natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
If, then, it was not possible to identify from the rules in force during the material period, an obligation incumbent upon the Belgian authorities to determine the exact area of the agricultural parcels already at the stage of the administrative checks, I consider that the Court of First Instance erred in failing to attach significance to the lack of precision of area data produced by the GIS, which is common ground in these proceedings.
Če torej iz ureditve, ki je veljala v zadevnem obdobju, ni bilo mogoče sklepati o obveznosti belgijskih organov, da ugotovijo točno povr�ino enot rabe ali poljin že pri upravnem nadzoru, menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno zanikalo pomen nenatančnosti podatkov o povr�ini, ki izhajajo iz RGIS.
57 The Belgian Government has set out at length — first during the administrative procedure, then before the Court of First Instance and finally before the Court of Justice — the reasons why the GIS area did not necessarily exactly reflect the true area of the agricultural parcels.
57 Belgijska vlada je ob�irno pojasnila – najprej med upravnim postopkom, nato pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in končno pred Sodi�čem – razloge, zaradi katerih povr�ina RGIS ni nujno natančno izražala dejanske povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin.
It mentioned problems linked to the fact that the outline of the parcels was traced by hand, the less than optimum graphic encoding of that tracing in the GIS and the use of older aerial photographic images — problems which were in no way challenged by the Commission or refuted by the Court of First Instance.
Ta vlada se je sklicevala na neprijetnosti, povezane z ročnim označevanjem meja enot rabe ali poljin, z ne najbolj�im grafičnim vnosom teh označb v RGIS in z uporabo starej�ih fotografij iz zraka, to je na neprijetnosti, ki jih ni izpodbijala Komisija in ne ovrglo Sodi�če prve stopnje.
The calculation of the amount of the aid on the basis of an area that has been reduced, as compared with the declared area, is a measure which was provided for at the material time by Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, the first sentence of the first subparagraph of which indicates that if the area actually determined is found to be less than that declared, the area actually determined on inspection is to be used for calculation of the aid.
Izračun zneska pomoči na podlagi manj�e povr�ine od prijavljene je ukrep, ki je bil v zadevnem obdobju opredeljen v členu 9(2) Uredbe �t.
However, as the Belgian Government has pointed out, in paragraph 48 of the abovementioned judgment in Agrargenossenschaft Pretzsch, the Court held that ‘the first and second subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92 seek to establish a comparison between the statements made in the aid application and the result of the on-the-spot checks’, 58the latter reference apparently clarifying the more general reference to ‘checks carried
3887/92, ki v prvem pododstavku, prvi stavek, določa, da se znesek pomoči izračuna na podlagi dejansko ugotovljene povr�ine med pregledom, če je ta manj�a od povr�ine, prijavljene v zahtevku za pomoč.
Basically, the GIS should have been seen for what it was, given that the criticism could not be levelled at the Belgian authorities — nor has it been — that the GIS should have been different from what it was.
3887/92 namenjen ugotovitvi primerjave med prijavami v zahtevku za pomoč in rezultati nadzora na kraju samem“, 58 kar je navedba, ki najverjetneje natančneje opredeljuje splo�nej�i „nadzor, ki ga izvedejo pristojni organi“
57 — See judgment under appeal, paragraph 48.
57 – Glej izpodbijano sodbo, točka 48.
58 — Case C-417/00, paragraph 48.
58 – Navedba, točka 48 (moj poudarek).
of First Instance endorsed, according to which, when faced with a positive discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area, the Belgian authorities ought either to have reduced the area or to have carried out an on-the-spot check is clearly self-contra-dictory.
morali belgijski organi ob ugotovitvi pozitivnega razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS bodisi zmanj�ati povr�ino bodisi opraviti nadzor na kraju samem, vsebuje očitno protislovje.
If, in fact, the GIS area is regarded as an ‘area actually determined’, within the meaning of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, then, pursuant to Article 9(2), a discrepancy of that nature could give rise only to a reduction in the area (and, consequently, in the amount of the aid) but not to an on-the-spot check.
Če bi se namreč povr�ina RGIS �tela za „dejansko ugotovljeno povr�ino“ v smislu člena 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92, bi tako razhajanje na podlagi te določbe lahko povzročilo samo zmanj�anje povr�ine (in torej zneska pomoči), in ne izvedbo nadzora na kraju samem.
However, to consider the alternative of an on-the-spot check to be permissible for the purpose of determining the true area, implies refusal to accord the GIS area the status of an ‘area actually determined’.
Če pa bi se �telo, da je dopustna alternativa nadzor na kraju samem za ugotovitev dejanske povr�ine, bi to posredno pomenilo zanikanje vrednosti „dejansko ugotovljene povr�ine“ za povr�ino RGIS.
It therefore seems to me that, as the Belgian Government maintains, according to Article 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, the calculation of the amount of the aid on the basis of an area which is reduced, as compared with the declared area, is possible only if the area has been measured during an on-the-spot check.
Zdi se mi torej, da je, kot trdi belgijska vlada, v smislu člena 9(2) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 izračun zneska pomoči na podlagi manj�e povr�ine od prijavljene mogoč samo, če obstaja meritev povr�ine, opravljena med nadzorom na kraju samem.
Moreover, if I consider that a positive discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area did not of itself require the Belgian authorities to adopt the measures omitted, then I also consider to be justified the complaints which the Belgian Government has made in relation to the view taken by the Court of First Instance that the Belgian Government’s response to the identification of that discrepancy was, in any event, inappropriate.
Ob ugotovitvi, da pozitivno razhajanje med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS samo po sebi ne bi zahtevalo, da bi belgijski organi sprejeli opu�čene ukrepe, se mi zdijo utemeljeni tudi očitki belgijske vlade zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje, po kateri je bil odziv belgijskih organov ob ugotovitvi takega razhajanja vsekakor neustrezen.
In any event, as far as these proceedings are concerned, that question may be left open.
To vpra�anje je za namene tega postopka vsekakor mogoče pustiti odprto.
In fact, while acknowledging that that rule also covers the possibility of the area being actually determined during an administrative check, it really does not seem to me to be possible, in the light of the specific characteristics and purpose of the GIS which the Belgian authorities used during the material period, and which complied with the Community rules then in force, to regard the GIS area as an ‘area actually determined’, within the meaning of Article 9(2).
Tudi če se namreč prizna, da navedena določba zajema tudi zanesljive ugotovitve povr�ine med upravnim nadzorom, se mi glede na konkretne značilnosti in namen RGIS, ki so ga v zadevnem obdobju uporabljali belgijski organi v skladu z ureditvijo Skupnosti, ki je tedaj veljala, ne zdi mogoče �teti povr�ino RGIS za „dejansko ugotovljeno povr�ino“ v smislu zadevne določbe.
I would, moreover, point out that the Commission’s position, which the Court
Opozarjam tudi, da stali�če Komisije, ki ga je prevzelo Sodi�če prve stopnje, da bi
It should first be pointed out that, as stated in paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal, during the material period, in the context of the risk analysis designed to identify which files should be subject to an on-the-spot check, the Belgian authorities applied, among other criteria, the criterion of a discrepancy between the area declared
Predvsem je treba spomniti, kot je bilo ugotovljeno v točki 58 izpodbijane sodbe, da so v zadevnem obdobju belgijski organi na področju analize tveganj za izbiro opravil, ki morajo biti predmet nadzora na kraju samem, uporabili med drugim dejavnik razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in
The Belgian Government explained that significant weight was attached to that criterion in the context of the risk analysis.
RGIS, ki je imel nesporne tehnične omejitve pri merjenju povr�in. 60 Navedba Sodi�ča prve povr�ino RGIS. Belgijska vlada je pojasnila, da je imelo to merilo velik pomen pri analizi tveganj.
59 tions in terms of area measurement. 60The observation of the Court of First Instance that ‘the anomalies do not reflect an error of measurement due to the lack of precision of the GIS to which the Belgian Government has drawn attention but reflect the inconsistency between the declared data and the administrative data available to the Belgian authorities’, does not, in my view, invalidate the point set out above.
stopnje, da „nepravilnosti ne odražajo napak pri merjenju zaradi nenatančnosti RGIS, ki jo je ugotovila belgijska vlada, ampak odražajo protislovje med prijavljenimi podatki in upravnimi podatki, s katerimi razpolagajo belgijski organi“, po mojem mnenju ne more preseči zgornjega poudarka.
The fundamental issue remains that this data, which the Court of First Instance described as ‘administrative’ was in fact subject to a reservation to the effect that it was not necessarily reliable, in so far as it was itself subject to verification; the Belgian Government had in fact already explained to the Court of First Instance that, in various cases in which a positive discrepancy was identified between the area declared and the GIS area, verification of that data — by checking the accuracy of the graphic encoding of the area produced by tracing the outline of the agricultural parcels on the aerial photographic images by hand — resulted in that data being corrected to eliminate the discrepancy. 61
Bistveno pa ostaja, da so bili ti podatki, ki jih Sodi�če prve stopnje opredeljuje za „upravne“, dejansko vzeti s pridržkom, ker niso bili nujno zanesljivi, tako da so bili celo predmet preverjanja; belgijska vlada je namreč pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje že pojasnila, da je v raznih primerih, pri katerih je bilo ugotovljeno pozitivno razhajanje med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS, preverjanje teh podatkov s pregledom pravilnosti grafičnega vnosa povr�ine, izhajajoče iz ročnega označevanja meja na fotografijah iz zraka, privedlo do popravka podatkov, s čimer se je navedeno razhajanje odpravilo. 61
I therefore consider that the Court of First Instance erred in law when it found, in this case, pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation No 3508/92 and Articles 6(1) and 9(2) of Regulation No 3887/92, and with reference
Vendar pa menim, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje nepravilno uporabilo pravo, ko je v obravnavanem primeru na podlagi člena 8 Uredbe �t. 3508/92 in členov 6(1) in 9(2)
60 — The Court of First Instance pointed out, at paragraph 60 of the judgment under appeal, that the application of a tolerance margin in the context of on-the-spot checks, expressly provided for under the Community rules, is justified ‘because of the technical limitations of the instrument of measurement’.
60 – Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 60 izpodbijane sodbe poudarilo, da je uporaba tolerančne meje pri meritvah na kraju samem, ki jo pravo Skupnosti izrecno določa, upravičena „zaradi tehničnih omejitev merilnega instrumenta“ (neuraden prevod).
On that point, I concur with the Belgian Government when it points out that, if a tolerance margin is permitted for the purposes of measuring on the spot the area of agricultural parcels, pursuant to Article 6(7) of Regulation No 3887/92, there was nothing to prohibit the Belgian authorities from applying a tolerance margin in the context of an administrative check which was based, at the unexceptionable and freelytaken decision of those authorities, on area data obtained using a system, the GIS, which displayed unquestionable technical limita-
Glede tega se strinjam z belgijsko vlado, ko navaja, da če je v skladu s členom 6(7) Uredbe �t. 3887/92 tolerančna meja dopustna pri meritvah povr�ine enot rabe ali poljin na kraju samem, belgijskim organom ni moglo nič prepovedati uporabe tolerančne meje tudi pri upravnem nadzoru, ki je po svobodni in neizpodbojni izbiri teh organov temeljil na podatkih o povr�ini, pridobljenih z uporabo
61 — See, in particular, paragraphs 45 and 61 of the application to the Court of First Instance, as well as paragraph 58 of the judgment under appeal.
61 – Glej zlasti točki 45 in 61 tožbe ter točko 58 izpodbijane sodbe.
The application of a tolerance margin in the context of the administrative checks appears, moreover, to be all the less problematical in that, as the Belgian Government stated before the Court of First Instance — and the Commission did not dispute this — during the material period, the total area declared for Belgium was, in any event, smaller than the total GIS area.
Uporaba tolerančne meje pri upravnem nadzoru je tudi manj problematična, ker je bila po navedbah belgijske vlade, čemur Komisija pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje ni ugovarjala, v zadevnem obdobju skupna prijavljena povr�ina za Belgijo vendarle manj�a od skupne povr�ine RGIS.
59 — Judgment under appeal, paragraphs 60 and 61.
59 – Izpodbijana sodba, točki 60 in 61.
The appellant points out that, contrary to what is stated in paragraph 68 of the judgement under appeal, the arguments which it had put to the Court of First Instance to refute the complaint concerning graphic data input did not merely consist in the inference, set out in that paragraph in the following terms, that ‘the risk analysis was made on the basis of all the criteria other than that of the belated graphic data input, and … those which posed a risk were subject to accelerated graphic data input before 31 August’. 62
izpodbijane sodbe, pri trditvah, ki jih je predložila pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje, da bi ovrgla očitek v zvezi z grafičnim vnosom, ni omejila na sklepanje, navedeno v tej točki z besedami, ki sledijo, zaradi česar je bila „analiza tveganj opravljena na podlagi vseh drugih meril, drugačnih od merila prepoznega grafičnega vnosa, in […] tista, ki so pomenila tveganje, so bila predmet pospe�enega grafičnega vnosa pred 31. avgustom“. 62
In my view, the judgment under appeal should, therefore, be set aside in that respect.
Izpodbijano sodbo bi bilo treba zato po mojem mnenju v tem delu razveljaviti.
In the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, the appellant in fact advanced other arguments as well to refute that complaint.
Med postopkom na prvi stopnji naj bi pritožnica zoper ta očitek vseeno uveljavljala tudi druge trditve.
(b) The fourth limb of the ground of appeal (the complaint based on late graphic data input)
b) Četrti del tega pritožbenega razloga (očitki v zvezi z prepoznim grafičnim vnosom podatkov) i) Trditve strank
In the first place, the appellant had pointed out that the risk analysis made after 31 August had been just as effective as the risk analysis made prior to that date — a date which was not, moreover, taken into consideration by the Belgian authorities, since it was not prescribed by any of the legislation.
Prvič, pritožnica naj bi poudarila, da je bila analiza tveganj, opravljena po 31. avgustu, enako učinkovita kot analiza tveganj, opravljena pred tem datumom, ki pa je datum, ki ga belgijski organi niso upo�tevali, ker ga ni določal noben predpis.
In point of fact, even if the agricultural parcels were graphically encoded in the GIS after 31 August, the area declared would have been compared with the GIS area for each file, and those files relating to groups
Tudi kadar je bil namreč grafični vnos enot rabe ali poljin v RGIS opravljen po 31. avgustu, naj bi se pri vsakem opravilu prijavljeno povr�ino primerjalo s povr�ino RGIS in opravila v zvezi s skupinami kmetijskih rastlin, ki
BELGIUM v COMMISSION of crops displaying the greatest discrepancy between the declared area and the GIS area would have been taken into consideration, in accordance with that criterion, in the risk analysis and, if necessary, selected for on-the-spot checks.
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI so pomenila največje razhajanje med eno in drugo povr�ino, naj bi se upo�tevala na podlagi tega merila v analizi tveganj in po potrebi se jih je izbralo za nadzor na kraju samem.
63 The complaint therefore related not to the late conduct of on thespot checks, but to the fact that delays in graphic data input meant that it was impossible to carry out the administrative checks in due time, and that made it impossible to carry out the additional on-the-spot checks appropriately.
63Pri tem očitku naj torej ne bi �lo za to, da je bil izveden prepozen nadzor na kraju samem, ampak za nezmožnost, da bi se zaradi zamud pri grafičnem vnosu pravočasno začel upravni nadzor, kar naj bi preprečilo ustrezno izvedbo poznej�ega nadzora na kraju samem.
The Commission points out that the Belgian authorities themselves recognised that the delays had an effect on the selection of aid applications in the context of the risk analysis.
Komisija opozarja, da so belgijski organi sami priznali, da je navedena zamuda vplivala na izbiro zahtevkov za pomoč na področju analize tveganj.
Secondly, the appellant had pointed out, without this being disputed by the Commission, that the date of 31 August had no particular relevance as far as the carrying out of physical on-the-spot checks was concerned, since the checks carried out after that date were just as effective as those carried out before it.
Drugič, pritožnica naj bi poudarila, ne da bi Komisija temu ugovarjala, da datum 31. avgust ni imel nobenega pomena pri izvedbi fizičnega nadzora na kraju samem, odkar je bil nadzor, ki je bil opravljen po tem datumu, enako učinkovit kot prej opravljeni nadzor.
According to the appellant, those checks can still be usefully carried out in the months of September and October, since, although many crops have already been harvested, for most crops, the agricultural parcels have yet to be ploughed or, at any rate, still contain crop residue; while for other crops (in particular, maize — one of Belgium’s largest crops), the harvest takes place between late October and early November.
Tak nadzor se po navedbah pritožnice lahko �e vedno uporabno opravi septembra in oktobra, kajti tudi če se je spravilo pridelka pri raznih kmetijskih rastlinah že začelo, naj za največji del kmetijskih rastlin enote rabe ali poljine �e ne bi bile obdelane ali bi vsebovale rastlinske ostanke; medtem ko se pri drugih kulturnih rastlinah (zlasti koruzi, ki je ena od najpomembnej�ih kmetijskih rastlin v Belgiji) spravilo pridelka opravi med koncem oktobra in začetkom novembra.
In any event, since it failed, in the judgment under appeal, to respond to those arguments or to state the reason why graphic encoding or a risk analysis made after 31 August should be regarded as late, the Court of First Instance was in breach of the obligation to state reasons.
Komisija opozarja, da v skladu z zbirnim poročilom zaradi zamude pri vnosu grafičnih
63 — Unofficial translation of a passage from the summary report.
63 – Neuraden prevod dela zbirnega poročila.
The complaint concerning delays in the abovementioned graphic data input — that is to say the entering into the GIS, by a technician from the Bureau provincial, of the outline of the agricultural parcels traced by hand by farmers on the aerial photographic images — as formulated in the Commission’s summary report and recorded in paragraph 65 of the judgment under appeal, is based on the following reasoning: those files in respect of which graphic data input had not been completed by the end of August could not be taken in account in the risk analysis or selected for an on-the-spot check.
Očitek v zvezi z zamudo pri omenjenem grafičnem vnosu – to je pri vnosu risbe enote rabe ali poljine, ki so jo na fotografije iz zraka ročno narisali pridelovalci, v RGIS, ki ga opravi tehnik pri Bureau provincial – kot je bil opredeljen v zbirnem poročilu Komisije in ponovljen v točki 65 izpodbijane sodbe, temelji na naslednjem razlogovanju: opravil, za katera ob koncu meseca avgusta �e ni bil izveden navedeni grafični vnos, ni bilo mogoče upo�tevati v analizi tveganj niti izbrati za nadzor na kraju samem.
The appellant had, moreover, made it clear that the on-the-spot checks could also usefully be carried out during the months of September and October, even after the harvest, and had set out reasons in support of that assertion (see point 97 above). 65
Pritožnica je tudi pojasnila, da je lahko nadzor na kraju samem uporabno opravljen tudi septembra in oktobra, celo ob že opravljenem spravilu pridelka, in navedla razloge za to trditev (glej točko 97 zgoraj). 65
On that point, the appellant had in fact argued, however, on several occasions during the proceedings before the Court of First Instance, 64in particular, that for those files in respect of which the graphic data input in question was completed after 31 August, the areas declared and GIS areas were compared, and, as in the case of the files for which graphic data input had been completed before that date, the applications for groups of crops which displayed more marked differences between the areas declared and GIS areas were reviewed in the context of a risk analysis and may have been selected for physical on-the-spot checks.
Glede tega pa je pritožnica med postopkom na prvi stopnji 64dejansko večkrat zatrjevala zlasti to, da je bila tudi za opravila, za katera je bil zadevni grafični vnos izveden po 31. avgustu, narejena primerjava med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS in da so bili, tako kot pri opravilih, za katera je bil grafični vnos izveden pred tem datumom, zahtevki za skupine kulturnih rastlin, pri katerih so bile pomembnej�e razlike med eno in drugo povr�ino, preizku�eni v analizi tveganj in morda izbrani za fizični nadzor na kraju samem.
Consequently, in paragraph 68 of the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance wrongly found that — as regards the alleged impossibility of carrying out in due time administrative checks and, therefore, on-the-spot checks, because of the delays in graphic data input — the applicant ‘[had] merely asserted that the risk analysis [had been] made on the basis of all the criteria other than that [of the discrepancy between the area declared and the GIS area], 66and … those which posed a risk were subject to accelerated graphic data input before 31 August’.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 68 izpodbijane sodbe torej napačno ugotovilo, da je pritožnica – v prid izpodbijane nezmožnosti pravočasne izvedbe upravnega nadzora in torej nadzora na kraju samem zaradi zamude pri grafičnem vnosu – „samo potrdila, da je bila analiza tveganj opravljena na podlagi vseh drugih meril, drugačnih od merila [razhajanja med prijavljeno povr�ino in povr�ino RGIS], 66in da so bila tista, ki so pomenila tveganje, predmet pospe�enega grafičnega vnosa pred 31. avgustom“.
The arguments cited in points 102 to 104 above, on which the Court of First
Trditve, navedene v točkah od 102 do 104 zgoraj, glede katerih se Sodi�če
By that argument, the appellant is essentially pointing out that graphic data input completed after 31 August had in no way precluded either the inclusion of the file
S to trditvijo je pritožnica v bistvu opozorila na to, da grafični vnos, izveden
65 — See paragraph 80 of the application to the Court of First Instance.
65 – Glej točko 80 tožbe pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.66 – Glej opombo 62.
64 — See paragraph 68 of the application and paragraphs 35 and 37 of the reply.
64 – Glej točko 68 tožbe ter točki 35 in 37 replike.
BELGIUM v COMMISSION carried out after that date, because of the alleged delays in graphic data input, were ineffective. 67
BELGIJA PROTI KOMISIJI samem, opravljen po navedenem datumu zaradi domnevno prepoznega grafičnega vnosa, neučinkovit.