natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Consequently, persons liable for customs duty who, in good faith, rely on forged preference certificates which were not issued by the competent authorities of a third
Zato carinski dolžniki, ki se v dobri veri sklicujejo na ponarejena dokazila o preferencialnem dogovoru, ki jih niso izdali pristojni organi tretjih držav, v skladu s to določbo
77 — Pascoal & Filhos, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 59 et seq.. Sack, J., cited above (footnote 7), volume 1, C. II, paragraph 79, p. 26, points out that, in the context of postclearance recovery, no legitimate expectations are protected in respect of forged or falsified documents because otherwise postclearance recovery could practically never take place in those cases and the incentive to use such documents would be considerably increased. He further refers to the rule in Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation. 74 — See Mecanarte, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 23, and Ilumitrónica, cited in footnote 70, paragraph 42; Order of the Court in Case C-299/98 P CPL Imperial 2 and Unifrigo v Commission [1999] ECR I-8683, paragraph 32.
77 – Sodba Pascoal & Filhos (navedena v opombi 11, točka 59 in naslednje). Sack, J., na navedenem mestu (opomba 7), zvezek 1, C. II, točka 79, str. 26, opozarja na to, da v okviru naknadne izterjave ni mogoče zagotoviti zaupanja v pravo na podlagi lažnih ali ponarejenih dokumentov zato, ker drugače v teh primerih praktično nikoli ne bi moglo priti do naknadne izterjave in ker bi se želja po uporabi takih dokumentov zelo povečala. Dalje napotuje na ureditev v členu 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS. 74 – Glej sodbi Mecanarte (navedena v opombi 11, točka 23) in Ilumitrónica (navedena v opombi 70, točka 42); sklep Sodi�ča z dne 9. decembra 1999 v zadevi CPL Imperial 2 in Unifrigo proti Komisiji (C-299/98 P, Recueil, str. I-8683, točka 32).
78 — Order in CPL Imperial 2 and Unifrigo v Commission, cited in footnote 74, paragraph 37 et seq., and judgment in Joined Cases T-10/97 und T-11/97 CPL Imperial 2 and Unifrigo v Commission [1998] ECR II-2231, paragraph 62 et seq.
78 – Sklep CPL Imperial 2 in Unifrigo proti Komisiji (naveden v opombi 74, točka 37 in naslednje); sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 9. junija 1998 v združenih zadevah CPL Imperial 2 in Unifrigo proti Komisiji (T-10/97 in T-11/97, Recueil, str. II-2231, točka 62 in naslednje).
75 — The Court of Justice takes the view that the notion of error is not limited to mere calculation or copying errors on the part of the competent authorities, but includes any kind of error which vitiates the decision in question, such as, in particular, the misinterpretation or misapplication of the applicable rules of law (Mecanarte, cited in footnote 11, paragraph 20.
75 – Sodi�če meni, da pojem napake ni omejen zgolj na pravopisne ali računske napake pristojnih organov, ampak obsega vsako napako, ki povzroči, da je sprejeta odločba napačna, do česar pride zlasti pri nepravilni razlagi ali uporabi zakonodaje, ki jo je treba uporabiti (sodba Mecanarte, navedena v opombi 11, točka 20).
Since Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC was not infringed by the contested judgment, the ninth ground of appeal also should be rejected as manifestly unfounded.
Ker z izpodbijano sodbo člen 220(2)(b) CZS ni bil kr�en, je treba tudi deveti pritožbeni razlog zavrniti kot očitno neutemeljen.
It should therefore be dismissed in its entirety.
Zato jo je treba v celoti zavrniti.
Reference should be made in this connection to the findings of fact made without any error of law by the Court of First Instance, according to which the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question are forgeries which were made without the involvement of the Turkish authorities.
V tej zvezi je treba opozoriti na dejstva, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo s pravilno uporabo prava, v skladu s katerimi gre pri spornih 32 potrdilih A.TR.1 za ponaredke, ki so nastali brez sodelovanja tur�kih organov.
In view of the inadequate evidence produced by the appellant, the Court of First Instance had no grounds for assuming that the competent authorities were actively involved in the issue of the forgeries.
Sodi�če prve stopnje zaradi nezadostnih dokazov pritožnice ni imelo nobenega razloga za domnevo, da so pristojni organi aktivno delovali pri izdelavi ponaredkov.
In that respect, the Court was fully entitled to reject the third ground of appeal as unfounded.
V tem smislu je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno zavrnilo tretji tožbeni razlog kot neutemeljen.
80 — The amount of the customs debt imposed on the applicant reflects the financial significance of the goods, in particular the amount of duties and taxes imposed on those goods.
80 – Znesek carinskega dolga, naloženega pritožnici, je povezan z ekonomsko pomembnostjo blaga, zlasti z zneskom dajatev, ki bremenijo to blago.
The fact that the amount claimed by way of import duties is considerable comes within the category of business risks to which the economic operator is exposed (see, to that effect, Faroe Seafood and Others, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 115).
To, da je zahtevani znesek uvoznih dajatev lahko visok, spada med poklicna tveganja, ki jim je izpostavljen gospodarski subjekt (glej v tem smislu sodbo Faroe Seafood in drugi, navedena v opombi 13, točka 115).
Accordingly the extent of the debt whose remission is sought is not in itself a factor capable of influencing the assessment of the conditions for such remission (Case T-53/02 Ricosmos v Commission [2002] ECR II-3173, paragraph 161.
Vi�ina dolga, katerega odpust se zahteva, tako ni merilo, ki bi lahko vplivalo na presojo pogojev za odpust (sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 13. septembra 2005 v zadevi Ricosmos proti Komisiji, T-53/02, ZOdl., str. II-3171, točka 161).
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which apply to appeals pursuant to Article 118 thereof, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
Na podlagi člena 69(2) Poslovnika, ki se uporablja za pritožbeni postopek na podlagi člena 118, se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the appellant has been unsuccessful in its submissions, it should be ordered to pay the costs in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker ta s pritožbenimi razlogi ni uspela, se ji naloži plačilo stro�kov.
In view of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should
Ob upo�tevanju vseh navedenih preudarkov Sodi�ču predlagam, naj
— dismiss the appeal in its entirety and
– pritožbo v celoti zavrne in
— order the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the proceedings at first instance.
– pritožnici naloži plačilo stro�kov, vključno s stro�ki prvostopenjskega postopka.
2008 — CASE C-204/07 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-204/07 P
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, brought on 16 April 2007,
V zadevi C-204/07 P, zaradi pritožbe na podlagi člena 56 Statuta Sodi�ča, vložene 16. aprila 2007,
C.A.S. SpA, represented by D. Ehle, Rechtsanwalt, appellant, the other party to the proceedings being:
C.A.S. SpA, ki jo zastopa D. Ehle, odvetnik, pritožnica, druga stranka v postopku je
Advocate General: V. Trstenjak, Registrar: Katarzyna Sztranc-Sławiczek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 10 January 2008, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 March 2008, gives the following
Trstenjak, sodna tajnica: Katarzyna Sztranc-Sławiczek, administratorka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 10. januarja 2008, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 13. marca 2008 izreka naslednjo
By its appeal, C.A.S. SpA (‘the appellant’) seeks to have set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 6 February 2007 in Case T-23/03 CAS v Commission [2007] ECR II-289 (‘the judgment under appeal’) which dismissed its action for annulment of Article 2 of the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01) (‘the contested decision’) concerning an application for remission of import duty.
C.A.S. SpA (v nadaljevanju: pritožnica) s pritožbo Sodi�ču predlaga, naj razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 6. februarja 2007 v zadevi CAS proti Komisiji (T-23/03, ZOdl., str. II-289, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to zavrnilo njeno tožbo za razglasitev ničnosti člena 2 odločbe Komisije z dne 18. oktobra 2002 (REC 10/01, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba) glede zahtevka za odpust uvoznih dajatev.
Legislation relating to the Association Agreement
Ureditev v zvezi s Sporazumom o pridružitvi
This appeal is brought in the context of the Association Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community (EEC) and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part.
Obravnavana pritožba je bila vložena v okviru Sporazuma o pridružitvi med Evropsko gospodarsko skupnostjo (EGS) in Turčijo, ki so ga 12. septembra 1963 v Ankari podpisale Republika Turčija in države članice EGS in Skupnost.
The Association Agreement was concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 OJ 1973 C 113, p.
Sporazum o pridružitvi je bil sklenjen, odobren in potrjen v imenu Skupnosti s Sklepom Sveta 64/732/EGS z dne 23. decembra 1963 (UL 1964, 217, str.
1) (‘the Association Agreement’).
3685, v nadaljevanju: sporazum o pridružitvi).
It entered into force on 1 December 1964.
Veljati je začel 1. decembra 1964.
The Association Agreement involves a preparatory phase to enable the Republic of Turkey, in accordance with Article 3, to strengthen its economy with the aid of the European Community, a transitional phase during which, in accordance with Article 4, a customs union is progressively to be established and economic policies more closely aligned, and a final phase which, in accordance with Article 5, is to be based on the customs union and to entail closer coordination of economic policies.
Sporazum o pridružitvi določa pripravljalno fazo, ki na podlagi člena 3 Republiki Turčiji omogoča okrepitev gospodarstva ob pomoči Evropske skupnosti, prehodno fazo, ki je v skladu s členom 4 namenjena postopni vzpostavitvi carinske unije in približevanju gospodarskih politik, in zaključno fazo, ki na podlagi člena 5 temelji na carinski uniji in vključuje okrepljeno usklajevanje gospodarskih politik.
The final phase provided for by the Association Agreement came into force on 31 December 1995 (Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the customs union (OJ 1996 L 35, p.
Zaključna faza iz sporazuma o pridružitvi se je začela 31. decembra 1995 (Sklep Pridružitvenega sveta ES-Turčija �t. 1/95 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o vzpostavitvi zaključne faze carinske unije (UL 1996, L 35, str. 1)).
Article 11 of Decision No 5/72 provides that the Member States and the Republic of Turkey are to assist each other, through their respective customs administrations, in checking the authenticity and accuracy of the certificates in order to ensure the proper application of the provisions of the decision.
Člen 11 tega sklepa predvideva, da si države članice in Republika Turčija medsebojno pomagajo prek pristojnih carinskih organov pri preverjanju pristnosti in pravilnosti potrdil zaradi zagotavljanja pravilne uporabe določb tega sklepa.
Article 12 of Decision No 5/72 provides that ‘[the Republic of] Turkey, the Member States and the Community shall each take the steps necessary to implement this Decision’.
Člen 12 istega sklepa predvideva, da „[morajo] [Republika] Turčija, države članice in Skupnost […] v zvezi z zadevami, ki spadajo v njihovo področje, sprejeti ukrepe za izvr�evanje določb Sklepa“.
Articles 3 and 7 of that Annex set out the rules governing respectively the assistance which those authorities have a duty to provide at the request of one or other of them and the execution of such a request for assistance.
Člena 3 in 7 te priloge predvidevata pravila v zvezi s pomočjo, ki si jo morajo ti organi nuditi, ko zanjo zaprosi eden od njih, in izvr�itev zaprosila za pomoč.
14), in order to ensure the proper application of the provisions of that decision the Member States and the Republic of Turkey are to assist each other, through their respective customs administrations and within the framework of mutual assistance provided for in Annex 7 to Decision No 1/95, in checking the authenticity and accuracy of the certificates.
14) si države članice in Republika Turčija za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe določb tega sklepa medsebojno pomagajo pri preverjanju pristnosti in pravilnosti potrdil prek pristojnih carinskih organov in v okviru medsebojne pomoči, predvidene v prilogi 7 k Sklepu �t. 1/95.
In addition, Article 13(2) of Decision No 1/96 states:
Poleg tega člen 13(2) Sklepa �t. 1/96 določa:
Box 12 of the extract shall show the registration number, date, office and country of issue of the initial certificate …’
V razdelku 12 izpiska je treba navesti �tevilko registracije, datum, urad in državo izdaje prvotnega potrdila […]“
Legislation on repayment and remission of customs duty
Ureditev v zvezi s povračilom in odpustom carine
Article 239(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
Člen 239(1) Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti (UL L 302, str.
1) (‘the CCC’) states:
1, v nadaljevanju: CZS) določa:
‘Import duties … may be repaid or remitted in situations …:
„Uvozne ali izvozne dajatve se lahko povrnejo ali odpustijo v […] primerih […]:
— resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned.
– ki izhajajo iz okoli�čin, pri katerih ne gre niti za [goljufivo ravnanje] niti za [malomarnost] udeleženega.
The situations in which this provision may be applied and the procedures to be followed to that end shall be defined in accordance with the Committee procedure …’
Primeri, v katerih je mogoče uporabiti to določbo, in podrobnosti postopka, ki jih je treba v ta namen upo�tevati, se določijo skladno s postopkom odbora. […]“
1) (‘the CCC implementation regulation’) provides:
1, v nadaljevanju: uredba za izvajanje CZS) predvideva:
‘Where the decisionmaking customs authority to which an application for repayment or remission under Article 239(2) of the [CCC] has been submitted cannot take a decision on the basis of Article 899, but the application is supported by evidence which might constitute a special situation resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned, the Member State to which this authority belongs shall transmit the case to the Commission to be settled under the procedure laid down in Articles 906 to 909 …’
„Če carinski organ odločanja, ki mu je bil predložen zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust v skladu s členom 239(2) [CZS], ne more odločiti na podlagi člena 899 in so bila zahtevku priložena dokazila, na podlagi katerih se lahko sklepa, da gre za poseben primer, ki izhaja iz okoli�čin, ki ne vključujejo niti goljufivega ravnanja niti malomarnosti udeleženega, država članica, h kateri spada ta organ, primer posreduje Komisiji, da ga ta re�i v skladu s postopkom iz členov [od] 906 do 909. […]“
Article 904(c) of the CCC implementation regulation provides:
Člen 904(c) Uredbe za izvajanje CZS določa:
‘Import duties shall not be repaid or remitted where the only grounds relied on in the application for repayment or remission are, as the case may be:
„Povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev se ne opravi, če se, glede na primer, zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust utemeljuje izključno:
(c) presentation, for the purpose of obtaining preferential tariff treatment of goods declared for free circulation, of documents subsequently found to be forged, falsified or not valid for that purpose, even where such documents were presented in good faith.’
(c) s predložitvijo dokumentov za odobritev preferencialne tarifne obravnave za blago, prijavljeno za sprostitev v prosti promet, za katere se naknadno izkaže, da so bili lažni, ponarejeni ali neveljavni za odobritev te preferencialne tarifne obravnave, kljub temu, da so bili predloženi v dobri veri.“
Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC provides that subsequent entry in the accounts of duty resulting from a customs debt is not to occur where the amount of duty legally owed failed to be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of the customs
Člen 220(2)(b) CZS določa, da se naknadna vknjižba dajatev, ki izhajajo iz carinskega dolga, ne opravi, če se zakonsko dolgovani znesek dajatev ni vknjižil zaradi napake
2008 — CASE C-204/07 P authorities which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his part having acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.
2008 – ZADEVA C-204/07 P carinskih organov in če dolžnik te napake ni mogel odkriti in je ravnal v dobri veri in upo�teval vse določbe o carinski deklaraciji, predvidene v veljavni zakonodaji.
The appellant is a company incorporated under Italian law and a 95.1% subsidiary of Steinhauser GmbH, established in Ravensburg.
Pritožnica je pravna oseba italijanskega prava, 95,1-odstotno odvisna družba pravne osebe Steinhauser GmbH s sedežem v Ravensburgu.
The appellant’s core business consists in processing imported fruit juice concentrates and it is also an importer of such products in Italy.
Osnovna dejavnost pritožnice je predelava uvoženih koncentratov sadnih sokov, poleg tega pa uvaža te proizvode v Italijo.
According to the facts as stated by the Court of First Instance, between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997 the appellant imported and put into free circulation in the Community apple and pear juice concentrates declared as being from and originating in Turkey.
Po ugotovitvah Sodi�ča prve stopnje je pritožnica od 5. aprila do 20. novembra 1997 uvozila in sprostila v prosti promet v Skupnosti koncentrate jabolčnega in hru�kovega soka, ki so bili prijavljeni, kot da izhajajo in imajo poreklo iz Turčije.
That type of product was imported into the Community using A.TR.1 certificates with the effect that those products qualified for the exemption from customs duties provided for by the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol to that agreement, signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (JO 1972 L 293, p. 1).
Uvoz takega proizvoda v Skupnost se je opravil s potrdilom A.TR.1, tako da so bili ti proizvodi upravičeni do oprostitve plačila carine, predvidene v sporazumu o pridružitvi in dodatnem protokolu, ki je bil podpisan 23. novembra 1970 v Bruslju ter sklenjen, sprejet in potrjen v imenu Skupnosti z Uredbo Sveta (EGS) �t. 2760/72 z dne 19. decembra 1972 (UL L 293, str. 1).
The customs services in Ravenna (Italy) carried out a postclearance documentary check on the authenticity of A.TR.1 certificate D 141591 submitted by the appellant in the course of one of the import operations for the abovementioned period.
Carinska služba Ravene (Italija) je naknadno preverila pristnost potrdila A.TR.1 D 141591, ki ga je pritožnica predložila pri enem od uvozov v zgoraj navedenem obdobju.
In accordance with the relevant provisions, the request for verification of the authenticity of that certificate was sent to the Turkish authorities.
V skladu z ustreznimi določbami na tem področju je bila zahteva za preverjanje pristnosti tega potrdila naslovljena na tur�ke organe.
By letter of 15 May 1998, the Turkish authorities notified the Ravenna customs ser -vices that the checks carried out showed that that certificate was not authentic since it had not been issued by the Turkish customs authorities.
Tur�ki organi so z dopisom z dne 15. maja 1998 obvestili carinsko službo Ravene, da iz opravljenega preverjanja izhaja, da to potrdilo ni pristno, saj ga niso izdali tur�ki carinski organi.
They stated, moreover, that further checks were to be carried out.
Poleg tega so sporočili, da bodo opravljena �e druga preverjanja.
By letter of 10 July 1998, the Permanent Representation of the Republic of Turkey to the European Union (‘the Turkish Permanent Representation’) notified the Commission that 22 A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant, listed in an annex to that letter and concerning exports by the Turkish company Akman to Italy, were ‘false’.
Stalno predstavni�tvo Republike Turčije pri Evropski uniji (v nadaljevanju: tur�ko stalno predstavni�tvo) je z dopisom z dne 10. julija 1998 obvestilo Komisijo, da je 22 potrdil A.TR.1, ki jih je predložila pritožnica in so na�teta v prilogi k temu dopisu ter se nana�ajo na izvoze tur�ke družbe Akman v Italijo, lažnih.
Following that letter, between 12 and 15 October 1998 and between 30 November and 2 December 1998, the European Commission’s Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the predecessor to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), carried out checks in Turkey.
Na podlagi tega dopisa je od 12. do 15. oktobra 1998 ter od 30. novembra do 2. decembra 1998 Enota Komisije za koordinacijo boja zoper goljufijo (UCLAF), predhodnica Evropskega urada za boj proti goljufijam (OLAF), začela opravljati preverjanja v Turčiji.
By letter of 8 March 1999, the Turkish Permanent Representation notified the customs services in Ravenna that 32 A.TR.1 certificates submitted by the appellant (‘the certificates at issue’), including 18 of the certificates listed in the annex to the letter of 10 July 1998, were not in order and had been neither issued nor validated by the Turkish authorities.
Tur�ko stalno predstavni�tvo je z dopisom z dne 8. marca 1999 obvestilo carinsko službo Ravene, da 32 potrdil A.TR.1, ki jih je predložila pritožnica (v nadaljevanju: sporna potrdila), od tega 18 potrdil, na�tetih v prilogi k dopisu z dne 10. julija 1998, ni bilo pravilnih niti jih tur�ki organi niso ne izdali ne potrdili.
Those certificates were identified in the annex to that letter.
Ta potrdila so bila navedena v prilogi k temu dopisu.
Thereafter, the inauthentic or irregular nature of a significant number of A.TR.1 certificates was the subjectmatter of a large amount of correspondence between the Commission, the Turkish authorities and the Italian authorities, correspondence which included, inter alia, the Turkish authorities’ letters of 22 April 1999 and 16 July 1999.
V nadaljevanju je bila nepristnost oziroma nepravilnost velikega �tevila potrdil A.TR.1 predmet obsežne korespondence med Komisijo, tur�kimi in italijanskimi organi, med katerimi so bili zlasti dopisi tur�kih organov z dne 22. aprila 1999 in 16. julija 1999.
The Italian authorities took the view that it was clear from all the correspondence that the Turkish authorities considered 48 A.TR.1 certificates, including the certificates at issue, to be either inauthentic or irregular.
Italijanski organi so menili, da iz vseh izmenjanih dopisov izhaja, da so tur�ki organi menili, da je bilo 48 potrdil A.TR.1, vključno s spornimi potrdili, ali nepristnih ali nepravilnih.
In the present case, the certificates at issue were considered to be ‘forged’, given that they had been neither issued nor validated by Turkish customs offices.
V obravnavani zadevi so bila sporna potrdila obravnavana kot „lažna“, ker jih tur�ki carinski uradi niso niti izdali niti potrdili.
On the other hand, the 16 other certificates (corresponding to customs duties totalling ITL 1 904 763 758 or EUR 983 728.38) were classified as invalid, given that, whilst they had been issued by the Turkish customs authorities, the goods concerned did not originate in Turkey.
Nasprotno pa je bilo preostalih �estnajst potrdil (ki so enaki carini v skupnem znesku 1.904.763.758 ITL ali 983.728,38 EUR) ocenjenih kot „neveljavnih“, ker zadevno blago ni bilo tur�kega porekla, čeprav so jih izdali tur�ki carinski organi.