natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since all 48 certificates had been classified as either ‘forged’ or ‘invalid’, the goods to which they related could not qualify for the preferential treatment accorded to imported Turkish agricultural products.
Ker je bilo za vseh 48 potrdil ugotovljeno, da so „lažna“ ali „neveljavna“, za blago, ki jih ta zajemajo, ni moglo veljati preferencialno obravnavanje, odobreno za uvoz tur�kih kmetijskih proizvodov.
Accordingly, the Italian customs administration demanded the sum of ITL 5 200 954 129 or EUR 2 686 068.63 from the appellant by way of unpaid customs duties.
Italijanska carinska uprava je zato od pritožnice zahtevala plačilo dolgovane carine v skupnem znesku 5.200.954.129 ITL ali 2.686.068,63 EUR.
By letter of 28 March 2000 to the Ravenna customs services, the appellant, relying on Articles 220(2)(b), 236 and 239 of the CCC, claimed that import duties should not have been entered in the accounts postclearance and that the import duties claimed should be ‘repaid’.
Pritožnica je z dopisom z dne 28. marca 2000 s sklicevanjem na člene 220(2)(b), 236 in 239 CZS od carinske službe Ravene zahtevala, naj se ne opravi naknadna vknjižba uvoznih dajatev in naj se „povrnejo“ zahtevane uvozne dajatve.
In support of its claim, the appellant pleaded its good faith, errors on the part of the competent authorities that could not have been detected and deficiencies attributable to those authorities.
Da bi utemeljila svoj zahtevek, se je pritožnica sklicevala na dobro vero, na napake pristojnih organov, ki jih ni bilo mogoče odkriti, in na kr�itve obveznosti teh organov.
Following the appellant’s claim, the Italian Republic asked the Commission to decide whether it was appropriate to waive subsequent entry in the accounts of the import duties claimed from the appellant pursuant to Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, or to ‘repay’ those duties under Article 239 of the CCC.
Na podlagi zaprosila pritožnice so italijanski organi Komisijo prosili, naj odloči, ali je upravičeno, da se na podlagi člena 220(2)(b) CZS ne opravi naknadna vknjižba uvoznih dajatev, ki so se zahtevale od pritožnice, ali da se na podlagi člena 239 CZS te dajatve „povrnejo“.
By letter of 3 June 2002, the Commission requested certain additional information from the Italian authorities, which replied by letter of 7 June 2002.
Komisija je z dopisom z dne 3. junija 2002 italijanske organe prosila za dodatne informacije in ti so odgovorili z dopisom z dne 7. junija 2002.
Before taking a final decision, however, the Commission invited the appellant to advise it of any observations it may have and to have access to the file so that it could inspect the non-confidential documents.
Komisija pa je pred sprejetjem dokončne odločitve pritožnico pozvala, naj ji sporoči morebitne pripombe, in ji ponudila vpogled v spis z namenom, da se seznani z dokumenti, ki niso zaupni.
On 6 August 2002, the appellant’s representatives consulted the administrative file at the Commission’s offices.
Zastopniki pritožnice so 6. avgusta 2002 v prostorih Komisije pregledali upravni spis.
They also signed a declaration confirming that they had had access to the documents listed in an annex to that declaration.
Podpisali so tudi izjavo, s katero so potrdili, da so imeli dostop do dokumentov, ki so navedeni v njeni prilogi.
On 18 October 2002, the Commission adopted the contested decision, which was notified to the appellant on 21 November 2002.
Komisija je 18. oktobra 2002 sprejela sporno odločbo, ki je bila pritožnici vročena 21. novembra 2002.
Secondly, the Commission concluded that it was appropriate to ‘repay’ import duties in respect of the part of the claim relating to the 16 invalid certificates since, in that regard, the appellant was in a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Drugič, Komisija je ugotovila, da je bilo upravičeno „povračilo“ uvoznih dajatev za del zahtevka, ki se nana�a na �estnajst „neveljavnih“ potrdil, saj za pritožnico v tem pogledu obstaja poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Thirdly, with regard to the certificates at issue, the Commission concluded, on the other hand, that the circumstances relied on by the appellant could not give rise to a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Tretjič, glede spornih potrdil pa je Komisija ugotovila, da okoli�čine, na katere se je sklicevala pritožnica, ne utemeljujejo posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Consequently, in Article 2 of the contested decision, the Commission decided that it was not appropriate to ‘repay’ the import duties relating to those certificates, amounting to EUR 1 702 340.25.
Zato je Komisija v členu 2 sporne odločbe odločila, da „povračilo“ zadevnih uvoznih dajatev v znesku 1.702.340,25 EUR ni upravičeno.
The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the judgment under appeal
Tožba pred Sodiščem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 29 January 2003, the applicant sought the annulment of Article 2 of the contested decision.
Pritožnica je 29. januarja 2003 v sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vložila tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti člena 2 sporne odločbe.
In support of its action, the applicant put forward three pleas in law, alleging infringement of its rights of defence, of Article 239 of the CCC and of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC respectively.
Pritožnica je svoje zahtevke utemeljila s tremi tožbenimi razlogi, in sicer s kr�itvijo pravic obrambe, kr�itvijo člena 239 CZS in kr�itvijo člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the action in its entirety.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tožbo v celoti zavrnilo.
The first plea
Prvi tožbeni razlog
By it first plea, the applicant maintained that its rights of defence were infringed during the administrative procedure in that, although it had access to the file containing the documents on which the Commission had based the contested decision, it did not have access to documents which had a decisive influence on the Commission’s overall assessment of the situation.
Pritožnica je s prvim tožbenim razlogom uveljavljala, da so bile njene pravice obrambe v upravnem postopku kr�ene s tem, da je sicer imela dostop do spisa, ki vsebuje dokumente, na katere je Komisija oprla sporno odločbo, da pa ni imela vpogleda v tiste dokumente, ki so bili odločilni za skupno presojo dejanskega stanja, ki jo je opravila Komisija.
However, the Court of First Instance dismissed that plea on the grounds set out in paragraphs 87 to 102 of the judgment under appeal.
Vendar je Sodi�če prve stopnje ta tožbeni razlog zavrnilo iz razlogov, navedenih v točkah od 87 do 102 izpodbijane sodbe.
The second plea
Drugi tožbeni razlog
The second plea, alleging infringement of Article 239 of the CCC, is composed of four parts.
Drugi tožbeni razlog, ki je bil oprt na kr�itev člena 239 CZS, je razdeljen na �tiri dele.
The second and third parts set out, respectively, serious deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities and to the Commission in order to establish that there was a special situation for the purposes of that article.
Drugi in tretji del se nana�ata na hude kr�itve obveznosti, ki se očitajo tur�kim organom in Komisiji, da bi se dokazal obstoj posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS.
Lastly, the fourth part concerns lack of obvious negligence on the part of the applicant and the assessment of commercial risks.
Nazadnje, četrti del se nana�a na nemalomarnost pritožnice in na presojo poslovnega tveganja.
In this connection, the Court of First Instance noted, in paragraph 122 of the judgment under appeal, that, with regard to the part of the contested decision concerning the certificates at issue, the Commission based its decision essentially on the Turkish authorities’ letter of 8 March 1999 to the Ravenna customs services.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede prvega dela drugega tožbenega razloga najprej spomnilo na to, da določitev porekla blaga temelji na porazdelitvi pristojnosti med organi države izvoznice in organi države uvoznice, pri čemer prvi ugotavljajo poreklo, in nato preučilo korespondenco med Komisijo, italijanskimi in tur�kimi organi.
However, in comparing the wording of that letter and the wording of subsequent communications from the Turkish authorities, the Court of First Instance pointed out, in paragraphs 124 to 128 of the judgment under appeal, that there were ambiguities as to the classification of certificate D 437214 and that the Commission had not been in a position properly to conclude that that certificate had been forged prior to the adoption of the contested decision.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je pri primerjavi vsebine tega dopisa s poznej�imi sporočili tur�kih organov v točkah od 124 do 128 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da opredelitev potrdila D 437214 ni popolnoma nedvoumna in da Komisija pred sprejetjem sporne odločbe ni mogla pravilno sklepati, da je navedeno potrdilo D 437214 ponarejeno.
However, on the basis of a letter of 22 August 2003, and thus subsequent to the contested decision, in which the Turkish authorities confirmed the conclusions set out in their letter of 8 March 1999, the Court of First Instance held that that
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je menilo, da to glede na vsebino dopisa z dne 22. avgusta 2003, torej iz časa po sprejetju sporne odločbe, v katerem naj bi tur�ki organi potrdili sklepe iz njihovega dopisa z dne 8. marca 1999, ni zadostovalo za razglasitev ničnosti
2008 — CASE C-204/07 P consideration did not, of itself, suffice to annul the contested decision because the applicant had no legitimate interest in the annulment of a decision on the ground of a procedural defect, where annulment of the decision could only lead to the adoption of another decision identical in substance to the decision annulled.
2008 – ZADEVA C-204/07 P sporne odločbe, saj pritožnica ni imela nobenega upravičenega interesa za razglasitev ničnosti odločbe zaradi napake v obliki, če bi se lahko po razglasitvi ničnosti odločbe znova sprejela le odločba z isto vsebino, kot jo je imela odločba, ki je bila razgla�ena za nično.
Next, the Court of First Instance examined the second part of the second plea relating to various claims that there were deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities which are essentially based on the proposition that those authorities did in fact issue and endorse the certificates at issue.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato preučilo drugi del drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na različne trditve o kr�itvi obveznosti tur�kih organov, ki so večinoma temeljile na tezi, da so ti organi dejansko izdali in potrdili sporna potrdila.
In that regard, the Court of First Instance, after observing, in paragraphs 150 to 152 of the judgment under appeal that, firstly, it lay within the exclusive competence of the Turkish authorities to determine whether documents they had issued were original or forged and that, secondly, those authorities had concluded that the certificates at issue were forged, rejected the applicant’s argument that the impressions of the stamps and signatures applied to the certificates at issue demonstrate that they were in all likelihood issued and authenticated by the Turkish authorities.
V tej zvezi je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej v točkah od 150 do 152 izpodbijane sodbe navedlo, da je po eni strani ugotovitev, ali so dokumenti, ki so jih izdali tur�ki organi, pristni ali ponarejeni, v izključni pristojnosti teh organov in da so po drugi strani ti organi sklepali, da so sporna potrdila ponarejena, nato pa zavrnilo trditev pritožnice, da je mogoče na podlagi odtisov žigov in podpisov na spornih potrdilih sklepati, da so jih očitno izdali in overovili tur�ki organi.
Lastly, the Court of First Instance also observed that neither the Association Agreement nor the implementation provisions expressly provide that registers of certificates issued by the Turkish authorities are to be kept.
Končno je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da niti sporazum o pridružitvi niti določbe za njegovo izvajanje izrecno ne predvidevajo vodenja registrov o potrdilih, ki so jih izdali tur�ki organi.
However, it considered that that did not mean that the certificates were authentic because forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Vendar je menilo, da to ne pomeni, da gre za pristna potrdila, saj imajo ponarejevalci interes pri ponarejenih potrdilih uporabiti �tevilko registracije, ki se ujema z zakonitim potrdilom.
As regards the third part of the second plea, relating to a raft of claims in respect of failings attributable to the European Commission, the Court of First Instance relied on investigations carried out by UCLAF in Turkey to come to the conclusion that the Commission had in fact ensured that the Association Agreement was properly implemented.
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je v zvezi s tretjim delom drugega tožbenega razloga glede niza očitkov kr�itev Komisije oprlo na preiskave, ki jih je UCLAF opravila v Turčiji, in je zaključilo, da je Komisija dejansko skrbela za pravilno izvajanje sporazuma o pridružitvi.
The Court of First Instance also stated, in paragraph 240 of the judgment under appeal, that the applicant had not been able to establish that the Commission had encountered difficulties concerning the administrative assistance agreed upon with the Turkish authorities which would have justified bringing the matter before the Association Council or the EC-Turkey Customs Union Joint Committee (‘the Joint Committee’).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 240 izpodbijane sodbe prav tako ugotovilo, da pritožnica ni mogla dokazati, da je Komisija v okviru dogovorjene upravne pomoči s tur�kimi organi naletela na take težave, ki bi upravičevale vključitev pridružitvenega sveta ali me�anega odbora Carinske unije ES-Turčija (v nadaljevanju: me�ani odbor).
Thereafter, the Court of First Instance held that the Association Agreement, the decisions of the Association Council and the applicable Community legislation did not lay down any obligation for specimens of stamps and signatures to be sent from one Contracting Party to another, for importers to be warned of doubts as to the validity of customs transactions effected by those importers under the system of preferential treatment and for UCLAF to adopt a particular method of investigation.
Dalje je Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da niti sporazum o pridružitvi, niti sklepi pridružitvenega sveta, niti določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jih je treba uporabiti, ne predvidevajo nobene obveznosti posredovanja vzorcev žigov in podpisov med pogodbenimi strankami, niti opozorila uvoznikom v primeru dvoma o veljavnosti carinskih transakcij, ki jih ti izvedejo v okviru preferencialnega dogovora, ali uporabe določene metode preiskave s strani UCLAF.
As for the fourth part of the second plea, relating to the lack of obvious negligence on the part of the applicant, the Court of First Instance rejected it as being of no consequence after pointing out that the Commission did not, in the part of the contested decision dealing with the certificates at issue, express its view on the issue of the applicant’s due care or negligence.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je četrti del drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na neobstoj malomarnosti pritožnice, zavrnilo kot neutemeljen, potem ko je ugotovilo, da se v delu sporne odločbe, ki se nana�a na zadevna potrdila, Komisija ni opredelila glede skrbnega ravnanja ali malomarnosti pritožnice.
The third plea
Tretji tožbeni razlog
The Court of First Instance also rejected the third plea, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, given that the applicant had not been able to demonstrate that the acts of the competent authorities contributed to the issue or acceptance of the certificates at issue which had proved to be forged.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zavrnilo tudi tretji tožbeni razlog v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 220(2)(b) CZS, saj pritožnica ni dokazala, da je aktivno ravnanje pristojnih organov prispevalo k izdaji ali sprejetju spornih potrdil, ki so se izkazala za ponarejena.
Measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry required
Zahtevani ukrepi procesnega vodstva in pripravljalni ukrepi
Lastly, the Court of First Instance rejected the evidence offered in support and the measures of inquiry sought by the applicant such as, inter alia, its request to call upon the Commission to produce all the documents which the applicant considers it was not able to consult when it was given access to the administrative file.
Končno je Sodi�če prve stopnje zavrnilo dokazne predloge in pripravljalne ukrepe, ki jih je predlagala pritožnica, kot so med drugim predlog za poziv Komisiji, naj predloži vse dokumente, ki jih po njenem mnenju ni mogla pregledati v okviru dostopa do upravnega spisa.
By its appeal the appellant claims that the Court should:
Pritožnica s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
— allow the claims made at first instance, or in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to rule on the substance of the case;
– ugodi predlogom, podanim na prvi stopnji, in podredno vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje po temelju,
— allow the requests for measures of organisation of procedure made by the appellant in its written pleadings of 28 January 2003, 4 August 2003 and 11 August 2003, and
– ugodi predlogom za odreditev ukrepov procesnega vodstva, ki jih je pritožnica vložila 28. januarja 2003, 4. avgusta 2003 in 11. avgusta 2003, in
— order the defendant at first instance to pay the costs.
– toženi stranki iz postopka na prvi stopnji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
— dismiss the appeal in its entirety;
– pritožbo v celoti zavrne,
— uphold the form of order which the Commission sought at first instance; and
– v celoti ohrani v veljavi predloge, ki jih je Komisija podala na prvi stopnji, in
— order the appellant to pay the costs, including the costs incurred at first instance.
– pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka, vključno s stro�ki na prvi stopnji.
First, it submits that the Court of First Instance made an error of law in determining the division of powers between the exporting country and the importing country in
Najprej pritožnica zastopa stali�če, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, ko je določilo porazdelitev pristojnosti med državo izvoznico in državo
2008 — CASE C-204/07 P so far as the Turkish authorities do not, contrary to what was held by the Court of First Instance, have exclusive competence to determine whether the certificates at issue are authentic or not.
2008 – ZADEVA C-204/07 P uvoznico, ker naj tur�ki organi, v nasprotju s tem, kar je odločilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ne bi imeli izključne pristojnosti za presojo pristnosti ali nepristnosti spornih potrdil.
Secondly, the appellant submits that there was infringement of its right of access to the file, which cannot be restricted to only the documents on which the Commission based the contested decision.
Drugič, pritožnica navaja kr�itev njene pravice do vpogleda v spis, ki ne bi smela biti omejena le na dokumente, na katere je Komisija oprla sporno odločbo.
The appellant’s third and fourth grounds of appeal allege that the burden of proof was wrongly allocated because the Court of First Instance imposed on it the entire burden of proof but rejected its offers of evidence and the measures of inquiry it requested.
Pritožnica opira svoj tretji in četrti pritožbeni razlog na napačno porazdelitev trditvenega in dokaznega bremena, ker ji je Sodi�če prve stopnje v celoti naložilo to breme, ne da bi ji dopustilo njene dokazne predloge in pripravljalne ukrepe, ki jih je predlagala.
Errors in the legal classification of the failings alleged against the Turkish authorities and the Commission form the subjectmatter of the fifth ground of appeal.
Peti pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na napake pri pravni opredelitvi kr�itev obveznosti, ki se očitajo tur�kim organom in Komisiji.
In that regard, the appellant puts forward a number of heads of complaints concerning the assessment of the certificates at issue as irregular or inauthentic, failure to send specimens of stamps or signatures, breach of the obligation to warn importers, the way in which the investigations in Turkey were carried out and the non-disclosure of the registration of the certificates at issue.
Pritožnica v zvezi s tem navaja več očitkov glede presoje nepravilnosti ali nepristnosti spornih potrdil, neposredovanja vzorcev žigov in podpisov, kr�itev obveznosti opozorila uvoznikom, načina vodenja preiskav v Turčiji in neopravljene registracije spornih potrdil.
By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant criticises the statement in the judgment under appeal that the Commission was not required to bring the matter before the Joint Committee or the Association Council.
Pritožnica s �estim pritožbenim razlogom nasprotuje izpodbijani sodbi v delu, ki vsebuje trditev, da Komisija ni bila zavezana vključiti me�anega odbora ali pridružitvenega sveta.
The seventh ground of appeal alleges that the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the appellant’s legitimate interest in the annulment of the contested
Napačna presoja upravičenega interesa pritožnice glede razglasitve ničnosti sporne odločbe v zvezi s potrdilom A.TR.1 D 437214 je predmet sedmega pritožbenega
C.A.S. v COMMISSION decision with respect to A.TR.1 certificate D 437214, and the eighth ground of appeal alleges that the Court of First Instance failed to assess considerations of equity and risks in the judgment under appeal.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI razloga, medtem ko je neobstoj presoje pravičnosti in tveganja v izpodbijani sodbi predmet osmega pritožbenega razloga.
Lastly, in the ninth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance infringed Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC.
Končno, pritožnica v devetem pritožbenem razlogu meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje kr�ilo člen 220(2)(b) CZS.
First, it must be pointed out that the appellant submitted at the hearing that the implementation of Article 2 of the contested decision was only partly suspended and that it has paid a part of the import duty relating to the certificates at issue.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je pritožnica na obravnavi trdila, da je bilo izvajanje člena 2 sporne odločbe le delno odloženo, saj je plačala del uvoznih dajatev v zvezi s spornimi potrdili.
Consequently, the situation is one of both repayment of import duty, as regards the sums which were paid by the appellant, and remission of such duty, as regards the duty which was subsequently entered in the accounts, but which the appellant did not pay.
Zato je nastal položaj, ko se povrnejo uvozne dajatve, ki jih je plačala pritožnica, in odpustijo dajatve, ki so bile vknjižene pozneje, vendar jih pritožnica �e ni plačala.
However, in view of the specific circumstances of the present case, and apart from the grounds of appeal alleging infringement of the right of access to the file and of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, those complaints in essence challenge the Court of First Instance’s application of Article 239 of the CCC, in particular as regards the existence of a special situation within the meaning of that article.
Vendar ti očitki, glede na posebne okoli�čine obravnavane zadeve in poleg pritožbenih razlogov v zvezi s kr�itvijo pravice do vpogleda v spis in člena 220(2)(b) CZS, v bistvu izpodbijajo uporabo člena 239 CZS s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zlasti v zvezi z obstojem posebnega primera v smislu tega člena.
Therefore, those complaints as a whole must be examined at the outset.
Zato je treba vse te očitke takoj preučiti.
Infringement of Article 239 of the CCC
Kršitev člena 239 CZS
In essence, the appellant criticises the legal classification by the Court of First Instance of the failings attributable, first, to the Turkish authorities and, secondly, to the Commission.
Pritožnica v bistvu izpodbija pravno opredelitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi s kr�itvami obveznosti tur�kih organov in Komisije.
As regards the failings alleged against the Turkish authorities, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in law in respect of a number of aspects:
V zvezi z očitanimi kr�itvami obveznosti tur�kih organov pritožnica meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje z več vidikov napačno uporabilo pravo: