natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents referred to in paragraph 2, the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1, that the Directive on the protection of animals during transport, was not complied with.’
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL živali, glede katerih pristojni organ – na podlagi dokumentov iz odstavka 2, poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o upo�tevanju določb člena 1 – meni, da ni bila upo�tevana direktiva o za�čiti živali med prevozom“.
Under Article 2 of Regulation No 615/98, a check on the animals must be carried out when they leave the territory of the Community.
Na podlagi člena 2 Uredbe �t. 615/98 se opravi pregled živali takrat, ko zapustijo ozemlje Skupnosti.
Article 2(3) provides that an official veterinarian, appointed by the competent authority of the State whose territory the animals are leaving, is to check and certify (a) that the animals are fit for the intended journey in compliance with Directive 91/628, (b) that the means of transport by which the live animals are to leave Community territory complies with that directive and (c) that appropriate provision has been made for the care of the animals during the journey in accordance with that directive.
V skladu s členom 2(3) uradni veterinar, ki ga je pooblastil pristojni organ v državi, iz katere prihajajo živali, preveri in potrdi, a) ali so živali v skladu z določbami Direktive 91/628 sposobne za predvideni prevoz, b) ali je prevozno sredstvo, v katerem bodo žive živali prepeljane z ozemlja Skupnosti, v skladu z določbami navedene direktive in c) da so bili sprejeti ustrezni ukrepi za zagotovitev oskrbe živali med prevozom, kot jih določa navedena direktiva.
Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 provides that applications for the payment of export refunds are to be accompanied by proof of compliance with Article 1 of that regulation; it states that such proof is to be furnished by the document referred to in Article 2(3), namely the certificate drawn up by the veterinarian at the exit point and, where there has been a change of means of transport, the report referred to in Article 3(2).
V členu 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 je določeno, da je treba zahtevam za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil priložiti dokaz o upo�tevanju člena 1 te uredbe, ki določa, da ta dokaz sestavlja dokument iz člena 2(3), oziroma potrdilo, ki ga je izdal veterinar v kraju, iz katerega prihajajo živali, in po potrebi poročilo iz člena 3(2), če je pri�lo do zamenjave prevoznega sredstva.
Directive 91/628 lays down the criteria that the Member States must observe for the protection of animals during transport.
V Direktivi 91/628 so določena merila, ki jih morajo države članice upo�tevati pri za�čiti živali med prevozom.
In particular, Article 5(1)(b) and (c) require the Member States to ensure that all carriers use means of transport meeting the Community requirements regarding animal welfare protection, in particular the requirements in the annex to the directive, and do not transport any animal, or cause any animal to be transported, in a way which may cause injury or unnecessary suffering to that animal.
V členu 5(1)(b) in (c) je zlasti določeno, da države članice zagotovijo, da vsak prevoznik uporablja tak�na prevozna sredstva, ki zagotavljajo upo�tevanje določb Skupnosti s področja varstva dobrega počutja živali, zlasti določb iz priloge k Direktivi, in da ne prevaža živali ali ne povzroča, da bi se živali prevažalo na način, ki lahko privede do po�kodb ali nepotrebnega trpljenja živali.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 provides as follows:
V členu 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 je določeno:
‘The export refund shall not be paid for animals which died during transport or for
„Izvozno nadomestilo se ne izplača za živali, ki so med prevozom poginile, ali za
Finally, the annex to that directive indicates the various requirements which the means of transport must satisfy to ensure that the animals are not exposed to unnecessary injury or suffering, such as rules concerning the space available to animals during transport and sanitary conditions.
Nazadnje so v tej prilogi k Direktivi navedene različne zahteve, ki jih morajo izpolnjevati transportna sredstva, da se živali ne po�kodujejo ali po nepotrebnem trpijo, kot so zahteve glede prostora, ki ga imajo živali na razpolago, oziroma glede higienskih pogojev.
II — The facts, the request for a ruling and procedure before the Court of Justice
II – Dejansko stanje, predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe in postopek pred Sodiščem
In March 1999, the company Viamex Agrar Handels (‘Viamex’) declared to the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Emdem the export to Lebanon of 35 bovine animals aboard the vessel Al Hajj Moustafa II.
Družba Viamex Agrar Handels (v nada -ljevanju: Viamex) je marca 1999 pri Hauptzoll - amt Emdem prijavila izvoz 35 glav goveda v Libanon z ladjo „Al Hajj Moustafa II“.
Viamex appealed against that decision to the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg, contending that in this case there had been no infringement of the Community legislation on refunds, in particular Directive 91/628, since there was no provision in the Community legislation to the effect that a vessel must be authorised for the carriage of live animals; accordingly, the refund could not be refused on the sole ground that the vessel used for the export operation appeared on a Commission negative list and, a fortiori, refusal was inappropriate since the vessel had been included on that list on the basis of an inspection carried out by a Commission expert on 18 and 19 February 1997, a good two years before the transport operation in question, and the application for an export refund was accompanied by the following documents evidencing the work carried out on the vessel:
Družba Viamex je zoper to zavrnilno odločbo vložila pritožbo pri Finanzgericht Hamburg z navedbo, da v tem primeru ni �lo za kr�itev predpisov Skupnosti s področja nadomestil in zlasti ne Direktive, ker v ureditvi Skupnosti ni mogoče najti nobene določbe, v skladu s katero bi morala imeti ladja dovoljenje za prevoz živih živali, tako da nadomestila ni bilo mogoče zavrniti ob upo�tevanju okoli�čine, da je bila uporabljena ladja vpisana na negativni seznam Komisije in, a fortiori, ga ni bilo mogoče zavrniti, ker je uvrstitev na ta seznam temeljila na pregledu izvedenca Komisije z dne 18. in 19. februarja 1997, to je kar dve leti pred zadevnim prevozom, in ker so bili zahtevi za izvozno nadomestilo priloženi naslednji dokumenti, ki so potrjevali dela, izvedena na ladji: a) pisna izjava kapitana ladje z dne 16. ok -tobra 1997, ki jo je sopodpisal vodja obmejne veterinarske službe Koper (Slovenija) in
By notice of 1 February 2001, the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (‘the Hauptzollamt’) rejected Viamex’s application for export refunds under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 because, in its view, Viamex had transported the animals in breach of the Community animal welfare legislation.
Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) je z odločbo z dne 1. februarja 2001 na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 zavrnil zahtevo za izvozno nadomestilo, ki jo je vložila družba Viamex, ker je menil, da je ta družba z zadevnim prevozom kr�ila zakonodajo Skupnosti na področju za�čite živali.
In particular, the Hauptzollamt observed that the animals in question had been shipped to Lebanon on a vessel which, having been included on 28 February 1997 in a Commission ‘negative list’, was in its opinion to be regarded as not meeting the requirements of Directive 91/628 at the time of export and was not therefore suitable for the carriage of live animals.
Hauptzollamt je zlasti navedel, da so bile zadevne živali prepeljane v Libanon na krovu ladje, za katero bi se, ker je bila 28. februarja 1997 vpisana na negativni seznam Komisije, po njegovem mnenju moralo �teti, da v času izvoza ni izpolnjevala zahtev iz Direktive 91/628 in je zato ni bilo mogoče �teti kot primerno za prevoz živih živali.
(b) a report from the average adjusters Kälher & Prinz. 14.
b) izvedensko mnenje komisarja havarije Kälher & Prinz. 14.
The Hauptzollamt, for its part, observed that in the present case the inclusion of the
Hauptzollamt po drugi strani navaja, da je bila v tem primeru uvrstitev uporabljenega
Viamex sought reversal of that refusal.
Družba Viamex je zoper zavrnilno odločbo vložila ugovor. Hauptzollamt ga je zavrnil z odločbo z dne 18. maja 2001.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL means of transport used on a Commission negative list was a sufficient basis for concluding that Directive 91/628 had not been complied with and therefore for withholding payment of the export refund under Regulation No 615/98.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL prevoznega sredstva na negativni seznam Komisije zadosten pokazatelj za to, da se ni upo�tevalo Direktive 91/628, in da se zato zavrne plačilo izvoznega nadomestila v smislu Uredbe �t. 615/98.
that the directive has not been complied with, is it necessary to have proof that there has been an infringement of Direct- ive 91/628 in the particular case, or does the competent authority discharge its burden of proof if it relies on and provides evidence of circumstances which in an overall view indicate a mater- ial probability that the directive on the protection of animals during transport has not been complied with (also) in relation to the export consignment in question?
primeru, ali pa za pojasnitev razlogov in dokaz zadostuje, da organ navede in dokaže okoli�čine, ki gledane kot celota s precej�njo verjetnostjo kažejo na to, da (tudi) pri obravnavani izvozni po�iljki ni bila upo�tevana Direktiva o varstvu živali med prevozom?
The national court, entertaining doubts as to the interpretation of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, stayed its proceedings and referred the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
Ker je predložitveno sodi�če dvomilo glede razlage člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, je prekinilo postopek in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vpra�anja:
(3) Irrespective of the answers to questions 1 and 2: May the competent authority refuse to pay (all of) the export refund to the exporter under Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 where there are no indications that the (potential) infringement of Directive 91/628 has in fact been deleterious to the wellbeing of the animals during transport in relation to the export consignment in question?’
Ne glede na odgovora na vpra�anji 1 in 2, ali lahko organ izvozniku (v celoti) odreče izvozno nadomestilo na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, če v zvezi z zadevno izvozno po�iljko ni pokazateljev o tem, da je bilo z (morebitno) kr�itvijo Direktive 91/628/EGS ogroženo dobro počutje živali?“
Under Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, written observations were submitted by the Hauptzollamt and the Commission.
Na podlagi člena 23 Statuta Sodi�ča sta Hauptzollamt in Komisija predložila pisne izjave.
At the hearing, which was held at the same time as that in Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06, oral argument concerning the present case was presented by Viamex, the German Government and the Commission.
Na obravnavi, ki je bila izvedena istočasno za zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06, so izjave v zvezi s to zadevo predložili družba Viamex, nem�ka vlada in Komisija.
III — Legal analysis to transport the animals to a non-member country was, when the certificate was issued, compliant with the requirements of Directive No 91/628, may withhold payment of an export refund on the basis of elements which, although not directly relating to the transport operation in question, raise a strong presumption that the said directive has not been complied with, or whether, on the other hand, that authority is required to state its reasons and provide evidence of failure to comply with the directive specifically in relation to the operation in question.
III – Pravna analiza veterinarja države članice, od koder govedo zapusti ozemlje Skupnosti, ki potrjuje, da je prevozno sredstvo, s katerim se v času izdaje potrdila izvede prevoz v tretjo državo, izpolnjevalo zahteve iz Direktive 91/628, zavrne plačilo izvoznega nadomestila na osnovi pokazateljev, ki kažejo na to, da – kljub temu, da se sicer ne nana�ajo neposredno na zadevni prevoz – z veliko verjetnostjo dopu�čajo domnevo, da zadevna direktiva ni bila upo�tevana, oziroma ali mora ta organ navesti razloge in predložiti dokaz za neupo�tevanje direktive z bolj natančnim sklicevanjem na konkretni primer.
I would observe, first of all, that, if the Court accepts the solution proposed by me in Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 (to the effect that the reference which, for the purpose of the grant of export refunds, Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 makes to Directive 91/628 cannot be regarded as valid, since it is contrary to the principle of proportionality), that regulation will be inapplicable to the present case and no answer concerning the interpretation of any of its provisions should therefore be given to the questions submitted to the Court in these proceedings.
Prvič, ugotavljam, da v primeru, če bo Sodi�če sprejelo moj predlog, podan v okviru zadev C-37/06 in C-58/06 (v skladu s katerim je sklicevanje v členu 1 te uredbe na Direktivo 91/628 v zvezi z dodelitvijo izvoznih nadomestil neveljavno zaradi kr�itve načela sorazmernosti,), se bo ta uredba pokazala kot neuporabna za to dejansko stanje in zato ne bo treba odgovoriti na vpra�anja, predložena Sodi�ču v tem postopku glede razlage njene določbe.
However, I shall analyse the questions set out above in case the Court, in Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06, rules that Regulation No 615/98 is valid and conforms to the principle of proportionality.
Vendar bom nadaljeval z analizo zgornjih vpra�anj za primer, da Sodi�če v okviru zadev C-37/06 in C-58/06 zavzame pozitivno stali�če glede veljavnosti Uredbe �t. 615/98 in njene skladnosti z načelom sorazmernosti.
The answer to the questions submitted, as indicated earlier, requires examination of the relationship allegedly existing between paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 5 of Commission Regulation No 615/98 for the purposes of the rules on refunds for the export of bovine animals.
Odgovor na vpra�anji, ki ju je treba preučiti, kot je bilo navedeno na začetku, zahteva ugotovitev razmerja med členom 5(2) in (3) Uredbe Komisije �t. 615/98 glede učinkov ureditve izvoznih nadomestil za govedo.
A — The first and second questions
A – Prvo in drugo vprašanje
By its first and second questions, which I shall consider together in so far as they are clearly connected, the national court essentially seeks clarification from the Court of Justice as to whether, on the basis of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the national administrative authority, although having in its possession a certificate issued by a veterinary official of a Member State at the point where the bovine animals left the Community to the effect that the means used
V zvezi s tem je treba ugotoviti, ali člen 5(3) (v skladu s katerim se „[i]zvozno nadomestilo […] ne izplača za živali, ki so
In that connection, it is necessary to establish whether Article 5(3) (according to which ‘[t]he export refund shall not be paid for animals which died during transport or for animals for which the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents
Predložitveno sodi�če s prvim in drugim vpra�anjem, ki ju bom zaradi njune očitne povezanosti v nadaljevanju preučil skupaj, poziva Sodi�če za pojasnilo, ali lahko nacionalni upravni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, kljub temu da mu je predloženo potrdilo poobla�čenega
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL on was well founded and establish that the documentation annexed to the application for a refund fell short of proving compliance with the directive.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL dokumenti, priloženi zahtevi za izvozno nadomestilo, niso primerni kot dokaz upo�tevanja te direktive.
In its order for reference, the national court clearly asks the Court of Justice to examine the acceptability of the arguments which, it expressly states, prompt it to prefer the second solution.
Predložitveno sodi�če v predložitvenem sklepu jasno poziva Sodi�če, naj preuči verodostojnost trditev, ki ga jasno in nedvoumno nagibajo k drugi re�itvi.
The arguments it puts forward in that regard are as follows:
V tem pogledu navaja naslednje trditve: a) v členu 5(2) Uredbe �t.
(a) Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98 specifically provides that the exporter is to provide proof of compliance with Article 1 of that regulation and therefore also with Directive 91/628 by means of the duly completed document referred to in Article 2(3) of that regulation; referred to in paragraph 2, the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1, that the directive on the protection of animals during transport, was not complied with’) constitutes, as indicated in the order from the Finanzgericht Hamburg, ‘an exclusion’.
615/98 je natančno določeno, da mora izvoznik predložiti dokaz, da je bil upo�tevan člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/628 in s tem tudi Direktiva 91/628 v obliki pravilno izpolnjenega dokumenta v skladu s členom 2(3) te uredbe; med prevozom poginile, ali za živali, glede katerih pristojni organ – na podlagi dokumentov iz odstavka 2, poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o upo�tevanju določb člena 1 – meni, da ni bila upo�tevana direktiva o za�čiti živali med prevozom“) vsebuje „izjemo“, kot je navedeno v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe Finanzgericht Hamburg.
To that end, it is necessary to clarify whether it is to be read in conjunction with Article 5(2) — according to which applications for the payment of export refunds, drawn up in accordance with Article 47 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87, must be accompanied, within the timelimits laid down in that article, by proof of compliance with Article 1, such proof comprising (i) the document referred to in Article 2(3), duly completed, and (ii), if appropriate, the report referred to in Article 3(2) — or whether, on the other hand, those provisions should be construed and applied independently from each other.
V ta namen je treba pojasniti, ali ga je treba brati v povezavi z določbo iz odstavka 2 – v skladu s katero je treba zahtevam za plačilo izvoznih nadomestil, vloženim v skladu s členom 47 Uredbe (EGS) �t. 3665/87, priložiti v roku, določenem v tem členu, dokaz skladnosti s členom 1, sestavljen iz: i) pravilno izpolnjenega dokumenta v skladu s členom 2(3) in, ii) če je potrebno, poročila na podlagi člena 3(2) – ali pa je treba ti določbi razumeti in uporabiti neodvisno eno od druge.
In the first hypothesis, considerably less value would attach to the evidence of compliance with Article 5(2) provided by the exporter in the form of a document, issued in accordance with Article 2(3), by the veterinary officer at the point where the animals left the Community, to the effect that he checked and ascertained, for the purposes relevant to this case, that ‘the means of transport by which the live animals are to leave the customs territory of the Community complies with Directive 91/628/EEC’ (Article 5 of that directive requires Member States to ensure, inter alia, that ‘any transporter … (c) uses, for the transport of animals referred to in this directive, means of transport that will ensure compliance with … the requirements laid down in the annex’); for the authority called on to pay the refund it would be sufficient to express, on the basis of any evidence available to it, substantial doubts as to compliance with the directive in order to negate the effect of the evidence produced by the exporter and compel him to demonstrate that such doubts were without foundation.
V prvem primeru bi bila bistveno relativizirana vrednost dokaza glede upo�tevanja pogojev iz člena 5(2), predloženega s strani izvoznika, v obliki dokumenta, ki ga je v skladu s členom 2(3) izdal uradni veterinar v državi, iz katere živali zapustijo ozemlje Skupnosti in potrjuje, da je ta veterinar, z vidika v konkretnem primeru bistvenih ciljev, preučil in ugotovil, da „prevozno sredstvo, s katerim bodo prepeljane žive živali s carinskega področja Skupnosti, ustreza zahtevam iz Direktive 91/628/EGS“ (člen 5 te direktive države članice zavezuje med drugim tudi k temu, da zagotovijo, da „vsak prevoznik […] c) prevaža živali, ki jih zajema ta direktiva, s prevoznimi sredstvi, ki zagotavljajo spo�tovanje […] predpisov, določenih v Prilogi“); organu, pristojnem za izplačilo, bi bil zadosten osnoven dvom glede upo�tevanja direktive, ki bi temeljil na katerikoli okoli�čini, ki mu je na razpolago, da bi razveljavil učinek dokaza, ki ga je predložil izvoznik in ga prisilil, da predloži dokaz za to, da postanejo ti dvomi brezpredmetni.
In the second hypothesis, on the other hand, it would be incumbent on that authority to prove that the evidence relied
V drugem primeru pa bi moral ta organ dokazati ustreznost okoli�čin, na katere se sklicuje, in ugotoviti, da b) Uredba Komisije (ES) �t.
(b) Commission Regulation (EC) No 639/2003 of 9 April 2003 laying down detailed rules pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 as regards requirements for the granting of export refunds related to the welfare of live bovine
639/2003 z dne 9. aprila 2003 o določitvi podrob- nih pravil v skladu z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1254/1999 glede zahtev za odobritev izvoznih nadomestil v zvezi z dobrim
(d) Only infringements established and then specifically proved could in themselves justify, inter alia from the standpoint of proportionality, total withholding of the export refund from an exporter, even if he had provided proof of compliance with Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 by producing the documents or reports indicated in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98;
615/98 „zaradi jasnosti“; s tem je odpravila vsako možnost, da se besedilo člena 5(2) in (3) te uredbe upo�teva kot dele enotnega postopka plačila, za izpolnitev katerega je potreben zahtevek, ki vsebuje tudi dokaz zadevne vrednosti, ki ga predloži izvoznik, in nato, če je to potrebno, drugi del, za katerega je značilna analiza okoli�čin, ki sprožajo utemeljene dvome, pri čemer naj bi bil izvoznik, ki je zahteval izplačilo, zavezan, da se zoperstavi, tako da predloži nadaljnje dokaze: navede - na uredba je okoli�čine, navedene v členu 5(2), to je izvoznikovo zahtevo za nadomestilo in dokaz v obliki dokumentov, določenih v istem odstavku tega člena, opredelila kot okoli�čine, ki same zase ustvarijo „postopek plačila izvoznih nadomestil“; d) le ugotovljene in s tem konkretno dokazane kr�itve bi lahko same po sebi, tudi z vidika sorazmernosti, upravičevale zavrnitev izvoznega nadomestila v celoti izvozniku, četudi je slednji predložil dokaz o skladnosti s členom 1 Uredbe �t.
(c) The Community legislature did not draft Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 in the subjunctive, envisaging the possibility that the authority, on the basis of any other information available to it regarding compliance with Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98, might consider that the requirements of Direct- ive 91/628 may not have been satisfied, the consequence being that a refusal to
615/98, v obliki dokumentov ali poročil, navedenih v členu 5(2), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 615/98; c) normodajalec Skupnosti predpisa čle -na 5(3) Uredbe �t.
(e) Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 sets out four alternative circumstances in which the export refund must be withheld; since it must be considered that those alternatives are not of equal importance but also apply separately and carry the same weight, the ‘other elements’ at the disposal of the authority mentioned as a fourth alternative must be of equal weight and quality to the preceding alternatives to justify complete loss of the right to a refund.
615/98 ni napisal v konjunktivu tako, da bi lahko organ na podlagi katerekoli druge informacije, ki jo ima v zvezi s tem, ob upo�tevanju čle -na 1 Uredbe �t.615/98 pri�el do zaključka, da bi lahko Direktiva 91/628 tudi ne bila upo�tevana – s posledico, da zavrnitev e) člen 5(3) Uredbe �t.