natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The grant of refunds to exporters is the quid pro quo for the contribution which they make to attainment of the objectives of Community policy by rendering that service.
Podelitev nadomestil izvoznikom je nasprotna izpolnitev za prispevek, ki ga dajo s to konkretno storitvijo k uresničitvi ciljev politike Skupnosti.
The ‘exclusion’ of export refunds when animals are not placed on the market in nonmember
„Odvzem“ pravic do nadomestil, kadar živali niso bile dane v promet v tretjih državah,
12 — See, for example, First City Trading and Others, paragraph 26.
12 — Glej na primer zgoraj navedeno sodbo First City Trading in drugi, točka 26.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK amount of the refund paid in advance and the amount of the refund actually due’.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK nadomestilo in zneskom dejansko dolgovanega nadomestila“13.
13 countries does not in reality amount to an exclusion of present rights or inchoate rights but simply a failure to award ex novo rights which would have arisen only if that release on to the market had taken place.
dejansko ne pomeni odvzema že določenih nadomestil ali nadomestil, ki so v postopku potrjevanja, ampak samo to, da se ex novo ne podelijo nadomestila, ki bi bila podeljena, če bi bilo tako dajanje v promet potrjeno.
Without release of the animals on to the market of a nonmember country, to confer upon the exporter entitlement to a refund and to allow him to keep the advance granted in anticipation of the grant of that right would amount to a transfer of Community resources without any basis.
Brez dajanja živali v promet v tretji državi bi to, da bi bila izvozniku podeljena nadomestila, in to, da bi lahko zadržal predplačilo, ki ga je prejel za nadomestilo, ki mu bo verjetno podeljeno, pomenilo prenos sredstev Skupnosti brez pravnega naslova.
There would likewise be no basis for allowing an exporter to keep the difference between the amount advanced to him for an export to a nonmember country and the amount due to him when, for reasons of force majeure, he was unable to export the animals to the country in relation to which the export procedure was commenced and exported them to another nonmember country for which the Community has established lower refunds.
Brez pravnega naslova bi bilo tudi to, če bi se izvozniku prepustila razlika med zneskom predplačila za izvoz v tretjo državo in zneskom, ki bi mu pripadal, ker zaradi vi�je sile ni mogel izvoziti živali v državo, za katero je bil uveden izvozni postopek, ampak v drugo tretjo državo, za katero je Skupnost določila nižje nadomestilo.
The reason for exclusion of the right to a refund provided for by the reference made by Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 to Directive 91/628 is entirely different.
Namen odvzema pravice do nadomestila, ki ga določa napotilo iz člena 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 na Direktivo 91/628, je povsem drugačen.
As is apparent from Article 18 of Directive 91/628 relating to the protection of animals during transport, and as noted above, that directive obliges the Member States to adopt ‘the appropriate specific measures to penalise any infringement’ thereof ‘by natural or legal persons’.
Kot izhaja iz člena 18 Direktive Sveta 91/628 v zvezi z za�čito živali med prevozom in kot je bilo poudarjeno zgoraj, ta direktiva države članice zavezuje, da morajo sprejeti „ustrezne posebne ukrepe za kaznovanje fizičnih ali pravnih oseb zaradi kr�itev te direktive“.
13 — That is not belied by the provision according to which traders who, after obtaining advances on refunds for exports of bovine animals to nonmember countries, do not place those animals on the market in a third country, are not required to make the relevant reimbursement in cases where the animals have been lost in transit as a result of force majeure.
13 — Na to ne vpliva določba, da subjekti, ki po prejetju predplačila za nadomestila za izvoz goveda v tretje države teh živali ne dajo v promet v tretji državi, niso dolžni vrniti prejetega zneska, kadar so živali zaradi vi�je sile izgubili in itinere.
That release from the obligation of reimbursement is attributable solely to exceptional recognition of the effort nevertheless made by the exporter to contribute to the implementation of Community policy and it is possible only because it was expressly provided for by the legislature.
To izjemo pri vračilu je treba pripisati samo izrednemu priznanju napora, ki ga je izvoznik vseeno vložil v to, da bi prispeval k izvajanju politike Skupnosti, in je torej mogoča, ker jo je zakonodajalec izrecno določil.
For those reasons, the Court of Justice, in the caselaw summarised in point 48, has taken the view that Regulation No 3665/87 is not invalid as being contrary to the principle of proportionality on the ground that it provides for ‘forfeiture of a part of the security equal to the difference between the
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če v sodni praksi, navedeni v točki 48 zgoraj, menilo, da Uredba �t. 3665/87 ni neveljavna zaradi uveljavljanega nasprotja z načelom sorazmernosti, ker določa „zaseg dela var�čine, enake razliki med zneskom predplačila za
of the nonmember country of destination or the market of another nonmember country the animals for which an export procedure was initiated.
njim, uspe dati živali, glede katerih je bil uveden izvozni postopek, v promet v tretji namembni državi ali v kateri drugi tretji državi.
As the source of a penalty, albeit of an administrative nature, intended to affect the rights of persons subject to Community law, Regulation No 615/98 can only be legitimate if its effects are proportionate to the aims pursued.
Ker Uredba �t. 615/98 določa sankcijo, čeprav samo upravno, ki posega v pravice subjektov po predpisih Skupnosti, ni mogoče, da ne bi bil pogoj za njeno zakonitost ta, da so njeni učinki sorazmerni z zastavljenimi cilji.
And, as observed earlier, the effects of that regulation are not proportionate.
In kot je bilo poudarjeno zgoraj, učinki te uredbe niso taki.
In the light of the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court give the following answer to the two questions submitted to it by the Finanzgericht Hamburg:
Glede na navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje Finanzgericht Hamburg odgovori tako:
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport must be regarded as invalid insofar as it is contrary to the principle of proportionality in that, by the reference it makes to Council Directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport, instead of imposing “specific appropriate penalties”, as required of the Member States by that directive, it places all responsibility for the protection of animals upon the exporter and provides automatically and inflexibly for the exporter to forfeit his right to a refund, imposing that penalty for failure to observe time requirements the non-observance of which may also result from the conduct of the national authorities and maintaining that penalty even in cases where those authorities, taking the view that the animals are in good health, instruct the carrier to continue the journey even though those time requirements have not been complied with.’
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK goveda med prevozom neveljaven zaradi kr�itve načela sorazmernosti, ker – z napotilom na Direktivo Sveta 91/628 o za�čiti živali med prevozom, namesto z uvedbo primernih posebnih sankcij, kot to od držav članic zahteva navedena direktiva – določa, da je za varstvo živali v celoti odgovoren izvoznik, zaradi česar je avtomatično in strogo določeno, da izgubi pravico do nadomestila, pri čemer to sankcijo povzroči nespo�tovanje časovnega razporeda, katerega neupo�tevanje je lahko odvisno tudi od ravnanj nacionalnih organov, ki tako kot v postopkih v glavni stvari na podlagi ugotovitve, da so živali dobrega zdravja, prevozniku naložijo, naj pot nadaljuje ne glede na spo�tovanje navedenega časovnega razporeda.
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber)17 January 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (tretji senat) z dne 17. januarja 2008*
REFERENCES for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decisions of 10 and 12 January 2006, received at the Court on 23 January and 3 February 2006 respectively, in the proceedings
V združenih zadevah C-37/06 in C-58/06, katerih predmeta sta predloga za sprejetje predhodnih odločb na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ju je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg (Nemčija) z odločbama z dne 10. oziroma 12. januarja 2006, ki sta na Sodi�če prispeli 23. januarja oziro- ma 3. februarja 2006, v postopkih
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL IN ZVK generalni pravobranilec: P. Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: B.
— the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Erlbacher, acting as Agent, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 13 September 2007,
— za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti F. Erlbacher, zastopnik, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 13. septembra 2007
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06 gives the following
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06 izreka naslednjo
The references for a preliminary ruling concern the validity of Articles 1 and 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19).
Predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�ata na veljavnost členov 1 in 5(3) Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom (UL L 82, str. 19).
Those references were made in proceedings brought by Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (‘Viamex’) and Zuchtvieh-Kontor GmbH (ZVK) (‘ZVK’) against the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Principal Customs Office, ‘the Hauptzollamt’) concerning refunds in respect of the export of live bovine animals to Lebanon and Egypt respectively.
Ta predloga sta bila vložena v okviru dveh sporov, in sicer na eni strani Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Viamex) in na drugi strani Zuchtvieh Kontor GmbH (ZVK) (v nadaljevanju: ZVK) proti Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt), o nadomestilih za izvoz živega goveda v Libanon oziroma Egipt.
The second subparagraph of Article 13(9) of Regulation (EEC) No 805/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p.
V členu 13(9), drugi pododstavek, Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 805/68 z dne 27. junija 1968 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso (UL L 148, str.
187), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2634/97 of 18 December 1997 (OJ 1997 L 356, p.
24), kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 2634/97 z dne 18. decembra 1997 (UL L 356, str.
13) (‘Regulation No 805/68’), provides that the payment of export refunds for live animals is subject to compliance with Community legislation concerning animal welfare and, in particular, the protection of animals during transport.
13, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 805/68), je določeno, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za žive živali spo�tovanje prava Skupnosti v zvezi z dobrim počutjem živali, zlasti določb v zvezi z za�čito živali med prevozom.
Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 provides that the payment of export refunds for live bovine animals is to be subject to compliance, during the transport of the animals to the first place of unloading in the nonmember country of final destination, with Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p.
V členu 1 Uredbe 615/98 je določeno, da je pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil za živo govedo spo�tovanje določb Direktive Sveta 91/628/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o za�čiti živali med prevozom in o spremembi direktiv 90/425/EGS in 91/496/EGS (UL L 340, str.
17), as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995 (OJ 1995 L 148, p.
17), kakor je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/29/ES z dne 29. junija 1995 (UL L 148, str.
52) (‘Directive 91/628’), and with the provisions of that regulation.
52, v nadaljevanju: Direktiva 91/628), ter določb navedene uredbe med prevozom živali do prvega kraja iztovarjanja v tretji državi namembnega kraja.
According to Article 2 of Regulation No 615/98, checks are to be carried out on animals exiting the customs territory of the European Community.
Na podlagi člena 2 te uredbe se opravi pregled živali, ko zapustijo carinsko območje Evropske skupnosti.
An official veterinarian must verify and certify that the animals are fit for the intended journey in compliance with Directive 91/628, that the means of transport by which the animals are to leave the customs territory of the Community complies with that directive and that provisions have been made for the care of the animals during the journey in accordance with the directive.
Uradni veterinar mora preveriti in potrditi, da so živali sposobne za predvideno pot v skladu z določbami Direktive 91/628, da je prevozno sredstvo, s katerim bodo živali prepeljane s carinskega območja Skupnosti, v skladu z določbami te direktive in da so bili sprejeti ukrepi za oskrbo živali med potjo v skladu z določbami navedene direktive.
Under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, applications for the payment of export refunds must be supplemented by proof that Article 1 of that regulation has been complied with, such proof to be furnished by the production of the control copy T 5 and the report drawn up by a control agency, together with the veterinary certificate.
Na podlagi člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 je treba zahtevku za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil priložiti dokaz, da so bile določbe člena 1 te uredbe spo�tovane, in sicer je treba priložiti kontrolni izvod T5 in poročilo o pregledu kontrolne službe skupaj z veterinarskim potrdilom.
Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 provides, however, that the export refund is not to be paid for animals which died during transport or for animals for which
Vendar pa je v členu 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 določeno, da se izvozno nadomestilo ne izplača za živali, ki so med prevozom poginile, ali za živali, glede katerih pristojni
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06 the competent authority considers, in the light of the documents referred to in Article 5(2), the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 of that regulation and/or all other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of the regulation, that Directive 91/628 was not complied with.
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06 organ na podlagi dokumentov iz navedenega člena 5(2), poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 te uredbe in/ali katerega koli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 navedene uredbe, meni, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana.
Article 3(1) of Directive 91/628 provides that the Member States are to ensure that travelling times and rest periods as well as feeding and watering intervals comply with those laid down in Chapter VII of the Annex to the directive.
V členu 3(1) Direktive 91/628 je določeno, da države članice zagotovijo, da so čas prevoza in počitka ter časovni presledki za krmljenje in napajanje v skladu z določbami poglavja VII Priloge k tej direktivi.
In the case of transport by road of live bovine animals, point 48(4)(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628 requires a sufficient rest period of at least one hour to be given after 14 hours of travel.
V poglavju VII, točka 48(4)(d), Priloge k Direktivi 91/628 je za prevoz živega goveda po cesti določeno, da je treba zagotoviti zadosten, najmanj enourni, počitek po �tirinajstih urah prevoza.
After that rest period, the animals may be transported for a further 14 hours.
Po tem času počitka se lahko nadaljuje prevoz za �tirinajst ur.
The maximum transport time is therefore set at 29 hours.
Tako je maksimalni čas prevoza devetindvajset ur.
However, point 48(8) provides that, in the interests of the animals, the journey time may be extended by two hours, taking account in particular of the proximity of the place of destination.
Vendar je v navedeni točki 48(8) določeno, da se glede na bližino namembnega kraja v interesu živali čas na poti lahko podalj�a za dve uri.
In accordance with point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628, the animals must be rested for a period of at least 24 hours after the journey time laid down.
Na podlagi poglavja VII, točka 48(5), Priloge k Direktivi 91/628 morajo živali po času na poti, ki je bil določen, počivati najmanj �tiriindvajset ur.
The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Spora o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
In the first case in the main proceedings, Viamex submitted a declaration to the Hauptzollamt Kiel covering the export of 35 live bovine animals to Lebanon. By
V prvem postopku v glavni stvari je družba Viamex pri Hauptzollamt Kiel prijavila izvoz 35 glav goveda v Libanon. Na podlagi členov 1 in 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 je
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL AND ZVK notice of 1 February 2001, on the basis in particular of Articles 1 and 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the Hauptzollamt rejected Viamex’s application for an export refund on the ground that examination of the route plan submitted by that company showed that the 24-hour rest period required under point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 61/628 had not been complied with.
Hauptzollamt z odločbo z dne 1. februarja 2001 zavrnil zahtevek za izvozno nadomestilo, ki ga je vložila družba Viamex, ker je po preučitvi načrta poti, ki ga je predložila ta družba, ugotovil, da ni bil spo�tovan �tiriindvajseturni čas počitka, ki je določen v poglavju VII, točka 48(5), Priloge k Direktivi 91/628.
However, Viamex claimed that the failure to comply with that provision was due to the fact that the official veterinarian had instructed it to resume the journey before the 24-hour rest period had been observed.
Vendar je družba Viamex zatrjevala, da ta določba ni bila spo�tovana, ker naj bi ji uradni veterinar odredil, naj nadaljuje prevoz pred potekom �tiriindvajseturnega časa počitka.
The Hauptzollamt took the view that, notwithstanding that fact, Viamex should have been aware of the rest periods required under Directive 91/628.
Hauptzollamt kljub tej okoli�čini meni, da bi se družba Viamex morala pozanimati o časovnih intervalih počitka, ki so določeni z Direktivo 91/628.
Moreover, as a result of stops to record the details of an accident and for a heavy goods vehicle roadside check, Viamex failed to observe the maximum period for the second leg of the journey laid down in point 48(4)(d) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Directive 91/628.
Zaradi nesreče in kontrole tovornjakov pa naj družba Viamex tudi ne bi spo�tovala maksimalnega časa drugega dela prevoza, predvidenega v poglavju VII, točka 48(4)(d), Priloge k Direktivi 91/628.
In the second case in the main proceedings, ZVK submitted a declaration to the Hauptzollamt Bamberg covering the export of 32 live bovine animals to Egypt and applied for an export refund in that respect by way of advance payment, which the Hauptzollamt granted to it.
V drugem postopku v glavni stvari je družba ZVK pri Hauptzollamt Bamberg prijavila izvoz 32 glav goveda v Egipt in na tej podlagi zaprosila za dodelitev izvoznega nadomestila v obliki predplačila, ki ji ga je Hauptzollamt odobril.
However, by amendment notice of 1 September 2003, the Hauptzollamt decided to seek repayment of that refund, increased by 10%, on the ground in particular that the animals had travelled for more than 14 hours in breach of Directive 91/628.
Vendar je Hauptzollamt z odločbo o spremembi z dne 1. septembra 2003 odločil, da je treba vrniti znesek izplačila, povečan za deset odstotkov, ker naj bi prevoz živali trajal dlje kot 14 ur, kar je kr�itev določb Direktive 91/628.
The second leg of the journey had in fact lasted 15 hours and 45 minutes.
Drugi del prevoza naj bi dejansko trajal 15 ur in 45 minut.
The fact that the second leg of the journey overran also has the result that ZVK breached the rule in point 48(5) of Chapter VII of the Annex to Direct ive 91/628, according to which, after a maximum journey time of 29 hours, animals must be unloaded, fed and watered and be rested for at least 24 hours.
Poleg tega naj bi družba ZVK s prekoračitvijo maksimalnega časa za drugi del prevoza kr�ila pravilo iz poglavja VII, točka 48(5), Priloge k Direk -tivi 91/628, v skladu s katerim je treba živali po devetindvajseturnem maksimalnem času prevoza raztovoriti, nakrmiti in napojiti, počivati pa morajo najmanj 24 ur.
Since the objections made by Viamex and ZVK to the notices of the Hauptzollamt of 1 February 2001 and 1 September 2003 respectively were not upheld, those companies decided to appeal before the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg, which, considering that the outcome of the two cases before it depends on the interpreta-
Ker ugovorom, ki sta jih vložili družbi Viamex in ZVK proti odločbama Hauptzollamt z dne 1. februarja 2001 oziroma 1. septembra 2003, ni bilo ugodeno, sta družbi vložili tožbo pri Finanzgericht Hamburg, ki je menilo, da je odločitev v teh dveh njemu
2008 — JOINED CASES C-37/06 AND C-58/06 tion of provisions of Community law, decided to stay proceedings and to refer the following questions, identically formulated in both cases, to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
2008 – ZDRUŽENI ZADEVI C-37/06 IN C-58/06 predloženih zadevah odvisna od razlage določb prava Skupnosti, in je zato prekinilo odločanje ter Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji, katerih besedilo je enako v obeh navedenih zadevah:
‘(1) Is Article 1 of Regulation … No 615/98 valid inasmuch as it links the grant of an export refund to compliance with Directive 91/628 …?
Ali je člen 1 Uredbe […] �t. 615/98 veljaven v delu, v katerem dodelitev izvoznih nadomestil pogojuje s spo�tovanjem Direktive 91/628 […]?
By order of the President of the Court of Justice of 17 February 2006, Cases C-37/06 and C-58/06 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and of the judgment.
Zadevi C-37/06 in C-58/06 sta bili s sklepom predsednika Sodi�ča z dne 17. februarja 2006 združeni za pisni in ustni postopek ter izdajo sodbe.
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
Question 1
Prvo vprašanje
By its first question, the Finanzgericht Hamburg asks in essence whether Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 is valid inasmuch as it makes payment of export refunds for live
S prvim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je člen 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 veljaven v delu, v katerem se izplačilo nadomestila za izvoz živih živali
In particular, the Finanzgericht Hamburg entertains doubts as to whether there is a link between the rules on export refunds, which fall within the common agricultural policy, and Community animalwelfare legislation.
Natančneje, predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje o obstoju povezave med sistemom izvoznih nadomestil, ki spada v skupno kmetijsko politiko, in pravom Skupnosti o za�čiti živali.
Article 13(9) was introduced in order to provide a remedy for practice in which account was not always taken of animal welfare during transport.
Navedeni člen 13(9) je bil dodan, da bi se odpravila praksa, da se ni vedno upo�tevalo dobro počutje živali med prevozom.
The fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 615/98 states in this regard that, in cases where it is established on the basis of the physical condition and/or state of health of a certain number of the animals in a consignment that the provisions on the protection of animals during transport have not been complied with, further measures should be taken which will act as an adequate deterrent and which should be applied uniformly.
Peta uvodna izjava Uredbe �t. 615/98 v zvezi s tem pojasnjuje, da je treba sprejeti dodatne ukrepe z odvračalnim učinkom in jih enotno uporabljati, če se na podlagi fizičnega stanja in/ali zdravja več živali v isti po�iljki izkaže, da določbe o za�čiti živali med prevozom niso bile spo�tovane.