natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under Article 6.1(d) of the Netherlands rules, in the version applicable until 2 June 2003, a premium is granted to the producer only for suckler cows which, in the year in question, have calved at least once and whose calves have not been removed from the herd within four months after their birth.
V smislu člena 6(1)(d) nizozemskega predpisa v različici, ki se je uporabljala do 2. junija 2003, se premija podeli pridelovalcu samo za krave dojilje, ki so v tekočem letu telile vsaj enkrat in katerih tele ni bilo vzeto iz črede vsaj �tiri mesece po skotitvi.
From 2 June 2003, Article 6.1(d) of the Netherlands rules was amended as follows:
Od 2. junija 2003 je bil člen 6(1)(d) nizozemskega predpisa spremenjen:
‘A premium shall be granted to the producer only for suckler cows which have calved at least once in the period which starts to run 20 months before the date on which the application period in question started and ends four full months after that date and whose calves have not been removed from the herd within four months after their birth.’
„Premija se pridelovalcu podeli samo za krave dojilje, ki so telile vsaj enkrat v obdobju, ki začne teči dvajset mesecev pred datumom začetka roka za vložitev zahtevka in se konča �tiri dopolnjene mesece po tem datumu, in katerih teleta niso bila vzeta iz zadevne črede v �tirih mesecih po njihovi skotitvi.“
The facts in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Dejansko stanje in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
In respect of 2002, the Minister for Agriculture first allowed Mr Winkel’s application by paying him a premium of approximately EUR 1 300, before revoking his decision and demanding that Mr Winkel reimburse that amount on the ground that four of the cows in question had not suckled their calves for at least four months after their
Glede leta 2002 je minister za kmetijstvo najprej sprejel njegov zahtevek in mu nakazal premijo v vi�ini približno 1300 EUR, nato pa ponovno odločil o njem in zahteval povračilo tega zneska, ker �tiri od teh krav niso dojile svojih telet vsaj �tiri
2008 — CASE C-446/06 birth.
2008 – ZADEVA C-446/06 mesece po skotitvi.
The premium was refused for one cow on the ground that it had not suckled its calf for four months after its birth.
Za eno kravo je bila premija zavrnjena, ker svojega teleta ni dojila vsaj �tiri mesece po skotitvi.
The Minister for Agriculture dismissed those objections by decision of 26 October 2004.
Minister za kmetijstvo je te ugovore zavrnil z odločbo z dne 26. oktobra 2004, zoper katero je A. G. Winkel vložil tožbo pri College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven.
The first is an interpretative note of the Directorate-General for Agriculture of the Commission of the European Communities of 16 December 1999, in which the Commission states that the calves of suckler cows must remain with their mothers other than in exceptional cases.
Prvi je pojasnjevalna opomba generalnega direktorata za kmetijstvo Komisije z dne 16. decembra 1999, v kateri je slednji navedel, da morajo teleta krav dojilj ostati pri svojih materah, razen v izjemnih primerih.
The second document is a report of 3 June 2002 by the same Directorate-General describing checks carried out by the Netherlands authorities following a Commission inspection.
Drugi dokument je poročilo z dne 3. junija 2002 istega generalnega direktorata, ki opisuje preverjanje, ki so ga opravili nizozemski organi po kontroli služb Komisije.
That report states that almost 25% of the calves born in 2000 belonging to herds intended for rearing purposes had left their herd in the four months following their birth.
V njem je navedeno, da je skoraj 25 % telet, ki so se skotila v letu 2000 in ki so pripadala čredam, namenjenim za vzrejo, zapustilo čredo v obdobju �tirih mesecev po njihovi skotitvi.
The Commission states that, other than in duly reasoned exceptional cases, each calf must remain with its mother for an average of four months for the purposes of award of the suckler cow premium.
Službe Komisije pojasnjujejo, da bi vsako tele – razen v izjemnih primerih, ki morajo biti ustrezno obrazloženi – za namene dodelitve premije za krave dojilje moralo pri materi ostati v povprečju �tiri mesece.
The national court is, however, uncertain as to whether, by imposing conditions on the frequency of calving and the length of suckling at the level of each suckler cow and not at that of the herd as a whole, a Member State is introducing requirements which are incompatible with the Community rules.
Predložitveno sodi�če se spra�uje, ali je država članica z določitvijo pogojev glede pogostosti telitve in trajanja dojenja glede vsake krave, ne pa na ravni celotne črede, uvedla zahteve, ki niso združljive z ureditvijo Skupnosti.
Preliminary comments
Uvodne ugotovitve
According to the case-file, the applicable conditions in the Netherlands governing eligibility for the suckler cow premium relate to both the frequency of calving and the length of suckling.
Iz spisa izhaja, da se pogoji, ki se uporabljajo na Nizozemskem za pridobitev premije za krave dojilje, nana�ajo na eni strani na pogostost telitve in na drugi strani na trajanje dojenja.
Up to 2 June 2003, in order to be classified as suckler cows, cows in respect of which a premium was applied for had to have calved at least once in the year in question.
Do 2. junija 2003 so morale krave, za katere se je zahtevala premija – da se jih je obravnavalo kot krave dojilje –, teliti vsaj enkrat v zadevnem letu.
From 2 June 2003, it was sufficient that the cows in question had calved once within a defined two-year period.
Od 2. junija 2003 je zadostovalo, da so zadevne krave telile enkrat v dvoletnem obdobju.
The condition relating to the length of suckling, by contrast, did not change and provides that the calves must have remained with their mother for a period of four months after their birth.
Pogoj trajanja dojenja pa se ni spremenil in določa, da morajo teleta ostati pri svoji materi �tiri mesece po skotitvi.
The first question must therefore be understood as seeking to ascertain, essentially, whether Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 precludes national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.
Zato je treba prvo vpra�anje v bistvu razumeti v smislu, ali člen 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, v skladu s katero so premije za krave dojilje odvisne od pogojev, ki so v skladu z običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje, in ki predvideva na eni strani določeno pogostost telitve in na drugi strani to, da je mati tele dojila �tiri mesece po skotitvi.
Observations of the parties
Stališča strank
The Commission considers, first, that the definition in Article 3(f) is exhaustive and that the Member States could not add other conditions.
Komisija najprej meni, da je opredelitev iz člena 3(f) izčrpna in da države članice niso mogle dodati drugih pogojev.
Secondly, it argues, the suckler element must be assessed at the level of the herd as a whole rather than at the level of individual cows.
Dalje, dojenje naj bi bilo treba presojati na ravni celotne črede, ne pa glede vsake krave.
Finally, conditions such as those introduced in the Netherlands rules preclude account from being taken of exceptional cases in which the length of suckling or the frequency of calving could not be complied with.
Nazadnje, pogoji, kot so določeni v nizozemskem predpisu, naj bi preprečevali upo�tevanje izjemnih primerov, ko trajanja dojenja ali pogostosti telitve ni bilo možno spo�tovati.
The Netherlands and French Governments put forward the opposite opinion.
Nizozemska in francoska vlada zastopata nasprotno stali�če.
The Netherlands Government states that it introduced the conditions at issue, in particular the condition on the length of suckling, in order to take account of criticism expressed by the Commission following an inspection carried out by Commission staff.
Nizozemska vlada poudarja, da je uvedla zadevni pogoj – namreč pogoj trajanja dojenja – zato, da bi upo�tevala kritiko, ki so jo izrazile službe Komisije po kontroli, ki so jo izvedle.
Furthermore, the Netherlands Government claims that the suckling requirement does not in any way preclude account from being taken of exceptional cases, such as emergency slaughtering involving accidental death of a calf, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation No 2419/2001.
Še več, ta vlada zatrjuje, da pogoj dojenja v ničemer ne preprečuje upo�tevanja izjemnih primerov, kot sta zakol v nujnih primerih ali pogin teleta v nesreči, v skladu z določbami Uredbe �t. 2419/2001.
The French Government takes the view that, in the absence of clarification at Community level, it is for the Member States to define the concept of cows forming part of a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production in compliance with the objectives of the Community legislation.
Francoska vlada meni, da so države članice tiste, ki morajo opredeliti pojem krave, ki pripada čredi, namenjeni za vzrejo telet za prirejo mesa, glede na to, da ta pojem na ravni Skupnosti ni natančneje določen, in sicer ob spo�tovanju ciljev skupnostnih predpisov.
The conditions laid down in the Netherlands rules are, it submits, fully compatible with those objectives.
Pogoji, določeni v nizozemskem predpisu, naj bi bili z njimi popolnoma v skladu.
Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 defines ‘suckler cow’ by reference to two criteria.
V členu 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 je pojem „krava dojilja“ opredeljen s sklicevanjem na dve merili.
Under the first, the cow must be a ‘meat’ cow, determined by its belonging to a meat breed or its origin deriving from a cross with that breed.
Na podlagi prvega od teh meril mora biti krava mesna, kar je opredeljeno s pripadnostjo taki pasmi ali z rojstvom s križanjem z mesno pasmo.
The second requires that it belong to a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production.
Drugo merilo zahteva, da pripada čredi, namenjeni za vzrejo telet za prirejo mesa.
Article 6 of Regulation No 1254/1999 establishes the conditions for eligibility for the suckler cow premium and, accordingly, provides in Article 6(2) for an obligation on the producer to keep, for at least six consecutive months from the date of the application, a number of suckler cows at least equal to 60% and of heifers at most equal to 40% of the number for which the premium was requested.
V členu 6 te uredbe so določeni pogoji za upravičenost do premije za krave dojilje in tako je v njegovem odstavku 2 pridelovalcu naloženo, da ima v reji najmanj �est zaporednih mesecev od dneva, ko vloži zahtevek, tolik�no �tevilo krav dojilj, da to zna�a najmanj 60 % �tevila, in tolik�no �tevilo telic, da ne presega 40 % �tevila, za katero se je zahtevala premija.
As the Advocate General notes in point 47 of his Opinion, that provision makes it necessary to give a precise definition of a ‘suckler cow’ in order to distinguish it from other cows such as dairy cows or heifers.
Kot je poudaril generalni pravobranilec v točki 47 sklepnih predlogov, je zaradi te določbe nujno treba natančno opredeliti pojem krava dojilja, da se jo razlikuje od drugih krav, kot so krave molznice ali telice.
In that respect, Article 6(7) of Regulation No 1254/1999 entrusts the Commission with the task of adopting detailed rules for the application of premium schemes provided for by that article and, in particular, to define the concept of ‘suckler cow’ referred to in Article 3(f) of that regulation.
Glede tega člen 6(7) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 Komisiji poverja nalogo, da določi podrobna pravila za uporabo programa premij, določenega v tem členu, in da zlasti opredeli pojem „krava dojilja“ iz člena 3(f) te uredbe.
In Article 14 of the implementing regulation, the Commission specified which cows are not considered to belong to a meat breed within the meaning of Article 3(f), while requiring the Member States, in Article 45 of that regulation, to adopt all suitable measures necessary to ensure that that regulation is applied properly.
Komisija je v členu 14 izvedbene uredbe natančneje določila, katere krave ne pripadajo „mesni“ pasmi v smislu člena 3(f), pri čemer pa je v členu 45 te uredbe od držav članic zahtevala, naj sprejmejo vse ustrezne predpise za zagotovitev njene pravilne uporabe.
It must be stated that, in Article 14, the Commission merely excludes from the concept of ‘suckler cow’ those cows which belong to certain bovine breeds, without further defining that concept for the purpose of determining the conditions of eligibility for the premium.
Treba je ugotoviti, da je Komisija v členu 14 iz pojma krava dojilja izključila samo krave, ki pripadajo določenim mesnim pasmam, ne da bi natančneje orisala pojem za določitev pogojev za upravičenost do premije.
In particular, the Commission does not set out the criteria which would make it possible to conclude that a cow belongs to a herd intended for rearing calves for meat production.
Zlasti naj Komisija ne bi navedla meril, na podlagi katerih bi bilo možno presoditi, ali krava pripada čredi, namenjeni za vzrejo telet za prirejo mesa.
By contrast, the Commission imposes on the Member States the task of adopting the measures necessary to ensure that the implementing regulation is properly applied.
Komisija nasprotno državam članicam nalaga, naj sprejmejo ukrepe, ki so primerni za zagotovitev pravilnega izvajanja izvedbene uredbe.
The responsibility of defining what constitutes a suckler cow for that purpose therefore lies, ultimately, with the Member States.
Torej so nazadnje one tiste, ki morajo v ta namen opredeliti pojem krave dojilje.
Accordingly, it is necessary to determine whether the Member States may, for the purposes of defining that concept, refer to the usual animal husbandry practice within their territory.
Zato je treba preveriti, ali se države članice za natančnej�o opredelitev tega pojma lahko sklicujejo na običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje na svojem ozemlju.
In that respect, according to the observations submitted to the Court, animal husbandry practice varies from one Member State to another.
Glede tega iz stali�č, predloženih Sodi�ču, izhaja, da se praksa v sektorju vzreje razlikuje od ene do druge države članice.
The French Government submits that, in France, the minimum suckling period for a calf intended for meat production is estimated at four weeks.
Francoska vlada poudarja, da je v Franciji praksa, da najkraj�e dojenje telet, namenjenih prireji mesa, traja �tiri tedne.
The Netherlands Government and the Commission state that, in the Netherlands, the duration of suckling is generally four months.
Nizozemska vlada in Komisija navajata, da na Nizozemskem dojenje na splo�no traja �tiri mesece.
As evidenced by the report of 3 June 2002, referred to in paragraph 17 of this judgment, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Agriculture itself referred to those practices, criticising the Netherlands authorities for taking the view that cows which have not suckled their calves for at least four months in accordance with the usual practice in that Member State would be eligible.
Kot izhaja iz poročila z dne 3. junija 2002, navedenega v točki 17 te sodbe, se je sam generalni direktorat Komisije za kmetijstvo skliceval na to prakso, ko je nizozemskim organom očital, da so kot krave, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, obravnavali krave, ki svojih telet niso dojile �tiri mesece, kar je sicer običajna praksa v tej državi članici.
In the absence of a precise definition of the concept of ‘suckler cow’ in the implementing regulation for the purpose of determining the conditions of eligibility for the premium, it is open to the Member States to provide that clarification by taking as a basis the usual animal husbandry practice within their territory.
Glede na to, da v izvedbeni uredbi ni natančne opredelitve pojma krave dojilje za namene določitve pogojev za upravičenost do premije, lahko države članice to storijo, pri čemer se oprejo na običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje na svojem ozemlju.
The application of conditions at the level of individual cows rather than at the level of the herd as a whole strengthens legal certainty because it is clear and facilitates the monitoring of the regularity of premium applications by the competent national authorities.
Uporaba pogojev glede vsake krave in ne na ravni črede v celoti s svojo jasnostjo potrjuje pravno varnost, ki olaj�uje kontrolo nacionalnih organov, pristojnih za presojo pravilnosti zahtevkov za premije.
In principle, such application is not therefore incompatible with Regulations No 1254/1999 and No 2419/2001 or with the implementing regulation.
Torej načeloma ne nasprotuje niti uredbam �t. 1254/1999 in 2419/2001 niti izvedbeni uredbi.
It is none the less necessary to determine whether requirements such as those introduced in the Netherlands rules comply with the objective of those regulations.
Vseeno pa je treba preskusiti, ali pogoji, ki jih je uvedel nizozemski predpis, spo�tujejo cilje teh uredb.
As regards the requirement of calving within a specified period, this is designed to ensure that eligible cows contribute to the continuation of a herd intended for rearing calves, this being a necessary condition for meat production in accordance with Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999.
Namen zahteve po telitvi v določenem obdobju je zagotoviti, da krave, ki izpolnjujejo pogoje, prispevajo k ohranitvi črede, namenjene za vzrejo telet, kar je nujen pogoj za prirejo mesa v skladu s členom 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999.
As regards the requirement that calves remain in the herd in order to ensure suckling for a minimum length of time, this is designed to ensure that the herd is in fact intended for meat production and not for milk production.
Cilj zahteve po ohranitvi telet v čredi, da bi se ohranilo najkraj�e trajanje dojenja, je zagotoviti, da je čreda zares namenjena prireji goveda, ne pa pridelovanju mleka.
As the French Government has submitted, in dairy herds, as opposed to suckler herds intended for meat production, calves are generally separated from their mother and sold immediately after birth in order to improve the efficiency of milk production.
V molznih čredah so namreč – kot je trdila francoska vlada –, za razliko od čred dojilj, ki so namenjene prireji mesa, teleta na splo�no ločena od svojih mater in se za povečanje učinkovitosti pridelovanja mleka prodajo takoj po skotitvi.
The adoption by the Member States of such conditions may thus constitute useful clarification for implementation of the Community legislation without, however, precluding account from being taken of exceptional circumstances provided for by that legislation.
Sprejetje teh pogojev s strani držav članic lahko tako pomeni natančnej�o določitev, ki je koristna za uveljavljanje skupnostnih predpisov, ne da bi s tem preprečevala upo�tevanje izrednih okoli�čin, predvidenih s temi predpisi.
In that regard, the Netherlands Government noted in its written observations that there is nothing to prevent the national authorities from derogating, inter alia, from the condition relating to the four-month duration of suckling by reason of natural circumstances within the meaning of Article 41 of Regulation No 2419/2001 or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of Article 48 of that regulation.
Glede tega je nizozemska vlada v pisnih stali�čih poudarila, da nacionalnim organom nič ne preprečuje, da ne bi odstopili na primer od pogoja trajanja dojenja v dolžini �tirih mesecev zaradi naravnih okoli�čin v smislu člena 41 Uredbe �t. 2419/2001 ali izrednih okoli�čin v smislu člena 48 te uredbe.
Consequently, the Commission’s criticism that the application of such conditions makes it impossible to take into account exceptional circumstances, such as the death of a calf shortly after its birth, appears to be unfounded.
Zato se zdi, da kritika Komisije, da uporaba teh pogojev onemogoča upo�tevanje izrednih okoli�čin, kot je pogin teleta kmalu po skotitvi, ni utemeljena.
Having regard to the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 3(f) of Regulation No 1254/1999 does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno je treba na zastavljeno vpra�anje odgovoriti, da člen 3(f) Uredbe �t. 1254/1999 ne nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, v skladu s katero so premije za krave dojilje odvisne od pogojev, ki so v skladu z običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje, in ki predvideva na eni strani določeno pogostost telitve in na drugi strani to, da je mati tele dojila �tiri mesece po skotitvi.
In the light of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question, which was posed only in the case that Article 3(f) should preclude a Member State from laying down conditions relating to calving and length of suckling such as those provided for in the Netherlands rules.
Glede na odgovor na prvo vpra�anje ni treba odgovoriti na drugo, saj je bilo zastavljeno samo, če bi navedeni člen 3(f) nasprotoval temu, da država članica določi pogoja telitve in trajanja dojenja, kot sta določena v nizozemskem predpisu.
Article 3(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1512/2001 of 23 July 2001, does not preclude national rules which make the right to a suckler cow premium subject to conditions consistent with usual animal husbandry practice that require, first, a certain frequency of calving and secondly, that the calf should have been suckled by its mother for a period of four months after its birth.
Člen 3(f) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1254/1999 z dne 17. maja 1999 o skupni ureditvi trga za goveje in telečje meso, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 1512/2001 z dne 23. julija 2001, ne nasprotuje nacionalni ureditvi, v skladu s katero so premije za krave dojilje odvisne od pogojev, ki so v skladu z običajno prakso v sektorju vzreje, in ki predvideva na eni strani določeno pogostost telitve in na drugi strani to, da je mati tele dojila štiri mesece po skotitvi.
Case C-2/07
Zadeva C-2/07
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium))
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Cour de cassation (Belgija))
(Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of the effects of projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more than 2 100 metres in length)
„Direktiva 85/337/EGS – Presoja vplivov projekta na okolje – Letali�če z vzletno in pristajalno stezo, dalj�o od 2100 metrov“
Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 29 November 2007 . . .
Kokott, predstavljeni 29. novembra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1200
Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 28 February 2008 . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (drugi senat) z dne 28. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 1223
(Council Directive 85/337, Art.1(2))
Okolje – Presoja vplivov nekaterih projektov na okolje – Direktiva 85/337 (Direktiva Sveta 85/337, člen 1(2))
SUMMARY — CASE C-2/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-2/07
(Council Directive 85/337, Annexes I, point 7, and II, point 12)
Okolje – Presoja vplivov nekaterih projektov na okolje – Direktiva 85/337 (Direktiva Sveta 85/337, prilogi I, točka 7, in II, točka 12)
(Council Directive 85/337, Annexe II, point 12)
Okolje – Presoja vplivov nekaterih projektov na okolje – Direktiva 85/337 (Direktiva Sveta 85/337, priloga II, točka 12)
on the environment must be assessed globally.
odločba in, če je treba, upo�tevati skupni učinek več projektov, katerih vplive na okolje je treba presoditi v celoti.
(see para. 28, operative part 1)
(Glej točko 28 in točko 1 izreka.)