natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Doubts and probabilities should not be regarded as sufficient to amount to that alternative.
615/98 vsebuje �tiri alternativna dejanska stanja, v primeru katerih je treba zavrniti plačilo izvoznega nadomestila; ker se domneva, da te �tiri različice niso le enakovredne, temveč tudi učinkujejo enakovredno ena poleg druge, morajo imeti v četrti različici upo�tevani „drugi dejavniki“ organov isto intenzivnost in kakovost, zato da se upraviči izguba zahtevka za izplačilo izvoznega nadomestila v celoti. Za vključitev takega merila ne morejo zadostovati dvomi in verjetnost.
The arguments thus put forward by the national court in support of the solution which it proposes to the problem embodied in the first two questions appear, all in all, to be decidedly sustainable.
V navedenem členu 8 je določeno: „Države članice zagotavljajo, da pristojni organi v skladu z načeli in določbami glede pregleda, določenimi v Direktivi 90/425/EGS, zagotovijo, da se upo�tevajo zahteve te direktive z naslednjim nediskriminatornim nadzorom:
Moreover, they are supplemented by other and certainly no less important arguments concerning the obligations that Articles 8 and 18 of Council Directive 91/628 impose on the Member States, which the Commission was not entitled to overlook in adopting Regulation No 615/98 and which, in any event, cannot be overlooked when that regulation is interpreted.
– prevozno sredstvo, s katerim se žive živali prepelje s carinskega področja Skupnosti, ustreza določbam Direktive 91/628/EGS.“
— “Checks pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 615/98 satisfactory”’.
c) prevoznih sredstev […] v krajih odhoda […]“.
Article 18 of Directive 91/628, for its part, provides that ‘Member States shall take the appropriate specific measures’.
V členu 18 Direktive 91/628 je po drugi strani določeno, da „države članice sprejmejo ustrezne posebne ukrepe“.
harmonious operation of the common market organisations for animals and animal products, has led to the creation of a Community network whose functioning, as far as attainment of the internal market is concerned, necessarily implies cooperation between the Member States based on the principle of mutual recognition.
organizacij na trgu za živali in proizvode živalskega izvora, ustvaril mrežo Skupnosti, katere delovanje z vidika uresničevanja skupnega trga nujno predpostavlja sodelovanje med državami članicami, ki temelji na načelu obojestranskega priznanja.
The fact that the document issued by the official veterinarian at the exit point from the Community does not merely represent a service provided to the exporter by the veterinarian but is a certificate recording a check which the relevant Community legislation requires Member States to carry out cannot fail to have an important impact on the evidential value which Regulation No 615/98 attributes to that document.
Okoli�čina, da dokument, ki ga je izdal uradni veterinar v kraju odhoda z ozemlja Skupnosti, ni rezultat zgolj storitve navedenega veterinarja izvozniku, temveč potrdilo o opravljenem pregledu, ki ga morajo izvesti države članice na podlagi zadevnih določb, zagotovo bistveno vpliva na dokazno moč, ki jo Uredba �t. 615/98 pripisuje temu dokumentu.
It is by virtue of the enhancement of the evidential value attributed to the document in question by Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, deriving not only from the obligation imposed on the Member States by Article 8 of Council Directive 91/628 but also from the principle of mutual recognition, that the possibility must be excluded that an authority called on to pay an export refund may invoke to the opposite effect, affording it prevalence, an item of evidence contradicted by data to the opposite effect provided by the exporter and contending peremptorily that the last-mentioned data are not relevant.
Zaradi okrepitve dokazne moči, ki jo ima zadevni dokument na podlagi člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98, ki ne izhaja le iz obveznosti držav članic v skladu s členom 8 Direktive Sveta 91/628, temveč tudi iz uporabe načela obojestranskega priznanja, je treba izključiti, da se organ, pristojen za izplačilo izvoznega nadomestila, lahko v nasprotnem smislu sklicuje na enakovreden nasprotni dokaz, ki nasprotuje okoli�činam, na katere se je skliceval izvoznik, in se hitro sklicuje na njihovo nebistvenost.
It cannot be inferred that the conclusion reached in the foregoing point does not apply in a situation, of the kind existing in this case, in which the check on the compliance of the means of transport with Directive 91/628 is carried out in a Member State other than the one in which the export refund is applied for and it is the competent authority of that State, and not of the latter State, which issues the document referred to in Article 2(3) of Regulation No 615/98.
Ni mogoče trditi, da navedbe v prej�nji točki ne veljajo v položaju, kot je v tem primeru, v katerem je bil pregled, ali prevozno sredstvo ustreza določbam Direktive 91/628, izveden v drugi državi članici in ne v tisti, ki je pristojna za plačilo izvoznega nadomestila in v kateri je pristojni organ prvonavedene in ne drugonavedene države izdal dokument v skladu s členom 2(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98.
That hypothesis is excluded by the logic of the legal system of which that regulation forms part.
Ta predpostavka je izključena na podlagi strukture in logike pravnega sistema, v katerega se uvr�ča izvedba te uredbe.
That system, in fact, in order to attain the objectives of animal protection and
Ta sistem je namreč, zato da ustreza ciljem varstva živali in delovanja skupnih
That is so because the fact of not paying sufficient attention to data provided by the exporter (a) does not reflect a balanced assessment of the burden of proof that is incumbent on the administration by virtue of the autonomous application of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 which is quite properly proposed by the national court and (b),
Razlog za to je, da pri nezadostnem upo�tevanju okoli�čin, na katere se sklicuje izvoznik, a) ne obstaja več izravnano razumevanje dokaznega bremena, ki zavezuje upravo, v smislu njene samostojne uporabe člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, ki jo pravilno zastopa predložitveno sodi�če, in b) se v
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL in essence, amounts to a complete reversal of the onus of proof, whereby it is transferred outright to the exporter.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL bistvu odraža v celoti obrnjenem dokaznem bremenu, naloženemu v breme izvoznika.
— in view of that information the exporter, as indicated in point 12 above, contended that the check made by the French veterinarians in November 1999 was preceded (a) by works designed to remedy the inadequacies noted on 18 and 19 February 1997, attested to by a written statement made by the master of the vessel on 16 October 1997 and countersigned by the chief frontier veterinary officer at Koper (Slovenia) and (b) by a report from the average adjusters Kähler & Prinz; 31.
Direktive 91/628 in da b) ta ladja �ele po pregledu francoskih veterinarjev novembra 1999 ni bila več opredeljena kot neprimerna za prevoz živali;
The national court states that:
Predložitveno sodi�če namreč opozarja na naslednje:
— the German administrative authority treated those data as irrelevant, even though they could be regarded as confirmed by the results of the check carried out by the French veterinarians in November 1999.
– nem�ki organ naj bi te okoli�čine opredelil za nepomembne, kljub temu, da bi se jih lahko �telo za potrjene na podlagi rezultatov pregleda francoskih veterinarjev novembra 1999.
There is no doubt that by concluding, in the face of the data referred to in the foregoing point, that the conditions were fulfilled for application of Article 5(3) and forfeiture of the right to the refund, the administrative authority peremptorily altered the onus of proof incumbent on it and for the most part placed it upon the exporter. Although that authority might reasonably and categorically contend that the written declaration of 16 October 1997 from the master of
Nobenega dvoma ni, da je organ s tem, da je glede na okoli�čine, navedene v prej�nji točki, trdil, da naj bi obstajal pogoj za uporabo člena 5(3) in izključitev pravice do nadomestila, zelo hitro obrnil dokazno breme, ki je na njem, in ga pretežno naložil izvozniku.
— The authority called on to pay export refunds expressed doubts as to the compliance with the directive of the means of transport used, relying (a) on the fact that on 18 and 19 February 1997 a Commission veterinary expert inspected at the port of Koper the vessel used in March 1999 for the transport operation at issue in this case, establishing that, in various respects, the vessel did not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628 and (b) only following an inspection of the same vessel made by French veterinarians in November 1999 was it no longer listed as unsuitable for the carriage of animals;
Če je sicer lahko dejansko upravičeno in hitro trdil, da so pisna pojasnila kapitana ladje z organ, pristojen za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil, naj bi izrazil dvom glede skladnosti uporabljenega prevoznega sredstva z Direktivo in se pri tem opiral na a) dejstvo, da je 18. in 19. februarja 1997 veterinarski izvedenec Komisije v pristani�ču Koper pregledal ladjo, s katero je bil marca 1999 izveden zadevni prevoz, in ugotovil, da naj glede različnih dejavnikov ne bi ustrezala zahtevam iz
7 the vessel concerning the work carried out emanated from a person within the sphere of influence of the applicant in the main proceedings, it could not take the same approach regarding countersignature of that statement by the chief frontier veterinarian at Koper and the expert’s report by the Kähler & Prinz average adjuster dated 22 September 1998. And it must be concluded that it did follow that course if it is borne in mind that, according to a balanced assessment of how the burden of proof should be shared, the German administrative authority was only under a duty to prove circumstances which, viewed as a whole, ‘indicate a material probability that the directive on the protection of animals during transport has not been complied with’. It must indeed be concluded that the fact of attaching importance to the inspection of 18 and 19 February 1997 and not to the other elements referred to above does not reflect a proper overall assessment of the circumstances. 35.
7 dne 16. oktobra 1997 z ozirom na izvedena dela izhajala od osebe s strani tožeče stranke iz postopka v glavni stvari, po drugi strani ne bi smel enako obravnavati sopodpisa te izjave s strani vodje obmejne veterinarske službe Koper in izvedenskega mnenja komisarja havarije Kälher & Prinz z dne 22. septembra 1998. Šteti je treba, da bi to storil tudi če se domneva, da je nem�ki organ glede na uravnoteženo razumevanje razdelitve dokaznega bremena moral dokazati le „okoli�čine, ki ob celotnem upo�tevanju s precej�njo verjetnostjo govorijo v prid temu, da direktiva o varstvu živali med prevozom ni bila upo�tevana“. Navesti je namreč treba, da dejstvo, da je bil pripisan odločilen pomen pregledu z dne 18. in 19. februarja in ne drugim okoli�činam, ne ustreza primerni celotni ugotovitvi okoli�čin. 35.
It is evident that, by means of that provision, the Community legislature applied a very clear principle derived from the tradition of the European States and forming an integral part of the Community legal system, namely the principle upheld on more than one occasion by the Court whereby sanctions which have an impact on the rights or freedoms of legal and natural persons may be imposed only if they rest on a clear and unambiguous legal basis 8 and if they are seen to be proportionate to the infringements for which they are imposed. 9
Ni namreč možno spregledati, da je normodajalec Skupnosti s to odločbo očitno uporabil natančno opredeljeno načelo, ki je vzeto iz tradicije evropskih držav in je zagotovo sestavni del sistema prava Skupnosti: načelo, ki ga je Sodi�če večkrat potrdilo, v skladu s katerim se lahko sankcije, ki učinkujejo na pravice in svobo�čine fizičnih in pravnih oseb, naloži le takrat, ko so pravno jasno in nedvoumno določene 8in so sorazmerne kr�itvam, za katere so bile naložene. 9
The Council, as indicated in point 34 above, has made it clear that, when implementing the directive of which the abovementioned Article 18 forms part, that principle must be respected by the Member States.
Svet je, kot je bilo navedeno zgoraj v točki 34, določil, da morajo države članice to načelo upo�tevati v okviru prenosa direktive, katere sestavni del je člen 18.
7 — Article 18(1) and (5), part A(1)(c).
7 – Člen 18(1) in 5, del A, odstavek (1)(c).
9 — See Maizena, paragraph 15, and Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister [2002] ECR I-6453, paragraph 59.
9 – Glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Maizena, točka 15, in sodbo z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Käserei Champignon Hofmeister (C-210/00, Recueil, str. I-6453, točka 59).
Further and equally valid confirmation of the solution to the first and second questions advocated in the order for reference can be found in Article 18(1) of Council Directive 91/628, according to which, ‘Member States shall take the appropriate specific measures to penalise any infringement of this directive’ (including those deriving from failure to use ‘for the transport of animals …
Drugi dokaz, ki je bil prav tako upo�tevan v predložitvenem sklepu pri re�itvi prvega in drugega postavljenega vpra�anja, je potrjen v členu 18(1) Direktive Sveta 91/628, v skladu s katerim, kot je bilo že navedeno, „Države članice sprejmejo ustrezne posebne ukrepe za kaznovanje fizičnih ali pravnih oseb zaradi kr�itev te direktive“ (vključno s kr�itvami, ki
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL consist of adequate specific measures — which the Commission could not evade when adopting a regulation intended to give effect to that directive, and
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL področju, sestavljati posebni primerni ukrepi –, ki se mu ni mogla izogniti s sprejetjem uredbe, namenjene izvedbi te direktive, in, po drugi strani,
In the Wilfried Monsees case, 10the Court emphatically reiterated that principle, expressly stating that, in assessing the legitimacy of a measure brought into being by a Member State to implement Directive 91/628, that principle can also be applied in the light of Directive 95/29, even if the latter is applicable as from a time postdating the facts involved in the case in question.
V zadevi Wilfried Monsees 10je Sodi�če to načelo povzelo s posebnim zanosom, s tem da je izrecno navedlo, da se to načelo pri presoji zakonitosti ukrepa, ki ga je uporabila država za prenos zadevne Direktive 91/628, lahko uporabi tudi z upo�tevanjem Direktive 95/29, četudi se slednje v času nastanka dejanskega stanja, glede katerega mora razsoditi, �e ni uporabilo.
Clearly considering that the secondmentioned directive involves an assessment and a judgment of a general nature directly expressed by the Community legislature, in paragraph 30 it stated that ‘measures appropriate to the objective of protecting the health of animals and less restrictive of the free movement of goods’ than those contemplated by Directive 91/628 ‘were conceivable, as the provisions contained in Directive 95/29 demonstrate’.
Ob upo�tevanju te druge direktive kot nosilke ocene in presoje splo�nega pomena, izražene neposredno s strani normodajalca Skupnosti, je v točki 30 navedlo, da „se lahko izbere ukrepe, primerne za varstvo zdravja živali, ki manj omejujejo prost pretok blaga“ v primerjavi s tistimi, ki so predvideni v Direktivi 91/628 „kot kažejo določbe Direktive 95/29“.
(b) second, it being possible to use a parameter defined by the Community legislature in a directive in the context of an assessment of the proportionality of measures adopted by a Member State to implement an earlier directive, that parameter can, with greater reason, be used when expressed in a Council directive for the purpose of interpreting a Commission regulation which purports to implement it.
b) ker je pri presoji sorazmernosti ukrepov, ki jih je sprejela država članica pri prenosu predhodne direktive, v okviru vrednotenja sorazmernosti s strani države članice uporabljenega ukrepa, mogoče uporabiti merilo za presojo, ki ga je določil normodajalec v direktivi, je to merilo toliko bolj uporabljivo, ko je izraženo v Direktivi Sveta, sprejeti za razlago Uredbe Komisije, katere nadaljevanje je.
The approach followed and the principle applied by the Court, as I observed in the Opinion I delivered on 13 September 2007 in Joined Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06, could not, with greater reason, fail to be followed by the Commission when adopting Regulation No 615/98, since:
Pristop in načelo, ki ju je uporabilo Sodi�če, kot je navedeno v sklepnih predlogih, ki sem jih predstavil 13. septembra 2007 v zadevah C-37/06 in C-58/06, bi morala Komisija �e toliko bolj upo�tevati pri sprejemanju Uredbe �t. 615/98, ker, po eni strani:
It follows that the Finanzgericht’s request for clarification from the Court involves examination of the compatibility with the principle of proportionality of the reference made by Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628, and when such an examination is carried out the only possible course is to seek an appropriate balance between ensuring that the Community policies with which the regulation is concerned are pursued and ensuring legal protection for the persons to whom it is addressed.
Iz tega izhaja, da predlog za pojasnilo, ki ga je Sodi�ču predložilo Finanzgericht, vsebuje preizkus združljivosti sklicevanja v Uredbi �t. 615/98 na Direktivo 91/628 z načelom sorazmernosti, pri čemer se pri tem preizkusu ni mogoče izogniti iskanju ravnovesja med zagotavljanjem zasledovanja političnih ciljev Skupnosti, ki jih uredba odraža, in pravnim varstvom subjektov, ki so njihovi naslovniki.
(a) first, the assessment and judgment which the Community legislature expressed by means of Article 18 of Directive 91/628 gave rise to a criterion — the criterion whereby the available sanctions must
a) je bilo z oceno in presojo, ki jo je normodajalec Skupnosti izrazil s členom 18 Direktive Sveta 91/628, vpeljano merilo – v skladu s katerim morajo sankcije, ki se jih naloži na določenem
In that connection, it must be borne in mind that the directive provides that the
V tem oziru je treba upo�tevati dejstvo, da za varstvo zdravja živali v skladu z
10 — Case C-350/97 Wilfried Monsees [1999] ECR I-2921.
10 – Sodba z dne 11. maja 1999 (C-350/97, Recueil, str. I-2921).
OPINION OF MR MENGOZZI — CASE C-96/06 responsibility for the protection of animal health attaches not solely to the exporter or his representative but also to the Member States; as we have seen, pursuant to Article 8 of the directive, they are obliged to make certain that ‘the requirements of this directive have been complied with, by carrying out nondiscriminatory inspections of if it refused to accept as proof the document referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 and exercised the power vested in it by Article 5(3).
Direktivo ni odgovoren le izvoznik oziroma njegov zastopnik, temveč so k temu zavezane tudi države članice; kot je bilo že predstavljeno, so slednje na podlagi člena 8 te direktive zavezane, da zagotovijo, „da v skladu z načeli in pravili pregledov, določenih v Direktivi […] pristojni organi preverjajo izpolnjevanje zahtev iz te direktive, in sicer v okviru nediskriminatornih ukrepov to kr�itev potrditi, ker dokumenta v skladu s členom 5(2) ni pripoznal kot dokaz in uporabil pristojnosti, ki jo ima na podlagi člena 5(3).
That would be even more disproportionate since, again according to the thesis put forward by the Hauptzollamt on the basis of a merely formal reading of the provision, that power can be exercised on the basis of a doubt or a supposition deriving from a single element examined separately from other elements peremptorily and incorrectly treated as irrelevant.
Nesorazmernost naj bi bila toliko večja, kolikor naj bi se to pristojnost – v skladu s tezo, ki jo navaja Hauptzollamt zgolj ob formalnem branju določbe – lahko izvr�evalo na podlagi dvoma ali domneve, ki izhaja iz ene same okoli�čine, upo�tevane ločeno od ostalih okoli�čin, ki so bile povr�insko in zmotno opredeljene za nebistvene.
(c) means of transport … at places of departure …’.
[…] c) prevoznih sredstev (…) v krajih odhoda“.
Everything said in the foregoing points, in particular points 40 and 41, can only be confirmed by Council Regulation No 1/2005, adopted on the basis of a Commission recommendation that an amendment should be made to the Community legislation deriving from Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, likewise adopted by the Council, in order to take account of the experience acquired by the Member States in applying that legislation.
Navedbe v prej�njih točkah, zlasti v točkah 40 in 41, je mogoče le potrditi z Uredbo Sveta �t. 1/2005, ki je bila sprejeta na podlagi priporočila Komisije, naj se spremeni zakonodaja Skupnosti, opredeljena z Direktivo 91/628/EGS, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/29/ES, da se upo�teva izku�nja držav članic pri uporabi te zakonodaje.
That regulation, in fact:
S to uredbo je namreč:
In view of that shared responsibility for ensuring the protection of the health of bovine animals, it cannot be concluded that the principle of proportionality is observed where an administrative authority called on to grant export refunds may put forward an interpretation of Article 5(2) of the kind set out in points 11 and 13 above.
Zaradi te deljene odgovornosti je za zagotavljanje varstva zdravja goveda nezdružljivo z načelom sorazmernosti, da organ, pristojen za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil, lahko predlaga razlago člena 5(2), kot je navedena v točkah 11 in 13 zgoraj.
Such an interpretation would clearly be disproportionate in that it would have a radical impact on the exporter’s right without taking account of the breach of the obligation to check the means used for transporting the animals which Article 8 of Directive 91/628 imposes on the Member State from which that means of transport leaves the customs territory, a breach which the authority called on to pay the refund would deem to have taken place
Ta razlaga naj bi bila nesorazmerna, ker naj bi radikalno vplivala na pravico izvoznika, ne da bi upo�tevala kr�itev dolžnosti pregleda prevoznih sredstev za živali, ki jo nalaga navedeni člen 8 Direktive 91/628 državi članici, iz katere ta prevozna sredstva zapustijo carinsko področje; organ, pristojen za izplačilo nadomestila, bi moral a) v �estnajsti uvodni izjavi poudarjeno, da so pri prevozu živali vključene tudi druge kategorije gospodarskih subjektov kot prevozniki, zaradi česar „je treba nekatere obveznosti za dobro počutje živali raz�iriti na vse udeležence, vpletene v prevoz živali“; in
(b) in recital 22, it states that ‘Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements’ of its provisions and ensure that they are ‘proportionate’.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL b) v dvaindvajseti uvodni izjavi navedeno, da „[morajo države članice] določiti predpise o kaznih, ki se uporabljajo za kr�itve določb te uredbe“, in zagotoviti, da so te „sorazmerne“.
the directive in question. In fact, whilst the abovementioned article provides that the competent authorities are not to pay the export refunds either for animals that have died during transport or those for which they conclude that the directive was not complied with, there is no provision for any specific ascertainment of any harm suffered by the animals as a result of breach of the Community provisions concerning animal welfare.
za živali, ki med prevozom poginejo, ter za živali, pri katerih ugotovijo, da Direktiva ni bila upo�tevana, ne da bi bila predvidena kakr�nakoli konkretna ugotovitev �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpele živali zaradi kr�itve predpisov Skupnosti s področja varstva njihovega dobrega počutja.
B — The third question
B – Tretje vprašanje
It is clear that it is extremely difficult to detect signs of injury suffered during the transport of the animals concerned and therefore to identify elements which demonstrate the harm suffered by them, or at least the fact of their welfare being jeopardised.
Dejansko je očitno, da je izjemno težko odkriti znake trpljenja zadevnih živali med prevozom in posledično odkriti okoli�čine, ki bi dokazovale �kodo, ki so jo utrpele, oziroma vsaj ogrožanje njihovega dobrega počutja.