natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be noted at the outset that it is settled caselaw that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be found in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the Combined Nomenclature and of the notes to the sections or chapters (see, inter alia, Joined Cases C-208/06 and C-209/06 Medion and Canon Deutschland [2007] ECR I-7963, paragraph 34).
Najprej je treba spomniti, da je treba po ustaljeni sodni praksi Sodi�ča, z namenom zagotavljanja pravne varnosti in lahkega nadzora, odločilno merilo za tarifno uvrstitev blaga na splo�no poiskati v njegovih objektivnih značilnostih in lastnostih, kakor so opredeljene v besedilu tarifne �tevilke KN in opomb oddelkov ali poglavij (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 27. septembra 2007 v združenih zadevah Medion in Canon Deutschland, C-208/06 in C-209/06, ZOdl., str. I-7963, točka 34).
It is clear from the wording of CN headings 6403 and 6404 that classification of the footwear at issue in the main proceedings under one or other of those headings depends on what material the upper of the footwear consists of.
Iz besedila tarifnih �tevilk 6403 in 6404 KN izhaja, da se obutev v postopku v glavni stvari uvrsti pod eno ali drugo tarifno �tevilko glede na to, iz katerega materiala je zgornji del.
In the present case, the upper of the sandal at issue in the main proceedings is mainly composed of leather and textile material.
V tem primeru je zgornji del sandale v postopku v glavni stvari v glavnem iz usnja in tekstilnega materiala.
Both the leather and the textile material are attached to the intermediate sole with glue.
Tako usnje kot tekstilni material sta zlepljena pri vmesnem podplatu.
Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the CN states that the material of the upper must be determined by the constituent material having the greatest external surface area, no account being taken of accessories or reinforcements.
V opombi 4(a) k poglavju 64 KN je določeno, da se pri določanju sestave zgornjega dela upo�teva tisti sestavni material, ki ima največjo zunanjo povr�ino, pri čemer niso vključeni dodatki ali ojačenja.
It is clear from the order for reference that the leather, including the fastening straps and ornamentation, makes up 71% of the upper’s external surface area.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da usnje predstavlja, vključno s trakovi za pričvrstitev in okraski, 71 % zunanje povr�ine zgornjega dela.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to establish whether the leather, which has the greatest external surface area, should be regarded as an upper or whether it should be regarded as a reinforcement within the meaning of Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the CN.
V takih okoli�činah je treba ugotoviti, ali se usnje, ki ima največjo zunanjo povr�ino, �teje kot zgornji del ali kot ojačenje v smislu opombe 4(a) k poglavju 64 KN.
Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN defines ‘reinforcements’ as all pieces of material attached to the external surface of the upper to give additional strength, whether or not also attached to the sole.
Dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN določa, da so pod ojačenjem mi�ljeni deli materiala, pritrjeni na zunanjo povr�ino zgornjega dela, da ga ojačajo, in so pritrjeni tudi na podplat ali ne.
It should also be noted that, according to Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN, after the removal of reinforcements, the visible material must have the characteristics of an upper and not lining.
Povedati je treba tudi, da je v besedilu dodatne opombe 1 k poglavju 64 KN določeno, da mora imeti material, ki se pokaže, potem ko se ojačenja odstranijo, značilnosti zgornjega dela, ne pa podloge.
It is apparent from the foregoing considerations that in order to classify the sandal at issue in the main proceedings under the CN, the referring court must decide whether, after removal of the leather, the textile material of the sandal shows the characteristics of an upper.
Iz zgoraj navedene presoje izhaja, da mora pri uvrstitvi sandale v postopku v glavni stvari v KN predložitveno sodi�če ugotoviti, ali ima po odstranitvi usnja tekstilni material sandale v postopku v glavni stvari značilnosti zgornjega dela.
That will be the case if the textile material, without the pieces of leather, fulfils the function of an upper, that is to say, if it supports the wearer’s foot so that person can use the shoe for walking.
To velja, če tekstilni material, ki nima usnjenih delov, opravlja funkcijo zgornjega dela, torej če zagotavlja določeno oporo uporabnikovemu stopalu, tako da ta lahko obutev uporablja za hojo.
In that regard, it should be pointed out that the textile material cannot be described as an upper solely on the ground that if the leather were removed it would retain the shape of an upper.
Glede tega je treba poudariti, da tekstilnega materiala ni mogoče opredeliti kot zgornji del le zato, ker bi, če bi usnje odstranili, ohranil obliko zgornjega dela.
Since a lining is designed to line the material covering it, it is quite conceivable that it would itself have the shape of an upper.
Ker je podloga namenjena podlaganju materiala, ki ga pokriva, je popolnoma razumljivo, da ima sama po sebi obliko zgornjega dela.
Moreover, the fact that the textile material is exposed underneath the leather and at the heel does not mean that it cannot be described as lining.
Poleg tega dejstvo, da se tekstilni material pokaže okoli usnja in pri peti, ne more ovreči tega, da se ga opredeli kot podlogo.
When it states that the constituent material of any lining has no effect on classification of footwear where the upper consists of two or more materials, the second paragraph of point (D) of the General Explanatory Notes to Chapter 64 of the HS Explanatory Notes acknowledges implicitly that, in places, the lining may be exposed, that is to say, not covered by the constituent material of the upper.
Ker namreč odstavek D, drugi pododstavek, dela Splo�no poglavja 64 pojasnjevalnih opomb HS določa, da sestava materiala podloge ne vpliva na uvrstitev obutve, katere zgornji del je iz več materialov, posredno priznava, da je podloga na nekaterih delih lahko vidna, torej ni pokrita z materialom podloge.
That interpretation is confirmed by the wording of Explanatory Note 1(b) to Chapter 64 of the CN, as it appears in the Explanatory Notes to the CN published by the
To razlago potrjuje pojasnjevalna opomba 1(b) k poglavju 64 KN, kot izhaja iz pojasnjevalnih opomb KN, ki jih je objavila Komisija 28. februarja 2006 (UL C 50, str.1)
With regard to the sandal at issue in the main proceedings, it may be noted, first, that the textile of the upper appears to be made of a relatively unstable and elastic material and that removal of the leather would appear to deprive the sandal of its fastening straps, particularly at the upper part of the heel.
Glede sandale v postopku v glavni stvari lahko najprej povemo, da se zdi, da je tekstil zgornjega dela iz dokaj voljnega in elastičnega materiala in da bi odstranitev usnja lahko tej sandali odvzela trakove za pričvrstitev, zlasti pri zgornjem delu narta.
Second, it should be noted that the textile material is in direct contact with the foot, which therefore means that the leather is not in contact with the foot.
Treba je tudi povedati, da je tekstilni material v neposrednem stiku s stopalom in tako preprečuje, da bi bilo usnje v neposrednem stiku s stopalom.
Third, the presence of exposed textile material around the leather and at the heel appears to be intended to make the shoe more comfortable to wear.
Nazadnje se zdi, da je namen tekstilnega materiala, ki se pokaže okoli usnja in pri peti, udobnej�e no�enje te obutve.
These factors suggest that if the leather were removed the textile material would no longer hold the foot and that therefore it does not have the characteristics of an upper and fulfils the function of a lining intended to ensure greater comfort for the wearer.
Ta presoja daje misliti, da če usnje odstranimo, tekstilni material ne omogoča več opore za stopalo in torej nima značilnosti zgornjega dela in ne izpolnjuje funkcije podloge, katere namen je zagotoviti večje udobje uporabniku.
However, it is for the referring court to make the necessary findings in that regard.
Vendar pa mora potrebno presojo glede tega izvesti predložitveno sodi�če.
If it were to conclude that the textile material by itself had the characteristics of an upper, the referring court should classify the sandal at issue in the main proceedings under CN heading 6404.
Če predložitveno sodi�če ugotovi, da ima tekstilni material sam po sebi značilnosti zgornjega dela, mora sandalo v postopku v glavni stvari uvrstiti pod tarifno �tevilko 6404 KN.
However, if it were to reach the opposite conclusion, the referring court should classify the sandal at issue in the main proceedings under CN heading 6403.
Nasprotno pa mora predložitveno sodi�če, če pride do obratnega sklepa, sandalo iz postopka v glavni stvari uvrstiti pod tarifno �tevilko 6403 KN.
In the latter situation, either the leather itself has the characteristics of an upper, so that the sandal falls within CN heading 6403, or it does not have those characteristics, in which case the upper of the sandal should be considered to be made of both textile material and leather.
V slednjem primeru ima namreč ali samo usnje značilnosti zgornjega dela, tako da sandala iz postopka v glavni stvari spada pod tarifno �tevilko 6403 NK, ali teh značilnosti nima; v slednjem primeru je treba zgornji del sandale iz postopka v glavni stvari �teti, kot da je hkrati iz tekstilnega materiala in usnja.
Since, according to the referring court, the leather makes up 71% of the upper’s external surface area, it will be considered to be the constituent material having the greatest external surface area for the purposes of Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the CN.
Ker torej usnje predstavlja, glede na ugotovitve predložitvnega sodi�ča, 71 % zunanje povr�ine zgornjega dela, se ga obravnava kot sestavni material, ki ima največjo zunanjo povr�ino v smislu opombe 4(a) k poglavju 64 KN. Zato je to sandalo treba uvrstiti pod tarifno �tevilko 6403 KN.
Lastly, the opinion of the Customs Code Committee referred to in the observations submitted to the Court cannot prevent the classification of the sandal at issue in the main proceedings under CN heading 6403.
Nazadnje, mnenje odbora za carinski zakonik, omenjenega v stali�čih, predloženih Sodi�ču, ne sme ovirati uvrstitve sandale v postopku v glavni stvari pod tarifno �tevilko 6403 KN.
It is settled caselaw, as far as concerns the Committee’s conclusions, that, although they constitute an important means of ensuring the uniform application of the Customs Code by the customs authorities of the Member States and as such may be considered as a valid aid to the interpretation of the Code, they do not have legally binding force (Case C-11/05 Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods [2006] ECR I-4285, paragraph 39).
Iz ustaljene sodne prakse namreč izhaja, da je treba v zvezi s sklepi odbora poudariti, da čeprav pomenijo pomembna sredstva za to, da carinski organi držav članic enotno uporabljajo Carinski zakonik in lahko kot taki �tejejo za veljavna sredstva razlage tega zakonika, pa leti nimajo obveznega pravnega značaja (sodba z dne 11. maja 2006 v zadevi Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods, C-11/05, ZOdl., str. I-4285, točka 39).
The Court even added that, where appropriate, it may be necessary to consider whether the content of such opinions is in accordance with the actual provisions of the Common Customs Tariff and whether they alter the meaning of such provisions (see, to that effect, Case 798/79 Chem-Tec [1980] ECR 2639, paragraph 11).
Sodi�če je celo dodalo, da bi bilo treba mogoče presoditi, ali je vsebina teh sklepov v skladu s samimi določbami carinskega zakonika in ali ne spreminja njihovega obsega (v tem smislu glej sodbo z dne 11. julija 1980 v zadevi Chem-Tec, 798/79, Recueil, str. 2639, točka 11).
The answer to the first question should therefore be that the CN must be interpreted as meaning that a sandal such as that in question in the main proceedings, with an outer sole of rubber, whose upper is made up of two leather sections glued to the
Zato je treba na prvo vpra�anje odgovoriti, da je treba KN razlagati tako, da se sandala, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, z zunanjim podplatom iz gume, katere zgornji del
ECCO SKO inner sole and linked to each other by leather fastening straps covered with Velcro strips, with the leather making up around 71% of the upper’s external surface area and the elastic textile material underneath the leather remaining exposed in places, falls within:
ECCO SKO je sestavljen iz dveh usnjenih delov, ki sta na vmesni podplat prilepljena in sta med sabo povezana s trakovi za pričvrstitev, pokritimi s pasovi velcro, pri katerem usnje pokriva približno 71 % zunanje povr�ine zgornjega dela in pri katerem je elastični tekstilni material, ki je pod usnjem, na nekaterih delih �e vedno viden, uvr�ča:
— CN heading 6404 if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, fulfils the purpose of an upper, that is to say, provides sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal;
– pod tarifno �tevilko 6404 KN, če tekstilni material zgornjega dela te sandale, ki nima usnjenih delov, opravlja funkcijo zgornjega dela, torej če zagotavlja zadostno oporo stopalu, da lahko uporabnik v tej sandali hodi;
— CN heading 6403 if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, does not fulfil the purpose of an upper, that is to say, it does not provide sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal.
– pod tarifno �tevilko 6403 KN, če tekstilni material zgornjega dela te sandale, ki nima usnjenih delov, ne opravlja funkcije zgornjega dela, torej če ne zagotavlja zadostne opore stopalu, da lahko uporabnik v tej sandali hodi.
Second question
Drugo vprašanje
Ecco argues that Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN may determine the classification resulting from the wording of the CN headings and from Note 4(a) to that chapter, but it cannot result in uppers which, were it not for that Additional Note, would be regarded as leather uppers being considered instead to be uppers of textile material.
Družba Ecco trdi, da dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN lahko natančno določi uvrstitev, ki izhaja iz besedil tarifnih �tevilk KN in iz opombe 4(a) k temu poglavju, vendar ne more povzročiti, da se zgornji del, ki se �teje, če povzamemo to dodatno opombo, kot zgornji del iz usnja, nasprotno obravnava kot zgornji del iz tekstilnega materiala.
It adds that, if Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN widened the term ‘reinforcements’ so that the sandal in question in the main proceedings were regarded as having an upper of textile material, that provision would be incompatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter, and hence invalid.
Dodaja, da čeprav dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN pojem „ojačenje“ raz�iri tako, da bi bilo treba sandalo iz postopka v glavni stvari obravnavati, kot da je njen zgornji del iz tekstilnega materiala, ta določba ni združljiva z opombo 4(a) k temu poglavju in je zato neveljavna.
Ecco contends however that, interpreted correctly, that Additional Note does not lead to a result that is any different from that resulting directly from Note 4(a).
Vendar družba Ecco trdi, da ta dodatna opomba, če se jo pravilno razlaga, ne vodi k drugačnemu rezultatu, kot izhaja neposredno iz navedene opombe 4(a).
The Danish Government and the Commission request the Court to answer that Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN is compatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter.
Danska vlada in Komisija Sodi�ču predlagata, naj ugotovi, da je dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN združljiva z opombo 4(a) k temu poglavju.
In its second question, the referring court wishes in essence to ascertain whether Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN is valid in the light of Note 4(a) to that chapter.
V drugem vpra�anju se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje glede veljavnosti dodatne opombe 1 k poglavju 64 KN glede na opombo 4(a) k temu poglavju.
It appears from the order for reference that that question was raised as a result of the argument put forward by Ecco in the main proceedings that Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN is incompatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter if the interpretation given to it leads to footwear, the greatest external surface area of which consists of leather with the shape of an upper, being classified under CN heading 6404 where the textile material underneath it also has the shape of an upper.
Iz predložitvene odločbe izhaja, da je bilo to vpra�anje zastavljeno zaradi trditve družbe Ecco v okviru postopka v glavni stvari, da dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN ni združljiva z opombo 4(a) k temu poglavju, če bi razlaga te opombe vodila k tem, da se obutev, katere največja zunanja povr�ina je iz usnja, ki ima obliko zgornjega dela, uvr�ča pod tarifno �tevilko 6404 KN, ker ima tekstilni material, ki je skrit pod njim, tudi obliko zgornjega dela.
In that regard, suffice it to say, first, that Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the CN provides expressly that no account is to be taken of the constituent material of any reinforcements when deciding on the composition of the uppers of the footwear for purposes of classifying it under the CN.
Glede tega lahko ugotovimo, da opomba 4(a) k poglavju 64 KN izrecno določa, da sestavni deli morebitnih ojačenj nikakor ne vplivajo na določanje sestave materiala zgornjega dela obutve za namene uvrstitve te obutve v KN.
That stipulation is made without any reference to, or restriction on, the surface area covered by such reinforcements.
V tej določbi ni nobenega sklicevanja ali omejitve glede povr�ine, pokrite s temi ojačenji.
Second, it should be pointed out that Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the CN, as its title indicates, merely provides some clarification of the term ‘reinforcements’ within the meaning of Note 4(a), and in particular regarding their purpose.
Po drugi strani je treba ugotoviti, da dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 KN daje, kot izhaja iz njenega naslova, le določena pojasnila glede izraza ojačenje v smislu navedene opombe 4(a) in zlasti glede njegove funkcije.
In those circumstances, there is no contradiction between the content of Note 4(a) to Chapter 64 of the CN and that of Additional Note 1 to that chapter such as to cast doubt on the latter’s validity.
V teh okoli�činah ni protislovja med vsebino opombe 4(a) k poglavju 64 KN in vsebino dodatne opombe 1 k temu poglavju, ki bi lahko ogrozilo veljavnost slednje.
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
Iz teh razlogov je Sodi�če (peti senat) razsodilo:
The Combined Nomenclature set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2388/2000 of 13 October 2000, must be interpreted as meaning that a sandal such as that in question in the main proceedings, with an outer sole of rubber, whose upper is made up of two leather sections glued to the inner sole and linked to each other by leather fastening straps covered with Velcro strips, with the leather making up around 71% of the upper’s external surface area and the elastic textile material underneath the leather remaining exposed in places, falls within:
Kombinirano nomenklaturo iz priloge I k Uredbi Sveta (EGS) št. 2658/87 z dne 23. julija 1987 o tarifni in statistični nomenklaturi ter skupni carinski tarifi, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 2388/2000 z dne 13. oktobra 2000, je treba razlagati tako, da se sandala, kot je ta v postopku v glavni stvari, z zunanjim podplatom iz gume, katere zgornji del je sestavljen iz dveh usnjenih delov, ki sta na vmesni podplat prilepljena in sta med sabo povezana s trakovi za pričvrstitev, pokritimi s pasovi velcro, pri katerem usnje pokriva približno 71 % zunanje površine zgornjega dela in pri katerem je elastični tekstilni material, ki je pod usnjem, na nekaterih delih še vedno viden, uvršča:
— heading 6404 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, fulfils the purpose of an upper, that is to say, provides sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal;
– pod tarifno številko 6404 kombinirane nomenklature, če tekstilni material zgornjega dela te sandale, ki nima usnjenih delov, opravlja funkcijo zgornjega dela, torej če zagotavlja zadostno oporo stopalu, da lahko uporabnik v tej sandali hodi;
— heading 6403 of the Combined Nomenclature if the textile material of the upper of the sandal, without the leather sections, does not fulfil the purpose of an upper, that is to say, does not provide sufficient support for the foot to enable the wearer to walk in the sandal.
– pod tarifno številko 6403 kombinirane nomenklature, če tekstilni material zgornjega dela te sandale, ki nima usnjenih delov, ne opravlja funkcije zgornjega dela, torej če ne zagotavlja zadostne opore stopalu, da lahko uporabnik v tej sandali hodi.
Additional Note 1 to Chapter 64 of the Combined Nomenclature, inserted by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3800/92 of 23 December 1992 amending Regulation No 2658/87, is compatible with Note 4(a) to that chapter.
Dodatna opomba 1 k poglavju 64 kombinirane nomenklature, ki je bila dodana z Uredbo Komisije (EGS) št. 3800/92 z dne 23. decembra 1992, s katero je bila spremenjena Uredba št. 2658/87, je združljiva z opombo 4(a) k temu poglavju.
Opinion of Advocate General Sharpston delivered on 25 October 2007
Sharpston, predstavljeni 25. oktobra 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH v Telekom-Control -Kommission (Electronic communications — Networks and services — Common regulatory framework — Articles 4 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive) — Appeals — Administrative market analysis procedure) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-426/05: Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH proti Telekom-Control-Kommission („Elektronske komunikacije – Omrežja in storitve – Skupni regulativni okvir – Člena 4 in 16 Direktive 2002/21/ES (okvirna direktiva) – Pravno sredstvo – Upravni postopek analize trga“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Verwaltungs -gerichtshof (Avstrija)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Case C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez v Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) (Social policy — Protection of workers in the event of insolvency of the employer — Directive 80/987/EEC amended by Directive 2002/74/EC — First paragraph of Article 3 and Article 10(a) — Compensation for unfair dismissal agreed under an extrajudicial conciliation procedure — Payment guaranteed by the guarantee institution — Payment conditional upon the adoption of a judicial decision — Principles of equality and non-discrimination) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-498/06: Maira María Robledillo Núñez proti Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Fogasa) („Socialna politika – Varstvo delavcev v primeru plačilne nesposobnosti delodajalca – Direktiva 80/987/EGS, spremenjena z Direktivo 2002/74/ES – Člena 3, prvi odstavek, in 10(a) – Odškodnina za nezakonito odpoved delovnega razmerja, dogovorjena v postopku izvensodne poravnave – Plačilo, ki ga zagotovi jamstvena ustanova – Plačilo, pogojeno s sprejetjem sodne odločbe – Načeli enakosti in prepovedi diskriminacije“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .