natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Commission observes in that regard that the rules laid down by the directive represent minimum standards of animal protection and any non-observance of them, however slight, would mean that animal welfare was compromised, which is why the Community legislature, in requiring compliance with the directive in question, intentionally laid down an objective condition for the availability of refunds in order to make certain that the Community did not finance exports made in breach of a Community public-interest requirement.
Komisija glede tega poudarja, da so pravila, ki jih določa direktiva, minimalni standardi za varstvo živali, ob kr�itvi katerih, tudi če v majhnem obsegu, bi bilo ogroženo njihovo dobro počutje, tako da naj bi zakonodajalec Skupnosti z naložitvijo spo�tovanja zadevne direktive želel določiti objektivni pogoj za prejemanje nadomestil in s tem preprečil, da bi Skupnost financirala izvoze, s katerimi bi bila kr�ena zahteva splo�nega interesa na ravni Skupnosti.
With regard to the question of validity, those parties observe that the link made between two distinct areas — the rules on export refunds and animalwelfare legislation — was made at an early stage by the Council when it adopted basic Regulation No 805/68, for which the Commission merely laid down detailed implementing arrangements by means of Regulation No 615/98, with which this case is concerned.
Te stranke v zvezi z vpra�anjem o veljavnosti poudarjajo, da je povezavo med ločenima področjema – sistemom izvoznih nadomestil in zakonodajo o za�čiti živali – ustvaril Svet na področju temeljne Uredbe �t. 805/68 (v nadaljevanju: temeljna uredba), Komisija pa je glede te povezave določila samo način uporabe v okviru obravnavane Uredbe �t. 615/98.
In its written observations, Viamex put forward its own interpretation of the provisions of Directive 91/628 relevant to this case, contending in particular that the exceptional extension of the journey by two hours should apply in this case in view of the proximity of the place of destination, which
Družba Viamex je v pisnih izjavah navedla razlago upo�tevnih določb Direkti -ve 91/628, ki jih je treba uporabiti v obravnavanem primeru, in se �e posebej sklicevala na to, da je treba v obravnavanem primeru uporabiti podalj�anje prevoza za dve uri zaradi bližine namembnega kraja, ki ga je
Moreover, failure to observe journey and rest times should be permissible in circumstances of force majeure, such as those which arose in the present case, where the journey took longer than planned because of an accident and the rest period of 24 hours was not observed on account of instructions given to the carrier by the border veterinarian.
Nespo�tovanje časa, določenega za prevoz in za počitek, bi bilo treba dovoliti tudi v primeru vi�je sile, kot je bilo v obravnavanem primeru, ko se je prevoz podalj�al prek predvidenega časa zaradi nesreče in ko ni bil spo�tovan �tiriindvajseturni počitek zaradi izvr�itve naloga, ki ga je obmejni veterinar dal prevozniku.
III — Legal analysis reference made by Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 to the directive on the protection of animals, having regard to the different aims pursued in each case.
Uredbe �t. 615/98 sklicuje na Direktivo o za�čiti živali glede na to, da so cilji zadevnih ureditev različni.
It considers that to make the payment of refunds subject to proof of compliance with Directive 91/628 gives rise to a condition for payment of refunds which has no direct or indirect connection with the aims embodied in that system of financing and, moreover, entails penalisation of conduct which does not harm the financial interests of the Community.
Meni, da dokaz o spo�tovanju ureditve iz Direktive 91/628 kot predpostavka za izplačilo nadomestil povzroči nastanek pogoja za izplačilo nadomestil, ki ni v nobeni neposredni ali posredni zvezi s cilji tega sistema financiranja, in sankcionira tudi ravnanja, ki ne �kodujejo finančnim interesom Skupnosti.
The national court wonders, therefore, whether the reference in question can be regarded as valid, since it specifically penalises exporters for failure to comply with any conditions concerning transport laid down by the directive by divesting them of the right to the refunds (or requiring them to reimburse any advance paid on account of the refunds), regardless of whether the exporter is responsible for the failure to fulfil those conditions and regardless of the gravity of that failure.
Navedeno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali je mogoče ugotoviti, da je obravnavano napotilo veljavno od takrat, ko je izvoznik konkretno sankcioniran zaradi neizpolnitve pogojev za prevoz, ki jih določa katerakoli določba direktive, tako da ta izgubi pravico do nadomestila (ali da mora vrniti nadomestilo, ki ga je prejel kot predplačilo) ne glede na to, da mu ni mogoče pripisati odgovornosti za neizpolnitev zadevnih pogojev in za težo neizpolnitve.
By its question, the national court asks the Court of Justice to rule whether Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 can be regarded as valid in so far as it makes the payment of export refunds conditional upon compliance with Directive 91/628.
Predložitveno sodi�če z zadevnima vpra�anjema prosi Sodi�če, naj pojasni, ali je mogoče ugotoviti, da je člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 veljaven v delu, v katerem določa, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil spo�tovanje Direktive 91/628.
In particular, the referring court expresses doubts as to the validity of the abovementioned article on account of a number of different considerations which I shall now examine.
Preložitveno sodi�če posebej navaja dvome o veljavnosti navedenega člena, ki izhajajo iz različnih ugotovitev, ki jih obravnavam v nadaljevanju.
In the first place, the Finanzgericht Hamburg queries the legitimacy of the
Prvič, Finanzgericht Hamburg se spra�uje o tem, ali je zakonito, da se člen 1
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK ločenima ureditvama izvoznih nadomestil in dobrega počutja živali.
Article 13(9), as amended by the abovementioned Regulation No 2634/97, makes payment of export refunds in the beef and veal sector conditional upon compliance with the Community animalwelfare rules, in particular those for the protection of animals during transport, among which specific mention is made, in the first recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2634/97, of Directive 91/628.
S poudarjanjem pomena predpisov o dobrem počutju živali na področju sistema izvoznih nadomestil je Svet namreč poskrbel za za�čito ene od zahtev splo�nega interesa, ki ga morajo, kot je navedlo Sodi�če, institucije v celoti upo�tevati pri izvajanju ciljev kmetijske politike, zlasti na področju skupne ureditve trga6.
That link was legitimately established by the Council in the exercise of the broad discretionary powers it enjoys in implementing the common agricultural policy.
615/98, ki je predmet prvega vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, je izvedbeni ukrep, ki ga izrecno določa člen 13(9) temeljne Uredbe �t. 805/68.
Indeed, by attaching importance to animalwelfare legislation in the context of the rules on export refunds, the Council took care to uphold one of the public-interest requirements which, as the Court of Justice has made clear, the institutions must take into account in pursuing the objectives of the agricultural policy, particularly in relation to the common organisation of the market. 6
Odstavek 9 zadnjenavedenega člena, kakor je bil spremenjen z Uredbo Sveta �t. 2634/97, določa, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil v sektorju govedoreje spo�tovanje predpisov Skupnosti o dobrem počutju živali in zlasti o za�čiti živali med prevozom, med katerimi je v prvi uvodni izjavi Uredbe 2634/97 posebej omenjena Direktiva 91/628.
It follows that the decision, about which the national court has doubts, to attach importance to Community animalwelfare legislation when laying down the rules on export refunds under which entitlement to a refund is forfeited where that legislation is infringed is a choice made by the Council at an early stage in the basic regulation establishing the common organisation of the market in the beef and veal sector, for which the Commission merely laid down the implementing rules in Regulation No 615/98.
Iz tega izhaja, da je odločitev, ki pri predložitvenem sodi�ču vzbuja dvome, da se poudari pomen zakonodaje Skupnosti o dobrem počutju živali na področju sistemov izvoznih nadomestil, ki ob neupo�tevanju teh predpisov povzroči izgubo pravice do nadomestila, sprejel Svet na področju temeljne uredbe, ki uvaja skupno ureditev trga v sektorju govedoreje, glede katere je Komisija v Uredbi �t. 615/98 določila samo podrobna pravila za uporabo.
Moreover, the Community animalwelfare legislation, as well as responding to the common wish not to expose animals to pointless suffering and to make both a direct and an indirect contribution to safeguarding the quality of food products, is designed to set minimum common standards of protection for all Member States in order to avoid differences of treatment as between traders and distortions affecting the free movement of goods.
Poleg tega zakonodaja Skupnosti o dobrem počutju živali ni le izraz skupne zavesti, ki nasprotuje spodbujanju nepotrebnega trpljenja pri živalih, in neposredno in posredno prispeva k varovanju kakovosti prehranskih proizvodov, temveč določa tudi minimalne standarde skupnega varstva za vse države članice, da bi se preprečila različno obravnavanje gospodarskih subjektov in izkrivljanje prostega pretoka blaga.
6 — See, for example, Case 68/86 United Kingdom v Council [1988] ECR 855, paragraph 12.
6 — Glej na primer sodbo z dne 23. februarja 1988 v zadevi Združeno kraljestvo proti Svetu (68/86, Recueil, str. 855, točka 12).
The importance of animalwelfare requirements in the formulation and implementation of Community policies in the agricultural sector is expressly recognised in the Protocol on protection and welfare of animals annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam (OJ 1997 C 340, p. 110).
Pomen zahtev na področju dobrega počutja živali pri oblikovanju in izvajanju politik Skupnosti v kmetijskem sektorju je izrecno priznan v Protokolu o za�čiti in dobrem počutju živali, ki je priloga k Amsterdamski pogodbi (UL 1997, C 340, str. 110).
Although the national court’s observations do not relate to Article 13(9) of the basic regulation but are concerned only with Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98, which lays down the rules for implementing it, it must be borne in mind that a link is established
Čeprav se navedbe predložitvenega sodi�ča ne nana�ajo na člen 13(9) temeljne uredbe, ampak samo na člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98, ki določa podrobna pravila za njeno uporabo, je treba spomniti na povezavo, ki jo uvaja temeljna uredba med
As regards the second point, namely the concrete results of the reference in question, the Finanzgericht Hamburg, in formulating its request for a preliminary ruling, observes first of all that, as a result of the reference, a series of provisions which are ‘regrettably vague’ is incorporated in the regulation, and therefore in the rules on entitlement to export refunds for the animals in question, and points out that neither the exporter nor the authority with responsibility for refunds can grasp how those provisions should be put into practice; it then goes on to say that ‘both the national authorities and the courts are precluded a limine from deciding against the refusal of a refund or from only refusing a refund in part on grounds of proportionality where infringements of the directive are purely minor or not culpable’. 8
Glede drugega vpra�anja, to je glede konkretne posledice, do katere privede obravnavano napotilo, Finanzgericht Hamburg v obrazložitvi svojega predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe poudarja predvsem to, da je posledica navedenega napotila ta, da je v uredbo in torej v ureditev pravice do izvoznih nadomestil za zadevne živali vnesena vrsta določb, ki „so nedoločene“, in pri tem poudarja, da na koncu niti izvozniku niti pristojnim organom na področju nadomestil ni razumljiva konkretna vsebina zadevnih določb; nato opozarja, da „niti nacionalni organi niti sodi�ča zaradi načela sorazmernosti a priori ne smejo opustiti zavrnitve nadomestila takrat, ko gre zgolj za majhno kr�itev direktive o za�čiti živali med prevozom, za katero ni mogoče pripisati odgovornosti, niti nadomestila zavrniti le delno“8.
Moreover, recourse to the device of cross-referencing, which is also used in other areas of Community legislation, 7 is not contrary to any specific provision or general principle of Community law.
Vendar pa uporaba tako imenovane cross reference, ki jo zakonodajalec Skupnosti uporablja tudi na drugih področjih7, ni v nasprotju z nobeno posamezno določbo niti splo�nim načelom prava Skupnosti.
I therefore consider that the national court’s doubts as to the validity of the abovementioned Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98, regarding the aspects considered in the foregoing points, are unfounded.
Menim torej, da je dvom predložitvenega sodi�ča o veljavnosti člena 1 Uredbe Komisije �t. 615/98 glede na ugotovitve v prej�njih točkah neutemeljen.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK a directive that contains ‘regrettably vague’ provisions and therefore does not seem to impose a proportionate penalty on its addressees.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK samo po sebi zakonito, izgubi veljavnost, če napotuje na direktivo, ki vsebuje nedoločene določbe, in če torej svojim naslovnikom dozdevno ne nalaga sorazmernega ukrepa.
The rules laid down by the directive do not in themselves have a direct impact on the traders for whom the transport operation is carried out, but create a situation in which traders are impacted directly by the implementing legislation of the Member States.
Sam sistem, ki ga določa direktiva, neposredno ne vpliva na subjekte, ki opravijo prevoz, temveč prepu�ča, da nanje neposredno vpliva izvedbena zakonodaja držav članic.
Having been shifted from their original context of transport to a context resulting from the reference contained in Regulation No 615/98, those rules have a direct impact on individual exporters.
Ta sistem, ker glede uporabe preide iz prvotnega okvira ureditve prevoza k okviru, v katerem je pomemben za napotilo iz Uredbe �t. 615/98, neposredno vpliva na posamezne izvoznike.
It follows that both those rules and any decision adopted on the basis of them — having regard to the functions attributed to them by that reference — cannot be regarded as legitimate (a) if they do not have a clear and unambiguous basis and (b) if their effects prove to be disproportionate.
Posledica tega je, da navedenega sistema in odločitev, ki so sprejete na podlagi tega sistema – glede na funkcijo, ki mu jo daje navedeno napotilo – ni mogoče �teti za zakonite, (a) če ni mogoče ugotoviti, da imajo v tem sistemu jasno in nedvoumno podlago, in (b) če so njihovi učinki nesorazmerni.
In particular, the Court has made it clear that in accordance with the fundamental principle of legal certainty, on the basis of which Community legislation must be clear and its application must be foreseeable for all interested parties, a penalty, even if of a non-criminal nature, may be imposed only if it has a clear and unambiguous legal basis.
Sodi�če je posebej pojasnilo, da je ob spo�tovanju temeljnega načela pravne varnosti, na podlagi katerega mora biti zakonodaja Skupnosti jasna, njena uporaba pa predvidljiva za vse udeležence, mogoče naložiti sankcijo, tudi če nima kazenskopravne narave, samo če ima jasno in nedvoumno pravno podlago9.
9Furthermore, the principle of proportionality
Poleg tega načelo sorazmernosti zahteva, da morajo biti ukrepi, ki
In that regard, it is necessary to take account of the fact that the directive provides that the responsibility for protecting the health of animals during transport falls not only on the exporter or his representat ive but also on the Member States; they, by virtue of the first sentence of Article 7(1) of the directive, are required to ensure ‘that the necessary measures are taken to prevent
Glede tega je treba usmeriti pozornost na to, da direktiva določa, da za varstvo zdravja živali med prevozom ni odgovoren samo izvoznik ali njegov predstavnik, temveč tudi države članice; te morajo v skladu s prvim stavkom člena 7(1) Direktive zagotoviti „sprejetje potrebnih ukrepov, da se zamude ali trpljenje živali preprečijo ali zmanj�ajo
10 — See Maizena, paragraph 15, and Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister [2002] ECR I-6453, paragraph 59.
10 — 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).
As noted, in that order the Finanzgericht bases its question to the Court of Justice on the finding to which the Court, in discharging the functions attributed to it by Article 234 EC, must have regard: it found that, after a rest period of 20 hours following the first stage of the journey, which, according to the directive, should have been followed by a rest period of 24 hours, the subsequent onward transport of the animals took place ‘on the instructions of the competent veterinarian’
Kot je bilo navedeno, Finanzgericht s tem sklepom pri vpra�anju, ki ga je postavilo Sodi�ču, izhaja iz ugotovitve, ki se je mora slednje v okviru pristojnosti, ki jih ima na podlagi člena 234 ES, nujno držati: ugotovilo je, da se je zadevni prevoz živali po dvajseturnem počitku po prvem delu prevoza, ki bi mu moral na podlagi direktive slediti �tiriindvajseturni počitek, „nadaljeval na podlagi naloga pristojnega veterinarja“ v skladu s prakso, da „praviloma dežurni veterinar
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK in accordance with the practice according to which ‘the official veterinarian normally decides the time of loading and onward transport of animals and that drivers do not have any say as to after how many hours of rest the means of transport should once again leave the staging point’, after, of course, it has been ascertained that resumption of the journey would not adversely affect the care of the animals.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK odloča o času natovarjanja in nadaljevanja prevoza živali ter da sam voznik nikakor ne more vplivati na to, po koliko urah počitka bo tovornjak lahko nadaljeval pot“, in potem ko je to očitno ugotovilo na podlagi sklepa, da naj nadaljevanje poti ne bi �kodilo varstvu živali.
animals are in good health and may or must continue their journey, infringed the principle of proportionality, by virtue of which, as repeatedly made clear by the Community caselaw referred to in point 41, the institutions may not, in using their powers, go beyond what is necessary in order to pursue the object ives for which those powers were conferred on them.
sorazmernosti, ki, kot je bilo v sodni praksi Skupnosti, navedeni v točki 41, večkrat poudarjeno, pomeni tudi to, da institucije ne smejo uporabljati svojih pristojnosti za prekoračitev tistega, kar je nujno za doseganje ciljev, za katere so jim bile pristojnosti podeljene.
By adopting those rules, the Council and the Commission, glossing over the fact that Community law, in relation to the health of animals, also places responsibility on the Member States, went further than what might be necessary and reasonably required of exporters.
Svet in Komisija sta namreč s sprejetjem navedenih uredb – tako da sta obe instituciji prezrli dejstvo, da pravo Skupnosti na tem področju določa, da so za varstvo zdravja živali odgovorne tudi države članice – prekoračila to, kar je mogoče nujno in utemeljeno zahtevati od izvoznikov.
It follows that the questions submitted by the Finanzgericht Hamburg, read in the light of the foregoing considerations, must be answered in the affirmative.
Na podlagi vsega navedenega je treba na vpra�anji Finanzgericht Hamburg odgovoriti pritrdilno.
That applies both to Case C-37/06 and to Case C-58/06.
To velja tako za zadevo C-37/06 kot za zadevo C-58/06.
(b) manifestly shows that the Council regulation and the Commission regulation, by placing all responsibility for the health of animals on the shoulders of the exporter and providing automatically and rather inflexibly for a penalty to be imposed on exporters for failure to fulfil time requirements the observance of which may also depend on the conduct of the administrative authorities of the Member States, even in cases where the national authorities, to which the Community has entrusted the task of supervision in this area, certify that the
a) konkretno potrjuje, kar je bilo že poudarjeno v zvezi z dejstvom, da Direktiva določa dejavnosti in odgovornosti za varstvo zdravja živali ne le v breme izvoznikov, ampak tudi v breme držav članic, in b) jasno kaže, da je bilo z uredbama Sveta in Komisije – ker določata, da je za zdravje živali odgovoren samo izvoznik, zaradi česar je avtomatično in precej strogo določena v njegovo breme sankcija zaradi nespo�tovanja časovnega razporeda, katerega upo�tevanje je lahko odvisno tudi od ravnanj organov držav članic, in to tudi takrat, ko nacionalni organi, ki jim je Skupnost naložila skrb na tem področju, potrdijo, da so živali dobrega zdravja in lahko nadaljujejo pot ali jo morajo nadaljevati – kr�eno načelo
That caselaw is not incompatible with the conclusion I reached in point 47 above because, even if it favours exclusion of any right to the refund and accepts the conformity with the principle of proportionality of a regulation which provides for that right, it relates to cases in which the purposes of that right clearly differ from those for which its exclusion comes about in the present cases.
Navedena sodna praksa ni skladna z ugotovitivjo iz točke 47, ker se – čeprav se opredeljuje v korist odvzema pravice do nadomestila in se opredeljuje glede tega, ali je uredba, ki določa to pravico, skladna z načelom sorazmernosti – nana�a na primere, v katerih se ta pravica upo�teva z namenom, ki je zelo drugačen od namena, zaradi katerega se odvzem pravic upo�teva v postopkih v glavni stvari.
(a) the exporter’s right to a refund is excluded, and therefore his duty to repay the advance received is triggered, giving rise to forfeiture of the security provided for that purpose, when the animals for which the export procedure was initiated are not placed on the market in the country with reference to which the export procedure was commenced;
a) izvoznik izgubi pravico do nadomestila in je torej dolžan vrniti prejeto predplačilo, tako da se zadrži v ta namen izročena var�čina, kadar živali, za katere je bil uveden izvozni postopek, niso bile dane v promet v državi, za katero je bil ta uveden;
The purpose of the establishment under Regulation No 805/68 of a system of export refunds has been and continues to be to open up the markets of nonmember countries and keep them open to exports of beef and veal by ensuring the participation of the European Community in international trade in such animals, in order to relieve the internal market of such surpluses as may arise and at the same time to maintain an adequate level of income for persons engaged in agriculture. 12
Cilj uvedbe sistema izvoznih nadomestil iz Uredbe �t. 805/68 je bil in je �e vedno ta, da trge tretjih držav odpre in obdrži odprte za izvoz goveda, kar zagotavlja udeležbo ES v mednarodni trgovini s temi živalmi, da bi se na notranjem trgu zmanj�ali presežki glede na ugotovljene presežke in hkrati na primerni ravni ohranili dohodki subjektov, sodelujočih v kmetijstvu.12 b) mora izvoznik, če mu je vseeno uspelo izvoziti živali v tretjo državo, vendar ne v tisto, za katero je bil uveden izvozni postopek s podelitivjo predplačila, in je Skupnost za izvoze v to drugo državo določila nižja nadomestila, povrniti razliko med zneskom, ki ga je prejel kot predplačilo, in nadomestilom, ki mu pripada za dejansko opravljeni izvoz.11
Exporters are entitled to refunds only if they can prove that they have placed the animals in question on the market of a nonmember country, thereby removing them from the Community market.
Izvozniki imajo pravico do nadomestila, če predložijo dokaz, da so dali zadevne živali v promet v tretji državi in da so jih v zadnjem času vzeli s trga Skupnosti.