natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, the reference to Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92 is irrelevant because that provision, concerning measuring techniques, applies to determining the area of agricultural parcels in the context of on-the-spot checks.
Poleg tega naj sklicevanje na člen 6(7) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 ne bi bilo upo�tevno, ker se ta določba v zvezi s tehnikami merjenja uporablja za ugotavljanje povr�ine enot rabe in poljin v okviru nadzora na kraju samem.
(b) Findings of the Court
2008 – ZADEVA C-418/06 P b) Presoja Sodi�ča
It should be pointed out that, as was stated in paragraph 49 of this judgment, the Court of First Instance did not describe the GIS as a measuring instrument.
Opozoriti je treba, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 49 te sodbe, da Sodi�če prve stopnje ni odločilo, da je belgijski RGIS sredstvo za merjenje.
The fact that it considered, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, that the GIS was a checking instrument capable of supplying relevant information going beyond the express obligations laid down in Article 6(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 does not affect that finding.
Dejstvo, da je v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da je RGIS sredstvo za nadzor, ki lahko daje relevantne podatke, ki presegajo izrecne obveznosti, določene v členu 6(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ne more izpodbiti te ugotovitve.
Consequently, the complaint cannot be made that the Court of First Instance rather than the Kingdom of Belgium defined the measuring instrument intended to be used under Article 6(7) of that regulation for the purposes of determining the area of agricultural parcels.
Zato Sodi�ču prve stopnje ni mogoče očitati, da je namesto Kraljevine Belgije opredelilo sredstvo za merjenje, ki ga je treba uporabiti v skladu s členom 6(7) iste uredbe za ugotovitev povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin.
Consequently, the first part of the second ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
Prvega dela drugega pritožbenega razloga zato ni mogoče sprejeti.
The second part: implicit obligations
Drugi del: posredne obveznosti a) Trditve strank
The Kingdom of Belgium complains that the Court of First Instance imposed retrospectively on the Member States the checking procedures decided upon by the Commission in its summary report, which was the basis for the contested decision, although the legislation in force at the relevant time did not require them to be used.
Kraljevina Belgija Sodi�ču prve stopnje očita, da je državam članicam retroaktivno naložilo pravila nadzora, ki jih je Komisija navedla v zbirnem poročilu in na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta sporna odločba, medtem ko predpisi, ki so veljali v času dejanskega stanja, uporabe teh pravil niso določali.
The Member States were thus required, where the area declared was greater than the GIS area, either to carry out an on-the-spot check or to reduce the area for which aid was to be granted.
Če bi bila prijavljena povr�ina večja od povr�ine RGIS, bi države članice tako morale bodisi opraviti nadzor na kraju samem bodisi zmanj�ati subvencionirano povr�ino.
According to the Kingdom of Belgium, such requirements are in breach of Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92, under which an on-the-spot check had to be carried out only on a significant percentage representing at least 5% of aid applications.
Kraljevina Belgija meni, da naj bi bil s temi obveznostmi kr�en člen 6(3) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, na podlagi katerega je nadzor na kraju samem treba opraviti na podlagi znatnega vzorca, ki zajema najmanj 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč.
Moreover, the legislation in force made no provision in the context of administrative checks for the area for which aid was to be granted to be reduced solely on the basis of GIS data.
Poleg tega predpisi, ki so veljali v času dejanskega stanja, v okviru upravnih nadzorov niso določali zmanj�anja subvencionirane povr�ine zgolj na podlagi podatkov iz RGIS.
Such reduction was provided for, under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, only where the area declared was greater than the area actually determined.
Tako zmanj�anje je bilo v skladu s členom 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 določeno, le če bi bila prijavljena povr�ina večja od dejansko ugotovljene povr�ine.
Such determination was legally possible, according to the law applying ratione temporis, only in the case of an on-the-spot check within the meaning of Case C-417/00 Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch [2002] ECR I-11053, paragraph 48.
Taka ugotovitev pa naj bi bila v skladu s pravom, veljavnim v času dejanskega stanja, zakonito mogoča zgolj v okviru nadzora na kraju samem v smislu sodne prakse, ki izhaja iz sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 28. novembra 2002 v zadevi Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch (C-417/00, Recueil, str.
Moreover, it was not necessary to lay down such implicit obligations since the applicant Member State had taken account of the abovementioned anomalies in the context of the risk analysis.
Poleg tega naj izpolnitev takih posrednih obveznosti ne bi bila nujna, če bi država članica – tožeča stranka – v okviru analize tveganj upo�tevala zgoraj navedene nepravilnosti.
Lastly, those implicit obligations infringed, on the one hand, the principle of legal certainty, since they imposed a penalty on farmers at the administrative checking stage, although provision was made for such a penalty by the legislation in force ratione temporis only in the event of irregularities being found in the context of an on-the-spot check.
Nazadnje, te posredne obveznosti naj bi po eni strani kr�ile načelo pravne varnosti, ker naj bi pridelovalcem nalagale sankcije v fazi upravnega nadzora, čeprav so predpisi, ki so veljali v času dejanskega stanja, take sankcije določali zgolj za nepravilnosti, ugotovljene v okviru nadzora na kraju samem.
On the other hand, they infringed the principle of nondiscrimination in that they penalised only a Member State which had put in place a specific and effective system based on aerial photographic images, which went beyond the obligations incumbent on it at the administrative checking stage.
Po drugi strani naj bi kr�ile načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, ker naj bi kaznovale zgolj državo članico, ki je na podlagi letalskih posnetkov uvedla natančen in učinkovit sistem, ki je presegal obveznosti v fazi upravnega nadzora.
The Commission notes first of all that administrative checks should cover all aid applications.
Komisija najprej opozarja, da se mora upravni nadzor nana�ati na vse zahtevke za pomoč.
In order to make those administrative checks effective the Kingdom of Belgium, when faced with discrepancies between the area declared and the GIS area, should therefore have taken action in response.
Glede na razkorak med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS bi Kraljevina Belgija zato, da bi omogočila učinkovit upravni nadzor, torej morala ukrepati.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right in holding that the inactivity of the Belgian authorities amounted to a failure to adopt the checking measures implicitly needed in order to comply with one of the express rules in force at the relevant time.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je tako pravilno razsodilo, da je neukrepanje belgijskih organov enako nesprejetju ukrepov za nadzor, ki so posredno potrebni, da bi bilo mogoče spo�tovati eno od izrecnih pravil, veljavnih v času dejanskega stanja.
This was not the creation of implicit obligations but a statement of the obligations inherent in compliance with existing express rules.
Šlo naj ne bi za ustvarjanje posrednih obveznosti, temveč za določitev obveznosti, ki so potrebne za to, da bi bila spo�tovana obstoječa izrecna pravila.
As regards the implicit obligation to reduce the area to be taken into account in the calculation of aid where the area declared is greater than the GIS area, the Commission contends that the caselaw of the Court of Justice lays down that obligation in respect of any type of check and that in any event the Belgian authorities could have carried out an on-the-spot check for the purposes of such reduction.
Komisija glede posredne obveznosti zmanj�anja povr�ine, ki jo je treba upo�tevati pri izračunu pomoči, ko je prijavljena povr�ina večja od povr�ine RGIS, trdi, da sodna praksa Sodi�ča tako obveznost določa za vse vrste nadzora in da bi belgijski organi za namene tega zmanj�anja v vsakem primeru lahko opravili nadzor na kraju samem.
According to the Commission, the assertion concerning legal certainty is lacking in substance since, as the Court of First Instance noted in paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, it was open to the Belgian authorities to carry out an on-the-spot check.
Komisija meni, da trditev v zvezi s pravno varnostjo ni utemeljena, ker bi belgijski organi lahko, kot je opozorilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 56 izpodbijane sodbe, opravili nadzor na kraju samem.
Moreover, the principle of nondiscrimination relied on by the Kingdom of Belgium does not apply in situations where Member States, under Community legislation, have a choice between several technical options.
Načela prepovedi diskriminacije, na katero se sklicuje Kraljevina Belgija, naj poleg tega ne bi bilo mogoče uporabljati v primerih, ko lahko države članice na podlagi zakonodaje Skupnosti izbirajo med več tehničnimi možnostmi.
Since it had opted for a particular method of identification, albeit one that was more precise than those adopted by other Member States, the Kingdom of Belgium was required to use the data produced by that method when carrying out checks under Article 6(1) of Regulation No 3887/92.
Ker je Kraljevina Belgija izbrala metodo identifikacije, čeprav je bila ta natančnej�a kot metoda, ki so jo izbrale druge države članice, bi morala pri opravljanju nadzorov v skladu s členom 6(1) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 uporabiti podatke, ki izhajajo iz te metode.
First of all, as the Court of First Instance noted in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, even if the Community rules on the granting of aid and premiums do not expressly require Member States to introduce supervisory measures and inspection procedures, such as those mentioned by the Commission during the clearance of the EAGGF accounts, nevertheless that obligation may follow, in some cases implicitly, from the fact that under the rules in question it is for the Member States to organise an effective system of inspection and supervision (see to that effect Case C-8/88 Germany v Commission, paragraph 16, and Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 35).
Kot je opozorilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 52 izpodbijane sodbe je najprej treba ugotoviti, da čeprav skupnostna ureditev v zvezi z odobritvijo pomoči državam članicam izrecno ne nalaga, naj sprejmejo ukrepe za spremljanje in podrobna pravila za nadzor, kot so ukrepi in pravila, na katere se je sklicevala Komisija pri potrditvi obračuna EKUJS, ta obveznost lahko tudi posredno izhaja vsaj iz dejstva, da morajo na podlagi obravnavane ureditve države članice organizirati učinkovit sistem nadzora in spremljanja (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 12. junija 1990 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, točka 16, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji, točka 35).
The question therefore arises whether the obligations to which the Court of First Instance referred in the judgment under appeal follow implicitly from the obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of checks and supervision and, as the case may be, whether such obligations disregard certain provisions of Community law.
Zato se zastavlja vpra�anje, ali obveznosti, na katere se je sklicevalo Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi, posredno izhajajo iz obveznosti držav članic, da organizirajo učinkovit sistem nadzora in spremljanja, in ali so s takimi obveznostmi v določenih primerih kr�ene nekatere določbe prava Skupnosti.
(i) The scope and existence of the implicit obligations in dispute
i) Vsebina in obstoj izpodbijanih posrednih obveznosti
It must be stated in that connection, on the one hand, that administrative checks and on-the-spot checks were designed by the Community legislature as two means of verification which, although separate, complement each other (see Case C-41/94 Germany v Commission, paragraph 43, and Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 39).
V zvezi s tem je po eni strani treba poudariti, da je zakonodajalec Skupnosti upravni nadzor in nadzor na kraju samem zasnoval kot dve sredstvi za pregledovanje, ki se dopolnjujeta, čeprav sta različni (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, točka 43, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji, točka 39).
On the other hand, such administrative checks preceding on-the-spot checks must be carried out in such a way as to enable the national authorities to draw all the possible conclusions, be they matters of certainty or of doubt, regarding
Ta upravni nadzor, ki se opravi pred nadzorom na kraju samem, mora biti po drugi strani opravljen tako, da nacionalnim organom omogoči
2008 — CASE C-418/06 P compliance with the conditions for granting aid and premiums (see Case C-41/94 Germany v Commission, paragraph 17 and Case C-468/02 Spain v Commission, paragraph 40).
2008 – ZADEVA C-418/06 P vse mogoče ugotovitve, najsi gre za gotova ali negotova dejstva, zato da se upo�tevajo pogoji za odobritev pomoči (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 3. oktobra 1996 v zadevi Nemčija proti Komisiji, točka 17, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo Španija proti Komisiji, točka 40).
As was stated in paragraph 52 of this judgment, neither the areas declared nor those extracted from the GIS could be confirmed as accurate without on-the-spot checks or any other additional checks.
Kot pa je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 52 te sodbe, ker nadzor na kraju samem ali kakr�na koli druga dodatna preverjanja niso bila opravljena, niti prijavljenih povr�in niti povr�in, ki izhajajo iz RGIS, ni mogoče �teti za natančne.
Therefore, the contradiction between those two sources of information was likely to constitute an anomaly indicating a risk of loss for the EAGGF.
Neskladnost med tema viroma informacij bi torej lahko pomenila nepravilnost, ki kaže na nevarnost izgub za EKUJS.
In the presence of such anomalies, the national authorities had therefore to draw all the possible conclusions, be they matters of certainty or of doubt, regarding compliance with the conditions for granting aid.
Glede na obstoj takih nepravilnosti bi torej nacionalni organi morali v zvezi z upo�tevanjem pogojev za odobritev pomoči priti do vseh mogočih ugotovitev, najsi gre za gotova ali negotova dejstva.
It follows that such anomalies required the Member State concerned to adopt checking measures, whether on-the-spot checks or any other additional checks, and that in that regard merely taking those anomalies into account in the risk analysis was insufficient to dispel doubts concerning the accuracy of the areas declared.
Iz tega sledi, da bi zaradi takih nepravilnosti zadevna država članica morala sprejeti ukrepe za nadzor, bodisi nadzor na kraju samem ali drugo dodatno preverjanje, in da bi se v zvezi s tem zgolj upo�tevanje navedenih nepravilnosti v analizi tveganj izkazalo za nezadostno za odpravo dvomov o nepravilnosti prijavljenih povr�in.
Consequently, the Kingdom of Belgium’s arguments challenging the existence in this case of implicit obligations to carry out on-the-spot checks or other administrative checks should be rejected as unfounded.
Trditev Kraljevine Belgije, s katero želi v obravnavanem primeru izpodbiti obstoj posrednih obveznosti izvedbe nadzora na kraju samem ali upravnih nadzorov je zato treba zavrniti kot neutemeljeno.
Likewise, in paragraph 71 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance was right to find that the anomalies detected by the GIS had not sufficiently been taken into account, although those anomalies had been taken into account in the risk analysis.
Prav tako je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 71 izpodbijane sodbe pravilno ugotovilo, da nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS, niso bile zadostno upo�tevane, ne glede na to, da so bile upo�tevane v analizi tveganj.
As regards the obligation referred to in paragraph 51 of the judgment under appeal to make a reduction, although the Court of First Instance certainly considered, in the following paragraph of that judgment, that that obligation followed, in some cases implicitly, from the obligation on Member States to organise an effective system of checks and supervision, it nevertheless did not set out expressly the scope of the obligation.
Čeprav je res, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje glede obveznosti zmanj�anja iz točke 51 izpodbijane sodbe v naslednji točki izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da ta obveznost izhaja – lahko tudi posredno – iz obveznosti držav članic, da morajo poskrbeti za učinkovit sistem nadzora in spremljanja, ni izrecno navedlo vsebine te obveznosti.
Therefore, the deficiencies in the ancillary checks due to the absence of on-the-spot checks and/or reductions in the areas declared, which were the subject of debate before the Court of First Instance, can only be understood in the light of the summary report in which those complaints were originally formulated and developed.
Zato je pomanjkljivosti sekundarnih nadzorov, ki se nana�ajo na to, da nadzori na kraju samem niso bili opravljeni in/ali da ni bilo zmanj�anja prijavljenih povr�in, kar je bilo predmet razprav pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, mogoče razumeti zgolj ob upo�tevanju zbirnega poročila, v katerem so bili ti očitki najprej navedeni in predstavljeni.
As was stated in paragraphs 19 and 20 of this judgment, the Commission essentially alleged in point B.7.1.1 of that report that the Member State concerned had not investigated the anomalies detected as a result of the administrative checks with the necessary rigour and, in point B.7.1.3, that it had not reduced the areas declared and/or carried out on-the-spot checks where the administrative checks revealed anomalies.
Kot je bilo navedeno v točkah 19 in 20 te sodbe, je Komisija tej državi članici v točki B.7.1.1 navedenega poročila v bistvu očitala, da ni zagotovila ustrezne preiskave glede nepravilnosti, ki so bile ugotovljene med upravnim nadzorom, v točki B.7.1.3 pa je očitala, da ni zmanj�ala prijavljenih povr�in in/ali izvedla nadzora na kraju samem, ko so se pri upravnem nadzore pokazale nepravilnosti.
The Commission did suggest that discrepancies between the areas declared and the GIS areas established at the administrative checking stage could legally justify a reduction in the amount of aid, but it did not set out the specific procedures which could enable such a reduction to be made.
Komisija je res trdila, da bi razlike med prijavljenimi povr�inami in povr�inami RGIS, ki so bile ugotovljene v fazi upravnega nadzora, lahko pravno upravičile znižanje zneska pomoči, vendar se ni izrekla o konkretnih podrobnih pravilih, ki bi omogočala tako znižanje.
The Commission did not therefore require the Kingdom of Belgium to reduce the areas for which aid was to be granted solely on the basis of the GIS data as that Member State alleges.
Iz tega izhaja, da Komisija od Kraljevine Belgije ni zahtevala, naj zmanj�a subvencionirane povr�ine zgolj na podlagi podatkov iz RGIS, kot zatrjuje ta država članica.
Moreover, that Member State cannot complain that, in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance required it to reduce the areas declared solely on the basis of GIS areas data.
Ta država članica poleg tega Sodi�ču prve stopnje ne more očitati, da je v točkah 51 in 52 izpodbijane sodbe zahtevalo, naj zmanj�a prijavljene povr�ine zgolj na podlagi podatkov o povr�inah RGIS.
No such requirement appears anywhere in the judgment under appeal.
Podobne zahteve v izpodbijani sodbi namreč sploh ni.
Therefore, the complaints concerning a supposed obligation to reduce the areas declared on the basis of the GIS areas must be rejected as unfounded.
Očitke glede domnevne obveznosti zmanj�anja prijavljenih povr�in na podlagi povr�in RGIS je zato treba zavrniti kot neutemeljene.
(ii) The incompatibility of the implicit obligations with some requirements under Community law
ii) Nezdružljivost posrednih obveznosti z določenimi zahtevami prava Skupnosti
First of all, even assuming that, under Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, which applies ratione temporis, any reduction in aid could be made only on the basis of lawfully determined areas, in the present case, following an on-the-spot check, it was clearly open to the appellant Member State to carry out such a check in order to reduce the area for which aid was to be granted.
Najprej, pod predpostavko, da v skladu s členom 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, ki je veljal v času dejanskega stanja, do vsakega znižanja pomoči lahko pride zgolj na podlagi zakonito ugotovljenih povr�in, v obravnavanem primeru med nadzorom na kraju samem, je treba ugotoviti, da bi država članica – tožeča stranka – v vsakem primeru lahko opravila tak nadzor, da bi zmanj�ala subvencionirano povr�ino.
It cannot therefore be alleged that the Court of First Instance disregarded Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 and the judgment in Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch when it took the view that the Belgian authorities were required to take appropriate action in response to the anomalies detected by their GIS at the administrative checking stage.
Sodi�ču prve stopnje zato ni mogoče očitati, da je kr�ilo člen 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 in sodno prakso, ki izhaja iz zgoraj navedene sodbe Agrargenossenschaft Pretschz, ko je menilo, da bi belgijski organi morali ustrezno ukrepati zoper nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS v fazi upravnega nadzora.
In any event, it must be pointed out that the aims of Regulation No 3887/92 are, as set out in the seventh and ninth recitals in its preamble, to monitor effectively compliance with the provisions on Community aid and to adopt provisions which prevent and penalise irregularities and fraud effectively (see, to that effect, Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, paragraph 33).
V vsakem primeru je treba poudariti, da so v skladu s sedmo in deveto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t.
Thus, where there are anomalies regarding the accuracy of the areas declared, an obligation to carry out on-the-spot checks and/or reductions in the areas declared
3887/92 cilji te uredbe učinkovit nadzor nad spo�tovanjem določb glede pomoči Skupnosti in vzpostavitve določb za učinkovito preprečevanje in kaznovanje nepravilnosti in goljufij (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, točka 33).
BELGIUM v COMMISSION following determination of the areas in question, far from being contrary to the relevant legislation, is likely in reality to serve the objectives of the rules referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Glede na obstoj nepravilnosti v zvezi s pravilnostjo prijavljenih povr�in je dejansko namen obveznosti opravljanja nadzorov in/ali zmanj�anja prijavljenih povr�in po ugotovitvi zadevnih povr�in, ne da bi bila v nasprotju z veljavno ureditvijo, slediti ciljem te ureditve, na katere je bilo opozorjeno v predhodni točki te sodbe.
Clearly also the implicit obligations mentioned by the Court of First Instance by no means disregard Article 6(3) of Regulation No 3887/92, under which an on-the-spot check had to be carried out only on a significant percentage, representing at least 5% of aid applications.
Nato je treba ugotoviti, da posredne obveznosti, ki jih je priznalo Sodi�če prve stopnje, nikakor ne kr�ijo določb člena 6(3) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, na podlagi katerih je nadzor na kraju samem treba opraviti na podlagi znatnega vzorca, ki zajema najmanj 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč.
Firstly, that provision provides for checking by the Member State of a minimum of 5% of aid applications, which does not exclude checks being carried out on a larger percentage, and secondly, as the Court of First Instance found in paragraph 56 of the judgment under appeal, the files in which anomalies appeared represented only 2.1% to 4% of the aid application files.
Po eni strani ta določba namreč določa nadzor nad najmanj 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč s strani države članice, kar ne izključuje tega, da se nadzori lahko nana�ajo na večji odstotek, po drugi strani pa, kot je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 56 izpodbijane sodbe, primeri, v katerih so se pojavile nepravilnosti, predstavljajo zgolj od 2,1 % do 4 % primerov zahtevkov za pomoč.