natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— perform photo interpretation of satellite images or aerial photographs of all parcels to be checked with a view to recognising the ground cover and measuring the area;
– fotografsko analizo slik ali zračnih fotografij z namenom prepoznati pokrovnost tal in izmeriti povr�ine vseh nadzorovanih enot rabe ali poljin;
— check on the spot all applications for which photo interpretation does not verify the accuracy of the declaration to the satisfaction of the competent authority’.
– vsebinski nadzor zahtevkov, pri katerih pristojni organ na podlagi fotografske analize ne more ugotoviti, ali je izjava točna.“
‘— 5% of “area” aid applications.’
„– 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč na povr�ino“.
‘If the area actually determined is found to be less than that declared in an “area” aid
„Če se izkaže, da povr�ina, prijavljena v zahtevku za pomoč na povr�ino, presega
16 — Concerns checks on bovine animals only.17 — Concerns checks on bovine animals only.
16 – Zadeva samo preglede živega goveda.17 – Zadeva samo preglede živega goveda.
— by twice the difference found if this is more than 3% or two hectares but not more than 20% of the determined area.
– za dvakratnik ugotovljene razlike, če ta presega ugotovljeno povr�ino za več kot 3 % ali za 2 ha, vendar ne za več kot za 20 %.
‘Without prejudice to reductions and exclusions in accordance with Articles 32 to 35, if the area declared in an area aid application exceeds the area determined for that crop group as a result of administrative or on-the-spot checks, the aid shall be calculated on the basis of the area determined for that crop group.’
„Če je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč na povr�ino večja od ugotovljene povr�ine, za to skupino kmetijskih rastlin, ki je rezultat upravnega nadzora ali nadzora na kraju samem, se pomoč, ne glede na znižanja in izključitve skladno s členi 32 do 35, izračuna na podlagi ugotovljene povr�ine za to skupino kmetijskih rastlin.“
If the difference is more than 20% of the determined area, no area-linked aid shall be granted.
Če zna�a razlika več kot 20 % ugotovljene povr�ine, se pomoč, vezana na povr�ino, ne odobri.
II — The facts which gave rise to these proceedings
II – Dejansko stanje
As of 1996, the Belgian authorities adopted an identification system for agricultural parcels based on aerial photographic images produced using a computerised geographic information system (GIS).
Belgijski organi so leta 1996 sprejeli identifikacijski sistem enot rabe ali poljin, izveden na podlagi zračnih fotografij po metodah računalni�kih geografskih informacijskih sistemov (RGIS).
20 The agricultural parcels were identified on aerial photographic images by being traced by hand by the farmers, and then graphically encoded in the GIS by the authorities.
20 Enote rabe ali poljine so
19 — Commission Regulation laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).
bile na zračnih fotografijah identificirane tako, da so pridelovalci na njih ročno označili meje, upravni organi pa so nato poskrbeli za njihov grafični vnos v RGIS.
20 — An information system used to represent and analyse things which exist or happen on the earth’s surface and have a spatial reference.
20 – Gre za informacijsko sredstvo, ki se uporablja za predstavitev in analizo stvari, ki obstajajo na zemeljski povr�ini in ki se nana�ajo na prostor.
By an application initiating proceedings lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 13 April 2004, and entered in the register as Case C-176/04, the Kingdom of Belgium asked the Court to annul the contested decision in so far as it imposed the abovementioned flatrate correction or, in the alternative, to reduce the amount of the expenditure excluded from financing to EUR 1 079 814.
Kraljevina Belgija je s tožbo, ki jo je pri sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča vložila 13. aprila 2004 in je bila vpisana pod opravilno �tevilko C-176/04, predlagala razglasitev ničnosti sporne odločbe v delu, v katerem določa zgorajnavedeno pav�alno zmanj�anje, ali podredno, zmanj�anje odhodkov, izključenih iz financiranja, na 1.079.814 eurov.
The Commission concluded that the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to carry out secondary checks adequately and in accordance with the applicable rules.
Komisija je ugotovila, da Kraljevina Belgija ni ustrezno in v skladu z veljavnimi predpisi izvedla sekundarnega nadzora.
By order of 8 June 2004, the Court referred the case to the Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 51 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, as amended by Council Decision 2004/407/EC, Euratom, amending Articles 51 and 54 of the Statute of the Court of Justice. 21
Sodi�če je s sklepom z dne 8. junija 2004 zadevo odstopilo Sodi�ču prve stopnje, in sicer na podlagi člena 51 Statuta Sodi�ča, kot izhaja iz Odločbe Sveta 2004/407/ES, Euratom z dne 26. aprila 2004 o spremembi členov 51 in 54 Protokola o statutu Sodi�ča 21.
The application, lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance as Case T-221/04, was founded on three pleas. By its first plea,
Tožba, ki je bila pri sodnem tajni�tvu Sodi�ča prve stopnje vpisana pod opravilno �tevilko T-221/04, je temeljila na treh
On 4 February 2004, the Commission adopted Decision 2004/136/EC (‘the contested decision’), by which it imposed, in particular, a flatrate correction of 2% (equivalent to EUR 9 322 809) of the expenditure disbursed by the paying agencies recognised by the Kingdom of Belgium and declared under the EAGGF, Guarantee Section, for the arable crops sector and for the financial years 2000-2002, because of shortcomings relating to the secondary checks.
Komisija je 4. februarja 2004 sprejela Odločbo 2004/136 (v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba), s katero je bilo določeno predvsem pav�alno dvoodstotno zmanj�anje (enako 9 322 809 eurom) odhodkov poobla�čenih plačilnih agencij Kraljevine Belgije,
As to the substance, the Court of First Instance began by jointly considering and rejecting the first plea and the first part of the second plea, whereby the applicant claimed that the condition that there must have been a significant failure to apply the Community rules, within the meaning of the Guidelines, was not fulfilled in this case.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je po vsebini najprej preučilo in zavrnilo skupaj prvi tožbeni razlog in prvi del drugega tožbenega razloga, s katerima je pritožnica zatrjevala, da pogoj pomembne neuporabe določb prava Skupnosti, ki jih določajo Smernice, v obravnavanem primeru ni bil izpolnjen.
With reference to the first of the complaints addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium in the Commission’s summary report, concerning the Belgian authorities’ inadequate response to the anomalies brought to light by the GIS when administrative checks were carried out, the Court of First Instance first noted from that report that aid had been disbursed by the Belgian authorities, without further investigation, in certain cases in which the area declared in the aid application exceeded the GIS area by more than 5% and in all instances in which the declared area exceeded the GIS area by less than 5%. 27
Sodi�če prve stopnje se je sklicevalo na prvi očitek Kraljevini Belgiji iz zbirnega poročila Komisije glede nezadostnega odziva belgijskih organov na nepravilnosti, ki so se glede na RGIS pokazale pri upravnem nadzoru, in iz navedenega poročila predvsem poudarilo, da so bile brez dodatne preiskave belgijskih organov pomoči izplačane v nekaterih primerih, ko je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč presegala za več kot 5 odstotkov povr�ine RGIS, in v vseh primerih, ko je bila prijavljena povr�ina presežena za manj kot 5 odstotkov. 27
In the judgement under appeal, by which it dismissed the application in its entirety and ordered the applicant to pay the costs, the Court of First Instance declared, of its own motion and by way of preliminary, that the plea in the alternative seeking to obtain a reduction in the amount of the correction was inadmissible, since it did not consider that, in an action for annulment, it was empowered to replace or amend the contested decision. 26
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi, s katero je tožbo v celoti zavrnilo in pritožnici naložilo plačilo stro�kov, najprej po uradni dolžnosti poudarilo nedopustnost podrednega predloga za zmanj�anje zneska, navedenega v popravku, ker je menilo, da v okviru ničnostne tožbe ni pristojno za to, da bi sporno odločbo nadomestilo ali spremenilo. 26
22 — Unofficial translation of the French original attached to the case-file.
22 – Neuraden prevod izvirnika v franco�čini.23 – Glej opombi 4 in 6 zgoraj.
It pointed out that ‘if, during the course of the administrative checks, the GIS shows that the area declared in an aid application is greater than the GIS area, that discrepancy constitutes an anomaly indicating a potential irregularity in the application (‘the anomalies’)’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je navedlo, da je, „ko je pri upravnem nadzoru ugotovljeno, da izhaja iz RGIS, da je prijavljena povr�ina v zahtevku za pomoč večja od povr�ine RGIS, zadevno razhajanje nepravilnost, ki kaže na potencialne nepravilnosti zahtevka (v nadaljevanju: nepravilnosti)“.
The Court of First Instance found that ‘if the GIS more accurately reflects the actual area than the area declared in the aid appli-
Sodi�če prve stopnje je namreč poudarilo, da je, „če povr�ina RGIS bolj ustreza dejanski povr�ini kot
23 — See footnotes 4 and 6 above.
24 – Uredba Sveta (ES) z dne 22. maja 1995 o spremembi Uredbe (EGS) �t.
24 — Council Regulation of 22 May 1995 amending Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1).
729/70 o financiranju skupne kmetijske politike (UL L 125, str. 1).
25 — See footnotes 4 and 6 above.26 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 26 to 28.
25 – Glej opombi 4 in 6 zgoraj.26 – Izpodbijana sodba, točke od 26 do 28.
27 — Ibidem, paragraph 45.
27 – Enako, točka 45.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance found that, in accordance with caselaw, 29the Commission had adduced evidence of the serious and reasonable doubt it entertained concerning the accuracy of the areas declared by the farmers and, thus, concerning the effectiveness of the controls carried out by the Belgian authorities and the reliability of the data which those authorities had transmitted.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je posledično ugotovilo, da je v skladu s sodno prakso 29Komisija z dokazi podkrepila svoje resne in utemeljene dvome o pravilnosti povr�in, ki so jih prijavili pridelovalci in torej o zanesljivosti nadzora belgijskih organov ter pravilnosti podatkov, ki so jih ti organi posredovali.
30 cation, then payment of the aid in respect of areas based on the declared area constitutes an undue payment to the applicant and, consequently, a loss for the EAGGF’.
30 povr�ini, prijavljeni v zahtevku za pomoč, plačilo pomoči na povr�ino na podlagi prijavljene povr�ine neupravičeno plačilo v korist vlagatelja zahtevka in torej izguba za EKUJS“.
It therefore rejected the applicant’s argument that the lack of precision of the data on the area of the agricultural parcels produced by the GIS, and obtained by manual tracing of the area on possibly somewhat old photographic images, rendered those anomalies insignificant.
Zavrnilo je torej trditev pritožnice, da je nenatančnost podatkov o povr�ini enot rabe ali poljin, ki izhajajo iz RGIS in ki so bili pridobljeni z ročno označitvijo meja povr�ine na starej�ih fotografijah, navedenim nepravilnostim odvzela pomen.
According to the Court of First Instance, that lack of precision involved ‘a risk of loss for the EAGGF’.
Iz take nenatančnosti izhaja, kot navaja Sodi�če prve stopnje, da „tveganja izgube za EKUJS ni mogoče izključiti“.
The Court of First Instance further held that ‘if the GIS data were accurate, that loss would be certain’, whereas ‘the imprecise nature of the data makes it impossible to determine whether or not that loss is real’, as a result of which, ‘the anomalies imply a risk of loss to the EAGGF’. 28
Po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje bi bila namreč navedena izguba, če bi bili podatki RGIS natančni, gotova, medtem ko nenatančnost teh podatkov onemogoča, da bi se ugotovilo, ali je ta izguba resnična ali ne, in zato nepravilnosti kažejo na to, da obstaja tveganje izgube za EKUJS“. 28
The Court of First Instance then found that even though the legislation in force at the material time did not require the Member States to use a GIS — but merely permitted them to do so — by adopting a GIS before it became compulsory, the Belgian authorities had acquired ‘a monitoring instrument capable of supplying relevant information which went further than the express obligations laid down in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 3887/92’.
Zavrnjena je bila tudi trditev pritožnice, da je Komisija s tem, da je belgijskim organom naložila, naj zaradi zgorajnavedenih nepravilnosti opravijo nadzor na kraju samem ali drug upravni nadzor ali zmanj�ajo povr�ine, posku�ala naložiti obveznosti, ki so bile uvedene �ele s predpisi, sprejetimi po nastanku zadevnega dejanskega stanja.
The Court of First Instance also rejected the applicant’s claim that, by requiring the Belgian authorities, in the light of those anomalies, to carry out on-the-spot checks or make a reduction in the area or implement other administrative checks, the Commission was seeking to impose obligations which had not been introduced by legislation until after the material facts.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je nato poudarilo, da čeprav v času dejanskega stanja veljavna ureditev državam članicam ni nalagala uporabe RGIS, jo je pa dopu�čala, so si belgijski organi z uvedbo RGIS, preden je postal obvezen, vendarle priskrbeli „nadzorno sredstvo, ki lahko daje relevantne podatke izven izrecnih obveznosti, določenih v členu 6(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92“.
29 — Case C-54/95 Germany v Commission [1999] ECR I-35, paragraph 35.
29 – Sodba z dne 21. januarja 1999 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-54/95, Recueil, str. I-35, točka 34).
28 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 47 to 48.
28 – Izpodbijana sodba, točki 47 in 48.
All extracts from the judgment under appeal which appear in quotation marks in this Opinion are unofficial translations of the original French text.
Pri vseh delih izpodbijane sodbe, ki so v teh sklepnih predlogih navedeni med navednicami, gre za neuraden prevod.
30 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 30, 49 and 50.
30 – Izpodbijana sodba, točke 30, 49 in 50.
BELGIUM v COMMISSION challenged, that it carried out such checks on 10% of the applications, representing a substantial proportion of the applications which had been identified on the basis of the criterion relating to anomalies in the context of the risk analysis (52% in 1999, 24% in 2000 and 28% in 2001).’ 34 further concluded from the caselaw 31that ‘the administrative checks preceding on-the-spot checks must be carried out in such a way as to enable the national authorities to draw all possible conclusions, be they matters of certainty or of doubt, regarding compliance with the conditions for granting aid’. 32
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI za odobritev pomoči“. Na podlagi sodne prakse 31tudi sklepa, da „mora biti upravni nadzor pred nadzorom na kraju samem opravljen tako, da nacionalnim organom omogoči, da pridejo do vseh možnih ugotovitev, najsi gre za gotovosti ali dvome, zato da se upo�tevajo pogoji za odobritev pomoči“. 32 ki bodo predmet nadzora na kraju samem.
The Court of First Instance made the following observations to that effect:
V zvezi s tem je Sodi�če prve stopnje, potem ko se je prepričalo, da je zna�ala zgorajnavedena tolerančna meja 5 odstotkov, 35
After concluding that the Belgian authorities had failed to respond to the anomalies uncovered by the GIS, 33the Court of First Instance considered whether the checks which those authorities had carried out for that purpose were effective.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je potem, ko je ugotovilo, da je bil odziv belgijskih organov na nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS, obvezen, 33 preverilo, ali je bil nadzor, ki so ga v ta namen izvedli ti organi, zanesljiv.
Those checks are described as follows in the judgement under appeal:
Navedeni nadzor je v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe opisan tako: navedlo, da uporaba tolerančne meje pri upravnem nadzoru ni bila dopustna, ker je izkrivljala sam nadzor. Navedlo je:
‘In this case, among the criteria used for the risk analysis provided for in Article 6(4) of Regulation No 3887/92 to determine which files must be subject to an on-the-spot check, the Belgian authorities included, at their own initiative, a criterion based on anomalies.
„V obravnavanem primeru so belgijski organi med merila, ki se uporabljajo pri analizi tveganj iz člena 6(4) Uredbe �t.
Where the files fell within a category of crop which itself displayed anomalies — either positive or negative — in excess of a given tolerance margin, the Belgian authorities verified the graphic data from the GIS and were able to establish that, in some cases, rectifying that data eliminated the anomalies.
3887/92 za določanje, katera opravila morajo biti predmet nadzora na kraju samem, sami vključili merilo, katerega podlaga so nepravilnosti.
In the remaining cases, they selected the files for an on-the-spot check.
Kadar so se opravila nana�ala na skupino kmetijskih rastlin, ki je sama predstavljala nepravilnosti, pozitivne ali negativne, ki so bile vi�je od določene tolerančne meje, so navedeni organi preverili grafične podatke iz RGIS in ugotovili, da je njihov popravek v nekaterih primerih povzročil odpravo nepravilnosti.
The Belgian Government claims, and this has not been
V drugih primerih so izbrali opravila,
‘The purpose of the check is in fact to verify the data in an aid application.
„Pomen takega nadzora je namreč preverjanje podatkov iz zahtevka za pomoč.
Therefore, to remove indicators of irregularity at that stage, in this case by taking into account anomalies greater than 5% only, precludes a comprehensive and effective analysis of the files concerned.
Vendar pa odstranitev indicev o nepravilnostih v tej fazi in upo�tevanje samo nepravilnosti, vi�je od 5 %, onemogoča celovito in zanesljivo preverjanje zadevnih opravil.
Moreover, removing them at the risk-analysis stage prevents the anomalies, possibly combined with other criteria, from leading to the implementation of checks.
Še več, taka odstranitev v fazi analize tveganj onemogoča, da bi nepravilnosti, morda v kombinaciji z drugimi merili, privedle do nadaljevanja nadzora.
Furthermore, while a tolerance margin may be accepted during on-the-spot checks, particularly by satellite remote sensing, because of the technical limitations of the instrument of measurement, the use of such a margin at the stage of the administrative checks cannot be justified on such grounds. In that connection, it must be noted
Tudi če je tolerančna meja lahko dopustna pri pregledu na kraju samem, zlasti z uporabo satelitskega daljinskega zaznavanja, zaradi tehničnih omejitev merilne naprave, njene uporabe pri upravnem nadzoru ni mogoče upravičiti z istimi razlogi.
31 — Case C-41/94 Germany v Commission [1996] ECR I-4733, paragraph 17, and judgment of 14 April 2005 in Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 40.
31 – Sodbi z dne 3. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji (C-41/94, Recueil, str. I-4733, točka 17) in z dne 14. aprila 2005 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji (C-468/02, neobjavljena v ZOdl., točka 40).
34 — Ibidem, paragraph 58.35 — Ibidem, paragraph 59.
34 – Prav tam, točka 58.35 – Prav tam, točka 59.
32 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 51 to 54.33 — Judgment under appeal, paragraph 57.
32 – Izpodbijana sodba, točke od 51 do 54.33 – Prav tam, točka 57.
The Court of First Instance pointed out, in that connection, that the Commission had rightly concluded that the late input of data made it impossible to undertake the administrative checks in due time, thereby preventing the on-the-spot checks.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je glede tega navedlo, da je Komisija pravilno ugotovila, da tak prepozen vnos ni omogočil izvedbe pravočasnega upravnega nadzora, s čimer je bil posledično onemogočen nadzor na kraju samem.
In particular, the Court of First Instance found that ‘[a]s the Belgian Government has failed to adduce relevant evidence to overturn the Commission’s findings regarding the absence of on-the-spot checks because of late input of data’, ‘a number of files escaped such checking’. 39
Sodi�če prve stopnje je �e zlasti ugotovilo, da „s tem ko belgijska vlada ni sprejela relevantnih elementov, s katerimi bi zavrnila ugotovitve Komisije glede neizvedbe nadzora na kraju samem zaradi prepoznega vnosa, se je določeno �tevilo opravil izmaknilo takemu nadzoru“. 39
The Court of First Instance added, in any event, that ‘the use of a 5% tolerance margin cannot in any way allay the doubts concerning the accuracy of the figures provided by the Belgian authorities, at least to the level of 5% of those figures, without prejudice to the doubts that arise as a result of the absence of penalties applicable to the irregular applications’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je dodalo, da „uporaba tolerančne meje v vi�ini 5 % v vsakem primeru nujno ohranja dvome o pravilnosti �tevilčnih podatkov, ki so jih predložili belgijski organi, vsaj v vi�ini 5 % teh podatkov, brez poseganja v dvome, ki jih je vzbudil neobstoj sankcij za nepravilne zahtevke“.
It thus pointed out that, as stated by the Commission, ‘the checks carried out by the Belgian authorities could not preclude aid being paid without additional checks on some files when the anomaly was more than 5% and on all files where the anomaly was less than 5%’. 37
Tako je poudarilo, da kot je navedla Komisija, „nadzor belgijskih organov ni bil tak, da bi onemogočal, da bi bile brez dodatne preiskave izplačane pomoči za nekatera opravila, ki predstavljajo nepravilnost, večjo od 5 %, in za vsa opravila, ki predstavljajo nepravilnost, manj�o od 5 %“. 37
With reference to the second complaint set out in the summary report, concerning the delays in graphic data input, the Court of First Instance first noted from the report that, in late August, only 60% of data had been entered in the GIS in 1999, 70% in 2000 and 87% in 2001, a fact which led the Commission to conclude that it had not been possible to take a significant number of files into consideration in the risk analyses, or select them for an on-the-spot check. 38
Sodi�če prve stopnje se sklicuje na drugi očitek iz zbirnega poročila v zvezi z zamudo pri grafičnem vnosu in iz njega predvsem poudarja, da je bil ob koncu avgusta vnos podatkov v RGIS opravljen samo v vi�ini 60 % leta 1999, 70 % leta 2000 in 87 % leta
According to the Court of First Instance, the fact that no provision relating to the EAGGF required graphic data input before 31 August each year did not preclude that finding, because, on the one hand, ‘the absence of express obligations is not capable of dispelling doubts arising from the absence of on-the-spot checks’ and, on the other, ‘since that delay leads to an absence of checks, it infringes the general obligation to be in a position to carry out such checks’.
To, da noben predpis v zvezi z EKUJS ne določa, da je 31. avgust vsakega leta končni rok za grafični vnos, po mnenju Sodi�ča prve stopnje ne preprečuje ugotovitve, da na eni strani „neizpolnitev izrecno določenih obveznosti ni mogla odstraniti dvomov, ki jih je vzbudil neizveden nadzor na kraju samem“, in da na drugi strani, „kadar ta zamuda vsebuje neizvedbo nadzora, kr�i splo�no obveznost izvedbe takega nadzora“.
The Court of First Instance then considered it irrelevant that on-the-spot checks were conducted after 31 August and gave rise to
Sodi�če prve stopnje je menilo, da ni pomembno, da je bil nadzor na kraju samem opravljen po
36 — Ibidem, paragraph 60.37 — Ibidem, paragraph 61.38 — Ibidem, paragraph 65.
36 – Prav tam, točka 60.37 – Prav tam, točka 61.
39 — Ibidem, paragraphs 67 and 69.
38 – Enako, točka 65.39 – Enako, točki 67 in 69.