natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Council Directive 91/629)
Kmetijstvo – Približevanje zakonodaj – Minimalni pogoji za zaščito telet – Direktiva 91/629 (Direktiva Sveta 91/629)
SUMMARY — CASE C-187/07
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-187/07
must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part.
sistematiko in namen ureditve, katere del je.
Community provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all European Community languages.
Določbe Skupnosti je treba razlagati in uporabljati enotno glede na različice iz vseh jezikov Evropske skupnosti.
The wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard.
Formulacija, ki se uporablja v jezikovnih različicah določbe Skupnosti, se ne more uporabljati za razlago te določbe ali se jo glede tega prednostno upo�teva glede na druge jezikovne različice.
Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law.
Tak pristop namreč ne bi bil združljiv z zahtevo po enotni uporabi prava Skupnosti.
A calf is tethered within the meaning of Directive 91/629, laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Decision 97/182, where it is tied by a rope, irrespective of the material, length and purpose of that rope.
V smislu spremenjene Direktive 91/629 o določitvi minimalnih pogojev za za�čito telet, kot je bila spremenjena z Odločbo 97/182, je tele privezano, če je privezano s kakr�no koli vezjo, kakr�ne koli dolžine in iz kakr�nih koli razlogov.
Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question
Če se med jezikovnimi različicami besedila Skupnosti pojavijo razlike, je sporno določbo treba razlagati glede na splo�no
(see para. 26, operative part)
(Glej točko 26 in izrek.)
3 April 2008 *
SODBA SODIŠČA (sedmi senat) z dne 3. aprila 2008 *
REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Rechtbank Zutphen (Netherlands), made by decision of 19 February 2007, received at the Court on 3 April 2007, in the criminal proceedings against
V zadevi C-187/07, katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 234 ES, ki ga je vložilo Rechtbank Zutphen (Nizozemska) z odločbo z dne 19. februarja 2007, ki je prispela na Sodi�če 3. aprila 2007, v kazenskem postopku zoper
Advocate General: Y. Bot, Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 9 January 2008,
Bot, sodni tajnik: H. von Holstein, namestnik sodnega tajnika, na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 9. januarja 2008,
2008 — CASE C-187/07 after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
2008 – ZADEVA C-187/07 ob upo�tevanju stali�č, ki so jih predložili:
— the Commission of the European Communities, by F. Erlbacher and M. van Heezik, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion, gives the following
– za Komisijo Evropskih skupnosti F. Erlbacher in M. van Heezik, zastopnika, na podlagi sklepa, sprejetega po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca, da bo v zadevi razsojeno brez sklepnih predlogov, izreka naslednjo
This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the word ‘tether’ (‘aanbinden’) within the meaning of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves (OJ 1991 L 340, p.
Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nana�a na razlago izraza „privezati“ („aanbinden“) v smislu Direktive Sveta 91/629/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o določitvi minimalnih pogojev za za�čito telet (UL L 340, str.
28), as amended by Commission Decision 97/182/EC of 24 February 1997 (OJ 1997 L 76, p.
28), kot je bila spremenjena z Odločbo Komisije 97/182/ES z dne 24. februarja 1997 (UL L 76, str.
30) (‘Amended Directive 91/629’).
30, v nadaljevanju: spremenjena Direktiva 91/629).
The reference has been made in the course of criminal proceedings brought against Dirk Endendijk for having, during October 2005, kept calves tethered in conditions not in compliance with the first sentence of point 8 of the Annex to Amended Directive 91/629.
Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru kazenskega postopka, uvedenega zoper D. Endendijka, ker je oktobra 2005 posedoval teleta, ki so bila privezana v razmerah, ki niso bile v skladu s točko 8, prvi stavek, priloge k spremenjeni Direktivi 91/629.
Article 3(1) of Directive 91/629 provides that the housing of calves must be either in groups, in individual boxes or ‘by tethering in stalls’.
Člen 3(1) Direktive 91/629 določa, da morajo biti teleta nastanjena bodisi v skupinah bodisi v posameznih boksih ali privezana v stoji�čih.
That provision applies to all holdings newly built or rebuilt from 1 January 1994.
Ta določba se uporablja za na novo zgrajena ali prenovljena gospodarstva od 1. januarja 1994.
Council Directive 97/2/EC of 20 January 1997, amending Directive 91/629 (OJ 1997 L 25, p.
Z Direktivo Sveta 97/2/ES z dne 20. januarja 1997 o spremembi Direktive 91/629 (UL L 25, str.
24), did not formally amend that provision but inserted a new paragraph 3 within Article 3 of Directive 91/629, which provides:
24) ni bila formalno spremenjena ta določba, ampak je bil členu 3 Direktive 91/629 dodan nov odstavek 3, ki določa:
(a) no calf shall be confined in an individual pen after the age of eight weeks, unless a veterinarian certifies that its health or behaviour requires it to be isolated in order to receive treatment. …
„Od 1. januarja 1998 veljajo za vsa na novo zgrajena ali obnovljena gospodarstva in za vsa tista, ki se bodo po tem datumu uporabljala prvič, naslednje določbe: a) teleta, starej�a od osem tednov, ne smejo biti nastanjena v individualnih boksih, razen če veterinar potrdi, da je žival zaradi njenega zdravja ali vedenja potrebno izolirati. […]
2008 — CASE C-187/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-187/07
The Annex to Directive 91/629 included in its original version a point 8, which stated as follows:
V prilogi k Direktivi 91/629 je v izvirni različici točka 8 določala:
‘Where tethers are used, they must not cause injury to the calves and must be inspected regularly and adjusted as necessary to ensure a comfortable fit.
„Priprave za privez na teletih ne smejo povzročati po�kodb in se morajo redno pregledovati in po potrebi naravnati, tako da se udobno prilegajo telesu.
Each tether must be of sufficient length to allow the calves to move as stipulated in [point] 7 [that is, to lie down, rest, stand up and groom themselves without difficulty and to see other calves].
Vsaka veriga mora biti dovolj dolga, da se teleta lahko premikajo, kakor določa [točka] 7 [in sicer da se uležejo, ležijo, vstanejo in se očistijo brez težav ter da vidijo druga teleta].
The design must be such as to avoid, as far as possible, any risk of strangulation or injury.’
Zasnovana mora biti tako, da je tveganje zadu�itve ali po�kodbe čim manj�e.“
The fifth recital in the preamble to Decision 97/182 states:
V peti uvodni izjavi Odločbe 97/182 je določeno:
‘Whereas tethering of calves causes problems; whereas for that reason individually penned calves should not be tethered and group-housed calves may only be tethered for a short period at the time of feeding milk.’
„ker privezovanje telet povzroča težave; ker se zaradi tega teleta v individualnih boksih ne bi smela privezovati, teleta v skupni hlevski reji pa samo za kratek čas med pitjem mleka.“
Decision 97/182 amended the Annex to the Directive 91/629, in which it replaced point 8 with the following:
Z Odločbo 97/182 je bila spremenjena Direktiva 91/629, in sicer točka 8:
‘Calves shall not be tethered, with the exception of group-housed calves which may be tethered for periods of not more than one hour at the time of feeding milk or milk
„Telet se ne sme privezovati, razen telet v skupni hlevski reji, ki so lahko med pitjem mleka ali mlečnih nadomestkov privezana za največ eno uro. Priprave za privez na
Each tether shall be designed to avoid the risk of strangulation or injury and to allow the calf to move in accordance with point 7 [that is, to lie down, to rest, stand up and groom itself without difficulty].’
Vsaka priprava za privez mora biti narejena tako, da se tele ne more zadu�iti ali po�kodovati in da teletu omogoča gibanje v skladu s točko 7 [in sicer da se uležejo, ležijo, vstanejo in se očistijo brez težav ].“
Article 3(2) of that decree provides:
Člen 3(2) določa:
‘Calves housed in individual pens and those over eight weeks old intended to be raised as steers shall not be tethered.’
„Teleta v individualnih boksih in teleta, ki so stara več kot osem tednov, ki bodo postala voli, se ne smejo privezovati.“
The explanatory note to that decree indicates, in that regard, that the prohibition on tethering individually penned calves applies to ‘all categories of calves’.
V obrazložitvi tega dekreta je določeno, da se prepoved privezovanja telet v individualnih boksih uporablja „za vse kategorije telet“.
Article 2(1) of that decree now provides:
Člen 2(1) je določal:
‘Calves shall be kept only in conditions which comply with the first sentence of point 8 of the Annex [to Amended Directive 91/629].’
„Teleta so lahko nastanjena le v razmerah, kakor določa točka 8, prvi stavek, priloge [k spremenjeni Direktivi 91/629].“
In those circumstances, the Rechtbank Zutphen (Zutphen District Court) (Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
V teh okoli�činah je Rechtbank Zutphen (sodi�če za gospodarske prestopke) prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ti vpra�anji:
Since the two questions referred from the national court are closely interconnected it is appropriate to reply to them jointly.
Zaradi ozke povezanosti vpra�anj predložitvenega sodi�ča, je nanju mogoče odgovoriti skupaj.
That point having been made, it must be noted that Amended Directive 91/629 expressly prohibits the tethering of calves when they are penned in individual boxes.
Ob upo�tevanju tega je treba omeniti, da spremenjena Direktiva 91/629 izrecno prepoveduje privezovanje telet v individualnih boksih.
In the regard, the fifth recital in the preamble to Decision 97/182 states that ‘individu- ally penned calves should not be tethered’, an approach which is mirrored in point 8 of the Annex to Amended Directive 91/629.
V peti uvodni izjavi Odločbe 97/182 je določeno, da se „teleta v individualnih boksih ne bi smela privezovati“, kar je ponovljeno v točki 8 priloge k spremenjeni Direktivi 91/629.
That point provides, as is indicated at paragraph 7 of this judgment, that ‘calves shall not be tethered, with the exception of group-housed calves which may be tether- ed for periods of not more than one hour at the time of feeding milk or milk substitute …’.
V tej točki je določeno, na kar je opozorjeno tudi v točki 7 te sodbe, da se „telet ne sme privezovati, razen telet v skupni hlevski reji, ki so lahko med pitjem mleka ali mlečnih nadomestkov privezana za največ eno uro […]“.
Consequently, the interpretation that calves are not tethered where they are held by a rope approximately three metres long, allowing them some freedom of movement, since that freedom of movement meets the requirements of Amended Directive 91/629, cannot be accepted.
Zato se z razlago, po kateri naj teleta, ki so privezana s približno 3 metre dolgo vrvjo, kar jim omogoča nekaj gibanja, ne bi bila privezana, saj to gibanje ustreza zahtevam spremenjene Direktive 91/629, ni mogoče strinjati.
In the first place, it follows from the wording both of Article 3(3) of Amended Directive 91/629 and of point 8 of the Annex to that directive that the option of tethering calves relates only to calves penned in groups and not to individually penned calves, for which the prohibition is absolute.
Po eni strani namreč tako iz besedila člena 3(3) spremenjene Direktive 91/629 kot iz točke 8 priloge k tej direktivi izhaja, da se možnost privezovanja telet nana�a le na teleta v skupni hlevski reji, ne pa na teleta v individualnih boksih, za katera velja popolna prepoved.
But, as the minutes of the main proceedings refer only to individually penned calves, it must be inferred that the right to tether calves has no bearing on those proceedings.
Ker je iz zapisnika iz postopka v glavni stvari razvidno le stanje telet v individualnih boksih, je mogoče sklepati, da možnosti privezovanja telet v tej zadevi ni mogoče upo�tevati.
In the second place, it should be pointed out, for the sake of completeness, that the option of tethering calves must be exercised only exceptionally, as it concerns periods which cannot exceed one hour and which are restricted to the time of feeding milk.
Po drugi strani je treba dodatno pojasniti, da je možnost privezovanja telet popolnoma izjemna, saj se nana�a na obdobja, ki ne smejo trajati več kot eno uro in ki so namenjena pitju mleka.
It is, therefore, only during short periods that it is permitted, by way of exception, for calves to be tethered, and moreover such tethering must take place under conditions where their freedom of movement is guaranteed, so that they can lie down, rest, stand up and groom themselves without difficulty.
Zato je le med kraj�imi obdobji sprejemljivo odstopanje, da so teleta privezana ali jih je celo treba privezati, če jim je zagotovljena svoboda gibanja, tako da se lahko uležejo, ležijo, vstanejo in se očistijo brez težav.
In other words, the circumstances in which the defendant in the main proceedings proposes that his animals are to be regarded as untethered are precisely the circumstances from which those animals must benefit where, exceptionally, they are tethered, an option which is possible only for group-housed calves. That is not the case with the defendant’s calves in the main proceedings.
Povedano drugače, značilnosti, ki jih izpostavlja tožena stranka v glavni stvari glede tega, da njene živali niso privezane, so ravno te, do katerih so te živali upravičene, kadar so izjemoma privezane, kar je možnost, ki jo imajo le teleta v skupni hlevski reji, za kar pa ne gre v postopku v glavni stvari.
As regards the fact that the Dutch version of point 8 of the Annex to Amended Directive 91/629 refers to a tether which is metallic in nature, using the word ‘chains’ (‘kettingen’), it should first be pointed out that that fact does not alter the scope of the exception provided for by that provision, which applies only to group-housed calves at the time of feeding milk. That was not the case with the defendant’s calves in the main proceedings, which were, according to the order for reference, penned in individual boxes.
Glede okoli�čine, da se v nizozemski različici točke 8 priloge k spremenjeni Direktivi 91/629 uporablja privez v kovinski obliki, saj je uporabljena beseda „verige“ („kettingen“), je treba najprej navesti, da to ne spreminja področja, za katerega se uporabi izjema, določena v tej določbi, ki se uporablja le za teleta v skupni hlevski reji med pitjem mleka, pri čemer ni �lo pri teletih tožene stranke v postopku v glavni stvari, saj so bila ta teleta v individualnih boksih, kot je to navedeno v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe.
It should secondly be pointed out that, in any event, the word in question cannot be examined solely in the Dutch version of that point, as Community provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all Euro-
Drugič je treba povedati, da v nobenem primeru zadevnega izraza ni mogoče preizku�ati le v nizozemski različici te točke, saj je treba določbe Skupnosti razlagati in uporabljati enotno glede na različice iz vseh jezikov Evropske skupnosti (glej sodbe z dne 7. decembra 1995 v zadevi Rockfon, C-449/93, Recueil, str. I-4291, točka 28;
According to settled caselaw, the wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso se formulacija, ki se uporablja v jezikovnih različicah določbe Skupnosti, ne more uporabljati za razlago te določbe ali se jo glede tega prednostno upo�teva glede na druge jezikovne različice.
Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law (see Case C-149/97 Institute of the Motor Industry [1998] ECR I-7053, paragraph 16).
Tak pristop namreč ne bi bil združljiv z zahtevo po enotni uporabi prava Skupnosti (glej sodbo z dne 12. novembra 1998 v zadevi Institute of the Motor Industry, C-149/97, Recueil, str. I-7053, točka 16).
Where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (Case C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co [2000] ECR I-1157, paragraph 42, and Case C-1/02 Borgmann [2004] ECR I-3219, paragraph 25). 25
Če se med jezikovnimi različicami besedila Skupnosti pojavijo razlike, je sporno določbo treba razlagati glede na splo�no sistematiko in namen ureditve, katere del je (sodbi z dne 9. marca 2000 v zadevi EKW in Wein & Co, C-437/97, Recueil, str. I-1157, točka 42, in z dne 1. aprila 2004 v zadevi Borgmann, C-1/02, Recueil, str. I-3219, točka 25). 25
It must be stated that the language versions, other than the Dutch version, of point 8 of the Annex to Amended Directive 91/629 refer to a general term.
Ugotoviti je treba, da so se jezikovne različice, razen nizozemske, točke 8 priloge k spremenjeni Direktivi 91/629 sklicevale na splo�ni izraz.
For example, the German-language version uses the word ‘Anbindevorrichtung’ (tethering device), the English-language version uses the word ‘tether’, and the French-language version the word ‘attache’ (‘tether’), while the Italian-language version uses the word ‘attacco’.
Spomnimo naj na to, da nem�ka različica uporablja izraz „Anbindevorrichtung“ (priprava za privez), angle�ka različica besedo „tether“ (povodec), francoska različica besedo „attache“ (privez), italijanska različica pa uporablja besedo „attacco“.
That use of a general term is wholly logical taking account, first, of the absolute prohibition noted at paragraph 16 of this judgment and, then, of the animal care required under Amended Directive 91/629, where, exceptionally, there is a derogation from the prohibition against tethering calves as in the circumstances referred to at paragraph 17 of this judgment.
Ta uporaba splo�nega izraza je bolj smiselna, upo�tevajoč najprej splo�no prepoved, na katero je opozorjeno v točki 16 te sodbe, in tudi udobje živali, ki se zahteva s spremenjeno Direktivo 91/629, v kateri je izjemoma določeno odstopanje od privezovanja telet pod pogoji, na katere je opozorjeno v točki 17 te sodbe.
The word ‘chain’ is thus contrary to the objective pursued by the Community legislature.
Izkaže se torej, da izraz „veriga“ nasprotuje cilju, ki ga zasleduje zakonodajalec Skupnosti.
The reply to the questions referred must therefore be that a calf is tethered within the meaning of Amended Directive 91/629 where it is tied by a rope, irrespective of the material, length and purpose of that rope.
Na zastavljeni vpra�anji je treba torej odgovoriti tako, da se v smislu spremenjene Direktive 91/629, �teje, da je tele privezano, če je privezano s kakr�no koli vezjo, kakr�ne koli dolžine in iz kakr�nih koli razlogov.
A calf is tethered within the meaning of Council Directive 91/629/EEC of 19 November 1991 laying down minimum standards for the protection of calves, as amended by Commission Decision 97/182/EC of 24 February 1997, where it is tied by a rope, irrespective of the material, length and purpose of that rope.
V smislu Direktive Sveta 91/629/EGS z dne 19. novembra 1991 o določitvi minimalnih pogojev za zaščito telet, kot je bila spremenjena z Odločbo Komisije 97/182/EGS z dne 24. februarja 1997, je tele privezano, če je privezano s kakršno koli vezjo kakršne koli dolžine in iz kakršnih koli razlogov.
Case C-167/05
Zadeva C-167/05
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Second paragraph of Article 90 EC — Internal taxes imposed on products from other Member States — Taxation liable to protect other products indirectly — Prohibition on discrimination between imported products and competing domestic products — Excise duties — Different tax treatment of beer and wine — Burden of proof)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Člen 90 ES, drugi odstavek – Notranji davki, uvedeni na proizvode drugih držav članic – Davki, ki posredno �čitijo ostale proizvode – Prepoved diskriminacije med uvoženimi proizvodi in konkurenčnimi nacionalnimi proizvodi – Tro�arine – Različna obdavčitev piva in vina – Dokazno breme“
Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 18 July 2007 . . . . . . .
Mengozzija, predstavljeni 18. julija 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Tax provisions — Internal taxation — Taxation apt to protect other products indirectly(EC Treaty, Art. 95, second para. (now, after amendment, Art. 90, second para., EC))
Davčne določbe – Notranji davki – Davki, ki posredno ščitijo ostale proizvode(Pogodba ES, člen 95, drugi odstavek (po spremembi postal člen 90 ES, drugi odstavek))
SUMMARY — CASE C-167/05 category, in competition with that beer, is such that the difference in the tax treatment of those two products is not liable to influence consumer behaviour in the sector concerned and, on the other, it is not shown by the statistical information regarding sales of the products in question that there is an actual protective effect.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-167/05 obdavčitev teh dveh proizvodov ne bi mogla vplivati na vedenje potro�nika v upo�tevnem sektorju, in, drugič, iz statističnih podatkov o prodaji zadevnih proizvodov tudi ne izhaja varovalni učinek.
A national taxation system which taxes wine, which is mainly imported from other Member States, more heavily than beer, which is mainly a domestic product, and which is based on the taxation of the percentage of alcohol by volume of the wine and the beer, does not appear to have the effect of affording indirect protection to national beer and therefore is not incompatible with the second paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, the second paragraph of Article 90 EC) since, on the one hand, the difference between the price of strong beer and the price of wine in the intermediate
Nacionalna davčna ureditev, ki vino, pretežno uvoženo iz drugih držav članic, obremeni z vi�jimi tro�arinami kot pivo, predvsem nacionalni proizvod, in ki temelji na obdavčitvi volumenskega odstotka alkohola vina in piva, ne vpliva na posredno za�čito nacionalnega piva in torej ni nezdružljiva s členom 95, drugi odstavek, Pogodbe (po spremembi postal člen 90 ES), ker je razlika med prodajno ceno močnega piva in konkurenčnega vina srednjega razreda taka, da različna
(see paras 57-60)
(Glej točke od 57 do 60.)
MENGOZZIdelivered on 18 July 2007
SKLEPNI PREDLOGI GENERALNEGA PRAVOBRANILCAPAOLA MENGOZZIJA, predstavljeni 18. julija 2007 1
The case-file indicates that when the Kingdom of Sweden acceded to the European Union in 1995, beer with an alcoholic strength in excess of 3.5 % vol. (known as strong beer) 3was subject to a rate of tax largely equivalent to the rate applicable to wine with an alcoholic strength in the region of 11 % vol.
Iz spisa izhaja, da je bilo v trenutku pristopa Kraljevine Švedske k Evropski uniji leta 1995 pivo z vsebnostjo alkohola vi�jo od 3,5 vol. % (imenovano močno pivo) 3 obdavčeno po davčni stopnji, ki je v bistvu enaka tisti, ki se uporablja za vino z vsebnostjo alkohola okrog 11 vol. %.