natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Since the appeal lodged against that decision was dismissed by the Rechtbank te’s-Gravenhage (The Hague District Court), Vereniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening lodged an appeal with the court making the reference.
Ker je Rechtbank te ’s-Gravenhage zavrnilo pritožbo, ki jo je Vereiniging Nationaal Overlegorgaan Sociale Werkvoorziening vložilo zoper to odločbo, se je slednje pritožilo na predložitveno sodi�če.
The Raad van State states that, under Article 4.46 of the AWB, the administrative authority ascertains, generally at the time that the subsidy is determined, whether the subsidised activity has been correctly carried out and whether the obligations linked to the subsidy have been fulfilled.
Raad van State navaja, da upravni organ na podlagi člen 4:46 Awb načeloma v fazi določitve subvencij preveri, ali je bila subvencionirana dejavnost izvedena pravilno in ali so bili izpolnjeni pogoji, povezani s subvencijo.
In the case of subsidies granted under the ESF Regulation, the national court considers that Article 4.46(2) of the AWB does not give the administrative authority any discretion and that the subsidy must be determined at zero if it appears that the provisions of the ESF Regulation have not been complied with.
V zvezi s subvencijami, dodeljenimi v okviru ESF Regeling, to sodi�če meni, da člen 4:46(2) Awb upravnemu organu ne omogoča odločati po prostem preudarku in da je treba določiti subvencijo v vi�ini nič, če se izkaže, da niso bile upo�tevane določbe ESF Regeling.
The Raad van State considers that that is so in this case because the objective set out in the project has not been achieved.
Raad van State ocenjuje, da gre v tej zadevi za tak�en primer, saj zastavljeni cilj projekta ni bil dosežen.
However, the national court considers that Article 4.46 of the AWB merely authorises determination of the subsidy and not the recovery of an amount already paid.
Vendar pa predložitveno sodi�če meni, da člen 4:46 Awb dovoljuje le določitev subvencije, ne pa tudi izterjave že izplačanih zneskov.
Similarly, it considers that only Article 4.57 of the AWB permits such recovery by conferring on the administrative authority which is to do so a discretionary power in that regard, and therefore, a discretion to balance the interests of the administration and the recipient of the subsidy.
Tako meni, da je izterjava mogoča le na podlagi člena 4:57 Awb, ki daje pristojnemu upravnemu organu diskrecijsko pravico in mu s tem omogoča, da po prostem preudarku uravnoteži interese uprave in upravičenca do subvencije.
However, in the view of the Raad van State, no rule of national law prohibits the decision fixing the subsidy at zero and the decision recovering amounts already paid from being incorporated into a single decision.
Ne glede na to Raad van State meni, da nobeno nacionalno pravno pravilo ne prepoveduje, da bi bili odločitvi o določitvi subvencije v vi�ini nič in o izterjavi že izplačanih zneskov zajeti v eni sami odločbi. To sodi�če
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING AND OTHERS national court states that the Ministry admitted that it should have been aware from the outset that the objective could not be attained and the court considers, consequently, that the failure to comply with the rules laid down in the ESF Regulation, which flow from Community rules, is imputable to that administrative authority.
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING IN DRUGI navaja, da je ministrstvo priznalo, da bi moralo že na začetku vedeti, da zastavljenega cilja ni mogoče doseči, in zato meni, da je za neupo�tevanje pravil ESF Regeling, ki izhajajo iz zakonodaje Skupnosti, odgovoren omenjeni upravni organ.
It concludes that in the light of the national law principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, the Ministry should not have sought to claim back the unduly paid amounts in full and that, consequently, in the present case, national law provides no basis for recovery.
Glede na to sklepa, da bi se moralo ministrstvo ob upo�tevanju načela varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, ki velja v notranjem pravu, odpovedati izterjavi celotnega zneska subvencij in da, posledično, notranje pravo v tem primeru ne omogoča podlage za vračilo.
The Raad van State considers that there has been negligence within the meaning of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88.
Raad van State kljub temu meni, da je �lo za malomarnost v smislu člena 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88.
After noting that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has adopted no measure to recover amounts lost within the meaning of Article 23(1), the national court states that it is uncertain whether that provision of Community law confers a direct power on a Member State or an administrative authority to recover such losses.
Potem ko je ugotovilo, da Kraljevina Nizozemska ni sprejela nobenega ukrepa za vračilo izgubljenih sredstev v smislu člena 23(1), se to sodi�če spra�uje, ali navedena določba državi članici ali upravnemu organu podeljuje neposredno pristojnost, da zahteva vračilo navedenih sredstev.
In addition, it is uncertain whether the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in national law can go further than the same principle as understood in Community law.
Poleg tega se spra�uje, ali lahko načelo upravičenega pričakovanja, kot se razlaga v notranjem pravu, preseže pomen istega načela, kot se razlaga v pravu Skupnosti.
Case C­384/06
Zadeva C-384/06
In 1998, Gemeente Rotterdam applied for a subsidy for a training project under the ESF Regulation.
Gemeente Rotterdam je leta 1998 zaprosila za subvencijo za projekt usposabljanja na podlagi ESF Regeling.
A subsidy of NLG 483 108 was granted and was subject to an obligation that the project be administered by its own project administration.
Odobrena je bila subvencija v vi�ini 483.108 NLG, ki je bila pogojena s tem, da se za projekt zagotovi ločeno upravno spremljanje.
By decision of 28 May 1999, the subsidy for 1998 was determined in the amount of NLG 122 612.81, subject to the condition that the project was administered in accordance with the provisions of the ESF Regulation. Gemeente Rotterdam lodged
Subvencija za leto 1998 je bila z odločbo z dne 28. maja 1999 določena v vi�ini 122.612,81 NLG, vendar pod pogojem, da spremljanje projekta ustreza določbam
The Ministry declared unfounded the complaint lodged by Gemeente Rotterdam against the decisions of 28 May 1999 and 18 July 2001.
Ministrstvo je odločilo, da je ugovor Gemeente Rotterdam zoper odločbi z dne 28. maja 1999 in 18. julija 2001 neutemeljen.
Since the appeal against the latter decision was dismissed by the Rechtbank te Rotterdam, Gemeente Rotterdam appealed to the court making the reference.
Rechtbank te Rotterdam je zavrnilo pritožbo zoper slednjo odločbo, Gemeente Rotterdam pa se je pritožila na predložitveno sodi�če.
The Raad van State considers, first, that the determination of the subsidy cannot be conditional and that failure to fulfil such a condition cannot constitute the basis for the withdrawal.
Prvič, Raad van State meni, da določitev subvencije ne bi smela biti pogojna, zato neupo�tevanje tega pogoja ne bi smelo biti podlaga za razveljavitev.
Secondly, it finds that Gemeente Rotterdam did not have the project administered by its own project administration, as required by the provisions of the ESF Regulation.
Drugič, ugotavlja, da Gemeente Rotterdam za svoj projekt ni zagotovila ločenega upravnega spremljanja v skladu z določbami ESF Regeling.
The national court considers that the administration deliberately failed to carry out close supervision and considers, consequently, that there are no facts or circumstances of which the Ministry was unaware before it adopted the decision determining the subsidy within the meaning of Article 4.49(1)(a) of the AWB.
Predložitveno sodi�če ugotavlja, da uprava namenoma ni zagotovila temeljitega nadzora, zato meni, da ni nobenih dejstev ali okoli�čin, o katerih ministrstvo ne bi bilo obve�čeno pred sprejetjem odločbe o določitvi subvencije v smislu člena 4:49(1)(a) Awb.
The Raad van State considers that the withdrawal decision cannot therefore be based on Article 4.49(1)(a) of the AWB nor on any of the other cases falling under paragraph 1 of that article.
Raad van State meni, da odločba o razveljavitvi zato ne bi smela temeljiti na določbah člena 4:49(1)(a) Awb, niti na kateri koli drugi določbi iz odstavka 1 tega člena.
Case C­385/06
Zadeva C-385/06
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING AND OTHERS subject to an obligation to have the project administered by its own project administration.
VERENIGING NATIONAAL OVERLEGORGAAN SOCIALE WERKVOORZIENING IN DRUGI pogojem, da se za projekt zagotovi ločeno upravno spremljanje.
By decision of 22 July 1999, the subsidy was determined in the amount of NLG 185 892, then determined at zero by decision of the Directorate General dated 21 September 2000 on the basis of Article 4.46 of the AWB.
Subvencija je bila z odločbo z dne 22. julija 1999 določena v vi�ini 185.892 NLG, nato pa z odločbo generalne direkcije z dne 21. septembra 2000, sprejeto na podlagi člena 4:46 Awb, v vi�ini nič.
The Directorate General also claimed back the amounts already paid.
Generalna direkcija je med drugim zahtevala vračilo že izplačanih zneskov.
By decision of 23 November 2001, the Directorate General dismissed as unfounded the complaint lodged by Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant, although it stated that the decision to determine the subsidy at zero was no longer based on Article 4.46 of the AWB but on Article 4.49 thereof.
Ugovor Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant je generalna direkcija z odločbo z dne 23. novembra 2001 zavrnila kot neutemeljenega in pri tem navedla, da je podlaga za odločbo o določitvi subvencije v vi�ini nič odslej člen 4:49 Awb in ne več člen 4:46 istega zakona.
The decision of 23 November 2001 is based on the fact that, at the date of the decision of 22 July 1999, the Directorate General was unaware that the rules in the ESF Regulation had not been complied with.
Odločba z dne 23. novembra 2001 je obrazložena s tem, da generalna direkcija ob sprejetju odločbe z dne 22. julija 1999 ni vedela, da določbe ESF Regeling niso bile upo�tevane.
Since the appeal against the decision of 23 November 2001 was dismissed by the Rechtbank Breda, Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant appealed to the court making the reference.
Rechtbank Breda je zavrnilo pritožbo zoper odločbo z dne 23. novembra 2001, zato se je Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant pritožilo na predložitveno sodi�če.
However, that court considers that the Directorate General could not have been unaware that the abovementioned obligation had not been fulfilled at the time of the determination decision.
Vendar pa omenjeno sodi�če meni, da je generalna direkcija pri sprejemanju odločbe o določitvi subvencije morala vedeti, da ta pogoj ni bil izpolnjen.
In fact, the Directorate General deliberately determined the subsidy without examining the documents supplied by Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant.
Generalna direkcija naj bi pravzaprav namenoma določila znesek subvencije, ne da bi preverila dokazila, ki jih je predložilo Sociaal Economische Samenwerking West-Brabant.
The Raad van State concludes that the Directorate General cannot base its withdrawal decision either on one of the cases referred to in Article 4.49 of the AWB or on Article 15 of the ESF Regulation.
Raad van State ugotavlja, da generalna direkcija odločbe o razveljavitvi ne bi smela sprejeti niti na podlagi določb iz člena 4:49 Awb niti člena 15 ESF Regeling.
Consequently, it considers that national law does not contain any basis for withdrawing the subsidy after it had been determined.
Zato meni, da nacionalno pravo ne daje podlage za razveljavitev subvencije po njeni določitvi.
Those limitations on recovery laid down in national law flow from the domestic law principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
Te omejitve nacionalnega prava v zvezi z možnostmi izterjave naj bi izhajale iz notranjepravnih načel pravne varnosti in upravičenega pričakovanja.
However, the Raad van State considers failure to comply with the rules in the ESF Regulation constitutes negligence within the meaning of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88.
Raad van State kljub temu meni, da neupo�tevanje pravil ESF Regeling pomeni malomarnost v smislu člena 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88.
That court also points out that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has
To sodi�če poudarja tudi, da Kraljevina Nizozemska ni sprejela nobenega ukrepa za vračilo že izplačanih sredstev
2008 — JOINED CASES C-383/06 TO C-385/06 taken no step to recover amounts already paid within the meaning of Article 23(1).
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-383/06 DO C-385/06 v smislu navedenega člena 23(1).
The national court is unsure, on the one hand, whether a Member State can derive a power directly from the abovementioned Community regulation and, on the other, whether any such power permits a Member State or one of its administrative authorities to recover amounts already paid.
Na eni strani se spra�uje, ali lahko država članica izpelje neposredno pristojnost iz te uredbe Skupnosti, na drugi strani pa, ali ta morebitna pristojnost državi članici ali njenemu upravnemu organu omogoča izterjavo že izplačanih sredstev.
Finally, it is unsure as to whether the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations in national law can go further that the same principle in Community law.
Nazadnje se spra�uje tudi, ali lahko načelo varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, kot se razlaga v notranjem pravu, preseže pomen istega načela, kot se razlaga v pravu Skupnosti.
It was in those circumstances that the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden decided to stay the proceedings and to refer to the Court the following questions for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Raad van State odločilo, da prekine odločanje in da Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predloži ta vpra�anja:
Questions which are identical in the three cases
Skupni vpra�anji za vse tri zadeve
‘(1) ( a) Can a Member State or an administrative authority of that State derive a power directly — that is to say without a basis in national law — from a regulation?
„1. a) Ali lahko država članica oziroma njen organ neposredno iz uredbe – torej brez podlage v nacionalnem pravu – izpelje pristojnost?
(b) If so, does Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 … confer the power to withdraw the determination of the subsidy and to recover the amount paid, on the basis that Article 23 requires the Member States to do so where there is irregularity or negligence within the meaning of that article?’
b) V primeru pritrdilnega odgovora, ali daje člen 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88 […] pristojnost, da se razveljavi določitev subvencije in nato izterjajo že izplačani zneski, ker [navedeni] člen 23 […] države članice k temu zavezuje v primeru malomarnosti oziroma zlorabe v smislu člena 23?“
Question which is identical in both Case C-384/06 and C- 385/06
Skupno vpra�anje za zadevi C-384/06 in C-385/06
Question identical in all three cases
Skupno vpra�anje za vse tri zadeve
‘(4) (a) If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, the question arises, in relation to that limitation, whether national principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations can be more far-reaching than general principles of Community law, especially the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate interests which are to be complied with when applying [Regulation No 4253/88]?
„4. a) Če je odgovor na tretje vpra�anje pritrdilen, se v zvezi s to omejitvijo zastavlja naslednje vpra�anje: ali lahko notranji načeli pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja presegata pomen splo�nih načel prava Skupnosti, in sicer načel pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, ki ju je treba spo�tovati pri izvajanju Uredbe [�t. 4253/88]?
(b) In applying the Community legal principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, is it of significance that the Member State granting the subsidy is itself responsible for the fact that the subsidy recipient has failed to fulfil the subsidy obligations which flow from the relevant part of Community law?’
b) Ali je za uporabo načel pravne varnosti in varstva upravičenega pričakovanja, uveljavljenih v pravu Skupnosti, pomembno, da je država članica, ki je dodelila subvencijo, sama odgovorna za to, da upravičenec do subvencije ni izpolnil pogojev, povezanih s to subvencijo?“
Questions which are identical in Case C-348/06 and Case C-385/06
Skupni vpra�anji v zadevah C-384/06 in C-385/06
(7) If there is no duty to withdraw and recover under Article 23(1) of [Regulation No 4253/88], are there other provisions of Community law, such as for example Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p.
4253/88] ne nalaga razveljavitve in izterjave, upo�tevati druge določbe zakonodaje Skupnosti, kot je člen 4(1) Uredbe Sveta (ES, Euratom) �t. 2988/95 z dne 18. decembra 1995 o za�čiti finančnih interesov Evropskih skupnosti (UL L 312, str.
1), on the basis of which the Member State is obliged, directly or through interpretation of Article 4.49.1 of the [AWB], in conformity with the regulation, to withdraw the determination of, and claim repayment of, subsidies granted in breach of Community law, such as those in dispute here?’
1), ki državo članico neposredno ali na podlagi člena 4:49(1) [Awb] – če se ga razlaga v skladu z Uredbo – zavezujejo k razveljavitvi in izterjavi subvencij, kot so sporne subvencije v tej zadevi, katerih izplačilo pomeni kr�itev zakonodaje Skupnosti?“
By order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2006, Cases C-383/06 to C-385/06 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and for the judgment.
Zadeve od C-383/06 do C-385/06 so bile s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 22. novembra 2006 združene za namen pisnega in ustnega postopka ter zaradi izdaje sodbe.
The questions referred to the Court
Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje
The questions concerning the application of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, Article 10 EC and Article 249 EC
Vprašanja v zvezi z uporabo člena 23(1) Uredbe št. 4253/88 ter členov 10 ES in 249 ES
By its first question in each case, the national court essentially asks whether a Community regulation and, in particular, Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88, constitutes a relevant legal basis for the recovery by national administrative authorities of sums unduly paid in the framework of the European Structural Funds.
S prvim vpra�anjem, ki se nana�a na vse zadeve v postopku v glavni stvari, želi predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu izvedeti, ali je uredba Skupnosti, natančneje člen 23(1) Uredbe �t. 4253/88, ustrezna pravna podlaga za to, da nacionalna uprava zahteva vračilo sredstev, ki jih je v okviru Evropskih strukturnih skladov izplačala brez pravne podlage.
Should those questions be answered in the negative, the national court, in its second questions, asks whether Articles 10 EC and 249 EC can be used as a legal basis for an interpretation of national rules in conformity with that regulation.
V primeru nikalnega odgovora na to vpra�anje navedeno sodi�če z drugima vpra�anjema spra�uje, ali lahko člena 10 ES in 249 ES pomenita pravno podlago za razlago nacionalne zakonodaje, ki je v skladu z navedeno uredbo.
On the other hand, that provision, requires the Member States to lay down procedures for that purpose.
Vendar pa naj bi navedena določba države članice zavezovala, da predpi�ejo postopke za take primere.
The German Government and the Czech Government propose the first questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Če�ka in nem�ka vlada predlagata, da se na prvo vpra�anje odgovori pritrdilno.
The Netherlands Government considers that although a Member State may derive a power directly from a Community regulation, that cannot be the case in regard to Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 since that provision, although it certainly lays down the principle that sums should be recovered, leaves it to national law to make detailed arrangements for such recovery.
Nizozemska vlada meni, da čeprav država članica lahko izpelje pristojnost neposredno iz uredbe Skupnosti, to ne more veljati za člen 23(1) Uredbe �t.
However, the German Government considers that the application of Article 23(1) does not prevent the national authorities availing themselves of that provision for the purposes of recovery in so far as national law so permits.
4253/88, ker ta določba, ki sicer obvezuje k načelu vračila sredstev, določitev podrobnej�ih pravil o vračanju prepu�ča notranjemu pravu.
In the view of the Czech Government, an authorisation under national law is not necessary, since that law merely has to lay down procedural arrangements.
Nem�ka vlada kljub temu meni, da uporaba člena 23(1) ne nasprotuje temu, da se nacionalni organi sklicujejo nanj pri izterjavi, če to dovoljuje notranje pravo.
That measure contains only general provisions whereas Regulation No 4253/88 applies specifically to the European Structural Funds.
Omenjeno besedilo naj bi vsebovalo le splo�ne določbe, medtem ko se Uredba �t. 4253/88 nana�a posebej na Evropske strukturne sklade.
It must at the outset be noted that it is clear from the very terms of the second paragraph Article 249 EC that Community regulations are directly applicable in all Member States.
Uvodoma je treba ugotoviti, da iz besedila člena 249, drugi odstavek, ES izhaja, da se uredbe Skupnosti neposredno uporabljajo v državah članicah.
With regard to the use of the Structural Funds, it should be borne in mind that, according to Article 4(1) of Regulation No 2052/88, Community operations are to be established through close consultations between the Commission, the Member State concerned and the competent authorities and bodies designated by the Member State at national, regional, local or other level.
Kar zadeva uporabo strukturnih skladov, je treba spomniti, da se ukrep Skupnosti v skladu s členom 4(1) Uredbe �t. 2052/88 sprejme s tesnim sodelovanjem med Komisijo, zadevno državo članico, pristojnimi organi in institucijami, ki jih na nacionalni, regionalni, lokalni ali drugi ravni imenuje država članica.
In addition, according to the sixth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2082/93, in application of the principle
Poleg tega morajo biti v skladu s �esto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t. 2082/93 ob uporabi načela subsidiarnosti
2008 — JOINED CASES C-383/06 TO C-385/06 of subsidiarity, and without prejudice to the Commission’s powers, particularly its responsibility for the management of the Community’s financial resources, implementation of the forms of assistance contained in the Community support frameworks should be primarily the responsibility of the Member States at the appropriate territorial level according to the specific needs of each Member State.
2008 – ZDRUŽENE ZADEVE OD C-383/06 DO C-385/06 in ne glede na pristojnosti Komisije, zlasti pristojnosti za upravljanje s finančnimi sredstvi Skupnosti, za izvajanje oblik pomoči načeloma odgovorne države članice na ustrezni območni ravni glede na značilnosti vsake države članice.
Similarly, the exercise of any discretion to decide whether or not it would be expedient to demand repayment of Community funds unduly or irregularly granted would be inconsistent with the duty imposed on national administrations by the first subparagraph of Article 23(1) of Regulation No 4253/88 to recover any amounts unduly or irregularly paid (see, by analogy, with regard to Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p.
Podobno bi bilo kakr�no koli diskrecijsko presojanje države članice, ali bo zahtevala vračilo sredstev Skupnosti, dodeljenih brez pravne podlage ali nezakonito, nezdružljivo z obveznostjo zahtevati vračilo neupravičeno ali nezakonito izplačanih sredstev, ki jo člen 23(1), prvi pododstavek, Uredbe �t.
218), Joined Cases 205/82 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor and Others [1983] ECR 2633, paragraph 22).
4253/88 nalaga nacionalnim organom (po analogiji glej sodbo z dne 21. septembra 1983 v združenih zadevah Deutsche Milchkontor in drugi, od 205/82 do 215/82, Recueil, str.