natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As regards the alleged infringement of the principle of legal certainty, it should be noted that, when an administrative check was carried out, if there was an anomaly indicating a potential over-estimate of the area declared, the amount of aid could be adjusted on the basis of the area actually determined during an on-the-spot check.
Glede domnevne kr�itve načela pravne varnosti je treba poudariti, da je med upravnim nadzorom ob nepravilnosti, ki kaže na morebitno precenitev prijavljene povr�ine, znesek pomoči mogoče popraviti na podlagi dejansko ugotovljene povr�ine med nadzorom na kraju samem.
The Kingdom of Belgium cannot therefore rely on the principle of legal certainty, for the benefit of farmers, as precluding reduction of the area for which aid would be granted at the administrative checking stage.
Kraljevina Belgija se zato v korist pridelovalcev ne more sklicevati na načelo pravne varnosti, če bi to nasprotovalo zmanj�anju subvencionirane povr�ine v fazi upravnega nadzora.
This does not mean that a Member State is not entitled to plead breach of the principle of equal treatment.
To ne pomeni, da se država članica ne more sklicevati na kr�itev načela enakega obravnavanja.
However, it may do so only if the cases it cites are at least comparable as regards all the elements which characterise them, including, in particular, the period during which the expenditure was incurred, the sectors concerned and the nature of the irregularities complained of (see Case C-242/97 Belgium v Commission, paragraph 130, and Case C-263/98 Belgium v Commission, paragraph 133).
Vendar to lahko stori zgolj, če so primeri, na katere se sklicuje, vsaj primerljivi glede na vse njihove značilnosti, med katerimi so zlasti obdobje, med katerim so bili odhodki izvedeni, zadevni sektorji in narava očitanih nepravilnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 18. maja 2000 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, točka 130, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, točka 133).
Since the Kingdom of Belgium had, as a result of a system set up voluntarily, relevant information which other Member States did not have because they were not using that system, which was not compulsory at the relevant time, the situations of the Kingdom of Belgium and the other Member States were not comparable (see, to that effect, Case C-263/98 Belgium v Commission, paragraphs 135 and 136, and Case C-375/99 Spain v Commission, paragraph 29).
Ker pa je Kraljevina Belgija, zahvaljujoč sistemu, ki ga je prostovoljno uvedla, razpola -gala s pomembnimi informacijami, s katerimi druge države članice niso razpolagale, ker niso uporabljale takega sistema, ki ni bil obvezen v času dejanskega stanja, položaj Kraljevine Belgije ni bil primerljiv s položajem drugih držav članic (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 20. septembra 2001 v zadevi Belgija proti Komisiji, točki 135 in 136, in zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 13. septembra 2001 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, točka 29).
It follows that, as the situations were not comparable, the principle of equal treatment was not infringed.
Iz tega torej sledi, da ker položaja nista bila primerljiva, ni bilo kr�itve načela enakega obravnavanja.
Therefore, the Court of First Instance did not commit an error of law in finding, in paragraph 49 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission could not disregard the anomalies in question merely on the ground that the system which had detected them was not compulsory or was not intended for that purpose.
Zato Sodi�če prve stopnje, s tem da je v točki 49 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da Komisija ni mogla zanemariti zadevnih nepravilnosti zgolj zato, ker sistem, ki jih je pokazal, ni bil obvezen ali ni bil temu namenjen, prava ni napačno uporabilo.
Consequently, the second part of the second ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
Glede na navedeno drugega dela drugega pritožbenega razloga ni mogoče sprejeti.
Third part, concerning the applicability of a margin of tolerance at the administrative checking stage
Tretji del: uporabljivost tolerančne meje v fazi upravnega nadzora a) Trditve strank
The Court of First Instance justified its rejection of the Belgian Government’s arguments on a single ground, which was incorrect in law, namely that no margin of tolerance could be applied at the administrative checking stage.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi utemeljilo zavrnitev trditve belgijske vlade zgolj na podlagi enega, pravno napačnega, razloga, in sicer da v fazi upravnega nadzora ni bilo mogoče uporabiti nobene tolerančne meje.
The Commission contends that the margin of tolerance relied on by the Belgian authorities relates only to physical checks and the uncertainty linked to that type of check.
Komisija trdi, da se tolerančna meja, na katero se sklicujejo belgijski organi, nana�a zgolj na fizične nadzore in negotovosti, povezane s to vrsto nadzora.
This does not justify a margin of tolerance in administrative checks, since the area of the reference parcels must be established prior to any application and to any form of checking, including administrative checks.
To naj ne bi upravičevalo tolerančne meje pri upravnih nadzorih, ker je treba povr�ino referenčnih enot rabe ali poljin predhodno določiti za vsak zahtevek in za vsako obliko nadzora, vključno z upravnimi nadzori.
The Commission acknowledges that a margin of tolerance is acceptable during the initial creation of reference parcels under Article 4 of Regulation No 3508/92, but such a margin cannot, once the system has been introduced, be used repeatedly and continually as is the practice of the Belgian authorities.
Komisija priznava, da je tolerančna meja sprejemljiva med začetnim oblikovanjem referenčnih enot rabe ali poljin, ki se izvede na podlagi člena 4 Uredbe �t. 3508/92, toda ko je sistem enkrat uveden, take meje ni mogoče uporabljati ponavljajoče in nepretrgano, kot je praksa belgijskih organov.
It should be noted that, although the Court of First Instance held in paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal that a margin of tolerance could not be allowed at the administrative checking stage, in paragraph 61 of the judgment under appeal it found that the checks carried out by the Belgian authorities could not preclude aid being paid without additional checks on some files where the anomaly was more than 5% and on all files where the anomaly was less than 5%.
Poudariti je treba, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 60 izpodbijane sodbe res menilo, da tolerančne meje ni mogoče sprejeti v fazi upravnega nadzora. V točki 61 izpodbijane sodbe je kljub temu ugotovilo, da nadzor belgijskih organov ni onemogočal, da bi bile brez dodatne preiskave izplačane pomoči za nekatere primere, ki pomenijo nepravilnost, večjo od 5 %, in za vse primere, ki pomenijo nepravilnost, manj�o od 5 %.
Therefore, irrespective of the question of the applicability of a 5% margin of tolerance at the administrative checking stage, the Court of First Instance did in any event find that there were deficiencies in the checks carried out on files where there was a difference of more than 5% between the area declared and the area provided by GIS.
Torej, ne glede na vpra�anje uporabljivosti tolerančne meje 5 % v fazi upravnega nadzora je Sodi�če prve stopnje kljub temu ugotovilo pomanjkljivosti izvedenih nadzorov za primere, ki pomenijo razkorak med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino, ki izhaja iz RGIS, ki je večji od 5 %.
Consequently, the third part of the second ground of appeal has no validity.
Tretji del drugega pritožbenega razloga zato ni upo�teven.
(a) Arguments of the parties
Četrti del: prepozni vnos podatkov v RGIS a) Trditve strank
That Member State also alleges that the Court of First Instance did not comply with the obligation to provide adequate reasons in the reasoning set out in paragraphs 65 to 70 of the judgment under appeal.
Ta država članica Sodi�ču prve stopnje prav tako očita, da ni izpolnilo obveznosti obrazložitve v točkah od 65 do 70 izpodbijane sodbe.
The Court failed in particular to justify how the input of graphic data and the conduct of a risk analysis after 31 August could be considered late, as there was no reference to such a date in the legislation.
Sodi�če prve stopnje naj zlasti ne bi utemeljilo, zakaj naj bi bila grafični vnos in analiza tveganj, ki sta bila izvedena po 31. avgustu, prepozna, glede na to, da v predpisih ta datum ni bil določen.
Also, it did not examine the Belgian Government’s argument that on-the-spot checks carried out after 31 August would have been just as effective as those carried out before that date, since in the case of some crops the harvested land has not yet been ploughed up in September and October, whilst in the case of some other types of crop harvesting does not take place until the end of October or even the beginning of November.
Prav tako naj ne bi sprejelo trditve belgijske vlade, da naj bi bili nadzori na kraju samem, ki so bili opravljeni po 31. avgustu, prav tako učinkoviti kot nadzori, opravljeni pred tem datumom, saj glede določenih kmetijskih rastlin pridelovalna zemlji�ča v septembru in oktobru �e niso obdelana, medtem ko za druge vrste kmetijskih rastlin žetev poteka na koncu oktobra ali v začetku novembra.
In the Commission’s view, the complaint at issue before the Court of First Instance related not to the delay in carrying out the on-the-spot checks, as the Kingdom of Belgium appears to understand it, but to the late input of the graphic data into the
Komisija meni, da se je očitek, o katerem se je razpravljalo pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, nana�al na prepozen vnos podatkov v RGIS, ne pa, kot to razume Kraljevina Belgija, na prepozno izvedene nadzore na kraju samem. Ta prepozen vnos podatkov
The Belgian authorities have moreover acknowledged that the late input of the graphic data into the GIS had an impact on the selection of aid applications in connection with the risk analysis.
Belgijski organi naj bi poleg tega priznali, da je prepozen vnos grafičnih podatkov v RGIS vplival na izbor zahtevkov za pomoč v okviru analize tveganj.
First of all it should be noted, as the Commission pointed out, that in paragraphs 65 to 70 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance did not consider the effectiveness of the on-the-spot checks carried out after 31 August but the late input of the area data into the GIS, which subsequently meant that the administrative checks could not be carried out on time, thus preventing on-the-spot checks from taking place.
Kot je opozorila Komisija, je najprej treba poudariti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točkah od 65 do 70 izpodbijane sodbe presojalo prepozen vnos podatkov o povr�ini v RGIS, ne pa učinkovitost nadzorov na kraju samem, ki so bili opravljeni po 31. avgustu, kar naj bi pomenilo, da ni bilo mogoče pravočasno opraviti upravnih nadzorov, kar je oviralo nadzore na kraju samem.
So far as the lack of adequate reasons is concerned, the arguments submitted by the Belgian Government in that regard are unfounded.
Trditve belgijske vlade glede neizpolnitve obveznosti obrazložitve niso utemeljene.
In paragraph 70 of the judgment under appeal the Court of First Instance set out the reasons why it considered that late input of data was likely to cast doubt on the reliability of subsequent checks.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 70 izpodbijane sodbe namreč obrazložilo razloge, zaradi katerih je menilo, da prepozen vnos lahko povzroči dvome o zanesljivosti naknadnih nadzorov.
It also held that this finding was not called into question by the fact that there was no EAGGF rule that graphic data must be entered before 31 August each year.
Prav tako je razsodilo, da te ugotovitve ne ovrže dejstvo, da noben predpis glede EKUJS ni določal grafičnega vnosa pred 31. avgustom vsakega leta.
As regards the validity of the findings of the Court of First Instance in this respect, the Court of Justice has already had occasion to state that, in accordance with the objective and the scheme of Regulation No 3887/92, it is appropriate to interpret the second subparagraph of Article 6(3) of that regulation as meaning that both the
Glede utemeljenosti ugotovitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje je Sodi�če že ugotovilo, da je v skladu z namenom in sistematiko Uredbe �t. 3887/92 člen 6(3), drugi pododstavek, te uredbe treba razlagati tako, da je tako začetne kot dodatne nadzore treba opraviti
BELGIUM v COMMISSION initial and the additional checks must be carried out whilst there is still evidence of arable crops or of set-aside on the areas which have been the subject of payments and, at any event, during the current year (see Case C-153/01 Spain v Commission [2004] ECR I-9009, paragraph 152).
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI takrat, ko na povr�inah, ki so bile predmet plačil, �e obstaja dokaz o polj�činah ali prahi, v vsakem primeru pa v tekočem letu (glej sodbo z dne 7. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, C-153/01, ZOdl., str. I-9009, točka 152).
The Court of Justice went on to state that for the sake of efficiency it is appropriate to carry out checks on the areas down to arable crops before the harvest and on the areas subject to set-aside before that requirement ends, which is 31 August of the current year.
Sodi�če je prav tako poudarilo, da je zaradi učinkovitosti nadzorov na povr�inah, ki so namenjene polj�činam, treba nadzore opraviti pred žetvijo, na povr�inah, ki so namenjene prahi, pa pred prenehanjem navedene obveznosti, torej pred 31. avgustom tekočega leta.
At any event, the later the checks the more likely it is that the Commission may reasonably conclude that those checks do not offer the expected level of assurance that the applications are in order and the risk of losses for the EAGGF is significant (Case C-153/01 Spain v Commission, paragraph 153).
V vsakem primeru, poznej�i ko so nadzori, verjetneje je, da bo Komisija razumno sklepala, da ti nadzori ne ponujajo pričakovane stopnje jamstva, da bodo zahtevki pravilni, in da bo nevarnost izgub za EKUJS znatna (zgoraj navedena sodba z dne 7. oktobra 2004 v zadevi Španija proti Komisiji, točka 153).
It is therefore clear from caselaw that the relevant time factor for assessing whether a Member State has been late in carrying out checks on arable crops is the time of the harvest.
Iz sodne prakse tako jasno izhaja, da je upo�tevni časovni dejavnik za presojo, ali je zadevna država članica nadzore glede polj�čin izvedla prepozno, obdobje žetve.
In that regard, as the Kingdom of Belgium itself recognised, in particular in paragraph 104 of its appeal, some crops are harvested before 31 August.
V zvezi s tem, kot je priznala tudi Kraljevina Belgija v točki 104 svoje pritožbe, je bila žetev določenih kmetijskih rastlin opravljena pred 31. avgustom.
The input of area data into the GIS was a necessary preliminary to selection, on the basis of the risk analysis in particular, of the aid application files that required an on-the-spot check.
Vnos podatkov o povr�ini v RGIS je torej bil, zlasti na podlagi analize tveganj, priprava za izbor primerov zahtevkov za pomoč, ki bi morali biti predmet nadzora na kraju samem.
The Commission was therefore entitled to use that date in order to calculate, as stated in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, the percentage of data entered into the GIS by that date and, consequently, assess the reliability of the inspection system put in place by that Member State.
Iz tega sledi, kot je bilo poudarjeno v točki 65 izpodbijane sodbe, da bi Komisija ta datum lahko uporabila, da bi ocenila odstotek podatkov, vnesenih v RGIS na ta datum, in da bi presodila zanesljivosti sistema za nadzor, ki ga je uvedla ta država članica.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right to consider that entering data into the GIS after 31 August might be regarded as somewhat late.
Zato je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo, da je bil vnos podatkov v RGIS po 31. avgustu nekoliko prepozen.
It was also right to consider that, in those circumstances, the Commission as was found in paragraph 67 of the judgment under appeal, had grounds for claiming that late input had meant that the administrative checks could not be carried out on time, thus preventing on-the-spot checks from taking place, and that, as was found in paragraph 69 of that judgment, a number of files had therefore escaped such checks.
Prav tako je upravičeno menilo, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 67 izpodbijane sodbe, da je v teh okoli�činah Komisija utemeljeno trdila, da ta vnos ni omogočal pravočasne izvedbe upravnih nadzorov in je tako oviral nadzore na kraju samem in da so se, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 69 izpodbijane sodbe, določeni primeri zato izognili tem nadzorom.
Consequently, the fourth part of the second ground of appeal cannot be accepted.
Četrtega dela drugega pritožbenega razloga tako ni mogoče sprejeti.
As the first three parts of the second ground of appeal have also failed, this ground of appeal must be rejected.
Ker so bili prvi trije deli drugega pritožbenega razloga prav tako zavrnjeni, je ta pritožbeni razlog treba zavrniti.
C — Third ground of appeal: infringements of the obligation to provide adequate reasons
C – Tretji pritožbeni razlog: kršitve obveznosti obrazložitve
The Kingdom of Belgium claims that the reasoning set out in paragraphs 29 to 71 of the judgment under appeal is manifestly inadequate and/or contradictory.
Kraljevina Belgija trdi, da naj bi bila obrazložitev v točkah od 29 do 71 izpodbijane sodbe očitno nezadostna in/ali protislovna.
First, in paragraph 33 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance endorsed without examination the Commission’s assertion that the condition laid down in the Guidelines that a flatrate financial correction requires there to be a serious deficiency in the compliance with explicit Community rules should be read
Prvič, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi v točki 33 izpodbijane sodbe brez kakr�ne koli analize sprejelo trditev Komisije, da je pogoj, ki ga določajo Smernice – v skladu s katerim pav�alni finančni popravek predpostavlja obstoj pomembne neuporabe
BELGIUM v COMMISSION in the light of the condition, laid down in the preceding paragraph of the Guidelines, that flatrate corrections should be considered when the Commission finds a failure adequately to effect any control which is explicitly required by a regulation or implicitly required in order to respect an explicit rule.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI izrecnih določb prava Skupnosti – treba razumeti ob upo�tevanju pogoja iz predhodnega odstavka teh smernic, in sicer da je pav�alne popravke treba določiti, ko Komisija ugotovi, da ukrep za nadzor, ki ga uredba izrecno zahteva ali ki je posredno potreben, da bi bilo spo�tovano izrecno pravilo, ni bil ustrezno izpolnjen.
Such an assertion contradicts the actual wording of those Guidelines, under which the condition of a serious deficiency in the compliance with explicit Community rules is linked to the nature of the inspection procedure and whether it is open to improvement.
Taka trditev pa naj bi bila v nasprotju s temi smernicami, v skladu s katerimi naj bi bila pomembna neuporaba izrecnih določb prava Skupnosti povezana z naravo postopka nadzora in s tem, ali ga je mogoče izpopolniti ali ne.
Secondly, the Court of First Instance did not address the Belgian Government’s argument that the obligations stipulated by the Commission in the summary report, namely, in the case of anomalies, the obligation to conduct an on-the-spot check or reduce the area for which aid would be granted, were contrary to the relevant legislation and the caselaw of the Court of Justice resulting from Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch.
Drugič, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj ne bi odgovorilo na trditev belgijske vlade, v skladu s katero so bile obveznosti, ki jih je Komisija navajala v zbirnem poročilu, in sicer izvedba bodisi nadzora na kraju samem bodisi zmanj�anje subvencionirane povr�ine ob nepravilnostih, v nasprotju z veljavnimi predpisi in sodno prakso Sodi�ča, iz katere izhaja zgoraj navedena sodba Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch.
Thirdly, the Court of First Instance held, in paragraph 52 of the judgment under appeal, that the Commission was right to impose the checking procedures laid down in the summary report.
Tretjič, Sodi�če prve stopnje naj bi v točki 52 izpodbijane sodbe menilo, da je Komisija pravilno naložila podrobna pravila nadzora, navedena v zbirnem poročilu.
In the preceding paragraph of the judgment under appeal the Court stated, without justification, that the Commission had stipulated that those authorities should either conduct an on-the-spot check or reduce the area for which aid would be granted, or conduct other administrative checks, although the report did not make any reference to those other administrative checks.
V predhodni točki izpodbijane sodbe pa naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje brez utemeljitve potrdilo, da naj bi Komisija tem organom naložila, naj bodisi izvedejo nadzor na kraju samem, bodisi zmanj�ajo subvencionirane povr�ine, bodisi izvedejo druge upravne nadzore, medtem ko v navedenem poročilu ni bilo nobene navedbe o teh drugih upravnih nadzorih.
Fourthly, the Court of First Instance’s assertions, contained in paragraphs 60 and 70 of the judgment under appeal respectively, are contradictory.
Četrtič, trditve Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točkah 60 in 70 izpodbijane sodbe naj bi bile protislovne.
According to the Kingdom of Belgium, either the risk analysis is ineffective as a whole owing to application of a margin of tolerance, or it is effective but only as regards aid applications in respect of which data was entered before 31 August.
Kraljevina Belgija namreč meni, da je analiza tveganj bodisi v celoti neučinkovita zaradi uporabe tolerančne meje bodisi učinkovita, toda zgolj za zahtevke za pomoč, glede katerih je bil vnos izveden pred 31. avgustom.
According to the Commission, the Court of First Instance complied with the obligation to provide adequate reasons, in particular by noting in paragraphs 52 and 57 of the judgment under appeal that it is for the Member States to organise an effective system of inspection and supervision and that the Belgian authorities were required to take action in response to the anomalies detected by the GIS.
Komisija meni, da naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje izpolnilo obveznost obrazložitve, zlasti ker je v točkah 52 in 57 izpodbijane sodbe opozorilo, da morajo države članice organizirati učinkovit sistem nadzora in spremljanja in da bi belgijski organi morali ukrepati zoper nepravilnosti, ki jih je pokazal RGIS.
Moreover, the Commission considers that paragraphs 60 and 70 of the judgment under appeal do not contain any contradictions since the Court of First Instance was examining two separate types of irregularity in those two paragraphs.
Komisija poleg tega meni, da točki 60 in 70 izpodbijane sodbe ne vsebujeta nobenih protislovij, saj je Sodi�če prve stopnje v teh dveh točkah navedene sodbe analiziralo dve različni vrsti nepravilnosti.
Concerning first of all the alleged contradiction in and/or inadequacy of the statement of reasons given in paragraph 33 of the judgment under appeal, it should be noted that the fact that a procedure is open to improvement does not in itself justify a financial correction.
Prvič, glede domnevnega protislovja in/ali nezadostne obrazložitve v točki 33 izpodbijane sodbe je treba poudariti, da dejstvo, da naj bi se postopek izpopolnjeval, samo po sebi ne upravičuje finančnega popravka.
There must be a serious failing in the application of express Community rules and such a failing must expose the EAGGF to a genuine risk of loss or irregularity (see Case C-318/02 Netherlands v Commission, paragraph 34, and Case C-5/03 Greece v Commission [2005] ECR I-5925, paragraph 51).
Potrebna je pomembna neuporaba izrecnih pravil Skupnosti, taka neuporaba pa mora za EKUJS povzročiti dejansko nevarnost izgub ali nepravilnosti (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Nizozemska proti Komisiji, točka 34, in sodbo z dne 7. julija 2005 v zadevi Grčija proti Komisiji, C-5/03, ZOdl., str. I-5925, točka 51).