natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court then rejected the third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, since the appellant 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 proved to be forged (paragraphs 303 to 307).
Sodi�če je nato zavrnilo �e tretji tožbeni razlog v zvezi s kr�itvijo člena 220(2)(b) CZS, saj pritožnici ni uspelo dokazati, da bi aktivno ravnanje pristojnih organov prispevalo k izdaji ali sprejetju spornih potrdil, ki so se izkazala za lažna (točke od 303 do 307).
Measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry requested
Zahtevani ukrepi procesnega vodstva in pripravljalni ukrepi
In this regard, the Court first recalled the investigations conducted by UCLAF in Turkey and held that it had not been established that the Commission had encountered difficulties concerning the administrative assistance agreed upon with the Republic of Turkey which would have justified a reference to the Association Council or the Customs Union Joint Committee (paragraphs 238 to 240).
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje najprej spomnilo na preiskave, ki jih je UCLAF opravila v Turčiji, in odločilo, da ni bilo dokazano, da bi Komisija v okviru upravne pomoči, dogovorjene z Republiko Turčijo, naletela na take težave, ki bi upravičevale vključitev pridružitvenega sveta ali me�anega carinskega odbora (točke od 238 do 240).
The Court then held that neither the Association Agreement, nor the decisions of the Association Council, nor the applicable Community legislation laid down any obligation for specimens of stamps and signatures to be sent from one Contracting Party to another (paragraphs 249 to 257), for importers to be warned of doubts as to the validity of customs transactions effected by those importers under the system of preferential treatment (paragraph 270) or for a specific method of investigation to be adopted by UCLAF (paragraph 284).
Sodi�če prve stopnje je �e 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 (točke od 249 do 257) niti opozorila uvoznikom v primeru dvoma o veljavnosti carinskih transakcij, ki jih ti izvr�ijo v okviru preferencialnega dogovora (točka 270), ali uporabe določene metode preiskave s strani UCLAF (točka 284).
Having found that, in the part of the contested decision dealing with forged certificates, the Commission did not express its
Sodi�če prve stopnje je četrti del drugega tožbenega razloga, ki se nana�a na nemalomarnost pritožnice, zavrnilo kot neutemeljen,
Finally, the Court of First Instance rejected the evidence offered and the measures of inquiry requested by the appellant either as having no purpose or as being neither relevant nor necessary for the purpose of ruling in the case (paragraphs 314 to 333).
Končno je Sodi�če prve stopnje dokazne predloge in pripravljalne ukrepe, ki jih je predlagala pritožnica, zavrnilo kot brezpredmetne ali kot neupo�tevne in nepotrebne za odločitev o sporu (točke od 314 do 333).
C — Proceedings before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties
C – Postopek pred Sodiščem in predlogi strank
By document of 22 June 2007 registered at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 25 June 2007, the Commission lodged a response, in which it claims that the Court should
Komisija je z vlogo z dne 22. junija 2007, ki je bila v register sodnega tajni�tva Sodi�ča vpisana 25. junija 2007, podala odgovor na pritožbo, s katerim Sodi�ču predlaga, naj:
By application of 13 April 2007 lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 16 April 2007, the appellant brought the present appeal.
Pritožnica je to pritožbo vložila 13. aprila 2007, v register sodnega tajni�tva pa je bila Sodi�ča vpisana 16. aprila 2007.
— dismiss the appeal in its entirety;
– pritožbo v celoti zavrne;
— uphold in their entirety the forms 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
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 in Case T-23/03;
– razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. februarja 2007 v zadevi T-23/03;
— order the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance.
– pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov postopka, vključno s stro�ki na prvi stopnji.
— grant the form of order sought at first instance; in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a decision on the substance;
ugodi predlogom, podanim na prvi stopnji; podredno vrne zadevo Sodi�ču prve stopnje v ponovno odločanje po temelju;
After the written procedure, a hearing took place on 10 January 2008 at which the parties made their oral observations.
ugodi predlogom za odreditev ukrepov procesnega vodstva, ki jih je pritožnica vložila 28. januarja 2003, 4. avgusta 2003 in 11. avgusta 2003;
— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance.
– toženi stranki iz postopka na prvi stopnji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
D — Grounds of the appeal and arguments of the parties
D – Pritožbeni razlogi in trditve strank
The Commission contends that, in view of the fact that the Court of First Instance concluded that no involvement of the Turkish authorities in forging the certificates at issue has been established, there is no reason to doubt the division of responsibilities between the Turkish and the Community customs authorities.
Po mnenju Komisije ni razloga za dvom o porazdelitvi nalog med tur�kimi carinskimi organi in carinskimi organi Skupnosti, saj je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo, da ni bila dokazana nikakr�na udeležba tur�kih organov pri ponarejanju spornih potrdil.
By way of an introductory observation, the Commission points out that the appeal stands or falls by the premise that the certificates at issue are not forged.
Komisija uvodoma opozarja na to, da pritožba temelji in spodleti na predpostavki, da sporna potrdila niso ponarejena.
The Court of First Instance found in the contested judgment that the 32 A.TR.1 certificates at issue were forged and were not issued by the Turkish customs authorities.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi v izpodbijani sodbi ugotovilo, da je bilo 32 spornih potrdil A.TR.1 ponarejenih in da jih niso izdali tur�ki carinski organi.
The appeal effectively disputes that finding of fact by the Court of First Instance and is therefore inadmissible.
S pritožbo naj bi se posku�alo izpodbijati to ugotovitev dejstev, ki jo je opravilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, zato naj bi bila pritožba nedopustna.
In addition, the Commission raises various objections of inadmissibility against particular grounds of the appeal.
Poleg tega Komisija z različnimi ugovori nedopustnosti oporeka določenim pritožbenim razlogom.
By its second ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the right of access to documents relates only to documents on which the Commission based the decision at issue.
Pritožnica s svojim drugim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno predpostavljalo, da se pravica do vpogleda v spis nana�a le na dokumente, s katerimi je Komisija utemeljila svojo sporno odločbo.
The right of access to documents should also apply to confidential documents.
Tudi zaupni dokumenti bi morali biti predmet pravice do vpogleda v spis.
The Commission must at least identify confidential documents and attach a non-confidential summary.
Komisija bi morala vsaj označiti obstoj zaupnih dokumentov in priložiti povzetek, ki ne bi bil zaupen.
The appellant puts forward nine grounds of appeal.
Pritožnica uveljavlja devet pritožbenih razlogov.
The Commission replies that the appellant’s argument has no basis in Community law.
Komisija odgovarja, da navedbe pritožnice nimajo nobene podlage v pravu Skupnosti.
By its third ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance imposed on it the entire burden of proof for those factual circumstances which characterised a ‘special situation’ within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC and Article 905 of the CCC implementing regulation, in so far as they constitute factual matters in third countries (in this case Turkey) or within the Commission’s sphere of action and influence.
Pritožnica s tretjim pritožbenim razlogom prereka, da ji je Sodi�če prve stopnje v celoti naložilo dokazno breme za tiste dejanske okoli�čine, ki ustvarjajo „poseben primer“ v smislu člena 239 CZS in člena 905 uredbe za izvajanje CZS, če gre za dejanska stanja v tretjih državah (v tem primeru: Turčiji) ali za taka, ki spadajo na področje delovanja ali vpliva Komisije. Tak�na porazdelitev dokaznega bremena naj bi od tožeče stranke
By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance made an error of law when it considered the Turkish authorities to have exclusive competence to determine whether the A.TR.1 movement certificates were authentic or correct.
Pritožnica s prvim pritožbenim razlogom zastopa stali�če, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, s tem ko je predpostavilo izključno pristojnost tur�kih organov za presojo pristnosti ali pravilnosti potrdil o gibanju blaga A.TR.1.
In that regard, the appellant takes the view that where there are sufficient objective indications that the competent customs authorities of a third country were involved in the irregularities in question, or even where there is concrete suspicion of such conduct, the exclusive competence of those authorities ends.
V tem smislu pritožnica trdi, da če obstajajo zadostni objektivni indici za udeležbo pristojnih carinskih organov tretje države pri zadevnih nepravilnostih ali že pri konkretnem sumu, da gre za tak�no ravnanje, izključna pristojnost teh organov preneha.
The Commission argues that the Court of First Instance was right to reject the appellant’s requests for measure of inquiry and offers of evidence as serving no purpose and irrelevant because the file already contained relevant and consistent evidence.
Komisija navaja, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno zavrnilo predlagane pripravljalne ukrepe in dokazne predloge pritožnice kot nepotrebne in nepomembne, saj je spis že vseboval zadevne in trdne dokaze.
The fifth ground of appeal relates to errors which the Court of First Instance allegedly made in the classification in law of documents/facts in relation to the deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities and the Commission.
Peti pritožbeni razlog se nana�a na napake, ki naj bi jih Sodi�če prve stopnje storilo pri pravni opredelitvi dokumentov/dejstev v zvezi s kr�itvami obveznosti tur�kih organov in Komisije.
In the view of the Commission, this is not a question of allocation of the burden of proof.
Komisija meni, da v tem smislu ne gre za vpra�anje porazdelitve dokaznega bremena.
On the contrary, the question of allocation of the burden of proof arises only when a factual claim at issue is supported by at least prima facie documentary evidence.
Vpra�anje porazdelitve dokaznega bremena naj bi se namreč postavilo �ele takrat, ko je neka sporna trditev o dejstvu vsaj v zasnovi dokazljiva.
However, to shift the burden of proof would be tantamount to placing the Commission and the customs authorities of the Member States and the third State a priori; under ‘general suspicion’ and imposing on them the — often impossible — burden of furnishing evidence in rebuttal.
Nasprotno bi obrnitev dokaznega bremena povzročila, da bi se o njej in o carinskih organih držav članic in tretjih držav a priori „na splo�no sumilo“ in se jim naložilo – mnogokrat nemogoč – nasprotni dokaz.
In addition, the Commission reaffirms its view that these are mere presumptions on the part of the appellant and not objective indicia.
Poleg tega Komisija trdi, da gre zgolj za domneve pritožnice in ne za objektivne dokaze.
With regard to the alleged deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities, the appellant is firstly of the view that the Court interpreted and classified the certificates at issue wrongly in law.
Glede zatrjevanih kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov pritožnica najprej meni, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo pri razlagi in opredelitvi spornih potrdil.
Secondly, it challenges the Court’s interpretation of the forging of A.TR.1 certificate D 437214.
Drugič, oporeka razlagi Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede ponareditve potrdila A.TR.1 D 437214.
Thirdly, a comparison of the stamps on the certificates acknowledged as irregular with those considered to be forged reveals no difference, which shows that the certificates at issue were wrongly classified as forged.
Tretjič, primerjava odtisov žigov na potrdilih, spoznanih za nepravilne, in potrdilih, ki naj bi bila ponarejena, naj ne bi pokazala nobenih razlik, kar naj bi pomenilo, da so bila sporna potrdila nepravilno opredeljena kot ponarejena.
Moreover, it challenges the Court’s consideration that forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Poleg tega oporeka preudarku Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da imajo ponarejevalci interes, da pri ponarejenih potrdilih uporabijo �tevilko registracije, ki se ujema z zakonitim potrdilom.
It bases that view on the premise that a double importation under the same registration number would be noticed immediately,
Petič, pritožnica zatrjuje, da so tur�ki organi sodelovali pri izdaji spornih potrdil, saj bi ti pri opravljanju
By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that, in refusing to admit the evidence offered by it and to order the measures of inquiry requested by it, the Court infringed Article 68(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance.
Pritožnica s četrtim pritožbenim razlogom zastopa mnenje, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da ni dopustilo njenih dokaznih predlogov in pripravljalnih ukrepov, ki jih je predlagala, kr�ilo člen 68(1) Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje.
That is a fortiori the case since the Court imposed very great demands on it in terms of the burden of proof.
To naj bi �e toliko bolj veljalo, ker ji je Sodi�če prve stopnje postavilo zelo visoke zahteve glede dokaznega bremena.
Moreover, in view of the fact that its request referred, on the one hand, to all the documents in the file and, on the other, only illustratively to specific documents such as, for example, the OLAF report of 9 December 1998, the Court wrongly assumed that its request for the production of documents from the administrative file had no purpose (paragraph 313).
Poleg tega naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje zaradi dejstva, da se je njen zahtevek po eni strani nana�al na vse dokumente v spisu in po drugi strani le na določene dokumente, kot na primer na poročilo OLAF z dne 9. decembra 1998, nepravilno sklepalo, da je njen zahtevek za predložitev dokumentov iz upravnega spisa brezpredmeten (točka 313).
Sixthly, the appellant challenges the Court’s legal assessment with regard to the alleged deficiency on the part of the Turkish authorities in providing administrative assistance and in particular the finding that those authorities did not contradict themselves.
Šestič, pritožnica ugovarja pravni presoji Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede zatrjevane kr�itve obveznosti tur�kih organov v okviru upravne pomoči in zlasti ugotovitvi, da naj ti organi ne bi prihajali v nasprotje sami s seboj.
Finally, it submits that various other circumstances demonstrate the Turkish authorities’ involvement in issuing the certificates at issue.
Končno, navaja različne okoli�čine, ki po njenem mnenju dokazujejo sodelovanje tur�kih organov pri izdaji spornih potrdil.
With regard to the alleged deficiencies attributable to the Commission, the appellant submits that there were sufficient objective indications of systematic and deliberate infringements by the competent Turkish authorities, which should have justified an intensified review of preferential treatment by the Commission.
Glede zatrjevanih kr�itev obveznosti Komisije pritožnica meni, da obstajajo zadostni objektivni indici za sistematične in zavestne kr�itve pristojnih tur�kih organov, ki bi morali upravičiti okrepljen nadzor Komisije nad preferencialnim dogovorom.
Taking as its basis Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation and Article 4 of Decision No 1/96, the appellant expresses the opinion that the Republic of Turkey and the Commission were legally obliged during the period in question (1995 to 1997) to communicate or require specimens of the stamps of the competent customs officials used by the Turkish customs authorities.
Pritožnica ob sklicevanju na člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS in na člen 4 Sklepa 1/96 meni, da sta bili Republika Turčija in Komisija tudi v zadevnem obdobju (v letih od 1995 do 1997) pravno zavezani, da posredujeta ali zahtevata vzorce žigov pristojnih carinskih uradnikov, ki jih uporabljajo tur�ki carinski organi.
The Court of First Instance also made an error of law when it did not conclude that the Commission was obliged to warn importers of fruit juice concentrates by the end of 1994/beginning of 1995 at the latest of irregularities in Turkey in the issuing of A.TR.1 movement certificates.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi tudi napačno uporabilo pravo, ker ni sklepalo, da naj bi bila Komisija zavezana, da uvoznike koncentratov sadnih sokov najpozneje konec leta 1994 ali v začetku leta 1995 opozori na nepravilnosti v Turčiji pri izdaji potrdil A.TR.1 o gibanju blaga.
Moreover, UCLAF failed to comply with its obligations under Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 to carry out a proper investigation in Turkey, since it did not adopt certain methods of investigation.
Poleg tega naj bi UCLAF kr�ila svoje obveznosti iz členov 1 in 3 Uredbe (ES) �t. 1073/99 glede ustrezne preiskave v Turčiji, saj naj ne bi uporabila določenih metod preiskave.
In the Commission’s view, the appellant is again merely contesting the findings and assessments of fact made by the Court of First Instance.
Komisija meni, da se pritožnica spet omejuje na izpodbijanje ugotovitev in presoje Sodi�ča prve stopnje glede dejstev.
Neither Turkey nor the Commission was obliged, under the provisions applicable here, to send specimens of stamps or signatures.
Niti Turčija niti Komisija naj ne bi bili na podlagi določb, ki se uporabljajo v tem primeru, zavezani k posredovanju vzorcev žigov ali podpisov.
With regard to the duty to warn importers, which the appellant considers it to have, the Commission points out that the
Glede dolžnosti opozorila uvoznikom, ki naj bi jo imela po mnenju pritožnice, Komisija opominja na to, da
As a preliminary point, the Commission contends that the appellant misunderstands the nature of the Court’s findings in relation to the fifth ground of appeal.
Komisija uvodoma meni, da je pritožnica narobe ocenila naravo ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zvezi s petim pritožbenim razlogom.
That ground of appeal does not concern points of law, but contains assessments of fact which cannot be the subjectmatter of proceedings on an appeal on a point of law.
Ta naj se ne bi nana�al na pravna vpra�anja, ampak naj bi vseboval presoje dejstev, ki ne morejo biti predmet pritožbenega postopka.
Moreover, in the fifth ground of appeal, the appellant has inadmissibly restated its submissions at first instance.
Poleg tega naj bi pritožnica v okviru petega pritožbenega razloga nedopustno ponovno podala svoje navedbe iz postopka na prvi stopnji.
It is unable to show in what respect the Court of First Instance made an error of law in this connection.
Pritožnica naj ne bi bila sposobna prikazati, v kolik�ni meri naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje v zvezi s tem napačno uporabilo pravo.
Its allegations are unsubstantiated and without any probative value.
Njene trditve naj bi bile neutemeljene in brez vsake dokazne vrednosti.
The keeping of registers is not prescribed either in the Association Agreement or in any other provisions applicable here.
Vodenja registrov naj ne bi določal niti sporazum o pridružitvi niti drugi predpisi, uporabljivi v tem primeru.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION it had been repaid/remitted, by issuing a new notice of assessment.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI naložiti plačila carine, ki je enkrat že bila odpu�čena ali povrnjena.
imports at issue here dated from the period between April 1995 and November 1997, whereas doubts regarding the authenticity and the accuracy as to content of Turkish A.TR.1 certificates arose only subsequently, namely as of 1998.
sporni uvozi v obravnavanem primeru izhajajo iz obdobja od aprila 1995 do novembra 1997, medtem ko so se dvomi o pristnosti in o vsebinski pravilnosti tur�kih potrdil A.TR.1 pojavili �ele pozneje, namreč leta 1998.
In the Commission’s view, the appellant’s interpretation of Article 905 et seq. of the CCC implementing regulation and Article 218(3) of the CCC is incorrect, since the decision at issue here was adopted within the aforementioned periods and was not annulled by the Court of First Instance.
Po mnenju Komisije je pritožnica nepravilno razlagala člen 905 in naslednje člene uredbe za izvajanje CZS in člena 218(3) CZS, saj je bila sporna odločba v obravnavanem primeru sprejeta v zgoraj navedenih rokih, Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je ni razglasilo za nično.
By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance should have classified the Commission’s failure to call on the Customs Committee/Association Council as a fault.
Pritožnica s šestim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni opredelilo tega, da Komisija ni vključila carinskega odbora ali pridružitvenega sveta kot kr�itev.
It refers in this respect to the judgment in ‘Turkish televisions’. 3
V tej zvezi se sklicuje na sodbo „Tur�ki televizijski sprejemniki“. 3
By its eighth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance failed to recognise that, even on the assumption that the certificates at issue were false, having regard to the gross misconduct of the Turkish authorities and the Commission it was unfair, in view of the relationship between economic operators and the administration, to leave the appellant to bear a loss stemming from the decision at issue.
Pritožnica z osmim pritožbenim razlogom zatrjuje, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo tega, da bi bilo celo ob predpostavki, da sporna potrdila niso pristna, glede na hude kr�itve tur�kih organov in Komisije ter zaradi razmerja med gospodarskimi subjekti in upravo, nepravično, da bi morala odgovarjati za �kodo, ki izhaja iz sporne odločbe.
The Commission contends that, in view of the Turkish authorities’ consistent and impeccable willingness to cooperate, it had no reason to call on the Customs Committee or the Association Council.
Komisija navaja, da zaradi pripravljenosti sodelovanja tur�kih organov, ki je bilo konsistentno in brez napak, ni imela razloga za vključitev carinskega odbora ali pridružitvenega sveta.
The Commission states out that it did not express a view in the decision at issue on the question of the appellant’s care or negligence, and that therefore the appellant’s submissions concerning this question are of no consequence.
Komisija spominja na to, da se v sporni odločbi ni opredelila glede skrbnega ravnanja ali malomarnosti pritožnice in da so zato navedbe pritožnice, ki se nana�ajo na to vpra�anje, neutemeljene.
By its seventh ground of appeal, the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance failed to take into account the appellant’s legitimate interest in the annulment of the contested decision with respect to A.TR.1 certificate D437214 since, in view of the three-year period prescribed in Article 218(3) of the CCC and having regard to the Court’s judgment regarding an alleged ‘forging’ of certificate D437214, it was no longer permissible to charge the duty, once
Pritožnica s sedmim pritožbenim razlogom navaja, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni upo�tevalo njenega upravičenega interesa glede razglasitve ničnosti sporne odločbe v zvezi s potrdilom A.TR.1 D 437214, saj naj zaradi triletnega roka iz člena 218(3) CZS glede na sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje o domnevnem „ponaredku“ potrdila D 437214 ne bi bilo več dopustno s ponovnim sklepom