natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Joined Cases C-23/06 to C-36/06 Saint-Louis Sucre and Others that the objective of self-financing would require the Commission to include in ‘export commitments in question’ sugar which is exported in the form of processed products on which export refunds have not been paid.
Združene zadeve Saint­Louis Sucre in drugi (od C­23/06 do C­36/06) proizvajalci trdijo, da naj bi cilj samofinanciranja od Komisije zahteval, da v „zadevne izvozne obveznosti“ vključi sladkor, ki je izvožen v obliki predelanih proizvodov, v zvezi s katerimi niso bila izplačana izvozna nadomestila.
The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (Regional Court, Nanterre) states that it is bound to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling since the validity of Community legislation is at issue.
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre (regionalno sodi�če v Nanterreju) navaja, da mora Sodi�ču predložiti predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, saj gre za vpra�anje veljavnosti zakonodaje Skupnosti.
It notes also that the parties are in agreement on the need for that referral as the disputed question has also been raised in other Member States several of which, including France, have made known their disagreement with the method of calculation used by the management committee to evaluate the total loss to be financed by the production levy.
Ugotavlja, da se stranke strinjajo glede tega, da je treba vložiti ta predlog, saj se je sporno vpra�anje pojavilo tudi v drugih državah članicah, od katerih se jih precej, vključno s Francijo, ne strinja z metodo izračuna, ki jo uporablja upravljalni odbor za presojo skupne izgube, ki naj se financira s proizvodno dajatvijo.
It has accordingly referred the following questions:
Zato je predložilo ti vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje:
In Joined Cases C-23/06 to C-36/06 Saint-Louis Sucre and Others (‘Saint-Louis Sucre’), the producers believed that they had paid too much production levy in respect of the marketing years 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04.
V združenih zadevah Saint-Louis Sucre in drugi (od C-23/06 do C-36/06, v nadaljevanju: Saint-Louis Sucre) so proizvajalci menili, da so plačali preveč proizvodne dajatve v zvezi s tržnimi leti 2001/02, 2002/03 in 2003/04.
They made a request for partial reimbursement on the ground that, since 2002, the levy has generated more revenue than is envisaged by the correct application of the relevant legislation, which provides for a simple system of self-financing by producers.
Zahtevali so delno povrnitev, in sicer zato, ker je bilo od leta 2002 zaradi dajatve ustvarjenih več prihodkov, kot je predvideno ob pravilnem izvajanju upo�tevne zakonodaje, ki določa enostaven sistem samofinanciranja s strani proizvajalcev.
That is principally because part of the sugar incorporated in processed exported products does not in practice give rise to export refunds and does not therefore give rise to any costs.
To je v bistvu zato, ker del sladkorja, vsebovanega v predelanih izvoženih proizvodih, v praksi ni upravičen do izvoznih nadomestil in torej ne ustvarja stro�kov.
The implementing regulation however includes in the calculation of the exportable surplus transactions which do not generate any refunds, or therefore any expenditure.
Izvedbena uredba pa v zračun presežka, ki se izvozi, vključuje transakcije, ki niso podlaga za nadomestila in prav tako ne izdatkov.
The producers consider that by accounting differently for sugar which is exported in the form of processed products which has not given rise to any export refunds, by integrating it on the one hand into the exportable surplus to be financed, but by excluding it on the other hand from the ‘export obligations’ in question which allow calculation of the ‘average loss’, the Commission overestimated the amount of the levy for the three marketing years 2001/02, 2002/03 and 2003/04, disregarding the objective of self-financing laid down by the Council.
Proizvajalci menijo, da je Komisija, s tem ko je različno upo�tevala sladkor, ki se izvozi v obliki predelanih proizvodov, ki niso podlaga za izvozna nadomestila, in ga je vključila na eni strani v presežek, ki se izvozi in se financira, na drugi strani pa ga je izključila iz zadevnih „izvoznih obveznosti,“ ki dovoljujejo izračun „povprečne izgube,“ precenila znesek dajatve za tri tržna leta, in sicer 2001/02, 2002/03 in 2003/04, ter ni upo�tevala cilja samofinanciranja, ki ga je določil Svet.
In the alternative, if the Court upholds the Commission’s interpretation of the exportable surplus, the producers submit
Podredno – če bi Sodi�če potrdilo Komisijino razlago presežka, ki se izvozi – pa
Assessment do not provide for the exclusion from the “exportable surplus” of the sugar contained in processed products which are exported without export refunds?
Presoja bi se ob izračunu proizvodne dajatve od ‚presežka, ki se izvaža‘, izključile količine sladkorja, ki so vsebovane v izvoženih predelanih proizvodih, ne da bi bila podana upravičenost do izvoznega nadomestila?
Determination of the exportable surplus
Določitev presežka, ki se izvozi
If the answer to this question is in the negative:
Pri nikalnem odgovoru na to vpra�anje:
The first question in both Jülich and Saint Louis Sucre asks essentially whether Article 15 of the basic regulation requires account to be taken, when determining the exportable surplus, only of those export quantities in respect of which export refunds have in fact been paid.
S prvim vpra�anjem tako v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Jülich kot Saint-Louis Sucre se v bistvu spra�uje, ali člen 15 osnovne uredbe zahteva, da je treba pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, upo�tevati samo tiste izvozne količine, v zvezi s katerimi so bila dejansko izplačana izvozna nadomestila.
(2) Are Regulations (EC) Nos 1837/2002, 1762/2003 and 1775/2004 invalid in the light of [the implementing regulation] and Article 15 of [the basic regulation] and of the principles of equality and proportionality, in that they lay down a production levy for sugar which is calculated on the basis of the “average loss” per tonne exported, which does not take account of the quantities exported without refund, although these quantities are included in the total used to evaluate the total loss to be financed?’
Ali Uredbe (ES) �t. 1837/2002, 1762/2003 in 1775/2004 ob upo�tevanju [izvedbene uredbe] in člena 15 [osnovne uredbe] ter načel enakosti in sorazmernosti niso veljavne, s tem ko določajo proizvodno dajatev za sladkor, ki se jo izračuna na podlagi ‚povprečne izgube‘ na izvoženo tono, ki ne upo�teva količin, ki so izvožene brez nadomestila, ob tem pa so te enake količine vsebovane v skupnem se�tevku, s katerim se oceni celotno izgubo, ki se jo financira?“
It appears to be common ground that the effect of an affirmative answer to that question 29 will be that Article 6(4) of the implementing regulation is invalid, since the effect of that provision is that account will be taken, when determining the exportable surplus, of all export quantities regardless of whether export refunds have in fact been paid.
Zdi se, da ni sporno, da bi bila posledica pritrdilnega odgovora na navedeno vpra�anje 29to, da člen 6(4) izvedbene uredbe ne bi bil veljaven, saj je učinek te določbe v tem, da se pri določanju presežka, ki se izvozi, upo�teva vse izvozne količine, ne glede na to, ali so bila izvozna nadomestila dejansko izplačana.
The invalidity of Article 6(4) is raised as the second question in Jülich and as part of the first question in Saint Louis Sucre.
Vpra�anje neveljavnosti člena 6(4) se postavlja kot drugo vpra�anje z zadevi Zuckerfabrik Jülich in kot del prvega vpra�anja v zadevi Saint-Louis Sucre.
29 — The terms of the first question in Saint-Louis Sucre are in fact such that a negative answer is to the same effect as an affirmative answer to the first question in Jülich.
29 – Besedilo prvega vpra�anja iz zadev Saint-Louis Sucre je dejansko tako, da bi negativen odgovor nanj pomenil pritrdilen odgovor na prvo vpra�anje v iz zadeve Zuckerfabrik Jülich.
Since it makes sense to consider both questions together, I rephrase them as one.
Glede na to, da se zdi smiselno na obe vpra�anji odgovoriti skupaj, sem ju preoblikovala v eno vpra�anje.
Written observations have been submitted, and oral observations made at the hearing, by the applicants, the French, German and Greek Governments and the Commission in both Jülich and Saint Louis Sucre.
Tožeče stranke, francoska, nem�ka in gr�ka vlada ter Komisija so v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Jülich in Sain-Louis Sucre predložile pisna stali�ča, na obravnavi pa ustna stali�ča. Italijanska vlada je predložila pisna stali�ča v zadevi Saint-Louis Sucre.
The question is whether that interpretation is consistent with Article 15 of the basic regulation.
Vpra�anje je, ali je ta razlaga skladna s členom 15 osnovne uredbe.
Similarly, if the first question in both Jülich and Saint Louis Sucre (as rephrased above) is answered in the affirmative, the effect will be that Regulations Nos 1837/2002, 1762/2003 and 1775/2004, which lay down the amount of the production levy calculated in accordance with, inter alia, Article 6(4) of the implementing regulation, are to that extent invalid.
Podobno bi bila posledica tega, da bi bilo na prvo vpra�anje tako v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Jülich kot Saint-Louis Sucre (kot je preoblikovano zgoraj) odgovorjeno pritrdilno, to, da Uredbe �t. 1837/2002, 1762/2003 in 1775/2004, ki določajo znesek proizvodne dajatve med drugim skladno s členom 6(4) izvedbene uredbe, v tem obsegu ne bi bile veljavne.
The applicants and the French, Greek and Italian Governments submit, in essence, that in accordance with Article 15 of the basic regulation account should be taken, when determining the exportable surplus, only of those exports of sugar in respect of which export refunds have actually been paid.
Tožeče stranke ter francoska, gr�ka in italijanska vlada v bistvu trdijo, da je treba skladno s členom 15 osnovne uredbe pri določanju presežka, ki se izvozi, upo�tevati samo tisti izvoz sladkorja, v zvezi s katerim so bila dejansko izplačana izvozna nadomestila.
Those parties variously invoke in support of their view, first, the wording, scheme, history, objective, and interpretation by the Court of the basic regulation and, second, the principle of proportionality.
Navedene stranke se v podporo svojemu stali�ču na različne načine sklicujejo na, prvič, besedilo, namen, zgodovino, cilj in razlago osnovne uredbe s strani Sodi�ča, in drugič, na načelo sorazmernosti.
The German Government and the Commission take the contrary view.
Nem�ka vlada in Komisija sta nasprotnega mnenja.
It will be recalled that in accordance with Article 15 of the basic regulation the overall loss, which determines the rate of the production levy, is the product of the exportable surplus and the average loss.
Opozoriti je treba na to, da je skladno s členom 15 osnovne uredbe skupna izguba, ki določa stopnjo proizvodne dajatve, zmnožek presežka, ki se izvozi, in povprečne izgube.
The exportable surplus is calculated on the basis of sugar quantities disposed of for consumption within the Community.
Presežek, ki se izvozi, se izračuna na podlagi količin sladkorja, ki se prodajo za porabo v Skupnosti.
Article 6(4) of the implementing regulation as amended provides that the quantities disposed of for consumption in the Community are (i) total quantities of sugar stored at the beginning of the marketing year, sugar produced under quotas A and B, sugar imported in the natural state and sugar contained in imported processed products, minus (ii) sugar exported in the natural state, sugar contained in exported processed products, sugar stored at the end of the marketing year and (essentially) sugar used in the chemical industry.
Člen 6(4) izvedbene uredbe, kot je bil spremenjen, določa, da so količine, ki se prodajo za porabo v Skupnosti, (i) skupne količine sladkorja, skladi�čene na začetku tržnega leta, sladkor, proizveden po kvotah A in B, sladkor, uvožen v naravnem stanju, in sladkor, ki ga vsebujejo uvoženi predelani proizvodi, zmanj�ane za (ii) skupne količine sladkorja, izvoženega v naravnem stanju, tistega, ki ga vsebujejo izvoženi predelani proizvodi, tistega, skladi�čenega na koncu tržnega leta, in (v bistvu) tistega, ki se ga uporablja v kemični industriji.
30 the opposite conclusion: at this stage of the calculation, all that is being done is determining what was exported.
V drugem primeru pa jasno besedilo določb vodi v nasproten sklep, in sicer da se v tej fazi izračuna samo določi tisto, kar je bilo izvoženo.
The Commission submits that the basic regulation gives it no choice but to take into account when calculating the exportable surplus all exports, including those which have not benefited from export refunds.
Komisija trdi, da ji osnovna uredba ne daje nobene druge izbire, kot da pri izračunu presežka, ki se izvozi, upo�teva ves izvoz, vključno s tistim delom, ki ni bil upravičen do izvoznih nadomestil.
That approach is logical since the exportable surplus must include all quantities, whether or not in fact exported, the disposal of which is provided for by Community measures.
Ta pristop je logičen, saj mora presežek, ki se izvozi, vključevati vse količine – ne glede na to, ali so bile dejansko izvožene ali ne –, katerih prodaja je določena z ukrepi Skupnosti.
Moreover, Community consumption would be overestimated if certain exported quantities were not taken into account.
Poleg tega bi bila poraba v Skupnosti precenjena, če določene izvozne količine ne bi bile upo�tevane.
To my mind it would be disingenuous to take the second view.
Menim, da bi bilo zavajajoče slediti drugemu stali�ču.
The calculation is not included in the legislation as an exercise in linguistics.
Izračun ni del zakonodaje, ker bi bil vaja v jezikoslovju.
It is there as a step in determining whether there is an overall loss.
Gre za korak pri ugotavljanju, ali je pri�lo do skupne izgube.
As Jülich submits, the term ‘overall loss’ in Article 15(1)(e) is hierarchically superior to the subordinate terms ‘exportable surplus’ and ‘average loss’ and must therefore colour the interpretation of the latter terms.
Kot navaja družba Zuckerfabrik Jülich, je izraz „skupna izguba“ iz člena 15(1)(e) hierarhično nadrejen izrazoma „presežek, ki se izvozi“, in „povprečna izguba“ ter mora zato vplivati na razlago teh izrazov.
If there is an overall loss, the production levy is calculated by direct and immediate reference to it and is charged to sugar producers at such a rate that they bear the entirety of the loss (subject to a cap).
Pri skupni izgubi se proizvodna dajatev izračuna z neposrednim in s takoj�njim sklicevanjem nanjo ter se proizvajalcem sladkorja zaračuna po taki stopnji, da pokrijejo celotno izgubo (do določenega praga).
The principle of producer respon- sibility was introduced by Regulation No 1785/1981.
Načelo odgovornosti proizvajalcev je bilo uvedeno z Uredbo �t. 1785/1981.
31The Court explained in Eridania 32that before that regulation was adopted provision was made for a Community system for financing the costs of disposing of surpluses.
31Sodi�če je v sodbi Eridania 32 pojasnilo, da je bil pred sprejetjem navedene uredbe vzpostavljen sistem Skupnosti za financiranje stro�kov prodaje presežkov.
It seems to me that, essentially, the question comes down to whether one takes a broader approach, looking at the ultimate objective of the calculation, or a narrower approach, looking at the individual components of the calculation.
Zdi se mi, da je problem v bistvu v tem, ali se uporabi �ir�i pristop, ki se osredotoča na končni cilj izračuna, ali pa ožji pristop, ki se osredotoča na posamezne dele izračuna.
In the former case, the objective of self-financing would seem to support the view that only sugar exported in processed products in respect of which export refunds have been claimed and paid should be taken into account. Otherwise the knock-on effect is that the ‘overall loss’ is artificially inflated and the production levies are therefore higher.
V prvem primeru se zdi, da cilj samofinan -ciranja podpira stali�če, da je treba upo�tevati samo sladkor, ki je bil izvožen v predelanih proizvodih ter v zvezi s katerim so bila zahtevana in izplačana izvozna nadomestila.
30 — The German Government refers to Eridania, cited in footnote 26, paragraph 19.
30 – Nem�ka vlada se sklicuje na zgoraj v opombi 26 navedeno sodbo Eridania, točka 19.
ZUCKERFABRIK JÜLICH AND OTHERS borne by the Community budget.
mere pokrili proizvajalci kot celota, in sicer s proizvodno dajatvijo, medtem ko je ostanek pokril proračun Skupnosti.
Regulation No 1785/1981 introduced the system which underlies the present arrangements.
Uredba �t. 1785/1981 je uvedla sistem, ki je podlaga za sedanjo ureditev.
Indeed, the wording of the 11th recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1785/1981 is in its essentials identical to that of recital 9 in the preamble to the basic regulation.
Dejansko je besedilo enajste uvodne izjave v preambuli Uredbe �t.
That recital, together with the other recitals set out in point 7 above, makes it clear in my view that the overriding aim of the production levy under the post-1981 system is to ensure that producers bear the costs of disposing of surplus production.
Po navedeni uvodni izjavi je – skupaj z drugimi uvodnimi izjavami iz zgoraj navedene točke 7 – po mojem mnenju jasno, da je glavni cilj proizvodne dajatve po sistemu po letu 1981 zagotoviti, da proizvajalci krijejo stro�ke prodaje presežne proizvodnje.
The Court rejected that argument.
Sodi�če je to trditev zavrnilo.
In its judgment it stated that ‘the quota system … provides for the disposal at guaranteed prices of qualifying quantities by means of a system for financing the costs of disposal, which are borne jointly by all the producers.
V sodbi je navedlo, da „sistem kvot […] določa prodajo upravičenih količin po zagotovljenih cenah po sistemu financiranja stro�kov prodaje, ki jih krijejo vsi proizvajalci skupaj.
That financing system is designed in such a way that the A quota, which represents internal consumption, attracts only a minimal levy whereas the B quota, which is mainly for export, is subject to a much higher levy in order to finance the necessary refunds whilst discouraging production’. 33
Navedeni sistem financiranja je zasnovan tako, da je za kvoto A, ki predstavlja notranjo porabo, predvidena samo minimalna dajatev, za kvoto B, ki je v glavnem namenjena izvozu, pa je predvidena precej vi�ja dajatev, in sicer zaradi financiranja potrebnih nadomestil, ob tem da odvračilno vpliva na proizvodnjo.“ 33
Recital 11 in the preamble to the basic regulation moreover refers to the principle that producers should bear full financial responsibility for the losses incurred each marketing year.
Uvodna izjava 11 preambule k osnovni uredbi se poleg tega sklicuje na načelo, da morajo proizvajalci nositi polno finančno odgovornost za izgubo, ki nastane v vsakem tržnem letu.
That tends to emphasise that actual losses are at issue.
Zdi se, da se s tem poudarja dejanske izgube.
That statement is cited by the referring court in Jülich and by the German Government in both cases in support of the view that the aim of the production levy is not simply for producers to bear the cost of disposal but also to discourage production.
To izjavo navajata predložitveno sodi�če v zadevi Zuckerfabrik Jülich in nem�ka vlada v obeh zadevah, in sicer v podporo stali�ču, da namen proizvodne dajatve ni samo to, da proizvajalci krijejo stro�ke prodaje, ampak tudi odvračanje od proizvodnje.
In Eridania the Court was asked whether the production levy was contrary to the
Sodi�če je bilo v zadevi Eridania vpra�ano, ali je bila proizvodna dajatev v nasprotju s prepovedjo diskriminacije na podlagi tega, da je bila celota stro�kov, povezanih s finan-
33 — Paragraph 19 (emphasis added).
33 – Točka 19 (moj poudarek).
It seems clear to me, however, that the formulation used by the Court is consistent with the view that the principal aim is for self-financing by producers.
Meni pa se zdi jasno, da je formulacija Sodi�ča skladna s stali�čem, da je glavni namen samofinanciranje s strani proizvajalcev.
chemical industry.
v osnovni uredbi.
37 Article 15(6) requires all losses resulting from the grant of such production refunds to be taken into account when calculating the overall loss referred to in paragraph 1(e).
37 Člen 15(6) zahteva, da se pri izračunu skupne izgube iz odstavka 1(e) upo�tevajo vse izgube, ki izhajajo iz odobritve proizvodnih nadomestil.
Production refunds therefore enter the equation only where they have in fact been granted.
Proizvodna nadomestila torej postanejo del izračuna samo, če so bila dejansko odobrena.
Moreover the very fact that the production levy imposes on producers the burden of financing the cost of subsidising exports of excess production would seem to me to discourage production.
Poleg tega se mi zdi, da od proizvodnje odvrača že dejstvo, da proizvodna dajatev proizvajalcem nalaga breme financiranja stro�kov subvencioniranja izvoza presežne proizvodnje.
The mere fact, if such it be, that production levies discourage production in excess of Community consumption is in no way inconsistent with the principal objective of such levies being to finance export refunds, and hence with the proposition that such levies must be calculated so that producers do not pay more than is necessary for that purpose.
Dejstvo, da proizvodne dajatve odvračajo od presežne proizvodnje v Skupnosti – če je res tako –, nikakor ni neskladno z glavnim ciljem takih dajatev – ki je v tem, da se financira izvozna nadomestila – in torej s trditvijo, da je treba take dajatve izračunavati tako, da proizvajalci ne plačajo več, kot je treba v ta namen.
It is also apparent from the scheme of Article 15 of the basic regulation that the principal aim is self-financing.
Tudi iz sistematike člena 15 osnovne uredbe izhaja, da je glavni namen samofinanciranje.
Article 15(3) provides that the basic production levy is to be determined by dividing the foreseeable overall loss by the estimated production of A and B sugar attributable to the current marketing year, subject to a cap.
Člen 15(3) določa, da je treba osnovno proizvodno dajatev določiti tako, da se predvidena skupna izguba deli s predvideno proizvodnjo sladkorja A in B, ki velja za tekoče tržno leto, in to do določenega praga.
34 If however the production levy so calculated does ‘not fully cover the overall loss’, Article 15(4) provides for the calculation of a further levy on the production of B sugar, again subject to a cap.
34Če pa tako izračunana proizvodna dajatev „ne pokrije v celoti skupne izgube,“ člen 15(4) določa izračun nadaljnje dajatve za proizvodnjo sladkorja B, spet do določenega praga.
35 Again, should it appear that the foreseeable overall loss ‘is unlikely to be covered by the expected proceeds from the levies’ because of the two caps, Article 15(5) provides for further adjustment, subject to a further cap. 36
35 Poleg tega pa, ponovno, če bi se izkazalo, da predvidena skupna izguba „verjetno ne bo pokrita iz pričakovanih prihodkov iz dajatev“ zaradi obeh pragov, člen 15(5) predvideva nadaljnjo prilagoditev, spet do določenega praga. 36
That interpretation is furthermore borne out by the treatment in the basic regulation of production refunds on sugar used in the
Navedeno razlago podpira tudi način obravnave proizvodnih nadomestil za sladkor, ki se uporablja v kemični industriji,
34 — For sugar, 2% of the intervention price for white sugar.35 — 30% of the intervention price for white sugar.36 — 37.5% of the intervention price for white sugar.
34 – Pri sladkorju sta to 2 % intervencijske cene za beli sladkor.35 – 30 % intervencijske cene za beli sladkor.36 – 37,5 % intervencijske cene za beli sladkor.
37 — In accordance with Article 7(3): see point 13 above.
37 – Skladno s členom 7(3): glej zgoraj navedeno točko 13.
ZUCKERFABRIK JÜLICH AND OTHERS required in order more generally to interpret the legislation so as to reflect its objectives.
ZUCKERFABRIK JÜLICH IN DRUGI potrebna, če se želi �ir�e razložiti zakonodajo in se tako uskladiti z njenimi cilji.