natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
That finding may therefore be made solely by the technically competent customs authorities of the exporting State, which in this case are the Turkish customs authorities.
To lahko zato ugotovijo izključno ustrezni strokovni carinski organi države izvoznice, v obravnavanem primeru torej tur�ki carinski organi.
(b) Different assessment in the event of misconduct on the part of the authorities of the exporting State
b) Vpra�anje drugačne presoje ob takem ravnanju organov države izvoznice, ki pomeni zlorabo
Contrary to the appellant’s view, the caselaw cannot in any event be interpreted as meaning that the importing State has a right of verification of such a kind as to enable it to review and call in question the lawfulness and then the determination made by the exporting State as a whole.
V nasprotju z mnenjem pritožnice pa sodne prakse ni mogoče razlagati tako, da obstaja pravica države uvoznice do preverjanja v taki obliki, da bi ta lahko v celoti preverila in povzročila dvome najprej o zakonitosti in nato o presoji države izvoznice.
Rather, in Pascoal & Filhos, 19 the Court held that where the competent authorities of the exporting State declare, following subsequent verification, that a certificate does not apply to the goods actually exported, that is sufficient to enable the authorities of the exporting State to hold that duties legally owed have not been required and consequently to institute proceedings to recover them. The Court further noted that nothing in the rules in question obliges the latter authorities to establish the accuracy of the results of the verification or the true origin of the goods. 84.
Sodi�če je namreč v sodbi Pascoal & Filhos 19 odločilo, da lahko organi države uvoznice samo na podlagi okoli�čine, da pristojni organi države članice izvoznice po opravljenem naknadnem preverjanju izjavijo, da potrdilo za dejansko izvoženo blago ne velja, ugotovijo, da dajatve, dolgovane v skladu z zakonskimi predpisi, niso bile zahtevane in zato njihovo plačilo lahko naknadno zahtevajo. Poleg tega je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da v zadevni ureditvi nič ne zavezuje zadnjenavedenih organov, naj razi�čejo pravilnost rezultatov preverjanja ali poreklo blaga. 84.
In my view, there is no need to examine the question whether another assessment is appropriate in the event that irregularities have arisen which ultimately involved the customs authorities of the third State. After all, according to the findings of the Court of First Instance, no misconduct on the part of the Turkish authorities is provable in this case.
Menim, da ni treba preučiti vpra�anja, ali je presoja drugačna, če obstajajo nepravilnosti, ki se na koncu kažejo v sodelovanju carinskih organov tretje države, kajti vsaj v obravnavanem primeru glede na ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje ni mogoče dokazati ravnanja tur�kih organov, ki bi pomenilo zlorabo.
In addition, these are facts whose appraisal falls in principle within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance 20and which are reviewable by the Court of Justice only in so far as the substan-
Poleg tega gre tu za dejstva, katerih presoja je načeloma pridržana Sodi�ču prve stopnje 20in ki jih Sodi�če preveri le, če iz spisa izhaja, da so ugotovitve dejansko
It must therefore be concluded that, in accordance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice and as correctly stated by the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 120 and 121 of the contested judgment, the Italian authorities and the Commission were in principle bound by the determination made by the Turkish authorities regarding the authenticity of the 32 certificates in question.
Zato je treba ugotoviti, da so bili italijanski organi in Komisija – v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča in kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo v točkah 120 in 121 izpodbijane sodbe – načeloma vezani na presojo tur�kih organov glede pristnosti spornih 32 potrdil.
There is no objective reason to alter the division of
Za to, da bi se morala spremeniti razdelitev pristojnosti med tur�kimi carinskimi organi in carinskimi organi Skupnosti, ki je zakonsko določena, ni nobenega objektivnega razloga.
453, paragraph 16-003, point out that the Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction with respect to findings of fact.
453, točka 16-003, opozarjajo na to, da Sodi�če ni pristojno za ugotavljanje dejstev.
The fact that an appeal is limited to points of law means that the Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction in that regard.
Okoli�čina, da je pritožba omejena na pravna vpra�anja, pomeni, da je za to izključno pristojno Sodi�če prve stopnje.
It follows that an appellant may neither call in question the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance nor put forward facts which were not established at first instance by that Court.
Iz tega izhaja, da pritožnik ne more niti izpodbijati ugotovljenih dejstev Sodi�ča prve stopnje niti ne sme navajati dejstev, ki jih ni ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v postopku na prvi stopnji.
18 — Huygen and Others, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 27.19 — Cited in footnote 11, paragraph 37.
18 – Sodba Huygen in drugi (navedena v opombi 13, točka 27).19 – Navedena v opombi 11, točka 37.
Accordingly, in the light of the facts put before it, the Court was entitled to conclude, without making any error of law, that the 32 import certificates at issue were forgeries.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P lahko zaradi dejstev, ki so mu bila predložena, ne da bi napačno uporabilo pravo, sklenilo, da je 32 uvoznih potrdil, ki so predmet spora, ponarejenih.
Provided that evidence is properly taken and the general principles of law and the rules governing the burden of proof and the procedure for hearing evidence have been complied with, it is then exclusively for the Court of First Instance to assess the probative value of the evidence produced before it. 22
napačne. 21Če so bili dokazi pridobljeni v skladu s predpisi in če so bila upo�tevana splo�na pravna načela ter predpisi o dokaznem bremenu in dokaznem postopku, je torej Sodi�če prve stopnje izključno pristojno za presojo dokazne vrednosti predloženih dokazov. 22
With regard to the appellant’s allegation regarding involvement of the Turkish authorities, the Court of First Instance observed in paragraph 167 that the presentation of documents which prove to be forgeries does not of itself permit it to be concluded that there was some kind of collusion between the exporters and the customs authorities which issued them.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v zvezi z očitkom pritožnice glede domnevnega sodelovanja tur�kih organov v točki 167 navedlo, da izdaja dokumentov, ki se izkažejo kot lažni, sama po sebi ne dopu�ča sklepanja o kakr�nem koli goljufivem sodelovanju med izvozniki in carinskimi organi, ki so jih izdajali.
The Court thus drew attention, without thereby making an error of law, to the absence of evidence that the Turkish authorities participated in the forgeries.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako, ne da bi s tem napačno uporabilo pravo, opozorilo na neobstoj dokazov, ki bi kazali na udeležbo tur�kih organov pri ponaredbah.
As far as the classification of the 32 import certificates as forgeries is concerned, the Court of First Instance first mentions, in paragraph 122 of the contested judgment, the Turkish authorities’ letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs ser -vices with its list of the 32 certificates which the Turkish authorities considered to have been forged.
Glede opredelitve 32 uvoznih potrdil, ki so predmet spora, kot ponaredb, Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 122 izpodbijane sodbe najprej omenja dopis tur�kih organov z dne 8. marca 1999 carinski službi Ravene, ki mu je bil priložen seznam teh 32 potrdil, za katere so tur�ki organi menili, da so ponare -jeni.
The Court then draws attention, in paragraph 125, to the ambiguities which were apparent from a comparison between the conclusions in that letter and those in the letter of 22 April 1999 from the Permanent Representation to UCLAF.
Poleg tega Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 125 opozarja na dvoumnost, ki izhaja iz primerjave ugotovitev v tem dopisu z ugotovitvami v dopisu z dne 22. aprila 1999, ki ga je stalno predstavni�tvo poslalo UCLAF.
At that time, the difficulty for the parties lay in concluding beyond doubt from the Turkish authorities’ written statements whether the certificates in question were forged or merely inaccurate.
Takrat je bila težava udeležencev v tem, ali iz pisnih izjav tur�kih organov nedvomno izhaja, da so sporna potrdila lažna ali zgolj nepravilna potrdila. Sodi�če prve stopnje je ugotovilo, da bi se formulacija „not correct […] and not issued according to the rules“ lahko razlagala tudi tako, da zadevna potrdila niso ponarejena.
As noted by the Court in paragraph 129 of the contested judgment, however, any doubt as regards the forgeries could be removed by reference to
Kot pa je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo v točki 129 izpodbijane sodbe, je bilo mogoče na podlagi dopisa tur�kih organov z dne 22. avgusta 2003 odpraviti vse dvome o tem, ali gre za ponaredbe. Sodi�če prve stopnje je
Nor is it possible to accept the appellant’s argument that the issuing of inaccurate certificates constitutes a significant irregularity justifying withdrawal of recognition of the determination made by the Turkish authorities.
Dalje se ni mogoče strinjati s trditvijo pritožnice, da izdaja nepravilnih potrdil pomeni bistveno nepravilnost, ki upravičuje neupo�tevanje presoje tur�kih organov.
That argument is in fact tantamount to calling in question the division of responsibilities, recognised by the Court of Justice, as between the exporting country and the importing country in regard to checking the authenticity and accuracy of certificates.
Ta trditev bi namreč vzbudila dvom o porazdelitvi nalog, ki jo priznava Sodi�če, med državo izvoznico in državo uvoznico pri preverjanju pristnosti oziroma pravilnosti potrdil.
Moreover, there can be no question of equating the erroneous issuing of inaccurate certificates by the competent customs authorities with the forging of certificates, which has criminal implications.
Poleg tega ni dovoljeno posplo�eno enačiti izdaje nepravilnih potrdil s strani pristojnih carinskih organov na podlagi napake s ponarejanjem potrdil, ki pomeni kaznivo dejanje.
21 — Aalborg Portland and Others, cited in footnote 20, paragraph 48.
21 – Sodba Aalborg Portland in drugi (navedena v opombi 20, točka 48).
22 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Aalborg Portland and Others, judgment cited in footnote 20, point 38.
22 – Glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Ruiz-Jara-boja Colomerja, predstavljene 11. februarja 2003 v zadevi Aalborg Portland in drugi (sodba, navedena v opombi 20, točka 38).
The first ground of appeal should therefore be rejected.
Zato je treba prvi pritožbeni razlog zavrniti.
Second ground of appeal: breach of the right of access to documents or other rights of the defence acting on its own initiative, to grant access to all the documents which might have some connection with the case at issue when an application for remission is referred to it.
Drugi pritožbeni razlog: kr�itev pravice do vpogleda v spis ali drugih pravic obrambe obravnavanim primerom, ki ji je predložen v okviru zahtevka za odpust.
If the party concerned considered that such documents were relevant for establishing the existence of a special situation and/or the lack of deception or obvious negligence on its part, then it was for the party concerned itself to request access to those documents in accordance with the provisions adopted by the institutions under Article 255 EC.
Če zadevna stranka meni, da so ti dokumenti potrebni za dokazovanje posebnih okoli�čin in/ali neobstoja malomarnosti ali goljufivega ravnanja, mora v skladu z določbami, ki so jih institucije Skupnosti sprejele na podlagi člena 255 ES, zahtevati dostop do teh dokumentov.
In so far as it is asking the Court to review the scope of its rights as the defendant in the administrative proceedings, that is a point of procedural law and thus an admissible ground of appeal.
Ker Sodi�ču predlaga, naj preizkusi obseg njenih pravic obrambe v upravnem postopku, gre pri tem za pravno vpra�anje, ki se nana�a na procesno pravo, in s tem za dopusten pritožbeni razlog.
The Court further pointed out in paragraph 89 that it is at the request of the party concerned that the Commission is required to provide access to all non-confidential official documents concerning the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dalje v točki 89 opozorilo na to, da mora Komisija na zahtevo zadevne stranke dovoliti vpogled v vse nezaupne upravne dokumente, ki se nana�ajo na izpodbijano odločbo.
If no such request is made, it follows that there is no automatic access to the documents held by the Commission. 24
Če take zahteve ni, torej ni avtomatičnega dostopa do dokumentov, s katerimi razpolaga Komisija. 24
It complains that it had access solely to those documents on which the Commission based the contested decision.
Pritožnica navaja, da je imela vpogled izključno v take dokumente, na katere je Komisija oprla izpodbijano odločbo.
On the other hand, it was granted no access to ‘context documents’ or confidential documents, which the Commission also takes to include the UCLAF and OLAF reports.
Nasprotno pa naj ji ne bi bil odobren vpogled v tako imenovane dokumente o okoli�činah zadeve in v zaupne dokumente, h katerim naj bi Komisija �tela tudi poročila UCLAF oziroma OLAF.
Those statements of the Court of First Instance must be examined from the point of view of the different forms which the right of access to documents has now taken both in the laws of the Member States and in Community law.
Te preudarke Sodi�ča prve stopnje je treba raziskati ob upo�tevanju tega, da se pravica do dostopa do dokumentov v dana�njem času različno izraža tako v zakonodajah držav članic kot tudi v pravu Skupnosti.
On the one hand, that right is inseparably linked with the procedural guarantees in the administrative procedure afforded to the addressee of an administrative decision pursuant to the principle of acting in accordance with the rule of law.
Po eni strani je ta pravica neločljivo povezana s tistimi postopkovnimi jamstvi v okviru upravnega postopka, ki so naslovniku upravne odločbe zagotovljena zaradi uresničevanja načela zakonitosti dejanj državnih organov.
On the other hand, that right can be understood as an expression of the public’s right to information, which requires the activities of all organs and other institutions of the State
Po drugi strani je mogoče to pravico razumeti kot izraz pravice javnosti do dostopa do informacij, ki od vseh organov in drugih ustanov države zahteva pregledno jane sodbe najprej navedlo, da načelo spo�tovanja pravic obrambe v povezavi z upravnim postopkom, ki se nana�a na odpust carin, obsega samo to, da lahko zadevna stranka primerno predstavi svoje stali�če glede dejstev, v katere so vključeni dokumenti v njeno breme, na katerih je Komisija utemeljila svojo odločitev. Komisiji torej ni treba po uradni dolžnosti omogočiti vpogleda v vse dokumente, ki so morda povezani z
Article 255 EC gives concrete expression to the principle of transparency laid down as a rule in the second paragraph of Article 1 EC and at the same time puts into effect the freedom of information for citizens of the Union guaranteed in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Člen 255 ES konkretizira načelo preglednosti, določeno v členu 1(2) EU, in hkrati uresničuje svobodo obve�čanja državljanov Unije, ki jo zagotavlja člen 42 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije 26.
26 In these proceedings, however, the question which arises is primarily that of safeguarding the individual’s rights during an administrative procedure at the end of which the Commission was required to decide on the remission of import duties in accordance with Article 239 of CCC.
V obravnavanem sporu pa je �lo v prvi vrsti za vpra�anje varstva pravic posameznika v okviru upravnega postopka, na koncu katerega je Komisija odločila o odpustu uvoznih carin v skladu s členom 239 CZS. Zato bi bilo treba pritožnico napotiti na možnost zahtevka v skladu s členom 255 ES zaradi specifične funkcije te pravne podlage, le če za njihovo varstvo ni imela na voljo nobenih posebnih določb.
Consequently, the
Toda pritožnica je vsekakor razpolagala s pravico biti sli�an, ki jo priznava
25 — In his Opinion in Case C-58/94 Netherlands v Council [1996] ECR I-2169, points 13 to 15, Advocate General Tesauro also distinguishes between the function of access to public documents to safeguard the rights of the individual in the context of an administrative procedure and the general public interest in having access to information relating to the activities of the State.
25 – Generalni pravobranilec Tesauro v sklepnih predlogih z dne 28. novembra 1995 v zadevi Nizozemska proti Svetu (C-58/94, Recueil, str. I-2169, točke od 13 do 15) prav tako razlikuje med funkcijo dostopa do javnih dokumentov zaradi varstva pravic posameznika v okviru upravnega postopka in splo�nim interesom javnosti do informacij v zvezi z delovanjem države.
As the Court of Justice has pointed out on several occasions, the rights of the defence form an integral part of the general principles of law, whose observance the Court ensures, 28for which purpose the Court draws inspiration from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and from the guidelines supplied by inter -national treaties such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) on which the Member States have collaborated or to which they are signatories. 29
Kot je Sodi�če večkrat poudarilo, spadajo pravice obrambe kot temeljne pravice k splo�nim pravnim načelom, katerih varstvo mora zagotavljati Sodi�če, 28pri čemer se ravna po skupnih ustavnih tradicijah držav članic in po napotkih, ki izhajajo iz mednarodnih pogodb, na primer iz Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svobo�čin (EKČP), podpisane 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu, ki so jih sklenile države članice ali pa so k njim pristopile. 29
The Court further observed that, if that procedure is conducted in accordance with Community law, it affords the persons concerned all the necessary legal safeguards, namely the safeguard of a fair hearing.
Dalje je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da pravo Skupnosti, če ta postopek poteka v skladu z njim, zadevni osebi ponuja vsa potrebna pravna jamstva, zlasti jamstvo glede pravice biti sli�an.
28 — Case C-7/98 Krombach [2000] ECR I-1935, paragraphs 25 and 26, and Joined Cases C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, C-250/99 P to C-252/99 P and C-254/99 P PVC II [2002] ECR I-8375, paragraph 316.
I-1935, točki 25 in 26) in z dne 15. oktobra 2002 v združenih zadevah PVC II (C-238/99 P, C-244/99 P, C-245/99 P, C-247/99 P, od C-250/99 P do C-252/99 P in C-254/99 P, Recueil, str. I-8375, točka 316).
In response to Declaration No 17, the Council and the Commission jointly adopted a Code of conduct concerning public access to Council and Commission documents (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 41).
Svet in Komisija sta na izjavo �t. 17 odgovorila s sprejetjem kodeksa ravnanja o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Sveta in Komisije (UL L 340, str. 41).
Nevertheless, the notions of openness and access to documents were not introduced into Community law until the adoption of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Kljub temu pa sta bila koncepta o javnosti in o dostopu do dokumentov v pravo Skupnosti prevzeta �ele z začetkom veljavnosti amsterdamske pogodbe.
Thus, the second paragraph of Article 1 EU now provides that decisions are to be taken ‘as openly as possible’.
Od takrat člen 1(2) EU določa, da se odločitve v Uniji sprejemajo „čim bolj javno“.
A new Article 255 EC, inserted in the Treaty, guarantees the right of access for any citizen of the Union, and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State, to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents.
Člen 255 ES, ki je bil na novo vnesen v Pogodbo, zagotavlja, da imajo vsi državljani Unije in vse fizične ali pravne osebe s prebivali�čem ali statutarnim sedežem v eni od držav članic pravico dostopa do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije.
That right is also enshrined in Article 42 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union proclaimed on 7 December 2000 (2000/C 364/01).
To pravico vsebuje tudi člen 42 Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, ki je bila razgla�ena 7. decembra 2000 (2000/C 364/01).
Finally, that right was formulated in more detail at the level of secondary Community legislation by the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).
Končno to pravico na ravni sekundarne zakonodaje Skupnosti podrobneje opredeljujejo določbe Uredbe Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (ES) �t. 1049/2001 z dne 30. maja 2001 o dostopu javnosti do dokumentov Evropskega parlamenta, Sveta in Komisije (UL L 145, str. 43).
C.A.S. v COMMISSION the file in connection with the administrative procedure concerning remission of duties unduly strictly, which in principle should be regarded as an error of law.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI do vpogleda v spis v povezavi z upravnim postopkom, ki se nana�a na odpust carin, kar bi bilo načeloma treba opredeliti kot napačno uporabo prava.
According to the Court’s caselaw, the right of access to the file, as a corollary of the principle of respect for the rights of the defence, means that the Commission must give the undertaking concerned the opportunity to examine all the documents in the investigation file which may be relevant for its defence.
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča pravica do vpogleda v spis kot izraz načela varstva pravic obrambe pomeni, da mora Komisija zadevnemu podjetju dati možnost, da preuči vse dokumente v preiskovalnem spisu, ki so morda pomembni za njegovo obrambo.
30Those documents include both incriminating evidence and exculpatory evidence, save where the business secrets of other undertakings, the internal documents of the Commission or other confidential information are involved. 31
30 K temu spadajo obremenilni in razbremenilni dokumenti z izjemo poslovnih skrivnosti drugih podjetij, internih dokumentov Komisije in drugih zaupnih podatkov. 31
However, I am of the opinion that a divergent view of the normative scope of that general legal principle is not, in itself, capable of justifying setting aside the contested judgment.
Vendar pa menim, da drugačno pojmovanje normativnega obsega tega splo�nega pravnega načela samo po sebi ne upravičuje razveljavitve izpodbijane sodbe.
On the contrary, the of procedural economy and the protective function of the procedural safeguards for the person concerned demand careful consideration of whether the Court of First Instance would have come to a different conclusion if it had taken account of the caselaw of the Court of Justice when applying Community law.
Nasprotno, načelo ekonomičnosti postopka in varstvena funkcija postopkovnih jamstev v prid zadevne osebe zahtevata natančno preučitev, ali bi Sodi�če prve stopnje sklenilo drugače, če bi pri uporabi prava Skupnosti upo�tevalo sodno prakso Sodi�ča.
Since it does not restrict access to those documents on which the Commission based its decision at issue, but rather extends it to include all documents which may be relevant for the addressee’s defence, the right of access to the file within the meaning of that caselaw of the Court of Justice proves to be wider than the interpretation on which the Court of First Instance based its judgment.
Ker pravica do vpogleda v spis ne omejuje dostopa na tiste dokumente, na katere je Komisija oprla svojo obremenilno odločbo, ampak ga raz�irja na vse dokumente, ki bi bili morda lahko upo�tevni pri obrambi naslovnika upravne odločbe, je ta pravica v smislu te sodne prakse Sodi�ča �ir�a od razlage, s katero je Sodi�če prve stopnje utemeljilo svojo sodbo.
However, the treatment of documents classified as confidential, which as such must be exempted from access, is unexceptionable.
Nasprotno pa ni mogoče očitati napak pri obravnavi dokumentov, razvr�čenih kot zaupnih, ki morajo biti kot taki izvzeti iz vpogleda.