natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— during the assessment of the certificates at issue, in particular of certificate A.TR.1 D 437214, in so far as those certificates were found to be forgeries;
– pri presoji spornih potrdil in zlasti potrdila A.TR.1 D 437214, ker ta izhajajo iz ponareditev,
— as regards the failings of those authorities in relation to their obligations regarding specimens of the stamps and signatures which they use and the registration of certificates issued by them;
– v zvezi s kr�itvijo obveznosti navedenih organov glede vzorcev žigov in podpisov, ki jih uporabljajo, in obveznosti registracije potrdil, ki jih izdajo,
— in connection with mutual assistance, regarding whether assistance was provided by the Turkish authorities in issuing the certificates at issue, and
– v okviru medsebojne pomoči glede sodelovanja tur�kih organov pri izdaji spornih potrdil in
— in respect of other evidence which, in the appellant’s opinion, shows that there were failings on the part of the Turkish authorities constitutive of a special situation with regard to the appellant.
– v zvezi z drugimi elementi, ki po njenem mnenju dokazujejo kr�itve tur�kih organov, ki glede na pritožnico pomenijo poseben primer.
With regard to the failings alleged against the Commission, the appellant submits that there were sufficient objective indications of systematic and deliberate infringements by the Turkish authorities, which should have justified an intensified review of the system of preferential arrangements by the Commission.
Glede očitanih kr�itev obveznosti Komisije pritožnica zatrjuje, da obstajajo zadostni objektivni indici za sistematične in zavestne kr�itve pristojnih tur�kih organov, ki bi morali upravičiti okrepljen nadzor Komisije nad preferencialnim dogovorom.
The appellant is also of the opinion, taking as its basis Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation and Article 4 of Decision No 1/96, that the Republic of Turkey and the Commission were legally obliged during the period in question, namely 1995 to 1997, to send to the competent customs officials or demand specimens of the stamps used by the Turkish customs authorities.
Pritožnica prav tako ob sklicevanju na člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS in na člen 4 Sklepa �t. 1/96 meni, da sta bili Republika Turčija in Komisija tudi v zadevnem obdobju, in sicer v letih od 1995 do 1997, pravno zavezani, da posredujeta ali zahtevata vzorce žigov pristojnih carinskih uradnikov, ki jih uporabljajo tur�ki carinski organi.
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance also made an error of law when it did not conclude that the Commission was obliged to warn importers of fruit juice concentrates, by the end of 1994 or the beginning of 1995 at the latest, of irregularities in Turkey in the issuing of A.TR.1 certificates and it maintains that the Commission was also obliged to bring the matter before the Joint Committee or the Association Council.
Pritožnica poudarja, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje tudi napačno uporabilo pravo, ker ni sklepalo, da je bila Komisija zavezana uvoznike koncentratov sadnih sokov najpozneje do konca leta 1994 ali v začetku leta 1995 opozoriti na nepravilnosti v Turčiji pri izdaji potrdil A.TR.1 in da je bila zavezana vključiti me�ani odbor ali pridružitveni svet.
Moreover, UCLAF failed to comply with its obligations to carry out a proper investigation in Turkey, since it did not implement certain methods of investigation.
Poleg tega naj bi UCLAF kr�ila svoje obveznosti glede ustrezne preiskave v Turčiji, saj naj ne bi uporabila nekaterih metod preiskave.
Lastly, the appellant alleges that the Court of First Instance failed to have regard to the fact that it is contrary to the principle of equity which underlies Article 239 of the CCC, given the relationship between economic operators and the administration, to leave the appellant to bear the loss which stems from the contested decision.
Nazadnje pritožnica Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da je spregledalo dejstvo, da je v nasprotju z načelom pravičnosti, ki je podlaga za člen 239 CZS, da bi morala pritožnica zaradi razmerja med gospodarskimi subjekti in upravo odgovarjati za �kodo, ki izhaja iz sporne odločbe.
The Commission submits, first, that the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant as regards the failings which are alleged against it and the Turkish authorities do not
Komisija najprej meni, da se pritožbeni razlogi, ki jih je navedla pritožnica v zvezi s kr�itvami, ki se očitajo njej in tur�kim organom, ne nana�ajo na pravna vpra-
2008 — CASE C-204/07 P concern points of law, but are assessments of fact which cannot be challenged on appeal.
�anja, ampak vsebujejo presoje dejstev, ki jih ni mogoče izpodbijati v pritožbenem postopku.
Furthermore, it maintains that neither the Republic of Turkey nor the Commission was obliged, under the provisions applicable here, to send specimens of stamps or signatures or to keep registers of A.TR.1. certificates.
Poleg tega Komisija zatrjuje, da niti Republika Turčija niti ona nista bili na podlagi določb, ki se uporabljajo v tem primeru, zavezani k posredovanju vzorcev žigov ali podpisov niti k vodenju registra potrdil A.TR.1.
With regard to the duty to warn importers, the Commission points out that the imports at issue here dated from the period between April 1995 and November 1997, whereas doubts regarding the authenticity and the accuracy of the A.TR.1 certificates arose only subsequently, namely as of 1998.
Komisija glede dolžnosti opozorila uvoznikom spominja na to, da sporni uvozi v obravnavanem primeru izhajajo iz obdobja od aprila 1995 do novembra 1997, medtem ko so se dvomi o pristnosti in o nepravilnosti vsebine tur�kih potrdil A.TR.1 pojavili �ele pozneje, od leta 1998 naprej.
It also contends that, in view of the Turkish authorities’ impeccable willingness to cooperate, it had no reason to bring the matter before the Joint Committee or the Association Council.
Komisija prav tako poudarja, da zaradi pripravljenosti sodelovanja tur�kih organov, ki je bilo konsistentno in brez napak, ni imela razloga za vključitev me�anega odbora ali pridružitvenega sveta.
Under Article 225(1) EC and the first paragraph of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal to the Court of Justice is limited to points of law and shall lie on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant or the infringement of Community law by the Court of First Instance (see, inter alia, judgement of 28 February in Case C-17/07 P Neirinck v Commission, paragraph 73).
V skladu s členom 225(1) ES in členom 58, prvi odstavek, Statuta Sodi�ča je pritožba omejena na pravna vpra�anja in se lahko vloži zaradi nepristojnosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zaradi kr�itve postopka pred tem sodi�čem, ki �koduje interesom pritožnika, ali zaradi kr�itve zakonodaje Skupnosti s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 28. februarja 2008 v zadevi Neirinck proti Komisiji, C-17/07 P, točka 73).
In support of its appeal, the appellant relies on a number of circumstances which, in its opinion, constitute a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Pritožnica v podporo svoji pritožbi navaja �tevilne okoli�čine, ki po njenem mnenju pomenijo poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS.
It is settled caselaw that such a special situation is established where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the person liable is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business (see, to that effect, Case C-86/97 Trans-Ex-Import [1999] ECR I-1041, paragraphs 21 and 22, and Case C-61/98 De Haan [1999] ECR I-5003, paragraphs 52 and 53).
Na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse je tak poseben primer utemeljen, če iz okoli�čin v obravnavanem primeru izhaja, da je dolžnik v izjemnem položaju v primerjavi z drugimi subjekti, ki opravljajo isto dejavnost (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 25. februarja 1999 v zadevi Trans-Ex-Import, C-86/97, Recueil, str. I-1041, točki 21 in 22, in z dne 7. septembra 1999 v zadevi De Haan, C-61/98, Recueil, str. I-5003, točki 52 in 53).
The complaints put forward in the appeal thus effectively criticise the application of Article 239 of the CCC by the Court of First Instance in the judgment under appeal, in that it held that the circumstances of the present case do not constitute a special situation.
Očitki, ki so bili navedeni v okviru pritožbe, tako pomenijo kritiko, kako je Sodi�če prve stopnje uporabilo člen 239 CZS, ker je odločilo, da okoli�čine v obravnavani zadevi ne utemeljujejo posebnega primera.
That legal characterisation is a point of law which it is for the Court to examine in an appeal.
Ta pravna opredelitev je pravno vpra�anje, ki ga mora Sodi�če preučiti v okviru pritožbenega postopka.
It must be pointed out at the outset that, according to settled caselaw, Article 239 of the CCC is a general equitable provision (see, inter alia, Case C-230/06 Militzer & Münch [2008] ECR I-1895, paragraph 50). I - 6207
Najprej je treba poudariti, da v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso člen 239 CZS pomeni generalno klavzulo pravičnosti (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 3. aprila 2008 v zadevi Militzer & Münch, C-230/06, ZOdl., str. I-1895, točka 50). I - 6207
Under Article 239 of the CCC, the person liable is entitled to repayment or remission of customs duty provided that two conditions are met, namely the existence of a special situation and the absence of obvious negligence or deception on his part.
Dolžnik ima v skladu s členom 239 CZS pravico do povračila ali odpusta carine, če sta izpolnjena dva pogoja, in sicer obstoj posebnega primera in neobstoj malomarnosti in goljufivega ravnanja stranke.
As regards the appellant’s due care and the absence of deception on its part, it must be pointed out that they are not the subjectmatter of this appeal.
Glede skrbnega ravnanja in neobstoja goljufivega ravnanja pritožnice je treba pojasniti, da ta nista predmet obravnavane pritožbe.
As the Court of First Instance stated in paragraph 295 of the judgment under appeal, the Commission did not, in the part of the contested decision dealing with the certificates at issue, express its view on the issue of the appellant’s due care or negligence.
Kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 295 izpodbijane sodbe, se Komisija v delu sporne odločbe, ki se nana�a na ponarejena potrdila, ni opredelila glede skrbnega ravnanja ali malomarnosti pritožnice.
As regards the existence of a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC, that situation is established, as has been pointed out in paragraph 82 of this judgment, where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the person liable is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business and that, in the absence of such circumstances, he would not have suffered the disadvantage caused by the subsequent entry in the accounts of customs duties (see, to that effect, Case 58/86 Coopérative agricole d’approvisionnement des Avirons [1987] ECR 1525, paragraph 22).
Poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS je utemeljen, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 82 obravnavane sodbe, če iz okoli�čin v obravnavani zadevi izhaja, da je dolžnik v izjemnem položaju v primerjavi z drugimi subjekti, ki opravljajo isto dejavnost, in v primeru neobstoja teh okoli�čin ne bi utrpel �kode, povezane z naknadno opravljeno vknjižbo carin (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 26. marca 1987 v zadevi Coopérative agricole d’approvisionnement des Avirons, 58/86, Recueil, str. 1525, točka 22).
Therefore, in order to determine whether the circumstances of the case constitute a special situation in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC, the Commission must assess all the relevant facts (see, to that effect, Case 160/84 Oryzomyli Kavallas and Oryzomyli Agiou Konstantinou v Commission [1986] ECR 1633, paragraph 16).
Komisija mora pri določanju, ali okoli�čine obravnavane zadeve pomenijo poseben primer, pri katerem ni malomarnosti ali goljufivega ravnanja zainteresirane stranke v smislu člena 239 CZS, preučiti vsa upo�tevna dejstva (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 15. maja 1986 v zadevi Oryzomyli Kavallas in Oryzomyli Agiou Konstantinou proti Komisiji, 160/84, Recueil, str. 1633, točka 16).
That obligation implies, in a case such as this one where the person liable has relied, in support of his application for repayment or remission of import duties, on the existence of serious errors on the part of the Turkish authorities and the Commission in the implementation of the Association Agreement, that the Commission must base its assessment, when examining that application for repayment or remission of import duties, on all the facts relating to the certificates at issue of which it
Ta obveznost – v primeru, kot je ta v obravnavani zadevi, v kateri je dolžnik v utemeljitev svojega zahtevka za povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev navedel obstoj nekaterih hudih kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov in Komisije v okviru uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi – zahteva, da Komisija pri preizkusu tega zahtevka opravi
C.A.S. v COMMISSION was aware in the performance of its task of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of that agreement.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI presojo vseh dejstev v zvezi z spornimi potrdili, s katerimi je bila seznanjena v okviru opravljanja nalog spremljanja in nadzora pravilne uporabe navedenega sporazuma.
Furthermore, that finding is reinforced by Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation which provides that import duties must not be repaid or remitted where the ‘only grounds’ relied on in the application for repayment or remission are presentation, for the purpose of obtaining preferential tariff treatment, of documents subsequently found to be forged, falsified or not valid for that purpose, even where such documents were presented in good faith.
Tak zaključek poleg tega temelji na členu 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS, ki predvideva, da se povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev ne opravi, če se zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust utemeljuje „izključno“ s predložitvijo dokumentov za odobritev preferencialne tarifne obravnave, za katere se naknadno izkaže, da so bili lažni, ponarejeni ali neveljavni za odobritev navedene obravnave, čeprav so bili predloženi v dobri veri.
In other words, the presentation of forged, falsified or invalid certificates does not per se constitute a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the CCC.
Drugače, tudi predložitev lažnih, ponarejenih ali neveljavnih potrdil sama po sebi ne utemeljuje posebnega primera v smislu člena 239 CZS.
By contrast, other circumstances relied on in support of an application for repayment or remission of import duty, such as inadequate monitoring by the Commission of the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, may constitute such a special situation.
Nasprotno, tudi druge okoli�čine, navedene v podporo zahtevku za povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev, kot je nezadosten nadzor Komisije glede pravilnega izvajanja sporazuma o pridružitvi, lahko pomenijo tak poseben primer.
Although the Commission has some discretion as regards the application of Article 239 of the CCC, it cannot disregard its duty to balance, on the one hand, the Community interest in full compliance with the provisions of customs legislation, whether that be Community legislation or other legislation binding on the Community, and, on the other hand, the interest of an importer acting in good faith not to suffer harm which goes beyond the normal commercial risk.
Komisija ima sicer pooblastilo za odločanje po prostem preudarku pri uporabi člena 239 CZS, vendar ne sme kr�iti svoje obveznosti tehtanja interesa Skupnosti na področju spo�tovanja carinskih predpisov v celoti, ne glede na to, ali so Skupnostni ali Skupnost zavezujejo, in interesa dobrovernega uvoznika, da ne utrpi �kode, ki presega običajno trgovsko tveganje.
That balancing underlies the scheme of Article 239 which, as has been pointed out in paragraph 85 of this judgment, is a general equitable provision.
Tako tehtanje utemeljuje sistematika navedenega člena 239, ki – kot je opozorjeno v točki 85 obravnavane sodbe – pomeni generalno klavzulo pravičnosti.
Consequently, when examining an application for repayment or remission of import duty, the Commission is not entitled merely to assess the behaviour and activities of the importer and the exporter.
Zato ni dovolj, da se Komisija pri preizkusu zahtevka za povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev omeji na oceno ravnanja in dejanj uvoznika in izvoznika.
It must also take into account, in particular, the effect of its own behaviour on the specific situation in the course of its duty to supervise and monitor.
V okviru njenih nalog spremljanja in nadzora mora upo�tevati �e zlasti vpliv svojega ravnanja na položaj v posameznem obravnavanem primeru.
In that regard, it must be pointed out that it follows from Article 211 EC that the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty and of the agreements concluded under it, must ensure the correct implementation by a third country of the obligations it has assumed under an agreement concluded with the Community, using the means provided for by the agreement or by the decisions taken pursuant thereto.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da iz člena 211 ES izhaja, da mora Komisija kot varuhinja Pogodbe ES in sporazumov, sklenjenih na njeni podlagi, zagotavljati, da tretja država pravilno izpolnjuje obveznosti, za katere se je dogovorila na podlagi sporazuma, sklenjenega s Skupnostjo v okviru sredstev, ki so predvidena v sporazumu ali s sklepi, sprejetimi na njegovi podlagi.
That obligation is also apparent from the Association Agreement itself and from the many decisions adopted in respect of its implementation.
Ta obveznost izhaja tudi iz sporazuma o pridružitvi in iz �tevilnih sklepov, sprejetih za njegovo izvajanje.
Thus, Article 7 of that agreement, in conjunction with Article 211 EC, requires that the Commission take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations arising from that agreement.
Člen 7 tega sporazuma v povezavi s členom 211 ES zahteva, da Komisija sprejme vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, za zagotovitev izpolnjevanja obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz tega sporazuma.
Furthermore, according to Article 24 of the Association Agreement, the Commission is represented on the Association Council and participates, as the representative of the Community, in the various committees set up by the Association Council, to ensure the continuing cooperation necessary for the proper functioning of the Agreement.
Poleg tega je Komisija po členu 24 istega sporazuma prisotna v pridružitvenem svetu in kot predstavnica Skupnosti sodeluje v različnih odborih, ki jih je ustanovil ta svet, za zagotavljanje nujnega neprekinjenega sodelovanja za dobro delovanje sporazuma.
Thus, under Article 52(2) of Decision No 1/95, the Commission may call upon the Joint Committee where difficulties arise for the Community or the Republic of Turkey in the implementation of that decision.
V skladu s členom 52(2) Sklepa �t. 1/95 lahko Komisija vključi me�ani odbor, če nastopijo težave za Skupnost ali Republiko Turčijo pri izvajanju tega sklepa.
Moreover, the Commission has a permanent representation in Turkey which enables it, at the very least, to be reliably informed of legal developments in that State and, in particular, of the stage which the implementation of that agreement has reached.
Komisija pa ima poleg tega stalno predstavni�tvo v Turčiji, kar ji omogoča vsaj zanesljivo obve�čenost v zvezi s pravnim razvojem v tej državi in zlasti v zvezi s stanjem izvajanja navedenega sporazuma.
The Commission also has significant rights and powers available to it in connection with its obligation of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da ima Komisija v okviru svoje obveznosti spremljanja in nadzora pravilnega izvajanja sporazuma o pridružitvi precej�nja pooblastila.
Under paragraph 4(a) of the same article, the Commission may also request that the Turkish authorities take the necessary steps to keep a special watch on natural or legal persons of whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are breaching or have breached customs legislation.
Komisija lahko v skladu z odstavkom 4(a) istega člena tudi zahteva od tur�kih organov, da sprejmejo potrebne ukrepe za izvajanje posebnega nadzora v zvezi s fizičnimi ali pravnimi osebami, če obstaja razlog za domnevo, da te kr�ijo ali so storile kr�itve, ki so v nasprotju s carinskimi predpisi.
Furthermore, according to Article 7(3) and (4) of that annex, duly authorised Commission officials may, with the agreement and within the conditions laid down by the Turkish customs authorities, obtain from the respective offices of those authorities information relating to breaches of customs legislation or be present at inquiries carried out in Turkish territory.
Poleg tega lahko v skladu s členom 7(3) in (4) navedene priloge veljavno poobla�čeni uradniki Komisije v prostorih tur�kih carinskih organov zbirajo informacije v zvezi s kr�itvami, ki so v nasprotju s carinskimi predpisi, ali so prisotni pri preiskavah, ki se izvajajo na tur�kem ozemlju, s soglasjem in v skladu s pogoji, ki jih določijo ti organi.
Consequently, the Commission cannot reasonably claim, as it did at the hearing, that it is in the same position as the appellant as regards the checking of events which occurred in a third country, namely in Turkey.
Zato Komisija ne more uspe�no zatrjevati, kot je storila na obravnavi, da je v istem položaju kot pritožnica glede preverjanja dejstev, ki se dogajajo v tretji državi, in sicer Turčiji.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to make full use of the rights and powers which it has under the provisions of the Association Agreement and the decisions adopted in respect of its implementation so as to fulfil its obligation of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Komisija ima nasprotno dolžnost, da v celoti uporabi pooblastila, ki ji pripadajo na podlagi določb sporazuma o pridružitvi in sklepov, sprejetih za njegovo izvajanje, da ne bi kr�ila svojih obveznosti spremljanja in nadzora pravilnega izvajanja navedenega sporazuma.
Such use of its rights and powers is particularly necessary in a situation in which exports to the same Community port, namely that of Ravenna, by the same Turkish export company in the same reference period took place, according to the findings in the judgment under appeal, under cover of both irregular and inauthentic certificates.
Taka pooblastila je treba toliko bolj uporabiti, če se je izvoz v isto pristani�če Skupnosti, in sicer v Raveni, z isto tur�ko izvozno družbo v istem referenčnem obdobju opravljal v skladu z ugotovitvami iz izpodbijane sodbe na podlagi nepravilnih in nepristnih potrdil.
The full use of the rights and powers which the Commission has in connection with its duty of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement is also called for because the assessments made by the Turkish authorities as regards the inauthentic or irregular nature of the certificates at issue show some ambiguities or, at the very least, some inconsistencies.
Zahteva, da mora Komisija v celoti uporabiti pooblastila, ki jih ima v okviru svoje obveznosti spremljanja in nadzora pravilnega izvajanja sporazuma o pridružitvi, izhaja tudi iz dejstva, da je presoja tur�kih organov v zvezi z nepristnostjo ali nepravilnostjo spornih potrdil vzbudila nekatere dvome ali vsaj določena neskladja.