natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
From this viewpoint, it does not seem to me satisfactory that such a time frame should be conceived as a condition for the creation of an obligation of review by virtue of Article 10 EC, like the other conditions set out by the Court in Kühne & Heitz. 135.
Poleg tega okoli�čina, da je Sodi�če izdalo sodbo glede vpra�anja za predhodno odločanje, ki se je nana�alo na razlago zadevne določbe prava Skupnosti, ne vpliva to, da je določitev primernih prekluzivnih rokov za
In addition, a timelimit for submitting applications for the review and withdrawal
I-4951, točki 19 in 34) in z dne 17. junija 2004 v zadevi Recheio – Cash & Carry (C-30/02, ZOdl., str. I-6051, točka 17). 58 – Navedeni sodbi Rewe, točka 5, in Comet, točka 18.
A reference of that kind to the national procedural rules of the Member States which would, of course, have to comply with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness would also be consistent with the Court’s settled caselaw which recognises that the setting by Member States of reasonable timelimits within which an action must be brought is compatible with Community law.
Tako sklicevanje na nacionalna postopkovna pravila držav članic, ki seveda morajo upo�tevati načeli enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti, bi bilo tudi v skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso Sodi�ča, ki priznava, da je v skladu s pravom Skupnosti, da države članice določijo primerne prekluzivne roke za vložitev pravnih sredstev.
That caselaw originates from, and is applied most frequently in, disputes relating to the
Ta sodna praksa izhaja in se največkrat uporablja v sporih, povezanih z vračilom nacionalnih dajatev, ki z vidika
KEMPTER refund of national charges which have been levied contrary to Community law.
KEMPTER uveljavitev pravic v postopkovnih pravilih skladna s pravom Skupnosti. 60 enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti 62.
The Court has also transposed this reasoning to liability of Member States for failure to observe Community law, on the basis of logic comparable to that which I propose the Court should adopt here.
Sodi�če je tako utemeljitev preneslo tudi na področje odgovornosti držav članic za neupo�tevanje prava Skupnosti, in sicer na podlagi podobnega sklepanja, kot ga v obravnavanem primeru predlagam Sodi�ču.
Whilst the conditions under which a Member State is obliged to make reparation for the damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law that are attributable to that State have been laid down directly by the Court, 61it is, on the other hand, indeed on the basis of the rules of national law on liability that the State must make reparation for the consequences of the damage caused, provided that the conditions, particularly relating to time-limits, laid down by
Namreč, čeprav je pogoje, pod katerimi je država članica dolžna povrniti �kodo, ki so jo posamezniki utrpeli zaradi njej očitanih kr�itev prava Skupnosti, neposredno določilo Sodi�če 61, pa mora, po drugi strani, država članica posledice povzročene �kode odpraviti v okviru nacionalnih predpisov o odgovornosti, če pogoji, zlasti glede roka, ki so jih določile nacionalne zakonodaje na področju povrnitve �kode, upo�tevajo načeli
58Indeed, ‘such timelimits are not liable to render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law’.
Finanzgericht Hamburg mora torej preveriti, ali nem�ko procesno pravo določa rok za vložitev predloga za ponovno preučitev in odpravo dokončne upravne odločbe, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari.
59 Furthermore, the fact that the Court
V tem primeru mora ugotoviti, ali je postopkovno pravilo, ki
60 — Rewe, paragraph 7, and Edis, paragraph 20.
62 – Glej zlasti sodbi z dne 19. novembra 1991 v združenih zadevah Francovich in drugi (C-6/90 in C-9/90, Recueil, str.
57 — See, in particular, Case 33/76 Rewe [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5; Case 45/76 Comet [1976] ECR 2043, paragraphs 13 and 16; Case C-90/94 Haahr Petroleum [1997] ECR I-4085, paragraph 46; Case C-231/96 Edis [1998] ECR I-4951, paragraphs 19 and 34; and Case C-30/02 Recheio — Cash & Carry [2004] ECR I-6051, paragraph 17. 58 — Rewe, paragraph 5, and Comet, paragraph 18.
I-5357, točke od 41 do 43) ter z dne 10. julija 1997 v zadevi Palmisani (C-261/95, Recueil, str.
See also, to the same effect, Haahr Petroleum, paragraph 48, Edis, paragraph 20, and Recheio — Cash and Carry, paragraph 18.
I-4025, točka 27) in navedeno sodbo Köbler, točka 58.
61 — The caselaw shows that those conditions are threefold: the rule of Community law infringed must be intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach must be sufficiently serious; and there must be a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation incumbent on the State and the loss or damage sustained by the injured parties (Köbler, paragraph 51).
61 – Iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča izhaja, da so ti pogoji trije, in sicer da je namen pravila o kr�itvi prava Skupnosti, da daje pravice posameznikom, da mora biti kr�itev dovolj resna ter da mora obstajati neposredna vzročna zveza med kr�itvijo obveznosti države in �kodo, povzročeno o�kodovancem (glej zlasti navedeno sodbo Köbler, točka 51).
The Court has added that these three conditions are ‘necessary and sufficient to found a right in favour of individuals to obtain redress, although this does not mean that the State cannot incur liability under less strict conditions on the basis of national law’ (Köbler, paragraph 57).
Sodi�če je tudi podrobno navedlo, da so ti trije pogoji „potrebni in zadostni za to, da posamezniki pridobijo pravico do od�kodnine, čeprav to ne pomeni, da država ne more biti odgovorna pod manj strogimi pogoji na podlagi nacionalnega prava“ (navedena sodba Köbler, točka 57).
59 — Edis, paragraph 35.
63 – Navedena sodba Palmisani, točka 28.
national law concerning reparation for damage respect the principles of equivalence and effectiveness.
VI – Predlog ta rok določa, skladno s skupnostnima načeloma enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti.
In accordance with this settled caselaw of the Court, which respects the procedural autonomy of the Member States, I consider that, on the basis of the principle of legal certainty, Member States may require an application for the review and withdrawal of an administrative decision which has become final and is contrary to Community law as subsequently interpreted by the Court to be submitted to the competent authority within a reasonable period.
Ob upo�tevanju zgornjih ugotovitev Sodi�ču predlagam, naj na vpra�anji za predhodno odločanje, ki ju je postavilo Finanzgericht Hamburg, odgovori:
Consequently I propose that the Court’s reply to the national court should be 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.
Zato Sodi�ču predlagam, naj predložitvenemu sodi�ču odgovori, 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, 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.
Države članice so v skladu s skupnostnima načeloma enakovrednosti in učinkovitosti dolžne določiti rok za vložitev takega predloga.
It will therefore be incumbent on the Finanzgericht Hamburg to ascertain whether German procedural law lays down a timelimit for lodging an application for the review and withdrawal of an administrative decision
Za izpolnitev pogoja iz sodbe Sodi�ča z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00), 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 podana, ne da bi se Sodi�ču v skladu s tretjim odstavkom člena 234 ES predložilo vpra�anje za predhodno odločanje, se ne zahteva, da se je morala tožeča stranka v postopku v glavni stvari v okviru pravnega sredstva po nacionalnem pravu, ki ga je vložila zoper izpodbijano upravno odločbo, sklicevati na pravo Skupnosti. 143.
62 — See, in particular, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others [1991] ECR I-5357, paragraphs 41 to 43; Case C-261/95 Palmisani [1997] ECR I-4025, paragraph 27; and Köbler, paragraph 58.
Na koncu naj navedem, da mora Sodi�če, če v nasprotju z re�itvijo, ki mu jo predlagam, ne želi razveljaviti četrtega pogoja, določenega v navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, prvič, natančno opredeliti njegov pomen, in drugič, določiti, da se ta pogoj uporablja samo dopolnilno, tj. če postopkovna pravila države članice ne določajo roka za vložitev predlogov za ponovno preučitev in odpravo dokončnih upravnih odločb. 2.
Finally, if the Court, contrary to the approach that I have proposed, does not wish to reopen the fourth condition laid down in Kühne & Heitz, it will have to clarify its meaning and also provide that it is a supplementary condition, that is to say, it applies only where the procedural rules of a Member State have not set a timelimit for the submission of applications for the review and withdrawal of final administrative decisions. 63 — Palmisani, paragraph 28.
Pravo Skupnosti ne nasprotuje temu, da je možnost vložitve predloga 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,
(1) In order to be fulfilled, the condition laid down in the judgment of the Court in Case C-453/00 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. (2) 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.
KEMPTER 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.
JUDGMENT OF 12. 2.
SODBA Z DNE 12. 2.
2008 — CASE C-2/06
2008 – ZADEVA C-2/06
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber)12 February 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) z dne 12. februarja 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), made by decision of 21 November 2005, received at the Court on 4 January 2006, in the proceedings
V zadevi C-2/06, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Finanzgericht Hamburg (Nemčija) z odločbo z dne 21. novembra 2005, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 4. januarja 2006, v postopku
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: J. Swedenborg, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
Swedenborg, administrator, na podlagi pisnega postopka, ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Czech Republic, by T. Boček, acting as Agent,
– za Če�ko republiko T. Boček, zastopnik,
— the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Erlbacher and T. van Rijn, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 24 April 2007, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti F. Erlbacher in T. van Rijn, zastopnika, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 24. aprila 2007 izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling relates to the interpretation of the principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC, construed in the light of the judgment in Case C-453/00 Kühne & Heitz [2004] ECR I-837. I - 449
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago načela sodelovanja iz člena 10 ES v smislu sodbe z dne 13. januarja 2004 v zadevi Kühne & Heitz (C-453/00, Recueil, str. I-837). I - 449
The reference was made in proceedings between Willy Kempter KG (‘Kempter’) and the Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Principal Customs Office Hamburg-Jonas; ‘the Hauptzollamt’) concerning the application of Paragraphs 48 and 51 of the Law on Administrative Procedure (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) of 25 May 1976 (BGBl. 1976 I, p.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v sporu med družbo Willy Kempter KG (v nadaljevanju: družba Kempter) in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (glavni carinski urad, v nadaljevanju: Hauptzollamt) glede uporabe členov 48 in 51 zakona o upravnem postopku (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz) z dne 25. maja 1976 (BGBl. 1976 I, str.
1253; ‘the VwVfG’).
1253, v nadaljevanju: VwVfG).
Article 4(1) 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.
Člen 4(1) Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 3665/87 z dne 27. novembra 1987 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode (UL L 351, str.
1) is worded as follows:
1) določa:
‘Without prejudice to the provisions of Articles 5 and 16, the refund shall be paid only upon proof being furnished [that] the products for which the export declaration was accepted have, within 60 days from the date of such acceptance of the export declaration, left the customs territory of the Community in the unaltered state.’
„Brez poseganja v člena 5 in 16 se nadomestilo izplača ob predložitvi dokazila, da so proizvodi iz sprejete izvozne deklaracije v nespremenjenem stanju zapustili carinsko območje Skupnosti v �estdesetih dneh po sprejetju izvozne deklaracije.“
Article 5(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 states:
Člen 5(1) Uredbe �t. 3665/87 določa:
‘Payment of the differentiated or nondifferentiated refund shall be conditional not only on the product having left the customs territory of the Community but
„Diferencialno ali enotno nadomestilo se izplača, le če je proizvod zapustil carinsko območje Skupnosti in če je bil uvožen v tretjo državo, razen če se je zaradi vi�je sile
KEMPTER 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:
KEMPTER pokvaril ali uničil pri prevozu, in glede na okoli�čine primera v določeno tretjo državo v dvanajstih mesecih po datumu sprejetja izvozne deklaracije, in če:
(a) where there is serious doubt as to the true destination of the product …
(a) obstaja resen dvom o dejanskem namembnem kraju proizvoda […]
The first sentence of Paragraph 48(1) of the VwVfG provides that an unlawful administrative act may, even after it has become unchallengeable, be withdrawn wholly or in part, with prospective or retroactive effect.
Člen 48(1), prvi stavek, VwVfG določa, da se lahko nezakonit upravni akt, tudi če ga ni več mogoče izpodbijati, v celoti ali deloma odpravi za naprej ali nazaj.
Paragraph 51 of the VwVfG concerns the reopening of a procedure closed by an administrative act that has become unchallengeable.
Člen 51 VwVfG zadeva obnovo 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 unchallengeable administrative act:
Odstavek 1 določa, da mora zadevni organ na zahtevo stranke odločiti o razveljavitvi ali spremembi upravnega akta, ki ga ni več mogoče izpodbijati:
1. 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 upravni akt, naknadno spremenilo v korist stranke;
2. 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, in
3. if there are grounds for reopening the procedure in accordance with Paragraph 580 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung).
– če so podani razlogi za obnovo v smislu člena 580 zakonika o pravdnem postopku (Zivilprozessordnung).
Paragraph 51(3) states that such an application must be made within a period of three months from the day on which the person concerned became aware of the ground for reopening the procedure.
Odstavek 3 tega člena VwVfG določa, da mora biti taka zahteva vložena v treh mesecih od dneva, ko je stranka izvedela za okoli�čine, ki omogočajo obnovo postopka.
The facts of the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari in vprašanji za predhodno odločanje
According to the order for reference, Kempter exported cattle in the years 1990 to 1992 to a number of Arab countries and countries of the former Yugoslavia.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je v letih od 1990 do 1992 družba Kempter izvažala govedo v različne arabske države in nekdanjo Jugoslavijo.
It applied for and received export refunds from the Hauptzollamt on this basis, in accordance with Regulation No 3665/87 which was in force at the time.
V okviru tega je od Hauptzollamt zahtevala in prejela izvozna nadomestila v skladu z Uredbo �t. 3665/87.
On conduct of an inquiry, the Betriebsprüfungsstelle Zoll (Customs Inspectorate) of the Oberfinanzdirektion (Principal Revenue Office), Freiburg, established that, before their import into those nonmember countries, some of the 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) pri Oberfinanzdirektion (deželna direkcija za finance) iz Freiburga ugotovil, da so nekatere živali, preden so bile uvožene v navedene tretje države, med prevozom ali v karanteni v namembnih državah poginile ali so bile zaklane v sili.
By decision of 10 August 1995, the Hauptzollamt accordingly demanded that Kempter repay the export refunds which it had received.
Hauptzollamt je zato z odločbo z dne 10. avgusta 1995 od družbe Kempter zahteval povračilo prejetih izvoznih nadomestil.
Kempter brought an action against that decision, but did not plead breaches of Community law.
Družba Kempter je proti tej odločbi vložila tožbo, vendar ni zatrjevala kr�itev prava Skupnosti.
By judgment of 16 June 1999, the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) dismissed the action, on the ground that the claimant had not proved that the animals were imported into a nonmember country within 12 months following the date of acceptance of the export declaration, as required by Article 5(1) (a) of Regulation No 3665/87 for the payment of refunds.
Finanzgericht Hamburg je s sodbo z dne 16. junija 1999 to tožbo zavrnilo, ker tožeča stranka ni dokazala, da so bile živali uvožene v tretjo državo v dvanajstih mesecih po datumu sprejetja izvozne deklaracije, kot to za izplačilo nadomestil zahteva člen 5(1)(a) Uredbe �t. 3665/87.
By order of 11 May 2000, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) rejected at final instance Kempter’s appeal against that judgment.
Bundesfinanzhof je s sklepom z dne 11. maja 2000 zavrnilo pritožbo, ki jo je zoper to sodbo vložila družba Kempter.
The Hauptzollamt’s repayment decision of 10 August 1995 thus became final.
Odločba Hauptzollamt z dne 10. avgusta 1995 o povrnitvi nadomestil je tako postala pravnomočna.
In its judgment of 14 December 2000 in Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke [2000] ECR I-11569, at paragraph 48, the Court held that the condition that the goods must have been imported into a nonmember country in order for the export refunds provided for by a Community regulation to be granted can be raised against the recipient of the refunds only before their grant.
Sodi�če je s sodbo z dne 14. decembra 2000 v zadevi Emsland-Stärke (C-110/99, Recueil, str. I-11569, točka 48) odločilo, da pogoj, da je bilo blago uvoženo v tretjo državo, ki mora biti izpolnjen za dodelitev izvoznih nadomestil, ki jih določa zakonodaja Skupnosti, lahko velja za upravičenca nadomestil le, preden so mu bila ta dodeljena.
In a separate case, the Bundesfinanzhof delivered a judgment on 21 March 2002 in which it applied that interpretation established by the Court.
Bundesfinanzhof je 21. marca 2002 izdalo sodbo v neki drugi zadevi, v kateri je uporabilo tako razlago Sodi�ča.
Kempter claims that it became aware of the Bundesfinanzhof’s judgment on 1 July 2002.
Družba Kempter navaja, da je za to sodbo izvedela 1. julija 2002.
On 16 September 2002, that is to say approximately 21 months after delivery of the judgment in Emsland-Stärke, Kempter, relying on the Bundesfinanzhof’s judgment, requested the Hauptzollamt on the basis of Paragraph 51(1) of the VwVfG to review and withdraw the repayment decision at issue.
Družba Kempter je 16. septembra 2002, približno 21 mesecev po razglasitvi zgoraj navedene sodbe Emsland-Stärke, na podlagi člena 51(1) VwVfG pri Hauptzollamt podala predlog za ponovno preučitev in odpravo zadevne odločbe o povrnitvi nadomestil ter se pri tem sklicevala na sodbo Bundesfinanzhof.
By decision of 5 November 2002, the Hauptzollamt rejected Kempter’s application, stating that this alteration in the caselaw did not mean any change in the legal situation, which alone would justify reopening the procedure under Paragraph 51(1)(1) of the VwVfG.
Hauptzollamt je 5. novembra 2002 zavrnil predlog družbe Kempter, pri čemer je poudaril, da ta preobrat v sodni praksi ne vključuje spremembe prava, ki bi upravičevala obnovo postopka v skladu s členom 51(1), prva alinea, VwVfG.
An administrative appeal against that decision was also rejected on 25 March 2003.
Upravna pritožba zoper to odločbo je bila prav tako zavrnjena 25. marca 2003.
Kempter then brought the matter before the Finanzgericht Hamburg again, submitting in particular that in the case in point the conditions for review of a final administrative decision, which had been set out by the Court in Kühne & Heitz, were met and that consequently the Hauptzollamt’s repayment decision of 10 August 1995 had to be withdrawn. 18
Družba Kempter je ponovno vložila tožbo pri Finanzgericht Hamburg in zatrjevala predvsem, da so bili v obravnavanem primeru izpolnjeni pogoji za ponovno preučitev pravnomočne upravne odločbe, ki jih je Sodi�če navedlo v zgoraj navedeni sodbi Kühne & Heitz, in da bi zato morala biti odločba Hauptzollamt z dne 10. avgusta 1995 o povrnitvi nadomestil razveljavljena. 18
In its order for reference, the Finanzgericht Hamburg first finds that, in the light of Emsland-Stärke and the Bundesfinanzhof’s judgment of 21 March 2002, the Hauptzollamt’s repayment decision of 10 August 1995 is unlawful.
Finanzgericht Hamburg v predložitveni odločbi najprej ugotavlja, da je v smislu zgoraj navedene sodbe Emsland-Stärke ter sodbe Bundesfinanzhof z dne 21. marca 2002 odločba Hauptzollamt z dne 10. avgusta 1995 o povrnitvi nadomestil nezakonita.