natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In the context of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p.
Sodi�če je v kontekstu Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 3665/87 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode (UL L 351, str.
The Court has also held that, by declaring a product under the procedure for export refunds, an exporter implies that the product satisfies all the conditions necessary for the refund.
Sodi�če je poleg tega presodilo, da izvoznik z deklaracijo proizvoda v okviru postopka izvoznih nadomestil razume tudi, da ta proizvod izpolnjuje vse potrebne pogoje za nadomestilo.
If the declaration is questioned by the competent authority, it is for the exporter to show, in accordance with the national rules of evidence, that the conditions have actually been complied with (see, to that effect, Fleisch­Winter, paragraphs 32 and 35).
Če naj bi bila deklaracija za pristojni organ vpra�ljiva, mora izvoznik v skladu z dokaznimi pravili nacionalnega prava dokazati, da so ti pogoji izpolnjeni (v tem smislu glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Fleisch-Winter, točki 32 in 35).
Such a mechanism is provided for in the framework of the arrangements governing export refunds, with regard to the welfare of live bovine animals during transportation, and it is for the exporter to establish in accordance with Article 5(1) and (2) of Regulation No 615/98 that the conditions for the grant of the refund are met.
Tak sistem je predviden v okviru sistema izvoznih nadomestil v zvezi z dobrim počutjem goveda med prevozom in naloga izvoznika je, da v skladu s členom 5(1) in (2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 dokaže, da so pogoji za podelitev izvoznega nadomestila izpolnjeni.
In order to do so, the exporter must, first, pass on to the competent authority of the Member State where the export declaration is accepted all necessary information concerning the journey, at the latest when the export declaration is lodged.
Da bi to storil, mora izvoznik, po eni strani, pristojnemu organu države članice, v kateri je bila sprejeta deklaracija, predložiti potrebne podatke glede poti najkasneje ob vložitvi izvozne deklaracije.
Second, the exporter must, in order to obtain payment of the export refund, provide proof of compliance with the provisions of Article 1 of Regulation No 615/98 and, accordingly, of Directive 91/628, by producing the documents referred to in Articles 2(3) and 3(2), respectively, of that regulation.
Po drugi strani pa mora, da bi mu bila plačana izvozna nadomestila, dokazati spo�tovanje določb člena 1 Uredbe �t. 615/98 in posledično Direktive 91/628, tako da predloži dokumente iz členov 2(3) in 3(2) te uredbe.
Additionally, Article 5(6) of that regulation makes it possible, under certain conditions, for the exporter to confirm that Directive 91/628 has been complied with by providing the competent authorities of the Member State with other documents.
Poleg tega člen 5(6) te uredbe pod nekaterimi pogoji določa, da lahko izvoznik predloži druge dokumente, ki dokazujejo, da so bile določbe Direktive 91/628 spo�tovane.
However, as is clear from the aim of Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation No 615/98, presentation by the exporter of those documents does not constitute irrefutable proof of compliance with Article 1 of that regulation, or of compliance with Directive 91/628.
Vendar kakor izhaja iz namena členov 3 in 5 Uredbe �t. 615/98, izvoznikova predložitev teh dokumentov ni neovrgljiv dokaz spo�tovanja niti člena 1 te uredbe niti Direktive 91/628.
That evidence is sufficient only in so far as the competent authority does not have at its disposal elements in the light of which it may find that the directive has not been complied with.
Ta dokaz namreč zadostuje le, če pristojni organ nima na voljo elementov, zaradi katerih bi lahko �tel, da ta direktiva ni bila spo�tovana.
That interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, under which the competent authority is entitled not to pay the export refund for animals in respect of which it 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 any other element at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of the regulation — that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with.
To razlago potrjuje besedilo člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98, v skladu s katerim pristojni organ lahko ne izplača izvoznega nadomestila za živali, za katere na podlagi dokumentov iz navedenega člena 5(2), poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 te uredbe in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka, ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 navedene uredbe, meni, da je bila Direktiva 91/628 kr�ena.
It is clear that, despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may consider that the exporter has complied neither with Article 1 of that regulation nor with Directive 91/628, provided, inter alia, that the conditions laid down in Article 5(3) of that regulation are met.
Ugotoviti je torej treba, da lahko kljub dokumentom, ki jih je predložil izvoznik v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98, pristojni organ meni, da izvoznik ni spo�toval niti določb člena 1 te uredbe niti določb iz Direktive 91/628, pod pogojem, da so med drugim izpolnjeni pogoji iz člena 5(3) te uredbe.
Given that it is for the exporter, pursuant to Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, to furnish proof of compliance with Article 1 of that regulation, the obligation incumbent upon the competent authority is to analyse that evidence, together with any other element available to it, in order to reach a finding as to whether or not Directive 91/628 has been complied with and decide whether or not to grant the export refund.
Ob upo�tevanju dejstva, da mora na podlagi člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98 izvoznik predložiti dokaz o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 te uredbe, je obveznost pristojnega organa, da te dokaze in vsa druga dejstva, ki jih ima na voljo, analizira, da ugotovi, da so bile določbe Direktive 91/628 spo�tovane oziroma da so bile kr�ene in da odloči, ali se izvozno nadomestilo dodeli oziroma ne dodeli.
However, Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 cannot be interpreted as entitling the competent authority arbitrarily to call into question the evidence attached by the exporter to its export refund application.
Vendar pa člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 ni mogoče razlagati v smislu, da omogoča pristojnemu organu, da arbitrarno izpodbija dokaze, ki jih je izvoznik priložil svojemu zahtevku za izvozna nadomestila.
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL and C-58/06 Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK [2008] ECR I-69, paragraph 39).
VIAMEX AGRAR HANDEL točka 39).
That discretion appears, in particular, limited as to the nature and the evidentiary value of the elements on which the competent authority relies.
Izkaže se, da je ta diskrecijska pravica omejena zlasti glede na naravo in dokazno vrednost dejstev, na katere se sklicuje ta organ.
First, regarding the nature of those elements, the Court has held inter alia that it is only in the light of the documents relating to animal health referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, the reports on the checks referred to in Article 4 of that regulation and/or other elements at its disposal concerning compliance with Article 1 of the regulation and having a bearing on animal welfare that the competent authority may conclude that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with (see Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK, paragraphs 39 to 41).
Na prvem mestu je treba v zvezi z naravo teh dejstev opozoriti, da je Sodi�če med drugim presodilo, da lahko pristojni organ le ob upo�tevanju dokumentov v zvezi z zdravjem živali iz člena 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98, poročil o pregledih iz člena 4 te uredbe in/ali kateregakoli drugega podatka, ki vpliva na dobro počutje živali, ki ga ima o spo�tovanju določb člena 1 navedene uredbe, sklepa, da Direktiva 91/628 ni bila spo�tovana (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Viamex Agrar Handel in ZVK, točke od 39 do 41).
Second, concerning the evidentiary value of the elements capable of being taken into account, the competent authority cannot confine itself to noting mere suppositions or doubts concerning compliance with Directive 91/628, in order to call into question the evidence presented by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98.
Na drugem mestu, v zvezi z dokazno vrednostjo dejstev, ki se lahko upo�tevajo, je treba navesti, da pristojni organ ne more le navajati predpostavk ali dvomov glede spo�tovanja Direktive 91/628, da bi izpodbijal dokaze, ki jih je izvoznik predložil v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98.
Such an interpretation would inevitably render Article 5(2) redundant and create legal uncertainty for exporters as to the conditions required for payment of export refunds.
Taka razlaga bi členu 5(2) neizogibno odvzela polni učinek in ustvarila pravno negotovost za izvoznike glede pogojev, zahtevanih za plačilo izvoznega nadomestila.
In any event, the competent authority is required to justify its decision by stating the reasons why it considers the evidence presented by the exporter does not enable it to be concluded that Directive 91/628 was complied with.
V vsakem primeru mora pristojni organ svojo odločbo obrazložiti tako, da navede razloge, zaradi katerih meni, da na podlagi dokazov, ki jih je predložil izvoznik, ni mogoče sklepati, da so bile določbe Direktive 91/628 spo�tovane.
For that purpose, the authority is required, in particular, to make an objective assessment of the documents presented to it and to show the pertinence of the elements it has relied on in order to establish that the documentation attached to the export refund application was not sufficient to show compliance with the relevant provisions of Directive 91/628.
Ta organ mora v ta namen zlasti objektivno presoditi dokumente, ki so mu bili predloženi, in dokazati ustrezno naravo dejstev, na katere se sklicuje, da bi dokazal, da z dokumentacijo, priloženo zahtevku za izvozna nadomestila, ni mogoče dokazati spo�tovanja upo�tevnih določb Direktive 91/628.
Such a reasoned decision is particularly indispensable to the exporter as it may wish to bring an action against a decision rejecting totally or in part its export refund application.
Taka obrazložena odločba je zlasti nepogre�ljiva za izvoznika, zato da lahko zoper to odločbo o popolni ali delni zavrnitvi njegovega zahtevka za izvozna nadomestila vloži tožbo.
It is for the national court to verify, in the main proceedings, whether, in the light, inter alia, of the documents attached by Viamex to its export refund application and of the negative list referred to at paragraphs 16, 21 and 25 of this judgment, the vessel complied with Directive 91/628 at the time when the animals were transported.
Predložitveno sodi�če mora presoditi, ali je bila v sporu o glavni stvari ob upo�tevanju zlasti dokumentov, ki jih je družba Viamex priložila svojemu zahtevku za izvozna nadomestila, in negativnega seznama iz točk 16, 21 in 25 te sodbe, ladja med prevozom živali v skladu z določbami Direktive 91/628.
In view of the foregoing, the answer to the first and second questions must be that, despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may consider, pursuant to Article 5(3) of the regulation, that Directive 91/628 has not been complied with.
Ob upo�tevanju navedenega je treba na prvo in drugo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da kljub dokumentom, ki jih je predložil izvoznik v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe �t. 615/98, pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) te uredbe lahko oceni, da je bila Direktiva 91/628 kr�ena.
However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning the health of the animals, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority, in substantiation of its finding of noncompliance with Directive 91/628, are irrelevant.
Vendar pa lahko pristojni organ do tega sklepa pride le tako, da se opira na dokumente iz člena 5 Uredbe �t. 615/98 in na poročila iz člena 4 te uredbe o zdravju živali ali na vsakr�no drugo objektivno dejstvo, ki vpliva na dobro počutje živali, s katerim je mogoče izpodbijati dokumente, ki jih je predložil izvoznik, ta pa mora, če je to potrebno, dokazati, zakaj naj dejstva, na katera se sklicuje pristojni organ, da bi dokazal kr�itev Direktive 91/628, ne bi bila upo�tevna.
By its third question, the national court asks essentially whether the competent authority may refuse the export refund pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected by reason of the failure to comply with Directive 91/628.
S tretjim vpra�anjem predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali lahko pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 zavrne izvozno nadomestilo, čeprav noben podatek ne omogoča konkretne ugotovitve, da je bilo zaradi kr�itve Direktive 91/628 ogroženo dobro počutje prevažanih živali.
In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, in the light of the wording of Articles 1 and 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 and the purpose of that regulation, compliance with the provisions of Directive 91/628 relating to animal health constitutes a prerequisite for payment of export refunds (see Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK, paragraph 37).
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da je glede na besedilo členov 1 in 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 ter cilj navedene uredbe spo�tovanje določb Direktive 91/628, ki se nana�ajo na zdravje živali, predhodni pogoj za izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Viamex Agrar Handel in ZVK, točka 37).
Moreover, as the Advocate General pointed out at point 44 of his Opinion, the wording of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98 clearly shows that the Community legislature made the payment of export refunds conditional upon compliance with Directive 91/628, regardless of any proof of actual and specific injury suffered by the animals during their transportation.
Poleg tega, kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 44 sklepnih predlogov, iz besedila člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 jasno izhaja, da je normodajalec Skupnosti izplačilo izvoznih nadomestil pogojil le z upo�tevanjem določb Direktive 91/628, neodvisno od kakr�nekoli ugotovitve konkretne �kode, ki naj bi jo utrpele živali med prevozom.
It appears that the Community legislature considered, on the basis of scientific and veterinary studies as well as assessments of the application of Community legislation carried out in the animal protection field, that once the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning the health of those animals are no longer complied with, the welfare of the animals is liable to be endangered and can no longer be guaranteed.
Izkaže se namreč, da je normodajalec Skupnosti na podlagi znanstvenih in veterinarskih �tudij ter presoj uporabe zakonodaje Skupnosti na področju za�čite živali menil, da bi bilo njihovo dobro počutje lahko ogroženo in ga ni več mogoče zagotavljati vse od trenutka, ko določbe Direktive 91/628 o zdravju teh živali niso več spo�tovane.
Such an approach appears moreover to be fully justified by the circumstance that, in practice, it is not always possible for the competent authority to ascertain that the animals have actually suffered, or been injured, as a result of noncompliance with those provisions.
Tak pristop se poleg tega izkaže kot popolnoma upravičen zaradi okoli�čine, da v praksi ni vedno mogoče, da pristojni organ ugotovi, ali so v konkretnem primeru živali zaradi nespo�tovanja teh določb zares trpele ali so bile po�kodovane.
In those circumstances, a competent authority which ascertains that, in breach inter alia of point 17 of the Annex to Directive 91/628, the fittings of a vessel are not such as to enable the animals to be transported without being exposed to injury or unnecessary suffering, is entitled to refuse the export refund.
V teh okoli�činah bi bil pristojni organ, ki bi ugotovil, da zaradi kr�itve med drugim točke 17 Priloge k Direktivi 91/628 oprema ladje ni omogočala prevoza živali, ne da bi bile te izpostavljene po�kodbam ali trpljenju, ki se jim je mogoče izogniti, upravičen, da zavrne izvozna nadomestila.
It is for the competent authority to assess whether failure to comply with a provision of Directive 91/628 has had an impact on the welfare of the animals, whether such a failure can, if appropriate, be remedied and whether it must result in the export refund being forfeited, reduced or retained.
Pristojni organ mora oceniti, ali je kr�itev določbe Direktive 91/628 vplivala na dobro počutje živali, ali se mogoče lahko tako kr�itev odpravi in ali mora povzročiti izgubo, zmanj�anje ali ohranitev izvoznega nadomestila.
It is also for that authority to decide whether the export refund must be reduced on a pro rata basis according to the number of animals which may, in its view, have suffered as a result of noncompliance with Directive 91/628 or whether that refund should not be paid since the failure to comply with a provision of that directive has inevitably had an impact on the welfare of all the animals (see Viamex Agrar Handel and ZVK, paragraph 44).
Isti organ mora tudi odločiti, ali je treba zmanj�ati izvozno nadomestilo sorazmerno s �tevilom živali, ki so po njegovem mnenju lahko trpele zaradi kr�itve Direktive 91/628, ali naj se ne izplača tega nadomestila, če je kr�itev določbe navedene direktive neizogibno vplivala na dobro počutje vseh živali (glej zgoraj navedeno sodbo Viamex Agrar Handel in ZVK, točka 44).
The answer to the third question must therefore be that, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628 concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected.
Zato je treba na tretje vpra�anje odgovoriti, da pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe �t. 615/98 lahko zavrne izvozno nadomestilo zaradi kr�itve določb Direktive 91/628/EGS, ki se nana�ajo na za�čito živali, čeprav na podlagi nobenega dejstva ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je bilo dobro počutje prevažanih živali v konkretnem primeru ogroženo.
Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) 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, the competent authority may consider, pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation, that 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, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, has not been complied with.
Kljub dokumentom, ki jih je predložil izvoznik v skladu s členom 5(2) Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 615/98 z dne 18. marca 1998 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za dobro počutje živega goveda med prevozom, lahko pristojni organ na podlagi člena 5(3) te uredbe oceni, da je bila Direktiva Sveta 91/628/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o zaščiti živali med prevozom in o spremembi direktiv 90/425/EGS in 91/496/EGS, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 95/29/ES z dne 29. junija 1995, kršena.
However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning animal health, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority in substantiation of its finding of noncompliance with Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, are irrelevant.
Vendar pa lahko pristojni organ do tega sklepa pride le tako, da se opira na dokumente iz člena 5 Uredbe št. 615/98 in na poročila iz člena 4 te uredbe o zdravju živali ali na vsakršno drugo objektivno dejstvo, ki vpliva na dobro počutje živali, s katerimi je mogoče izpodbijati dokumente, ki jih je predložil izvoznik, ta pa mora, če je to potrebno, dokazati, zakaj naj dejstva, na katera se sklicuje pristojni organ, da bi dokazal kršitev Direktive 91/628, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29, ne bi bila upoštevna.
Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected.
Pristojni organ lahko na podlagi člena 5(3) Uredbe št. 615/98 zavrne izvozno nadomestilo zaradi kršitve določb Direktive 91/628, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo 95/29, ki se nanašajo na zdravje živali, čeprav na podlagi nobenega dejstva ni mogoče ugotoviti, da je bilo dobro počutje prevažanih živali v konkretnem primeru ogroženo.
Case C-125/06 P
Zadeva C-125/06 P
(Appeal — Directive 89/552/EEC — Television broadcasting — Action for annulment — Fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC — Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person)
„Pritožba – Direktiva 89/552/EGS – Raz�irjanje televizijskih programov – Ničnostna tožba – Člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES – Pojem odločbe, ki ‚neposredno in posamično‘ zadeva fizično ali pravno osebo“
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 18 October 2006 . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 18. oktobra 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Actions for annulment — Natural or legal persons — Measures of direct and individual concern to them
Ničnostna tožba – Fizične ali pravne osebe – Akti, ki jih neposredno in posamično zadevajo (člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES; Direktiva Sveta 89/552, člen 3a)
(Art. 230, fourth para., EC)
Ničnostna tožba – Fizične ali pravne osebe – Akti, ki jih neposredno in posamično zadevajo (člen 230, četrti odstavek, ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-125/06 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-125/06 P
Persons other than those to whom a decision is addressed may claim to be individually concerned only if that decision affects them by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons and by virtue of these factors distinguishes them individually just as in the case of the person addressed by such a decision.
Osebe, ki niso naslovniki odločbe, ne morejo trditi, da jih odločba posamično zadeva le, če ta odločba nanje vpliva zaradi svojih posebnih značilnosti ali zato, ker jih posamično opredeljuje glede na vse ostale osebe in jih zato posamično opredeli na enak način, kot bi posamično opredelila naslovnika take odločbe.
In that regard, where the decision affects a group of persons who were identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to the members of the group, those persons might be individually concerned by that measure inasmuch as they form part of a limited class of traders.
V zvezi s tem, kadar odločba zadeva skupino oseb, ki so bile prepoznane ali prepoznavne v času, ko je bil ta akt sprejet, in z merili, lastnimi članom skupine, lahko te osebe ta akt posamično zadeva, ker so del omejenega kroga gospodarskih subjektov.
That can be the case particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual prior to its adoption.
Za to gre lahko predvsem kadar odločba posega v pravice, ki jih je posameznik pridobil pred njeno izdajo.