natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Instance failed to give a view in the judgment under appeal, in fact supplement that assertion to the effect that, in reality, for all the files in respect of which graphic data input was not completed until after 31 August, it was nonetheless possible to draw up a valid risk analysis by applying the criterion of the discrepancy between the area declared and the GIS area, and that the requisite on thespot checks could be carried out effectively, even after 31 August.
67 prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi ni izjasnilo, k tej potrditvi dodajajo namreč to, da je bila dejansko za vsa opravila, za katera je bil grafični vnos opravljen po 31. avgustu, analiza tveganj vseeno lahko veljavno dopolnjena z uporabo merila razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS, in je bilo mogoče potrebni nadzor na kraju samem zanesljivo opraviti tudi po 31. avgustu.
Those same arguments, which the Commission has not adequately disproved, have, therefore, the effect of refuting the assumption which the Commission essentially relied on in making the complaint at issue, that is to say that graphic data input after 31 August made it impossible to take the relevant files into account in the risk analyses and, therefore, to select them for on-the-spot checks.
Iste trditve, zoper katere Komisija ni ustrezno ugovarjala, torej ovržejo tezo, na katero se je pri zadevnem očitku v bistvu opirala zadevna institucija, to je, da je grafični vnos, izveden po 31. avgustu, onemogočal, da bi se zadevna opravila upo�tevala v analizi tveganj in da bi se jih torej izbralo za nadzor na kraju samem.
Although the case has now been heard by both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice and, more particularly, although a question on the point was put to the Commission’s representative at the hearing before the Court of Justice, it is still not clear — in the absence of any legal provision requiring the observance of that date and in the light of all of the evidence which the appellant has cited — why graphic data input and, consequently, a risk analysis after 31 August should be regarded as late.
Po sojenju na dveh stopnjah in zlasti po posebnem vpra�anju, ki je bilo postavljeno predstavniku Komisije na obravnavi pred Sodi�čem, �e vedno ni jasno, zakaj bi bilo treba glede na to, da ni pravnega akta, ki bi predpisoval spo�tovanje tega datuma, in glede na dokaze, ki jih je predložila pritožnica, grafični vnos in torej analizo tveganj po 31. avgustu �teti za prepozna.
The reference by the Commission’s representative to paragraphs 33 to 35 of the judgment in Italy v Commission, 68from which, in his view, that absolute deadline of 31 August can be inferred, does not appear to be relevant.
Sklicevanje predstavnika Komisije na točke od 33 do 35 sodbe Italija proti Komisiji, 68iz katerih naj bi po njegovem mnenju izhajal končni datum 31. avgust, se ne zdi pomembno.
In those paragraphs, the Court of Justice upheld the Commission’s complaints against the Italian Republic that on-the-spot checks made in the month of September were unreliable because they took place after the harvest.
V teh točkah je Sodi�če sprejelo ugotovitve Komisije, s katerimi se je Italijanski republiki očitalo nezanesljivost nadzora na kraju samem, opravljenega septembra, ker je bil opravljen po spravilu pridelka.
The Court of Justice took that view, however, because the on-the-spot checks were late, whereas, as is clear from the judgment under appeal (paragraph 66) and confirmed by the Commission in its response (paragraphs 56 to 57), in this case the complaint addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium is not that the on-the-spot checks were late, but that they were not carried out because of the alleged delays in graphic data input. Moreover, in those paragraphs, the Court did not even
Tako stali�če Sodi�ča pa temelji na prepoznem nadzoru na kraju samem, medtem ko se, kot izhaja iz izpodbijane sodbe (točka 66), in kar je Komisija potrdila v odgovoru na tožbo (točki 56 in 57), v primeru, ki ga preučujemo, Kraljevini Belgiji ne očita prepoznega nadzora na kraju samem, ampak neobstoj nadzora na kraju samem zaradi domnevno prepoznega
67 — See paragraph 66 of the judgment under appeal, where the Court of First Instance notes that the complaint concerning the lateness of the on-the-spot checks, made in the initial stages of the administrative procedure, was abandoned in the summary report.
67 – Glej izpodbijano sodbo, točka 66, v kateri Sodi�če prve stopnje poudarja, da je bil očitek v zvezi s prepoznim nadzorom na kraju samem, ki ga je v uveljavljala v prvi fazi upravnega postopka, v zbirnem poročilu opu�čen.
Those arguments appear all the more persuasive, since the date of 31 August as the absolute deadline for the graphic data input in question or for the risk analysis does not appear in any legislative provision, and since the Commission no longer contends, as it did during the first stage of the administrative procedure, that on-the-spot checks
Te trditve so �e toliko bolj prepričljive, ker roka 31. avgust kot končnega roka za obravnavani grafični vnos ali analizo tveganj ne predpisuje noben pravni akt in ker Komisija več ne zatrjuje, kot je zatrjevala v prvi fazi upravnega postopka, da je bil nadzor na kraju
Fifth limb of the second ground of appeal and third and fourth grounds of appeal — No need for examination refer generally to 31 August as the appropriate deadline for on-the-spot checks, but merely found that the Italian Government had failed to provide evidence to refute the abovementioned contentions of the Commission. 69
Odvečnost preučitve petega dela drugega pritožbenega razloga ter tretjega in četrtega pritožbenega razloga grafičnega vnosa. Poleg tega Sodi�če v navedenih točkah ni niti na splo�no navedlo 31. avgust kot končni datum za nadzor na kraju samem, ampak je samo ugotovilo, da italijanska vlada ni predložila relevantnih dokazov, s katerimi bi zavrnila zgoraj navedene ugotovitve Komisije. 69
I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance wrongly upheld the Commission’s complaint that the completion of the graphic data input after 31 August had made it impossible to carry out the administrative checks in due time and, therefore, to conduct on-the-spot checks.
Zato menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno potrdilo tezo Komisije, da je izvedba grafičnega vnosa po 31. avgustu preprečila pravočasno izvedbo upravnega nadzora in torej izvr�itev nadzora na kraju samem.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance could not validly find that the complaint in question constituted evidence establishing the existence of serious and reasonable doubt concerning the effectiveness of the controls carried out by the Belgian authorities during the material period.
Posledično Sodi�če prve stopnje ni moglo ugotoviti, da je taka teza element, ki lahko vzbudi resne in utemeljene dvome o zanesljivosti nadzora belgijskih organov v zadevnem obdobju.
If the first four limbs of the second ground of appeal were accepted, as suggested above, it would not be necessary to consider the fifth limb of that ground of appeal, alleging a breach, in several respects, of the obligation to state reasons, or the third and fourth grounds of appeal, which relate to those sections of the judgment in which the Court of First Instance ruled on the appellant’s request in the alternative for a reduction of the amount of expenditure excluded from EAGGF financing.
Po sprejetju prvih �tirih delov drugega pritožbenega razloga v smislu, kot je navedeno zgoraj, naj ne bi bilo več treba preučiti petega dela tega pritožbenega razloga, s katerim pritožnica uveljavlja kr�itev obveznosti obrazložitve glede določenih vpra�anj, niti tretjega in četrtega pritožbenega razloga, ki se nana�ata na dele izpodbijane sodbe, v katerih se je Sodi�če prve stopnje izreklo glede podrednega predloga pritožnice, naj se določi zmanj�anje zneska odhodkov, izključenih iz financiranja EKUJS.
In point of fact, if the judgment under appeal were set aside on the basis of the fifth limb of the second ground of appeal, or the third or fourth ground of appeal, that would not have any more extensive effect than acceptance, as suggested above, of the first four limbs of the second ground of appeal. 70
Razveljavitev izpodbijane sodbe na podlagi petega dela drugega pritožbenega razloga, tretjega ali četrtega pritožbenega razloga namreč ne bi bila �ir�a od razveljavitve, ki je posledica sprejetja, v smislu, kot je navedeno zgoraj, prvih �tirih delov drugega pritožbenega razloga. 70
I therefore consider that the judgment under appeal should be set aside in that respect also.
Izpodbijano sodbo bi bilo treba po mojem mnenju zato razveljaviti tudi v tem delu.
For those reasons, since it is unnecessary, in the light of the conclusions which I have reached after examining the first four limbs of the second ground of appeal, I shall refrain from considering either the fifth limb of that ground of appeal or the third and fourth grounds of appeal.
Zaradi navedenih razlogov, ker je glede na ugotovitve, do katerih sem pri�el pri obravnavi prvih �tirih delov drugega pritožbenega razloga, to odveč, ne bom preučil njegovega petega dela niti tretjega in četrtega pritožbenega razloga.
70 — See Joined Cases C-83/01 P, C-93/01 P and C-94/01 P Chronopost and Others v Ufex and Others [2003] ECR I-6993, paragraph 43.
69 – Sodi�če tudi opozarja, da je lahko čas za spravilo pridelka spremenljiv, odvisno od kulturne rastline in zemljepisnega območja, zato tudi če bi želelo ugotoviti, da mora biti nadzor na kraju samem nujno opravljen pred spravilom pridelka, ne bi bilo mogoče določiti samo enega roka za izvedbo takega nadzora za vse kulturne rastline in za celotno Skupnost.
B — The action against the Commission’s Decision appeal, set out in points 67 to 92 and 100 to 111 above, that the Commission has failed to provide appropriate evidence to corroborate the existence of serious and reasonable doubt as to the effectiveness of the checking carried out by the Belgian authorities during the material period, in relation both to the conduct of those authorities when confronted with a positive discrepancy between the area declared and the GIS area and to the delays in the GIS graphic data input in respect of the agricultural parcels.
Komisija obstoja resnih in utemeljenih dvomov o zanesljivosti nadzora belgijskih organov v zadevnem obdobju v zvezi z, na eni strani, odzivom belgijskih organov ob ugotovitvi pozitivnega razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS, in, na drugi strani, časom izvedbe grafičnega vnosa enot rabe ali poljin v RGIS, ni podkrepila s primernimi dokazi.
Under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the Court, if it quashes a decision of the Court of First Instance, may itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits, or refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment.
Člen 61 Statuta Sodi�ča določa, da Sodi�če, če je pritožba utemeljena, razveljavi odločitev Sodi�ča prve stopnje. Če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, lahko samo dokončno odloči o zadevi ali pa jo vrne v razsojanje Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
In my view, in this case, the state of the proceedings permits the Court to give final judgment on the appellant’s action for annulment.
V obravnavanem primeru stanje postopka po mojem mnenju dovoljuje Sodi�ču, da dokončno odloči o ničnostni tožbi pritožnice.
In my view, the contested decision must, therefore, be annulled in so far as it imposes on the Kingdom of Belgium a 2% flatrate reduction in the expenditure declared for the purposes of EAGGF Guarantee Section financing.
Sporno odločbo je treba zato po mojem mnenju razglasiti za nično v delu, v katerem za Kraljevino Belgijo določa dvoodstotno pav�alno zmanj�anje odhodkov, predloženih zaradi financiranja s strani Jamstvenega oddelka EKUJS.
If the first ground of challenge in the action for annulment at first instance were accepted, that would clearly make it unnecessary to consider the other pleas in that action, which were submitted in the alternative only.
Taka razglasitev ničnosti in sprejetje prvega tožbenega razloga bi povzročila, da bi bilo odveč preučiti druge tožbene razloge, ki so v tožbi navedeni zgolj podredno.
It is in fact clear from my analysis of the first four limbs of the second ground of
Iz preučitve prvih �tirih delov drugega pritožbenega razloga v točkah od 67 do 92 in od 100 do 111 zgoraj torej izhaja, da
Under the first paragraph of Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
Člen 122, prvi odstavek, Poslovnika Sodi�ča določa, da če je pritožba utemeljena in če Sodi�če samo dokončno odloči o sporu,
Since I am proposing that the Court of Justice should uphold both the action for annulment and the appeal brought by the appellant, I therefore also propose that the Commission should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings before both the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, in accordance with the form of order sought by the appellant to that effect.
Ker Sodi�ču predlagam, naj ugodi pritožbi in ničnostni tožbi pritožnice, predlagam tudi, naj se Komisiji, ki v sporu ni uspela, naložijo stro�ki postopka na obeh stopnjah, kot je predlagala pritožnica.
Justice, where the appeal is well founded and the Court itself gives final judgment in the case, it is to make a decision as to costs.
odloči tudi o stro�kih.
Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, applicable to appeals by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the successful party’s costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
Poleg tega člen 69(2) istega poslovnika, ki se uporablja na podlagi člena 118 v pritožbenem postopku pred Sodi�čem zoper odločbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, določa, da se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
In the light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court should declare that:
Glede na navedeno Sodi�ču predlagam, naj razsodi:
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Second Chamber)
SODBA SODIŠČA (drugi senat) z dne 24. aprila 2008*
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, lodged on 9 October 2006,
Van den Broeck, zastopnici, skupaj s H. Gilliamsom, P. de Bandtom in L.
2008 — CASE C-418/06 P
2008 – ZADEVA C-418/06 P
Advocate General: P. Mengozzi, Registrar: M.-A. Gaudissart, Head of Unit, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 21 June 2007, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 10 January 2008, gives the following
Mengozzi, sodni tajnik: M.-A. Gaudissart, vodja oddelka, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 21. junija 2007, po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalnega pravobranilca na obravnavi 10. januarja 2008 izreka naslednjo
In its appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium is asking the Court in particular:
Kraljevina Belgija s pritožbo Sodi�ču zlasti predlaga, naj:
— to set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 July 2006 in Case T-221/04 Kingdom of Belgium v Commission, ‘the judgment under appeal’), in which the Court dismissed its application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February
– razveljavi sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 25. julija 2006 v zadevi Kraljevina Belgija proti Komisiji (T-221/04, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba), s katero je to zavrnilo njeno tožbo, s katero je predlagala razglasitev delne
2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI ničnosti Odločbe Komisije 2004/136/ES z dne 4. februarja 2004 o izključitvi nekaterih odhodkov držav članic iz naslova jamstvenega oddelka Evropskega kmetijskega usmerjevalnega in jamstvenega sklada (EKUJS) iz financiranja Skupnosti (UL L 40, str.
31, ‘the contested decision’) and, in the alternative, for reduction in the case of that Member State of the financial correction imposed by the Commission of the European Communities in the contested decision to EUR 1 079 814;
31, v nadaljevanju: sporna odločba), in podredno znižanje finančnega popravka v zvezi s to državo članico, ki ga je Komisija Evropskih skupnosti v sporni odločbi določila v znesku 1.079.814 EUR;
— to grant the forms of order it sought at first instance and hence annul the contested decision;
– ugodi njenim predlogom na prvi stopnji in sporno odločbo razglasi za nično;
— in the alternative, to set aside the judgment under appeal and, under the unlimited jurisdiction enjoyed by the Court of Justice in such matters, reduce to EUR 1 491 085 the financial correction imposed by the Commission.
– podredno razveljavi izpodbijano sodbo in naj na podlagi neomejene pristojnosti, ki jo ima Sodi�če na tem področju, zniža finančni popravek, ki ga je določila Komisija, na znesek 1.491.085 EUR.
I — Legal context
I – Pravni okvir
A — Financing of expenditure by the EAGGF
A – Financiranje odhodkov s strani EKUJS
218), as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1287/95 of 22 May 1995 (OJ 1995 L 125, p.
13), kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta �t. 1287/95 z dne 22. maja 1995 (UL L 125, str.
1) (‘Regulation No 729/70’), established the general rules applicable to the financing of the common agricultural policy.
1, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 729/70), je uvedla splo�na pravila za financiranje skupne kmetijske politike. Uredba Sveta (ES) �t.
103) replaced Regulation No 729/70 and applies to expenditure incurred after 1 January 2000.
103) je nadomestila Uredbo �t. 729/70 in se uporablja za odhodke, ki so bili izvedeni po 1. januarju 2000.
The Guarantee Section of the EAGGF finances, under Articles 1(2)(b) and 3(1) of Regulation No 729/70 and within the framework of the common organisation of agricultural markets, intervention intended to stabilise those agricultural markets, undertaken in accordance with Community rules.
Iz členov 1(2)(b) in 3(1) Uredbe �t. 729/70 izhaja, da intervencije za stabilizacijo kmetijskih trgov, ki se izvajajo po predpisih Skupnosti, financira jamstveni oddelek Evropskega kmetijskega usmerjevalnega in jamstvenega sklada (EKUJS) v okviru skupne ureditve kmetijskih trgov.
Under Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70, the Commission is to decide on the expenditure to be excluded from the Community financing where it finds that expenditure has not been effected in compliance with Community rules.
Člen 5(2)(c) Uredbe �t. 729/70 določa, da Komisija odloči, kateri odhodki se izločijo iz financiranja Skupnosti, če ugotovi, da ti odhodki niso bili izvedeni v skladu s predpisi Skupnosti.
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 729/70 provides:
Člen 8(1) Uredbe �t. 729/70 določa:
— satisfy themselves that transactions financed by the Fund are actually carried out and executed correctly;
– da se prepričajo, da so ukrepi, ki jih financira sklad, dejansko izvedeni in pravilno izvr�en[i];
— prevent and deal with irregularities;
– da preprečijo in odpravljajo nepravilnosti;
— recover sums lost as a result of irregularities or negligence.
– da se izterjajo zneski, izgubljeni zaradi nepravilnosti ali malomarnosti.
On 23 December 1997 the Commission adopted ‘Guidelines for the calculation of financial consequences when preparing the decision regarding the clearance of the accounts of EAGGF Guarantee (Commission document No VI/5330/97, ‘the Guidelines’).
Komisija je 23. decembra 1997 sprejela „Smernice za izračun finančnih posledic ob pripravi odločbe o potrditvi obračuna jamstvenega oddelka EKUJS“ (dokument Komisije �t. VI/5330/97, v nadaljevanju: Smernice).
These provide that a flatrate correction of 2%, 5%, 10% or 25%, or even more, depending on the extent of the shortcomings identified in the conduct of the checks, may be applied in respect of expenditure declared by a Member State where the information available to the Commission does not permit assessment of the losses suffered by the European Community as the result of those shortcomings.
Te določajo, da je za odhodke, ki jih prijavi država članica, mogoče glede na težo neizpolnitev, ugotovljenih ob izvedbi nadzora, uporabiti 2-odstoten, 5-odstoten, 10-odstoten in 25-odstoten ali večji pav�alni popravek, če iz podatkov, ki jih ima Komisija, ni mogoče oceniti izgub, ki jih je imela Evropska skupnost zaradi teh neizpolnitev.
C — The rules applying with regard to checks in the arable crop sector
C – Predpisi o nadzoru v sektorju poljščin
Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 355, p.
V členih 1 in 2 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 3508/92 z dne 27. novembra 1992 o vzpostavitvi integriranega upravnega in nadzornega sistema za nekatere programe pomoči Skupnosti (UL L 355, str.
1) provide that each Member State is to set up such an integrated system, which will comprise in particular a computerised database, an identification system for agricultural parcels and an integrated inspection system.
1) je določeno, da vsaka država članica vzpostavi tak integrirani sistem, ki med drugim vključuje računalni�ko zbirko podatkov, identifikacijski sistem za enote rabe ali poljine in integrirani nadzorni sistem.
Article 4 of Regulation No 3508/92 states, in the original version, that the identification system for parcels is to be established on the basis of land registry maps and documents, other cartographic references or of aerial photographs or satellite pictures.
V začetni različici člena 4 Uredbe �t. 3508/92 je določeno, da se identifikacijski sistem za enote rabe ali poljine vzpostavi na podlagi katastrskih načrtov in drugih katastrskih dokumentov, drugega kartografskega materiala ali letalskih oziroma satelitskih posnetkov.
As amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1593/2000 of 17 July 2000 (OJ 2000 L 182, p.
Isti člen v različici, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Sveta (ES) �t. 1593/2000 z dne 17. julija 2000 (UL L 182, str.
4) that article provides that use is to be made of computerised geographical information system (‘GIS’) techniques, including preferably aerial or spatial orthoimagery.
4), določa, da se bodo pri tem uporabljale metode računalni�kih geografskih informacijskih sistemov (v nadaljevanju: RGIS), po možnosti vključujoč letalske ali satelitske ortoposnetke.
Article 8 of Regulation No 3508/92 provides:
Člen 8 Uredbe �t. 3508/92 določa:
National authorities may, under conditions to be laid down, use remote sensing to determine the area of agricultural parcels, identify crops and verify their status.
Nacionalni organi lahko pod pogoji, ki jih je treba določiti, uporabljajo daljinsko zaznavanje za določanje povr�in enot rabe ali poljin za identifikacijo vrst kmetijskih rastlin in preverjanje njihovega stanja.
Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p.
Člen 6 Uredbe Komisije (EGS) �t. 3887/92 z dne 23. decembra 1992 o podrobnih pravilih za uporabo integriranega administrativnega in nadzornega sistema za nekatere programe pomoči Skupnosti (UL L 391, str.
36), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1678/98 of 29 July 1998 (OJ 1998 L 212, p.
36), kot je bil spremenjen z Uredbo Komisije (ES) �t. 1678/98 z dne 29. julija 1998 (UL L 212, str.
23, ‘Regulation No 3887/92’), provides:
23, v nadaljevanju: Uredba �t. 3887/92), določa:
The administrative checks referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 shall include in particular:
Upravni nadzor […] iz člena 8(1) Uredbe (EGS) �t.
(a) cross-checks on parcels and animals declared in order to ensure that aid is not granted twice in respect of the same calendar year without justification;
3508/92 vsebuje zlasti: a) navzkrižno preverjanje prijavljenih enot rabe ali poljin in živali, da bi se preprečila neupravičena večkratna odobritev iste pomoči za isto koledarsko leto;
— 5% of “area” aid applications. …
– 5 % zahtevkov za pomoč na povr�ino […].