the application of the rules concerning recovery.
Nihče od intervenientov pred Sodi�čem ne meni, da dejstvo, da je upravičenec do sredstev oseba javnega prava, kakor koli vpliva na uporabo pravil o vračilu sredstev.
It follows from the caselaw of the Court that, in the absence of provisions of Community law, disputes concerning the recovery of amounts wrongly paid under Community law must be decided by national courts in application of their own domestic law, subject to the limits imposed by Community law (Deutsche Milchkontor and Others, cited above; Huber, cited above; and Case C-158/06 ROM­projecten [2007] ECR I-5103, paragraph 23).
Uvodoma je treba opozoriti, da iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da morajo v sporih o zahtevkih za vračilo sredstev, ki so bila po pravu Skupnosti izplačana brez pravne podlage, če ni predpisov prava Skupnosti, odločati nacionalna sodi�ča ter pri tem uporabiti svoje nacionalno pravo, ki pa je podvrženo omejitvam prava Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeni sodbi Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, točka 19, in Huber, točka 55, ter sodbo z dne 21. junija 2007 v zadevi ROM-projecten, C-158/06, ZOdl., str. I-5103, točka 23).
The Court has laid down some of those limits.
Sodi�če je izoblikovalo nekaj takih omejitev.
First of all, the application of national law must not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law.
Prvič, uporaba nacionalnega prava ne sme ovirati uporabe in učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti.
That would be the case, in particular, if such an application made it impossible in practice to recover the sums improperly granted (Deutsche Milchkontor and Others, cited above, paragraphs 21 and 22).
Za tak primer bi �lo zlasti, če bi bilo zaradi te uporabe vračilo sredstev, dodeljenih brez pravne podlage, praktično nemogoče (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, točki 21 in 22).
It follows
Iz tega izhaja, da mora nacionalno
2008 — JOINED CASES C-383/06 TO C-385/06 that, it is for the national court to apply, in principle, national law while taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of Community law, a task which may lead it to refrain from applying, if need be, a national rule preventing that or to interpret a national rule which has been drawn up with only a purely domestic situation in mind (see inter alia, Case C-443/03 Leffler [2005] ECR I-9611, paragraph 51).
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-383/06 DO C-385/06 sodi�če načeloma uporabljati svoje nacionalno pravo, pri čemer pa mora zagotavljati polno učinkovitost prava Skupnosti, kar ga lahko pripelje do tega, da po potrebi ne uporabi nacionalnega pravila, ki mu to preprečuje, ali da poda razlago nacionalnega pravila, oblikovanega zgolj glede na notranji položaj (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 8. novembra 2005 v zadevi Leffler, C-443/03, ZOdl., str. I-9611, točka 51).
National legislation must also be applied in a manner which is not discriminatory as compared to procedures for deciding similar national disputes and the national authorities must act with the same degree of care, and in accordance with rules and procedures which do not make the recovery of the sums in question more difficult, as in comparable cases concerning solely the application of corresponding national legislation (Deutsche Milchkontor and Others, cited above, paragraphs 23).
Nacionalno pravo je treba poleg tega uporabiti nediskriminatorno glede na postopke, po katerih se odloča v podobnih nacionalnih sporih, nacionalni organi pa morajo v zvezi s tem ravnati z enako skrbnostjo in tako, da vračilo zadevnih zneskov ni težje izvedljivo kot v primerljivih primerih, v katerih se uporabijo ustrezne nacionalne določbe (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, točka 23).
In the main proceedings, the national court is thus required to implement the obligation which flows from Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 when it has before it an application to recover sums lost as a result of abuse or negligence and, if need be, to set aside or interpret a rule of national law such as the AWB which would prevent such recovery but has been drawn up with purely domestic situations in mind.
V zadevah v postopku v glavni stvari mora zato nacionalno sodi�če, kadar odloča o zahtevku za vračilo sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, uveljaviti obveznost, ki izhaja iz člena 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88, in po potrebi prezreti ali ustrezno razlagati pravilo nacionalnega prava, kot je Awb, ki je bilo sprejeto zgolj za urejanje notranjih položajev in ki bi preprečevalo omenjeno vračilo.
It is common ground that the Court has also decided that it cannot be regarded as contrary to Community law for national law, as far as the withdrawal of administrative measures and the recovery of sums wrongly paid by public authorities are concerned, to take into account, in addition to the principle of legality, the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, since those principles form part of the legal order of the Community (Deutsche Milchkontor and Others, cited above, paragraph 30; Joined Cases C-80/99 to C-82/99 Flemmer and Others [2001] ECR I-7211, paragraph 60; Huber, cited above, paragraph 56; and ROM­projecten, cited above, paragraph 24).
Sodi�če je prav tako nesporno presodilo, da ni v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, če nacionalno pravo na področju preklica upravnih ukrepov in povračila finančnih prejemkov, ki so jih javni organi neupravičeno izplačali, poleg načela zakonitosti upo�teva tudi načeli varstva upravičenega pričakovanja in pravne varnosti glede na to, da sta slednji del pravnega reda Skupnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, točka 30; sodbo z dne 9. oktobra 2001 v združenih zadevah Flemmer in drugi, od C-80/99 do C-82/99, Recueil, str. I-7211, točka 60, ter zgoraj navedeni sodbi Huber, točka 56, in ROM-projecten, točka 24).
Those principles must be observed all the more strictly in the case of rules liable to have financial consequences (Case
Navedeni načeli sta �e posebej pomembni v primeru predpisov, ki bi lahko imeli finančne posledice (glej
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING AND OTHERS
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING IN DRUGI sodbi z dne 16. marca 2006 v zadevi Emsland-Stärke, C-94/05, ZOdl., str. I-2619, točka 43; z dne 26. oktobra 2006 v zadevi Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun, C-248/04, ZOdl., str.
However, as was stated in paragraph 40 of the present judgment, Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 requires the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law.
Vendar pa, kot je navedeno v točki 40 te sodbe, člen 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 države članice zavezuje, da zahtevajo vračilo sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, ne da bi bila za to potrebna pravna podlaga v nacionalnem pravu.
It follows that the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations must be applied in accordance with the rules of Community law.
Iz tega izhaja, da se načeli pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja uporabljata po pravilih prava Skupnosti.
It should be borne in mind that, in regard to the Structural Funds, Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2052/88 provides that Community operations are to be established through close consultations between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities and bodies in the Member State.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da na področju strukturnih skladov člen 4(1) Uredbe �t. 2052/88 določa, da se ukrep Skupnosti sprejme s tesnim sodelovanjem med Komisijo, državami članicami in pristojnimi organi ter institucijami teh držav.
Those consultations are also reflected in the residual responsibility of the Member States towards the Community where sums from the Structural Funds are lost as a result of abuse or negligence.
To sodelovanje se med drugim odraža v sistemu subsidiarne odgovornosti držav članic v razmerju do Skupnosti v primeru izgube zneskov, izplačanih iz strukturnih skladov, zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti.
The fact that the recipient of the funds is a publiclaw person is irrelevant to the application of those principles.
V zvezi s tem dejstvo, da je upravičenec do sredstev oseba javnega prava, ne vpliva na uporabo teh načel.
Moreover, the principle that the application of national law must not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law requires that the interests of the Community must be taken fully into consideration in the application of provisions such as Articles 4.49 and 4.57 of the AWB, which, according to the national court, give the national administrative authorities a discretionary power to recover sums unduly paid and which permit the recipient of such sums to rely, in their defence, on the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations (see, to that effect, Deut­sche Milchkontor and Others, cited above, paragraph 32; Joined Cases C-80/99 to
Poleg tega načelo, v skladu s katerim uporaba nacionalne zakonodaje ne sme ovirati uporabe in učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti, zahteva, da se pri uporabi določb, kot so določbe členov 4:49 in 4:57 Awb – ki po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča nacionalnim upravnim organom dovoljujejo, da o izterjavi sredstev, dodeljenih brez pravne podlage, odločajo po prostem preudarku, in ki upravičencu do teh sredstev omogočajo, da se sklicuje na načelo varstva upravičenega pričakovanja – v celoti upo�teva
C-82/99 Flemmer and Others, cited above, paragraph 61; and Huber, cited above, paragraph 57).
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-383/06 DO C-385/06 interes Skupnosti (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedene sodbe Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, točka 32; Flemmer in drugi, točka 61, ter Huber, točka 57).
In this respect, it should be pointed out that it has been held that the system of subsidies developed in the Community rules is based, inter alia, on compliance by the recipient with a series of conditions of entitlement to financial assistance.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je bilo razsojeno, da subvencijski sistem, ki ga je oblikovala zakonodaja Skupnosti, med drugim temelji na tem, da mora upravičenec za pridobitev pravice do finančne pomoči izpolniti določene pogoje.
If the recipient does not fulfil all his obligations, it follows from Article 24(2) of Regulation No 4253/88 that the Commission is entitled to reconsider the scope of its obligations.
Če upravičenec ne izpolni vseh pogojev, iz člena 24(2) Uredbe 4253/88 izhaja, da lahko Komisija ponovno pretehta obseg njegovih obveznosti.
Finally, the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations may not be relied upon by a recipient which has committed a manifest infringement of the rules in force (see Case 67/84 Sideradria v Commission [1985] ECR 3983, paragraph 21).
Nazadnje, na načelo varstva upravičenega pričakovanja se ne more sklicevati upravičenec, ki je očitno kr�il veljavno zakonodajo (glej sodbo Sodi�ča z dne 12. decembra 1985 v zadevi Sideradria proti Komisiji, 67/84, Recueil, str. 3983, točka 21).
In the main proceedings, it can be seen from the information provided by the national court, on the one hand, that the decisions to grant the funds were subject to compliance on the part of the recipients with the rules in the ESF Regulation and, in particular, with the obligation that the project be administered by its own project administration, and, on the other, that those rules were, more or less deliberately, not complied with.
V zadevah v postopku v glavni stvari je mogoče iz navedb predložitvenega sodi�ča sklepati, na eni strani, da so bile odločbe o odobritvi sredstev pogojene s tem, da upravičenci upo�tevajo določbe ESF Regeling in zlasti obveznost zagotovitve ločenega upravnega spremljanja ter, na drugi strani, da ta pravila bolj ali manj namenoma niso bila upo�tevana.
It is therefore for the national court to assess whether, having regard to the conduct of both the recipient of the funds and the administrative authority, the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, as they are understood in Community law, may legitimately be relied on as a defence against claims for repayment.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora tako presoditi, ali je mogoče ob upo�tevanju ravnanja upravičencev do sredstev in uprave zahtevi za vračilo ugovarjati s sklicevanjem na načeli pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, kot se razlagata v pravu Skupnosti.
Moreover, it can be seen from the observations made at the hearing by the Netherlands Government and the Commission that the sums unduly granted have been repayed to the Community.
Poleg tega iz stali�č, ki sta jih na obravnavi podali nizozemska vlada in Komisija, izhaja, da so bila nezakonito odobrena sredstva vrnjena Skupnosti.
However, since Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 imposes an obligation on the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence, the fact that the Community was repaid by the Member State does not, as such, dispense the latter from the obligation to recover such amounts.
Vendar pa glede na to, da člen 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 države članice zavezuje, da zahtevajo vračilo sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, dejstvo, da so bila sredstva vrnjena Skupnosti, države članice samo po sebi ne odvezuje, da zahteva vračilo omenjenih sredstev.
It follows from the foregoing that the answer to the questions referred to the Court should be that the recovery of amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence must be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in national law, on condition that the application of that law does not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law and does not make it impossible in practice to recover the sums improperly granted.
Zato iz zgoraj navedenih ugotovitev izhaja, da je treba na zastavljena vpra�anja odgovoriti, da se morajo vračila sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, izvajati na podlagi člena 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 in določb nacionalnega prava, pod pogojem, da uporaba tega prava ne ovira uporabe in učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti in da dejansko ne onemogoča vračila zneskov, izplačanih brez pravne podlage.
It is for the national court to ensure the full application of Community law by setting aside or, in so far as necessary, interpreting a national rule such as the AWB which prevents such application.
Nacionalno sodi�če mora zagotoviti, da se pravo Skupnosti uporablja v celoti, s tem da po potrebi prezre ali ustrezno razlaga nacionalno pravilo, kot je Awb, ki to preprečuje.
The national court may apply the Community law principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations when assessing the conduct of both the recipient of the amounts lost and the administrative authority, on condition that full account is taken of the interests of the Community.
Nacionalno sodi�če lahko pri presojanju ravnanja upravičencev do izgubljenih sredstev in uprave uporabi skupnostni načeli pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, če pri tem v celoti upo�teva interes Skupnosti.
The fact that the recipient of the funds is a publiclaw person is irrelevant in that regard.
Dejstvo, da je upravičenec do sredstev oseba javnega prava, pri tem ni pomembno.
Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993 requires the Member States to recover any amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence without there being any need for authority to do so under national law.
Člen 23(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) št. 4253/88 z dne 19. decembra 1988 o določbah za izvajanje Uredbe št. 2052/88 glede usklajevanja dejavnosti različnih strukturnih skladov med seboj in z dejavnostmi Evropske investicijske banke ter drugih obstoječih finančnih instrumentov, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) št. 2082/93 z dne 20. julija 1993, države članice obvezuje, da zahtevajo vračilo sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, ne da bi bila za to potrebna pravna podlaga v nacionalnem pravu.
The recovery of amounts lost as a result of an irregularity or negligence must be carried out on the basis of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, as amended by Regulation No 2082/93, and in accordance with the detailed rules laid down in national law, on condition that the application of that law does not hinder the application or the effectiveness of Community law and does not make it impossible in practice to recover the sums improperly granted.
Vračila sredstev, izgubljenih zaradi zlorabe ali malomarnosti, se morajo izvajati na podlagi člena 23(1) Uredbe št. 4253/88, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo št. 2082/93, in določb nacionalnega prava, pod pogojem, da uporaba tega prava ne ovira uporabe in učinkovitosti prava Skupnosti in da dejansko ne onemogoča vračila zneskov, izplačanih brez pravne podlage.
It is for the national court to ensure the full application of Community law by setting aside or, in so far as necessary, interpreting a national rule such as the General Statute on administrative law (Algemene wet bestuursrecht) which prevents such application.
Nacionalno sodišče mora zagotoviti, da se pravo Skupnosti uporablja v celoti, s tem da po potrebi prezre ali ustrezno razlaga nacionalno pravilo, kot je splošni zakon o upravi (Algemene wet bestuursrecht), ki to preprečuje.