natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
— Approximation of laws — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987: judgment of 21 February 2008 ( Robledillo Núñez, C-498/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Približevanje zakonodaj – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nespo -sobnosti delavca – Direktiva 80/987: sodba z dne 21. februarja 2008 (Robledillo Núñez, C-498/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Male and female workers — Access to employment and working conditions — Equal treatment — Directive 76/207: judgment of 26 February 2008 (Mayr, C-506/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Varnost in zdravje delavcev – Noseče delavke in delavke, ki so pred kratkim rodile ali dojijo – Direktiva 92/85: sodba z dne 26. februarja 2008 (Mayr, C-506/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Social security for migrant workers
Socialna varnost delavcev migrantov
— Equal treatment — Childcare allowance: judgment of 21 February 2008 (Klöppel, C-507/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Enako obravnavanje – Nadomestilo za varstvo otroka: sodba z dne 21. februarja 2008 (Klöppel, C-507/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions
Uradniki
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive: judgment of 21 February 2008 (Netto Supermarkt, C-271/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
– Kadrovski predpisi – Pravna narava – Uredba – Neposredna uporabnost – Obveznosti držav članic: sodba z dne 14. februarja 2008 (Gysen, C-449/06) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
— Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive — Transactions constituting an abusive practice: judgment of 21 February 2008 (Part Service, C-425/06) . . . . . . . .
– Tožba – Neomejena pristojnost – Povrnitev premoženjske �kode, povezane z izgubo možnosti zaradi nezakonite zavrnitve prijave: sodba z dne 21. februarja 2008 (Komisija proti Girardot, C-348/06 P) . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-2/06
Zadeva C-2/06
(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg)
(Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg)
(Export of cattle — Export refunds — Final administrative decision — Interpretation of a judgment of the Court — Effect of a preliminary ruling given by the Court after that decision — Review and withdrawal — Timelimits — Legal certainty — Principle of cooperation — Article 10 EC)
„Izvoz goveda – Izvozna nadomestila – Pravnomočna upravna odločba – Razlaga sodbe Sodi�ča – Posledica sodbe, ki jo je Sodi�če izdalo v postopku za predhodno odločanje po tej odločbi – Ponovna preučitev in odprava – Časovne omejitve – Pravna varnost – Načelo sodelovanja – Člen 10 ES“
Opinion of Advocate General Bot delivered on 24 April 2007 . . . . . .
Bota, predstavljeni 24. aprila 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 414
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 12 February 2008 . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (veliki senat) z dne 12. februarja 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . I - 448
Member States — Obligations — Obligation of cooperation — Obligation on an administrative body to review a final administrative decision in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court
Države članice – Obveznosti – Obveznost sodelovanja – Obveznost upravnega organa, da ponovno preuči pravnomočno upravno odločbo, zaradi upoštevanja zadevne določbe, kot jo je medtem razlagalo Sodišče
(Art. 10 EC)
(člen 10 ES)
SUMMARY — CASE C-2/06
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-2/06
In the context of a procedure before an administrative body for review of an administrative decision that became final by virtue of a judgment, delivered by a court of final instance, which, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, was based on a misinterpretation of Community law, Community law does not require the claimant to have relied on Community law in the legal action under domestic law which he brought against the administrative decision.
V postopku pred upravnim organom v zvezi s ponovno preučitvijo upravne odločbe, ki je postala pravnomočna na podlagi sodbe sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, pri čemer je ta sodba glede na poznej�o sodno prakso Sodi�ča temeljila na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, pravo Skupnosti ne zahteva, da se je tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari sklicevala na pravo Skupnosti v okviru pravnega sredstva nacionalnega prava, ki ga je vložila zoper to odločbo.
While Community law does not require that administrative bodies be placed under an obligation, in principle, to reopen an administrative decision which has become final, specific circumstances may nevertheless be capable, by virtue of the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, of requiring such a body to review an administrative decision that has become final in order to take account of the interpretation of a relevant provision of Community law given subsequently by the Court.
Čeprav pravo Skupnosti namreč ne zahteva, da mora upravni organ načeloma odpraviti upravno odločbo, ki je postala pravnomočna, je takemu organu lahko kljub temu zaradi posebnih okoli�čin na podlagi načela sodelovanja iz člena 10 ES naloženo, da mora ponovno preučiti pravnomočno upravno odločbo, da bi se upo�tevala razlaga ustrezne določbe prava Skupnosti, ki jo je pozneje sprejelo Sodi�če.
The condition — which is among those capable of providing the basis for such an obligation of review — that the judgment of the court of final instance by virtue of which the contested administrative decision became final was, in the light of a subsequent decision of the Court, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling cannot be interpreted as requiring the parties to have raised before the national court the point of Community law in question.
Med pogoji za nastanek obveznosti ponovne preučitve se dejstvo, v skladu s katerim je sodba sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, s katero je izpodbijana upravna odločba postala pravnomočna, v smislu poznej�e sodne prakse Sodi�ča temeljila na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila sprejeta, ne da bi bilo Sodi�če zapro�eno za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ne sme razlagati tako, da se morajo stranke pred nacionalnim sodi�čem sklicevati na zadevno vpra�anje prava Skupnosti.
It is sufficient in that regard if either the point of Community law the interpretation of which proved to be incorrect in light of a subsequent judgment of the Court was considered by the national court ruling at final instance or it could have been raised by the latter of its own motion.
V zvezi s tem zadostuje, da je nacionalno sodi�če, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, preučilo navedeno vpra�anje prava Skupnosti, katerega razlaga se je ob upo�tevanju poznej�e sodbe Sodi�ča izkazala za napačno, ali da bi ga lahko zastavilo po uradni dolžnosti.
law based on binding Community rules where, under national law, they must or may do so in relation to a binding rule of national law.
Kljub temu lahko države članice v skladu z načeloma učinkovitosti in enakovrednosti svobodno določijo razumne roke za vložitev tožbe.
Community law does not impose any limit in time for making an application for review of an administrative decision that has become final. The Member States nevertheless remain free to set reasonable timelimits for seeking remedies, in a manner consistent with the Community principles of effectiveness and equivalence.
pravo Skupnosti nacionalnim sodi�čem namreč ne nalaga, naj po uradni dolžnosti preizkusijo tožbeni razlog kr�itve določb Skupnosti, kadar bi s preizkusom tega razloga presegla meje spora, ki so jih določile stranke, morajo ta sodi�ča po uradni dolžnosti navesti tožbene razloge, ki izhajajo iz zavezujočega predpisa Skupnosti, kadar so po nacionalnem pravu dolžna ali pristojna to storiti v zvezi z zavezujočim nacionalnim predpisom.
(see paras 37-39, 44-46, operative part 1)
(Glej točke od 37 do 39, od 44 do 46 in točko 1 izreka.)
(see para. 60, operative part 2)
(Glej točko 60 in točko 2 izreka.)
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALBOT delivered on 24 April 2007 1
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAYVESA BOTA, predstavljeni 24. aprila 2007 1
I — Introduction decision which is contrary to Community law is subject to a time-limit.
I – Uvod dokončne upravne odločbe, ki je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, časovno omejena.
The present reference for a preliminary ruling follows on from the reference which led to the judgment in Kühne & Heitz. 2 The Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg, Germany) has now asked the Court to clarify the meaning and the implications of that judgment. 4.
Ta predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe je nadaljevanje predloga, na podlagi katerega je bila sprejeta sodba z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heitz 2. Finanzgericht Hamburg (Nemčija) Sodi�ču predlaga, naj natančno opredeli vsebino in obseg te sodbe. 4.
I shall examine those two questions in turn after summarising the present state of the Court’s caselaw relating to the problem of reviewing administrative and judicial decisions which have become final and prove to be contrary to Community law as subsequently interpreted by the Court.
Po pregledu sedanje sodne prakse v zvezi z vpra�anjem ponovne preučitve dokončnih upravnih in sodnih odločb, za katere se izkaže, da so v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti, kot ga je pozneje razlagalo Sodi�če, bom ti vpra�anji preučil drugo za drugim.
The national court wishes to establish whether review and amendment of a final administrative decision which are intended to take account of the interpretation of a provision of Community law made by the Court in the meantime require the claimant to have relied on Community law in his action before the national court.
Najprej spra�uje, ali je pogoj za ponovno preučitev in popravek dokončne upravne odločbe zaradi upo�tevanja razlage določbe prava Skupnosti, kot jo je medtem sprejelo Sodi�če, da se je tožeča stranka v okviru pravnega sredstva pred nacionalnim sodi�čem sklicevala na pravo Skupnosti.
The national court then asks the Court to rule whether an application for the review and amendment of a final administrative
Dalje predložitveno sodi�če Sodi�ču predlaga, naj odloči, ali je možnost, da se vloži predlog za ponovno preučitev in popravek
First, I shall propose that the Court’s reply to the first question referred should be that, in order to be fulfilled, the condition laid down in Kühne & Heitz that the decision of a national court ruling at final instance is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a question being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under the third paragraph of Article 234 EC does not presuppose that the claimant in the main proceedings relied on Community law in the legal action under national law brought by him against the disputed administrative decision. I - 414
Prvič, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovori, da se za izpolnitev pogoja iz navedene sodbe Kühne & Heitz, da odločba nacionalnega sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, z vidika sodne prakse Sodi�ča po sprejetju te odločbe temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila sprejeta, ne da bi bilo Sodi�ču predloženo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES, ne zahteva, da naj bi se tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari v okviru pravnega sredstva po nacionalnem pravu, ki ga je vložila zoper izpodbijano upravno odločbo, morala sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti. I - 414
KEMPTER ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.
KEMPTER izpolnjevanje obveznosti, ki izhajajo iz te pogodbe ali so posledica ukrepov institucij Skupnosti.
They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community’s tasks.
Tako olaj�ujejo izpolnjevanje nalog Skupnosti.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the objectives of this Treaty.’
Vzdržijo se vseh ukrepov, ki bi lahko ogrozili doseganje ciljev te pogodbe.“
Second, I propose that the Court should rule that Community law does not preclude an application for the review and withdrawal of an administrative decision which has become final after the exhaustion of domestic remedies and which proves to be contrary to Community law as subsequently interpreted by the Court, without the national court ruling at final instance having referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling, from being made subject to a timelimit pursuant to the principle of legal certainty.
Drugič, Sodi�ču predlagam, naj odloči, da pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje temu, da je možnost, da se vloži predlog za ponovno preučitev in odpravo upravne odločbe, ki je po izčrpanju nacionalnih pravnih sredstev postala dokončna in za katero se je izkazalo, da je v nasprotju s pravom Skupnosti – kot ga je pozneje razlagalo Sodi�če, ne da bi nacionalno sodi�če, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji, pri Sodi�ču vložilo predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe – na podlagi načela pravne varnosti časovno omejena.
It is for the Member States to set, in accordance with the Community principles of equivalence and effectiveness, the period within which such an application must be submitted.
Stvar držav članic je, da v skladu s skupnostnima načeloma enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti določijo rok za vložitev takega predloga.
II — The legal context
II – Pravni okvir
In Kühne & Heitz, which will be discussed in more detail below, the Court held that ‘the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in the meantime by the Court where: A — Community law
Sodi�če je v navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, ki jo bom podrobneje preučil v nadaljevanju, odločilo, da „načelo sodelovanja, ki izhaja iz člena 10 ES, upravnemu organu, pri katerem je bil v ta namen vložen predlog, nalaga, da mora zaradi upo�tevanja zadevne določbe, kot jo je medtem razlagalo Sodi�če, dokončno upravno odločbo ponovno preučiti, kadar: A – Pravo Skupnosti
— under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;
– je po nacionalnem pravu pristojen za odpravo te odločbe;
Article 10 EC
Člen 10 ES
— the administrative decision in question has become final as a result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;
– je zadevna odločba postala dokončna na podlagi sodbe nacionalnega sodi�ča, ki je odločalo na zadnji stopnji;
Article 10 EC provides as follows:
Člen 10 ES določa:
— that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community law which was adopted without a
„Države članice sprejmejo vse ustrezne ukrepe, splo�ne ali posebne, da bi zagotovile navedena sodba glede na poznej�o sodno prakso Sodi�ča temelji na napačni razlagi prava Skupnosti, ki je bila podana, ne
Article 5(1) of the regulation provides:
Upo�tevne določbe Uredbe (EGS) �t. 3665/87
‘Payment of the differentiated or nondifferentiated refund shall be conditional not only on the product having left the customs territory of the Community but also — save where it has perished in transit as a result of force majeure — on its having been imported into a nonmember country and, where appropriate, into a specific nonmember country within 12 months following the date of acceptance of the export declaration:
„Diferencirano ali nediferencirano nadomestilo se izplača, če je proizvod zapustil carinsko območje Skupnosti in če se je proizvod, razen če se je zaradi vi�je sile pokvaril ali uničil med prevozom, uvozil v tretjo državo in, kadar je to primerno, v določeno tretjo državo v dvanajstih mesecih od datuma sprejetja izvozne deklaracije:
(a) where there is serious doubt as to the true destination of the product
(a) če obstaja resen dvom o dejanskem namembnem kraju proizvoda
This regulation was repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p. 11).
To uredbo je razveljavila in nadomestila Uredba Komisije (ES) �t. 800/1999 z dne 15. aprila 1999 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode (UL L 102, str. 11).
VwVfG’) of 25 May 1976 7provides that an unlawful administrative act may, even after it has become unchallengeable, be withdrawn wholly or in part, with prospective or retroactive effect.
VwVfG) z dne 25. maja 1976 7 določa, da se lahko nezakonit upravni akt, tudi če ga ni več mogoče izpodbijati, v celoti ali deloma odpravi za naprej ali nazaj.
The wording of the latter article is analogous to that of its predecessor, namely Article 10(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, 4which the Court has been required to interpret.
Zadnji člen ima popolnoma enako vsebino kot njegov predhodnik, tj. člen 10(1) Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 2730/79 z dne 29. novembra 1979 o določitvi skupnih podrobnih pravil za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode 4, ki ga je Sodi�če moralo razložiti.
According to that case-law, the first sentence of Paragraph 48(1) of the VwVfG confers a right to withdrawal of such an act only exceptionally, where it is ‘outright intolerable’ for it to stand having regard to the concepts of public policy, good faith, fairness, equal treatment or manifest unlawfulness.
V skladu s to sodno prakso prvi stavek člena 48(1) zakona VwVfG daje pravico do odprave takega akta samo v izjemnem primeru, ko bi bila njegova ohranitev „preprosto nevzdržna“ z vidika pojmov javnega reda, dobre vere, pravičnosti, enakega obravnavanja ali očitne nezakonitosti.
In Emsland-Stärke 5the Court held that the conditions laid down by Article 10(1) of Regulation No 2730/79 could be imposed only prior to the grant of the export refund.
2730/79 lahko zahteva samo pred dodelitvijo izvoznega nadomestila.
According to the Court, that was sufficiently clear from the wording of that paragraph, which states that payment is ‘conditional … on the [product’s] having been imported into a nonmember country’, and from the ninth recital in the preamble to that regulation, which is in the same terms. 6
Po mnenju Sodi�ča je to dovolj razvidno iz besedila te določbe, v skladu s katerim se nadomestilo izplača „[…] če se je proizvod uvozil […] v tretjo državo“ in tudi iz devete uvodne izjave te uredbe, ki se glasi enako. 6
In addition, Paragraph 51 of the VwVfG deals with the reopening of a procedure closed by an administrative act which has become unchallengeable.
Poleg tega se člen 51 zakona VwVfG nana�a na ponovno odprtje postopkov, zaključenih z upravnim aktom, ki ga ni več mogoče izpodbijati.
Paragraph 51(1) provides that the relevant authority must, on application by the person concerned, decide whether to set aside or amend an administrative act which is no longer open to challenge:
Člen 51(1) zakona VwVfG določa, da mora zadevni organ na predlog stranke odločiti o razveljavitvi ali spremembi dokončnega upravnega akta:
In German law, the first sentence of Paragraph 48(1) of the Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (Law on Administrative Procedure; ‘the
V nem�kem pravu prvi stavek člena 48(1) zakona o upravnem postopku (Verwal -tungsverfahrensgesetz, v nadaljevanju:
— if the factual or legal situation on which the act was based has changed, following its adoption, in favour of the person concerned;
– če se je dejansko ali pravno stanje, na katerem temelji akt, po njegovem sprejetju spremenilo v korist stranke;
1, amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985 (OJ 1985 L 65, p.
Uredba, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (EGS) �t. 568/85 z dne 4. marca 1985 (UL L 65, str.
5) (‘Regulation No 2730/79’).
5, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 2730/79).
6 — Paragraph 48.
6 – Točka 48.
This also applies, by analogy, to the fourth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 3665/87, which should be compared with Article 5(1) of that regulation.
Po analogiji velja enako za četrto uvodno izjavo Uredbe �t. 3665/87, ki jo je treba brati v povezavi s členom 5(1) iste uredbe.
— if there is new evidence which would have led to a decision more favourable to the person concerned;
– če obstajajo novi dokazi, ki bi pripeljali do odločbe, ugodnej�e za stranko;
By decision of 10 August 1995, the Hauptzollamt therefore demanded the repayment by Kempter of the export refunds totalling DEM 360 022.62 which it had received.
Hauptzollamt je zato z odločbo z dne 10. avgusta 1995 od družbe Kempter zahteval povračilo plačanih izvoznih nadomestil v znesku 360.022,62 DEM.
— if there are grounds for reopening the procedure pursuant to Paragraph 580 of the Zivilprozessordnung (Code of Civil Procedure).
– če so navedeni razlogi za ponovno odprtje postopka v skladu s členom 580 zakonika o pravdnem postopku (Zivilprozessordnung).
By judgment of 16 June 1999, the Finanzgericht Hamburg dismissed the applicant’s action against that decision, on the ground that the applicant had not proved that the animals were imported into a nonmember country, in conformity with Article 5(1)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87.
Finanzgericht Hamburg je s sodbo z dne 16. junija 1999 zavrnilo tožbo, ki jo je zoper to odločbo vložila tožeča stranka, z obrazložitvijo, da v skladu z določbami člena 5(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 3665/87 ni dokazala, da so se živali uvozile v tretjo državo.
III — The facts and procedure of the main proceedings
III – Dejstva in postopek v sporu o glavni stvari
Kempter’s appeal against the judgment was dismissed by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) of 11 May 2000.
Pritožba, ki jo je zoper to sodbo vložila družba Kempter, je bila zavrnjena s sklepom Bundesfinanzhof z dne 11. maja 2000.
In the years 1990 to 1992 Willy Kempter KG (‘Kempter’ or ‘the applicant’) exported cattle to a number of Arab countries and to the former Yugoslavia.
V letih od 1990 do 1992 je družba Willy Kempter KG (v nadaljevanju: Kempter ali tožeča stranka) izvažala govedo v različne arabske države in nekdanjo Jugoslavijo.
On that basis it applied for and received export refunds from the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Principal Customs Office Hamburg-Jonas; ‘the Hauptzollamt’).
V okviru tega je od organa Hauptzollamt (glavni carinski urad) Hamburg-Jonas (v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) zahtevala in prejela izvozna nadomestila.
On conduct of an inquiry, the Betriebsprüfungsstelle Zoll (Customs Inspectorate) of the Oberfinanzdirektion (Principal Revenue Office), Freiburg, established that some animals had died or been slaughtered out of necessity during transport or in the course of quarantine in the countries of destination.
Med neko preiskavo je Betriebsprüfungsstelle Zoll (nadzorni carinski organ) direkcije Oberfinanzdirektion (deželna direkcija za finance) iz Freiburga ugotovil, da so nekatere živali med prevozom ali v karanteni v namembnih državah poginile ali so bile zaklane v sili.