natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation?
I-4683); in ali je to, da se vse posledice nepravilnega tranzita Skupnosti v zadevnem primeru pripi�ejo carinskemu zastopniku, v nasprotju z načelom sorazmernosti?
MILITZER & MÜNCH (2) In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is Article 11a(2) applicable?
MILITZER & MÜNCH 2) Ali se v primeru, opisanem v prej�nji točki, uporablja člen 11a(2)?
(3) In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is the question of whether the customs authorities have jurisdiction to be determined according to the criteria laid down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of [the Customs Code]?’
3) Ali je treba člen 215(1) [carinskega zakonika] razlagati tako, da je treba v takem primeru, kot je opisan pod točko 1, pristojnost carinskega urada določiti v skladu z merilom, določenim v drugem ali tretjem delu omenjenega odstavka?“
In the present case, M & M and the Commission are correct in considering that the relevant provisions are those in force at the time when the notice of recovery, the lawfulness of which is disputed in the main proceedings, was issued by the Italian authorities on 17 November 1995.
V obravnavani zadevi sta M & M in Komisija upravičeno menili, da je treba uporabiti pravila, ki so veljala na dan 17. novembra 1995, ko so italijanski organi izdali zahtevo za plačilo, in katerih zakonitost je spor v zadevi v glavni stvari. 21
Since the Customs Code and the implementing regulation were applicable with effect from 1 January 1994, it follows that the Corte Suprema di Cassazione is asking the Court, by the first part of its first question and by its second question, to interpret the conditions under which the timelimits laid down in Article 379 of the implementing regulation apply, by its third question, to interpret the criteria set out in Article 215 of the Customs Code in order to determine the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs debt and, by the second part of its first question, to give a ruling on the application of the rules governing the liability of the principal in the light of the principle of proportionality.
Iz tega izhaja, da je predložitveno sodi�če s prvim delom prvega vpra�anja in drugim vpra�anjem zahtevalo od Sodi�ča, da razloži pogoje za uporabo rokov iz člena 379 izvedbene uredbe, s tretjim je zahtevalo, da razloži merila iz člena 215 carinskega zakonika za določitev, katera država članica je pristojna za izterjavo carinskega dolga, ter z drugim delom prvega vpra�anja, da se izreče o uporabi sistema odgovornosti glavnega zavezanca glede načela sorazmernosti.
It is appropriate to examine first of all the third question concerning the determination of the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs debt.
Najprej je treba obravnavati tretje vpra�anje v zvezi z določitvijo države članice, ki je pristojna za izterjavo carinskega dolga.
Question 3
Tretje vprašanje
M & M and the Commission take the view that the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs debt must be determined not pursuant to Article 215 of the
M & M in Komisija sta menili, da se ne sme določiti pristojnosti države članice na podlagi člena 215 carinskega zakonika, ampak v skladu s členom 378(1) izvedbene I - 1912
The Italian Government considers that it has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 215(2) of the Customs Code since the offence was committed or, at the very least, came to light in Italy.
Italijanska vlada meni, da je pristojna na podlagi člena 215(2) carinskega zakonika, ker je kr�itev nastala ali bila vsaj ugotovljena na italijanskem ozemlju.
It follows from Article 215(1) of the Customs Code and Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation that the determination of the place where the customs debt was incurred allows the Member State with jurisdiction to recover customs duties to be identified (see, to that effect, Case C-526/06 Road Air Logistics Customs [2007] ECR I-11337, paragraph 26).
V zvezi s tem izhaja iz člena 215(1) carinskega zakonika ter členov 378 in 379 izvedbene uredbe, da določitev kraja nastanka carinskega dolga omogoča določitev države članice, ki je pristojna za izterjavo carinskih dajatev (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 13. decembra 2007 v zadevi Road Air Logistics Customs, C-526/06, ZOdl., str.
According to the caselaw of the Court, removal from customs supervision must be understood as encompassing any act or omission the result of which is to prevent, if
V skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča je treba razumeti pojem odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora kot vsako dejanje ali opustitev, ki pristojnim carinskim organom
Removal from customs supervision simply requires certain objective conditions to be met including, for example, the absence of the goods from the approved place of storage at the time when the customs authorities intend to carry out an examination of them (D. Wandel, paragraph 48, and Liberexim, paragraph 60) or the temporary removal of the T1 transit document from the goods to which it relates (British American Tobacco, paragraph 53).
Odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora predvideva le izpolnitev objektivnih pogojev, kot je na primer fizična odsotnost blaga na dogovorjenem kraju skladi�čenja v trenutku, ko nameravajo carinski organi pregledati omenjeno blago (zgoraj navedeni sodbi D. Wandel, točka 48, in Liberexim, točka 60), ali začasna odtujitev tranzitnega dokumenta T1 za blago, na katero se nana�a (zgoraj navedena sodba British American Tobacco, točka 53).
Where a number of offences or irregularities have occurred in various Member States, the Member State having jurisdiction to recover the customs duties is the State in which the first offence or irregularity was committed (see, by analogy, Liberexim, paragraph 57).
Če nastane več kr�itev in nepravilnosti na ozemlju različnih držav članic, je za izterjavo carinskega dolga pristojna tista država članica, na katere ozemlju je nastala prva kr�itev ali nepravilnost (glej po analogiji zgoraj navedeno sodbo Liberexim, točka 57).
As M & M and the Commission correctly pointed out, Article 378 of the implementing regulation specifically governs the determination of the Member State with jurisdiction to recover customs duties under the external Community transit procedure and establishes a presumption of competence in favour of the Member State to which the office of departure belongs (Case C-104/02 Commission v Germany [2005] ECR I-2689, paragraph 86).
Prav tako sta M & M in Komisija upravičeno poudarili, da člen 378 izvedbene uredbe v zvezi zunanjim skupnostnim tranzitom izrecno določa, katera država članica je pristojna za izterjavo carin in vzpostavlja domnevo v korist državi članici, v kateri se nahaja urad odhoda (sodba z dne 14. aprila 2005 v zadevi Komisija proti Nemčiji, C-104/02, ZOdl., str. I-2689, točka 86). 30
Article 378(1) of the implementing regulation provides that, without prejudice to the rules on the determination of the place where a customs debt is incurred, laid down in Article 215 of the Customs Code, where a consignment has not been presented at
Člen 378(1) izvedbene uredbe določa, da kadar po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, ker kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti ni bilo mogoče določiti, se brez poseganja v pravila o določitvi kraja nastanka carinskega dolga, določenega v členu 215
MILITZER & MÜNCH the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, such offence or irregularity is deemed to have been committed in the Member State to which the office of departure belongs or in the Member State to which the office of transit at the point of entry into the Community belongs, to which a transit advice note has been given, unless within the period laid down in Article 379(2) of the implementing regulation, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or of the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed is furnished (Case C-300/03 Honeywell Aerospace [2005] ECR I-689, paragraph 21). 31
MILITZER & MÜNCH carinskega zakonika, �teje, da je kr�itev ali nepravilnost nastala v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, ali v državi članici, ki ji pripada urad tranzita pri vstopu v Skupnost, ki je prejel potrdilo o prehodu, če v roku, ki ga je treba določiti v skladu s členom 379(2) izvedbene uredbe, ni predloženo dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju, kjer je kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala (sodba z dne 20. januarja 2005 v zadevi Honeywell Aerospace, C-300/03, ZOdl., str. I-689, točka 21). 31
The initiation of the procedure laid down in Article 379 of the implementing regulation therefore assumes that the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established by the customs authorities (Case C-112/01 SPKR [2002] ECR I-10655, paragraph 35).
Carinski organi pri izvajanju postopka, predvidenega v členu 379 izvedbene uredbe, ne morejo določiti kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti (sodba z dne 14. novembra 2002 v zadevi SPKR, C-112/01, Recueil, str. I-10655, točka 35).
Consequently, in order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is necessary to determine whether, at the time when it was established that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Zato je treba, da bi se preverila pristojnost države članice, ki je izterjevala carino, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče v trenutku, ko se je ugotovilo, da po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, določiti kraj kr�itve ali nepravilnosti.
If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Customs Code.
V tem primeru je mogoče v skladu z določbami členov 203(1) in 215(1) carinskega zakonika določiti za pristojno za izterjavo carine tisto državo članico, na katere ozemlju je nastala prva kr�itev ali nepravilnost, ki jo je mogoče označiti kot odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora.
On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation.
Če kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti po drugi strani �e vedno ni mogoče določiti, je država članica, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, pristojna za izterjavo carine v skladu z določbami členov 378 in 379 izvedbene uredbe.
In order to determine whether, in the case in the main proceedings, the Italian authorities had jurisdiction to recover the duties in question, it is for the referring
Da bi predložitveno sodi�če v zadevi v glavni stvari določilo, ali so bili italijanski organi pristojni za izterjavo zadevne carine, mora ob upo�tevanju celote upo�tevnih
2008 — CASE C-230/06 court to verify whether, having regard to all the relevant information available at the time when it came to light that the consignments had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed.
2008 – ZADEVA C-230/06 razpoložljivih elementov v trenutku, ko je bilo ugotovljeno, da po�iljke niso bile predložene namembnemu uradu, preveriti, ali se kraj, kjer je nastala prva kr�itev ali nepravilnost, lahko označi kot odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora.
If that is not the case, the effect of the presumption of competence in favour of the Member State to which the office of departure belongs, established by Article 378(1) of the implementing regulation, is that the Federal Republic of Germany is the Member State with jurisdiction to recover the customs duties.
Če ne, potem domneva pristojnosti v korist države članice, ki ji pripada urad odhoda v skladu s členom 378(1) izvedbene uredbe, označuje Zvezno republiko Nemčijo kot državo članico, ki je pristojna za izterjavo carine.
That presumption can be rebutted in favour of the jurisdiction of another Member State only if it is established that the first offence or irregularity was actually committed in the territory of that State.
Ta domneva ne sme biti uporabljena v korist pristojnosti neke druge države članice, razen če ni dokazano, da je prva kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala na njenem ozemlju.
Nevertheless, proof to that effect must be furnished to the satisfaction of the authorities of the Member State to which the office of departure belongs, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 379 of the implementing regulation, which entails, inter alia, compliance with the timelimits laid down in that provision.
Vendar se mora predložiti to dokazilo, ki ustreza zahtevam države članice, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, v skladu s postopkom, predvidenim v členu 379 izvedbene uredbe, ki vključuje zlasti spo�tovanje v njej navedenih rokov.
The answer to the third question must therefore be that, in order to verify whether the Member State which recovered customs duties has jurisdiction, it is for the referring court to determine whether, at the time when it came to light that the consignment had not been presented at the office of destination, it was possible to establish the place where the offence or irregularity occurred.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da mora predložitveno sodi�če, da bi preverilo pristojnost države članice, ki je izterjevala carino, ugotoviti, ali je mogoče v trenutku, ko se je ugotovilo, da po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu, določiti kraj kr�itve ali nepravilnosti.
If that is the case, the Member State in which the first offence or irregularity capable of being classified as a removal from customs surveillance was committed can be identified as the State with jurisdiction to recover the customs debt, pursuant to Articles 203(1) and 215(1) of the Customs Code.
V tem primeru je mogoče v skladu z določbami členov 203(1) in 215(1) carinskega zakonika določiti za pristojno za izterjavo carine tisto državo članico, na katere ozemlju je nastala prva kr�itev ali nepravilnost, ki jo je mogoče označiti kot odstranitev izpod carinskega nadzora.
On the other hand, if the place where the offence or irregularity was committed cannot be thus established, the Member State to which the office of departure belongs has jurisdiction to recover the customs duties, in accordance with Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation.
Če kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti po drugi strani �e vedno ni mogoče določiti, je država članica, ki ji pripada urad odhoda, pristojna za izterjavo carine v skladu z določbami členov 378 in 379 izvedbene uredbe.
MILITZER & MÜNCH The first part of the first question and the second question
MILITZER & MÜNCH Prvi del prvega vprašanja in drugo vprašanje
The Corte Suprema di Cassazione asks, in essence, whether the Italian authorities’ failure to comply with the timelimits of 11 months and 3 months, imposed for the benefit of the principal by the first and second paragraphs of Article 379 of the implementing regulation respectively, precludes the recovery of customs duties.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali to, da carinski organi ne upo�tevajo rokov enajstih in treh mesecev, ki sta določena v korist glavnega zavezanca v skladu s členoma 379(1) in (2) izvedbene uredbe, preprečuje izterjavo carin.
As the Italian Government and the Commission correctly observed, non-compliance with the 11-month timelimit does not by itself prevent recovery of the customs debt from the principal (SPKR, paragraphs 27 to 33, and Commission v Germany, paragraph 69).
Italijanska vlada in Komisija sta upravičeno menili, da zgolj neupo�tevanje roka enajstih mesecev samo po sebi ne preprečuje izterjavo carin od glavnega zavezanca (zgoraj navedeni sodbi SPKR, točke od 27 do 33, in Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 69).
On the other hand, notification to the principal of the three-month timelimit laid down in Article 379(2) of the implementing regulation is mandatory and must precede recovery of the customs debt by the customs authorities (SPKR, paragraph 32; Honeywell Aerospace, paragraphs 23 and 24; Commission v Germany, paragraph 71; order of 6 April 2006 in Case C-407/05 Reyniers & Sogama, paragraph 22; and Case C-44/06 Gerlach [2007] ECR I-2071, paragraph 33). 40
Vendar morajo carinski organi obvezno obvestiti glavnega zavezanca o roku treh mesecev v skladu s členom 379(2) izvedbene uredbe pred izterjavo carinskega dolga (zgoraj navedene sodbe SPKR, točka 32; Honeywell Aerospace, točki 23 in 24, in Komisija proti Nemčiji, točka 71, sklep z dne 6. aprila 2006 v zadevi Reyniers & Sogama, C-407/05, �e neobjavljen v ZOdl., točka 22, in sodba z dne 8. marca 2007 v zadevi Gerlach, C-44/06, ZOdl., str. I-2071, točka 33). 40
It should be noted that the purpose of those 11-month and 3-month timelimits is to ensure diligent and uniform application, by the administrative authorities, of the provisions relating to the recovery of customs debts in order to secure rapid availability of the Community’s own resources (SPKR, paragraph 34, and Commission v Germany, paragraphs 69 and 78).
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da se z rokoma enajstih in treh mesecev zagotavlja skrbno in enotno uporabo določb s področja izterjave carinskega dolga s strani upravnih organov, kar omogoča hitro razpolaganje z lastnimi viri Skupnosti (zgoraj navedeni sodbi SPKR, točka 34, in Komisija proti Nemčiji, točki 69 in 78).
Moreover, the three-month timelimit is also intended to protect the interests of the principal by allowing him sufficient time in which to furnish, where appropriate, proof of the regularity of the transit operation or the place where the offence or irregularity was actually committed (SPKR,
Med drugim je rok treh mesecev prav tako namenjen za�čiti interesov glavnega zavezanca, ki mu dodeljuje dovolj časa, da po potrebi predloži, dokazilo o pravilnosti tranzitne operacije ali o kraju, kjer je kr�itev ali nepravilnost dejansko nastala (zgoraj navedeni sodbi SPKR, točka 38, in Honeywell Aerospace, točka 24). Ta trimesečni rok spodbuja
Finally, that three-month timelimit is intended to encourage the principal to produce the evidence available to him within a mandatory time-limit, with a view to determining without delay the State with jurisdiction to recover duty (Case C-233/98 Lensing & Brockhausen [1999] ECR I-7349, paragraph 30). 41
2008 – ZADEVA C-230/06 glavnega zavezanca, da v obveznem roku priskrbi elemente, s katerimi razpolaga, da bi lahko čim prej določili državo članico, ki je pristojna za izterjavo carine (sodba z dne 21. oktobra 1999 v zadevi Lensing & Brockhausen, C-233/98, Recueil, str. I-7349, točka 30). 41
It follows from the wording itself of Articles 378 and 379 of the implementing regulation that it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within those 11-month and 3-month timelimits where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established.
Iz samega besedila členov 378 in 379 izvedbene uredbe izhaja, da mora urad odhoda poslati obvestilo ob spo�tovanju rokov enajstih in treh mesecev, če po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu in če kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti ni mogoče določiti.
The answer to the first part of the first question and to the second question must therefore be that, where a consignment has not been presented at the office of destination and the place of the offence or irregularity cannot be established, it is for the office of departure alone to make the notification required within the 11-month and 3-month timelimits laid down by Article 379(1) and (2) of the implementing regulation.
Tako je treba odgovoriti na prvi del prvega vpra�anja in na drugo vpra�anje, da mora urad odhoda poslati obvestilo ob spo�tovanju rokov enajstih in treh mesecev v skladu s členoma 378 in 379 izvedbene uredbe, če po�iljka ni bila predložena namembnemu uradu in če kraja kr�itve ali nepravilnosti ni mogoče določiti.
The second part of the first question
Drugi del prvega vprašanja
The Corte Suprema di Cassazione is uncertain whether it is compatible with the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent, in his capacity as principal, to be held liable for the consequences of an external Community transit operation which is vitiated by a forgery that is not attributable to him, in so far as the customs debt may, as in the case in the main proceedings, be considerably in excess of the remuneration received by the principal for his services.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali je to, da je carinski zastopnik kot glavni zavezanec, odgovoren za posledice zunanjega skupnostnega tranzitnega postopka, omadeževanega z goljufijo, za katero mu ni mogoče pripisati krivde, skladno z načelom sorazmernosti, kolikor lahko carinski dolg, tako kot v zadevi v glavni stvari, močno presega plačilo, ki ga je glavni zavezanec prejel za opravljene storitve.
The Commission questions the relevance of that question in so far as customs legislation does not provide for any limitations on the liability of the principal.
Komisija dvomi o upo�tevnosti tega vpra�anja, če carinska ureditev ne predvideva omejitev odgovornosti glavnega zavezanca.
It suggests that the question should be understood as referring to a situation in which it might be inequitable to hold the principal liable for a forgery in which he had no part and in the commission of which the customs employees of the office of destination were in all likelihood involved.
Meni, da je treba to vpra�anje razumeti, kot da gre za položaj, v katerem bi bilo lahko nepravično zavezati glavnega zavezanca kot nosilca odgovornosti za goljufijo, pri kateri ni bil udeležen in pri nastanku katere so bili verjetno vpleteni cariniki namembnega urada.
It therefore proposes that the Court should widen the terms of the question referred for a preliminary ruling and take account of the criteria which permit duties to be remitted on equitable grounds, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 239 of the Customs Code and Articles 899 to 999 of the implementing regulation.
Zato Sodi�ču predlaga, da raz�iri vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje in upo�teva merila, ki omogočajo odpust dajatev zaradi pravičnosti, v skladu s postopkom iz člena 239 carinskega zakonika in členov od 899 do 909 izvedbene uredbe.
It therefore submits that, faced with a ‘special situation’, the Italian authorities should have referred the application for remission of duties to the Commission, pursuant to Article 905 of the implementing regulation.
Prav tako poudarja, da bi morali italijanski organi, ko so se soočili s „posebnim primerom“, pri Komisiji vložiti zahtevek za odpust dajatev v skladu s členom 905 izvedbene uredbe.
M & M and the Commission add that the uniform application and interpretation of Community law requires that the decisions by which customs authorities refuse to allow such an application should be subject to effective judicial review and call upon the Court in that regard to adopt a position on the judgment of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione of 27 September 2002.
M & M in Komisija dodajata, da je treba zaradi enotne uporabe in razlage prava Skupnosti opraviti učinkovit sodni nadzor v zvezi z odločbami, s katerimi carinski organi ne ugodijo tak�nim zahtevam, ter v zvezi s tem vabita Sodi�če, da se izreče glede sodbe Corte suprema di cassazione z dne 27. septembra 2002. 46