natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
At the same time, registration is, as the appellant notes, the basis for the proper provision of administrative assistance.
Registracija je, kot pripominja pritožnica, hkrati podlaga za pravilno izvajanje upravne pomoči.
In paragraphs 194 to 206 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance found that the cooperation given by the Turkish authorities was totally correct.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točkah od 194 do 206 izpodbijane sodbe ugotovilo, da so tur�ki organi v celoti korektno sodelovali.
In that regard, it pointed out, in particular, that the checking of the certificates in question was instigated by the Turkish authorities themselves and that those authorities checked several hundred certificates within a reasonable period, communicated the results of their investigations to the Community authorities and also facilitated several on-the-spot missions of the Commission in Turkey.
Pri tem je zlasti opozorilo na to, da so preizkus spornih potrdil sprožili ravno tur�ki organi in da so ti organi v primernem roku preverili več sto potrdil, sporočili rezultate preiskave organom Skupnosti in poleg tega omogočili več misij Komisije v Turčiji na kraju samem.
Those findings are unexceptionable in law.
Teh ugotovitev pravno ni mogoče grajati.
Nevertheless, that finding is incapable on its own of supporting the appellant’s argument that the certificates in question are authentic certificates.
Vendar pa ta ugotovitev sama po sebi ne more podpreti utemeljevanja pritožnice, da so sporna potrdila pristna.
That submission is rebutted by the clear findings of the Turkish authorities.
Tej trditvi nasprotujejo jasne ugotovitve tur�kih organov.
Instead, the reasoning of the Court of First Instance is to be preferred, namely that forgers would have every interest in using on forged certificates a registration number which corresponded with a lawful certificate.
Nasprotno, prednost je treba dati utemeljevanju Sodi�ča prve stopnje, da imajo ponarejevalci interes pri ponarejenih potrdilih uporabiti �tevilko registracije, ki se ujema z zakonitim potrdilom.
No error of law is apparent in that.
Glede tega ni mogoče ugotoviti napačne uporabe prava.
Nor do the attempts at concealment or obstruction in the course of the investigations, which are imputed by the appellant to the Turkish authorities, permit the inference that the Court of First Instance assessed the facts put before it in a legally erroneous manner, particularly since those submissions are neither adequately pleaded nor supported by any evidence.
Poskusi prikrivanja ali preprečevanja, ki jih pritožnica pripisuje tur�kim organom v okviru preiskav, niti ne dopu�čajo sklepa, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno uporabilo pravo pri presoji dejstev, ki so mu bila predložena, zlasti ker te trditve niso niti zadostno utemeljene niti podkrepljene s kakr�nimi koli dokazi.
(v) Deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities on account of involvement in the issuing of incorrect certificates
v) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov zaradi sodelovanja pri izdaji nepravilnih potrdil
In so far as the appellant refers to the proceedings before the Customs Police Service in Cologne or the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) cited by it, it should be noted that those are proceedings which obviously have nothing to do with the repayment procedure at issue here and were not notified to the Commission for the
Ker se pritožnica sklicuje na postopke pred Zollkriminalamt Köln (služba carinske policije v Kölnu) oziroma Finanzgericht Hamburg, ki jih sama navaja, je treba pripomniti, da gre pri tem za postopke, ki s spornim postopkom povračila v obravnavanem primeru očitno nimajo nobene zveze in ki jih pritožnica v postopku povračila niti ni naznanila Komisiji zaradi vključitve v spis.
As already observed, the Court of First Instance rightly concluded that the mere circumstance that the certificates at issue here were forged did not permit any inference as to the Turkish authorities’ involvement in those forgeries.
Kot je bilo že ugotovljeno, je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno zaključilo, da zgolj okoli�čina, da so bila v obravnavanem primeru sporna potrdila ponarejena, kot taka ne dovoljuje sklepanja, da so tur�ki organi sodelovali pri ponarejanju.
In that respect, this submission should be rejected as irrelevant discussions with the Turkish Prime Minister’s Office of Economic Affairs and to the termination of the investigation proceedings against its exporter, Mr Akman, to be just as irrelevant as its unsubstantiated allegations that the Turkish authorities had, despite several on-the-spot UCLAF missions, obstructed the Commission’s investigations in Turkey.
pritožnice na njene pogovore s pisarno za ekonomske zadeve v uradu tur�kega predsednika vlade in na ustavitev preiskovalnega postopka zoper njenega izvoznika Akmana kakor tudi njene brezpredmetne trditve, da so tur�ki organi kljub več misijam UCLAF na kraju samem preprečevali preiskave Komisije v Turčiji.
Contrary to the appellant’s view, they do not affect the assessment of the facts.
V nasprotju z mnenjem pritožnice ti ne vplivajo na presojo dejstev.
In any event, they do not allow the conclusion either that the certificates were merely incorrect or that there was a deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities.
Vsekakor ne dopu�čajo niti sklepa, da so potrdila zgolj nepravilna, niti sklepa, da tur�ki organi niso izpolnili obveznosti.
The appellant’s submissions regarding certificates D 141591 and D 412662 are equally irrelevant, since neither of them is the subject of the contested Commission decision.
Neutemeljene so tudi navedbe pritožnice glede potrdil D 141591 in D 412662, ker nobeno od njiju ni bilo predmet izpodbijane odločbe Komisije.
In paragraph 199 of the contested judgment, the Court points out that D 141591 is not one of the certificates at issue in the present case, because the appellant neither appealed against the duties that were levied following the finding of forgery nor applied for repayment of the duties paid, thus implicitly acknowledging that the certificate in question was not authentic.
Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 199 izpodbijane sodbe opozarja na to, da potrdila D 141591 ni med spornimi potrdili v obravnavani zadevi, ker pritožnica ni niti vložila tožbe zoper naložitev dajatev po ugotovljeni ponaredbi niti ni zahtevala povračila plačanih dajatev in je s tem implicitno priznala nepristnost zadevnega potrdila.
(vii) Deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities by reason of other factors and the obstruction of investigations in Mersin
b) Domnevne kr�itve obveznosti Komisije vii) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov zaradi drugih okoli�čin in zaradi preprečitve preiskav v Mersinu
The appellant has alleged a total of four deficiencies against the Commission, which in its view should constitute ‘special situations’ as referred to in Article 239 of the CCC.
Pritožnica je Komisiji očitala skupno �tiri kr�itve obveznosti, ki po njenem mnenju pomenijo „posebne okoli�čine“ v smislu člena 239 CZS.
However, in the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance concluded that the Commission did not fail to discharge any duties.
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je v izpodbijani sodbi sklenilo, da Komisija ni kr�ila nobenih obveznosti.
As will be demonstrated below, that view must be concurred with absolutely.
Tej presoji je treba, kot sledi v nadaljevanju, v celoti pritrditi.
Those submissions effectively call in question the Court’s findings of fact but without clearly showing in what respect an error of law is apparent.
Te navedbe namreč zgolj izpodbijajo ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje o dejstvih, ne da bi jasno kazale, kje naj bi bilo pravo napačno uporabljeno.
(i) Deficiency in monitoring the system of preferential treatment applicable to Turkey
i) Kr�itev obveznosti pri nadzoru preferencialnega obravnavanja v primeru Turčije
The Court of First Instance correctly declared the appellant’s reference to its
Sodi�če prve stopnje je kot neutemeljeno pravilno opredelilo sklicevanje
C.A.S. v COMMISSION monitoring of the implementation of the Association Agreement were to be examined in the light of the Commission’s duty pursuant to Article 211 EC and the principle of good administration to ensure the proper application of the Association Agreement.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI nadzoru in kontroli uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi preučiti na podlagi obveznosti Komisije, ki izhaja iz člena 211 ES in iz načela dobrega upravljanja, da bi se zagotovila pravilna uporaba sporazuma o pridružitvi.
54The Court referred to the fact that that duty also resulted from the Association Agreement and the various decisions adopted by the Association Council.
54Sodi�če prve stopnje je opozorilo na to, da ta obveznost izhaja tudi iz samega sporazuma o pridružitvi in iz različnih sklepov pridružitvenega sveta.
55 had held that the Turkish authorities were responsible for serious deficiencies, and in particular had failed to implement provisions of the Association Agreement which applied to all exports of television sets from Turkey.
55 drugi ugotovilo, da so tur�ki organi zagre�ili hude kr�itve obveznosti, zlasti niso prenesli določb sporazuma o pridružitvi, ki so se nana�ale na vse izvoze televizijskih sprejemnikov iz Turčije.
Those failings had contributed to the occurrence of irregularities in exports and had created for the exporters a special situation as referred to in Article 239 of the CCC.
Te kr�itve naj bi prispevale k pojavu nepravilnosti pri izvozih in naj bi za izvoznike pomenile poseben primer v smislu člena 239 CZS.
However, in the Court’s opinion, no such deficiencies had been established in relation to the certificates at issue in the present case.
Sodi�če prve stopnje meni, da nasprotno v obravnavanem primeru niso bile dokazane take kr�itve obveznosti v zvezi s spornimi potrdili.
After assessing all the facts and circumstances of the case, it concluded that the Commission did what was necessary to ensure the proper implementation of the Association Agreement.
Po presoji vseh okoli�čin dejanskega stanja je ugotovilo, da je Komisija storila vse potrebno za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi s Turčijo.
It rightly drew attention, in paragraph 238 of the contested judgment, to the fact that the Commission conducted investigations in Turkey as soon as there were initial indications that movement certificates had been forged.
V točki 238 izpodbijane sodbe je pravilno poudarilo dejstvo, da je Komisija od nastanka prvih indicev za to, da gre za ponaredbo potrdil o gibanju blaga, opravila preiskave na tur�kem državnem ozemlju.
In actual fact, at the time of the events which gave rise to this dispute, there were no indications of systematic breaches of the provisions of the Association Agreement which could have given the Commission grounds for increased vigilance in monitoring the system of preferential treatment applicable to Turkey.
Dejansko v času dogodkov, ki so bili povod za ta spor, niso obstajali nobeni indici za sistematične kr�itve določb sporazuma o pridružitvi, ki bi zahtevali, da je Komisija bolj pozorna pri nadzoru preferencialnega obravnavanja v primeru Turčije.
It could not, therefore, be accused of any deficiency.
Zato ji ni bilo mogoče očitati kr�itve obveznosti.
Consequently, the Court did not make any errors of law in the legal assessment of the facts.
Sodi�če prve stopnje tako ni napačno uporabilo prava pri pravni presoji dejanskega stanja.
(ii) Deficiency in failing to send impressions of stamps
ii) Kr�itev obveznosti zaradi neposredovanja odtisov žigov
In accordance with the generally accepted rules of procedural law, the Court imposed on the appellant the burden of explanation and proof in respect of any deficiency attributable to the Commission.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v skladu s splo�no priznanimi pravili procesnega prava pritožnici naložilo trditveno in dokazno breme glede dokaza morebitne kr�itve obveznosti Komisije.
In that connection, it rejected the appellant’s general allegations and suspicions as well as its attempt to draw an analogy with the facts in Kaufring and Others.
V tej zvezi je zavrnilo tako splo�ne trditve in sume pritožnice kot njen poskus vzpostavitve analogije z dejanskim stanjem iz sodbe Kaufring in drugi.
The Court was of the opinion that those facts were not comparable with those being examined in the present case, since in Kaufring and Others the Court
Sodi�če prve stopnje je namreč menilo, da to dejansko stanje ni primerljivo z dejanskim stanjem, preučenim v obravnavanem primeru, saj je Sodi�če prve stopnje v sodbi Kaufring in
54 — Kaufring and Others, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 257; Eyckeler & Malt v Commission, cited in footnote 24, paragraph 165; and Case 175/84 Krohn v Commission [1987] ECR 97, paragraph 17. 150.
54 – Sodbi Kaufring in drugi (navedena v opombi 9, točka 257) in Eyckeler & Malt proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 24, točka 165); sodba Sodi�ča z dne 15. januarja 1986 v zadevi Krohn proti Komisiji (175/84, Recueil, str. 753, točka 17). 150.
The Court of First Instance rightly concluded in the contested judgment that neither Turkey nor the Commission was required under the provisions applicable here to send specimens of stamps or
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v izpodbijani sodbi pravilno sklepalo, da niti Turčija niti Komisija v skladu s predpisi, ki se uporabljajo v obravnavani zadevi, nista bili zavezani posredovati vzorcev žigov oziroma podpisov.
55 — Kaufring and Others, cited in footnote 9, paragraph 258.
55 – Sodba Kaufring in drugi (navedena v opombi 9, točka 258).
The Commission’s failure to send impressions of stamps to the Italian customs authorities was therefore not capable of constituting a deficiency.
Dejstvo, da Komisija italijanskim carinskim organom ni posredovala odtisov žigov, zato ni moglo pomeniti kr�itve obveznosti.
applicable within the scope of the Association Agreement with Turkey only when and only in so far as that is expressly provided for in the Association Agreement or the decisions adopted pursuant to it.
sporazuma o pridružitvi s Turčijo uporabljajo le takrat in toliko, ko in kolikor je to izrecno predvideno v sporazumu o pridružitvi oziroma v pozneje sprejetih sklepih.
However, Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation has at no time been brought within the scope of the Association Agreement.
Člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS pa, nasprotno, nikoli ni bil vključen na področje uporabe sporazuma o pridružitvi.
Consequently, the appellant also is unable to cite a single provision pursuant to which Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation has been declared applicable mutatis mutandis in the present case.
V skladu s tem pritožnica ne more navesti niti ene določbe, na podlagi katere bi bilo mogoče utemeljiti, da se člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS v obravnavanem primeru ustrezno uporablja.
Nor, contrary to the appellant’s view, did any obligation to send impressions of stamps result, in particular, from Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation.
V nasprotju z mnenjem pritožnice obveznost posredovanja odtisov žigov ni izhajala niti iz člena 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS.
According to its clear wording, that provision relates, not to the A.TR.1 certificates at issue here, but only to the ‘GSP’ forms and certificates of origin ‘Form A’, which in turn relate only to imports of products originating in developing countries. 56
Ta jasna določba se ne nana�a na sporna potrdila A.TR.1 v obravnavanem primeru, ampak zgolj na obrazce „APR“ in na potrdila o poreklu blaga „obrazec A“, ki se spet nana�ajo le na uvoz blaga s poreklom iz držav v razvoju. 56
It is therefore clear that in this case Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation was neither applicable according to its wording nor even only declared applicable under the Association Agreement with Turkey.
Zato velja, da v obravnavanem primeru člena 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS ni bilo mogoče uporabiti niti glede na njegovo besedilo, niti ker bi bilo v okviru sporazuma o pridružitvi s Turčijo določeno, da ga je mogoče uporabiti.
(iii) Breach of a duty to warn importers in good time
iii) Kr�itev obveznosti pravočasnega opozorila uvoznikom
Moreover, contrary to the appellant’s view, Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation was not declared applicable mutatis mutandis by decisions adopted pursuant to the Association Agreement between the Community and Turkey.
V nasprotju z mnenjem pritožnice tudi v sklepih v skladu s sporazumom o pridružitvi med Skupnostjo in Turčijo ni bilo razgla�eno, da je člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS mogoče ustrezno uporabiti.
That is also true with regard to Article 4 of Decision No 1/96.
To velja tudi za člen 4 Sklepa �t. 1/96.
Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, that provision does not in any way declare Article 93 of the CCC implementing regulation applicable in the present case.
Drugače, kot meni pritožnica, v tem predpisu nikakor ni razgla�eno, da je člen 93 uredbe za izvajanje CZS mogoče uporabiti v obravnavanem primeru.
The appellant fails to appreciate that the provisions of Community customs legislation are
Pritožnica ne upo�teva dejstva, da se carinski predpisi Skupnosti na področju uporabe
The breach of a duty to warn importers in good time presupposes a corresponding duty of the Commission under Community law.
Pojem kr�itve obveznosti pravočasnega opozorila uvoznikom predpostavlja, da pravo Skupnosti določa ustrezno obveznost Komisije.
Nevertheless, in paragraph 270 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance, invoking the caselaw of the Community judicature, 57correctly stated that there is no provision in Community law which expressly obliges the Commission to warn importers of doubts as to the validity
Sodi�če prve stopnje pa je v točki 270 izpodbijane sodbe ob sklicevanju na sodno prakso sodi�č Skupnosti 57pravilno ugotovilo, da nobena določba prava Skupnosti izrecno ne zavezuje Komisije, naj uvoznike opozori, kadar dvomi o veljavnosti carinskih
56 — This follows from Article 67(1) in conjunction with Article 80(a) of the CCC implementing regulation, which relate to the preferential tariff arrangements for developing countries.
56 – To izhaja iz člena 67(1) v povezavi s členom 80(a) uredbe za izvajanje CZS, ki se sklicujeta na določbe o preferencialnem tarifnem obravnavanju za države v razvoju.
See also the survey of preferential origin and free circulation certificates in Lux, M., Das Zollrecht der EG, Cologne 2003, p. 136.
Glej dalje pregled dokazil o preferencialnem poreklu blaga in prostem pretoku avtorja Lux, M., Das Zollrecht der EG, Köln 2003, str. 136.
Preference certificates for goods from Turkey display the abbreviation ‘A.TR’, whereas ‘Form A’ is used for goods from developing countries, which benefit from the Generalised System of Preferences (GPS) as an independent trading instrument of the Community in its trade with third States.
Dokazila o preferencialnem dogovoru za blago iz Turčije imajo kratico „A.TR“, medtem ko se „Form A“ (obrazec A) uporablja za blago iz držav v razvoju, za katere se uporablja splo�na shema preferencialov kot avtonomni trgovski instrument Skupnosti s tretjimi državami.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION of customs transactions effected by those importers under a system of preferential treatment.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI transakcij, ki jih ti izvr�ijo v okviru preferencialnega dogovora.
arguments, since its submissions expressly seek a new finding of facts and not exclusively a legal review of the grounds of the Court’s judgment, which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice as the appellate court.
opira na nedopustne trditve, saj se njene navedbe izrecno nana�ajo na ponovno ugotovitev dejanskega stanja, in ne izključno na pravni preizkus utemeljitvenih preudarkov Sodi�ča prve stopnje, kar ne spada v pristojnost Sodi�ča kot pritožbenega sodi�ča.
Nevertheless, the possibility remains that the Commission may be obliged, under its general duty of diligence, to issue a general warning to Community importers.
To pa ne izključuje, da je lahko Komisija na podlagi svoje dolžnosti skrbnega ravnanja v določenih okoli�činah zavezana k temu, da na splo�no informira uvoznike Skupnosti.
However, such a duty to warn can arise only when the Commission has serious doubts as to the legality of a large number of exports effected under a system of preferential treatment. 58
Ustrezna obveznost opozorila pa lahko nastane le, če Komisija resno dvomi o pravilnosti veliko izvozov, opravljenih v okviru neke sheme preferencialov. 58
As the Court noted in paragraph 273, the appellant failed to demonstrate conclusively that the Turkish authorities made serious errors which affected all exports of fruit juice concentrates and contributed to the circulation of forged certificates.
Kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo v točki 273, pritožnici ni uspelo dokazati obstoja hudih kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov, ki bi vplivale na vse izvoze koncentratov sadnih sokov in ki bi povečale pretok ponarejenih potrdil.
No analogy could therefore be drawn with the facts which gave rise to the judgment in Kaufring and Others.
Zato dejanskega stanja v obravnavani zadevi ni bilo mogoče enačiti z dejanskim stanjem iz sodbe Kaufring in drugi.
It must nevertheless be pointed out that, in paragraph 274 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance took into account the fact that the appellant’s imports at issue here date from the period from April 1995 to November 1997, whereas doubts as to the authenticity and/or correctness of content of Turkish A.TR.1 certificates arose only subsequently, namely as of 1998.
Ne glede na to je treba spomniti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 274 izpodbijane sodbe upo�tevalo, da sporni uvozi pritožnice v obravnavanem primeru izhajajo iz obdobja od aprila 1995 do novembra 1997, medtem ko so se dvomi o pristnosti oziroma o vsebinski pravilnosti tur�kih potrdil A.TR.1 pojavili �ele pozneje, namreč leta 1998.
Consequently, the Commission was aware of the existence of the forged certificates only after the Italian authorities had discovered the first forged certificate and an investigation procedure had been initiated.
Zato je Komisija izvedela za obstoj ponarejenih potrdil �ele po tem, ko so italijanski organi odkrili prvo ponarejeno potrdilo in je bil uveden preiskovalni postopek.
It must be concluded from this that, even if the Commission had been obliged as of 1998 to warn the Community importers, that would have had no effect on the imports from 1995 to 1997 at issue here.
Iz tega izhaja, da četudi bi bila Komisija od leta 1998 naprej dolžna opozarjati uvoznike Skupnosti, to ne bi vplivalo na sporne uvoze v obravnavanem primeru v letih od 1995 do 1997.
The appellant’s submissions in these appeal proceedings allow no differing appraisal, since its allegation in points 225 and 226 of the appeal expressly relates to the issuing of ‘incorrect’, but not ‘forged’, movement certificates, so that it has still failed to produce evidence of the Turkish authorities’ involvement in the forgeries. Moreover, the appellant bases its claim on inadmissible
Navedbe pritožnice v tem pritožbenem postopku ne dopu�čajo drugačne presoje, kajti njen očitek v točkah 225 in 226 pritožbe se izrecno nana�a na izdajo „nepravilnih“, ne pa „ponarejenih“ potrdil o gibanju blaga, tako da �e naprej velja, da ni predložila nasprotnega dokaza o sodelovanju tur�kih organov pri ponaredbah. V preostalem se pritožnica
58 — See Hyper v paragraph 128.
58 – Glej sodbo Hyper proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 23, točka 128).
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance rightly found that there was no duty of the Commission to warn importers in good time.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo, da Komisija ni zavezana pravočasno opozarjati uvoznikov.
(iv) Deficiency in clarifying and assessing the facts during the investigations in Turkey
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P c) Vmesni sklep iv) Kr�itev obveznosti pri ugotavljanju in presoji dejanskega stanja v okviru preiskav v Turčiji