natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Where it has been found that an exporter, with a view to the granting of an export refund, has requested a refund in excess of that applicable, the refund due for the relevant exportation shall be the refund applicable to the actual exportation reduced by an amount equivalent to:
Če se ugotovi, da je izvoznik z namenom pridobitve izvoznega nadomestila zaprosil za vi�je izvozno nadomestilo, kot mu pripada, se za izvoz proizvodov plača nadomestilo, ki velja za dejansko izvožene proizvode, ki se zmanj�a za:
(a) half the difference between the refund requested and the refund applicable to the actual exportation;
(a) polovico razlike med zapro�enim nadomestilom in nadomestilom, ki velja za dejanski izvoz;
(b) twice the difference between the refund requested and the refund applicable, if the exporter has intentionally supplied false information.
(b) dvakratno razliko med zapro�enim nadomestilom in veljavnim nadomestilom, če je izvoznik namerno navedel napačne podatke.
The refund requested is deemed to be the amount calculated from the information supplied pursuant to Article 3 or Article 25(2).
Šteje se, da je zapro�eno nadomestilo znesek, ki se izračuna iz podatkov, danih v skladu s členom 3 ali 25(2).
Where the rate of refund varies according to destination, the differentiated part of the refund requested shall be calculated from the information supplied pursuant to Article 47.
Če je nadomestilo različno glede na destinacijo, se diferencialni del zapro�enega nadomestila izračuna iz podatkov, ki se zagotovijo na način iz člena 47.
The sanction referred to under (a) shall not apply:
Kazen, predvidena v točki (a), se ne uporabi:
2008 — CASE C-143/07
2008 – ZADEVA C-143/07
— in exceptional cases characterised by circumstances beyond the control of the exporter, which occur after the acceptance by the competent authorities of the export declaration or the payment declaration, and provided that he, immediately after he took note of these circumstances but within the time-limit referred to in Article 47(2), notifies the competent authorities, unless the competent authorities have already established that the refund requested was incorrect,
– v izjemnih primerih zaradi okoli�čin, za katere izvoznik ne odgovarja in ki so nastale po sprejetju izvozne deklaracije ali plačilne deklaracije s strani pristojnih organov, in pod pogojem, da izvoznik obvesti pristojne organe o teh okoli�činah neposredno po tem, ko zanje izve, in v roku, predvidenem v členu 47(2), razen če so pristojni organi že sami ugotovili, da zapro�eni znesek nadomestila ni pravilen,
— in cases of obvious error as to the refund requested, recognised by the competent authority,
– v primeru očitne napake v zvezi z zapro�enim nadomestilom, ki jo prizna pristojni organ,
Where the reduction referred to under (a) or (b) results in a negative amount, the exporter shall pay that negative amount.
Če je rezultat zmanj�anj iz točk (a) in (b) negativen znesek, izvoznik plača ta negativni znesek.
Where the competent authorities have established that the refund requested was incorrect and the exportation has not been effected and consequently no reduction of refund is possible, the exporter shall pay the amount equivalent to the sanction referred to under (a) or (b). …
Če pristojni organi ugotovijo, da je bil zapro�en nepravilen znesek in da izvozni posel ni bil izveden in se zato nadomestilo ne more zmanj�ati, izvoznik plača kazen iz točke (a) ali (b). […]
The sanctions shall be without prejudice to additional sanctions laid down at national level.
Kazni se uporabijo brez poseganja v morebitne druge kazni, ki jih določajo nacionalni predpisi.
Without prejudice to the obligation to pay any negative amount as referred to in the fourth subparagraph of paragraph 1, where a refund is unduly paid, the beneficiary shall reimburse the amounts unduly received — which includes any sanction applicable pursuant to the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, — plus the interest calculated on the basis of the time elapsing between payment and reimbursement. …’
Brez poseganja v obveznost plačila negativnega zneska iz odstavka 1, četrti pododstavek, upravičenec povrne neupravičeno prejeta nadomestila, kar vključuje tudi kazni po odstavku 1, prvi pododstavek in obresti, izračunane za čas od plačila do povračila. […]“
Between 18 October and 12 December 1995, AOB Reuter declared a total of 24 consignments of white sugar for export to Malta to the Hauptzollamt Landshut and requested payment of the corresponding export refunds.
Družba AOB Reuter je med 18. oktobrom in 12. decembrom 1995 pri Hauptzollamt Landshut prijavila skupno 24 izvozov belega sladkorja na Malto in zahtevala plačilo ustreznih izvoznih nadomestil.
Those refunds, amounting in total to EUR 230 102.37, were granted to it on submission of exit confirmations for the goods.
Ta nadomestila so ji bila odobrena v skupnem znesku 230.102,37 EUR na podlagi dokazil o iznosu blaga.
AOB Reuter did not itself export the goods, exportation being effected by its Italian business partners using agent undertakings.
Družba AOB Reuter izvoznega posla ni izvedla sama, ampak s posredovanjem svojih italijanskih trgovskih partnerjev, ki so ga opravili prek vmesnih podjetij.
AOB Reuter ensured the performance of the principal contractual obligation, that is, the export of the sugar from Community customs territory, by a bank guarantee.
Navedena družba je izvajanje glavne pogodbene obveznosti, to je iznos sladkorja iz carinskega območja Skupnosti, zavarovala z bančno garancijo.
AOB Reuter released those securities on 27 June 1996 after obtaining proof that the exportation had been properly carried out in the form of stamped customs documents and those documents had been accepted by the Hauptzollamt.
Družba AOB Reuter je 27. junija 1996 vrnila te garancije, ko je dobila dokaze o dobrem poteku izvoza v obliki ustrezno ožigosanih carinskih dokumentov in ko jih je Hauptzollamt sprejel.
The Hauptzollamt therefore demanded, by amending notices of 7 July 1997, reimbursement of the export refunds which had been received by AOB Reuter. The latter repaid the amount in question.
Zato je Hauptzollamt z odločbami o popravku z dne 7. julija 1997 zahteval vračilo prejetih izvoznih nadomestil, kar je družba AOB Reuter izpolnila.
On 19 January 1998, the Hauptzollamt adopted 24 decisions imposing sanctions on AOB Reuter. On 5 February 1998, AOB Reuter entered an objection to those decisions.
Hauptzollamt je 19. januarja 1998 sprejel 24 odločb, s katerimi je kaznoval družbo AOB Reuter, ki je 5. februarja 1998 vložila ugovor zoper te odločbe.
That objection having been rejected, on 10 April 2003 AOB Reuter brought an action before the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg for annulment of those sanction decisions.
Ker je bil ugovor zavrnjen, je družba AOB Reuter 10. aprila 2003 vložila tožbo pri Finanzgericht Hamburg, da bi to navedene odločbe o kaznih razglasilo za nične.
That court considers that AOB Reuter did not supply any false information in its export declaration, given that it merely declared its intention to export to Malta the goods which gave rise to the refund.
To sodi�če meni, da družba AOB Reuter ni navedla nobenega napačnega podatka v svoji izvozni deklaraciji, ker je prijavila le svoj namen izvoziti blago, ki je podlaga za nadomestilo, na Malto.
Exportation did not in fact take place owing to the fraudulent conduct of the contracting partner of AOB Reuter.
Izvoz naj namreč ne bi potekal pravilno zaradi goljufivega ravnanja sopogodbenika družbe AOB Reuter.
According to the referring court, AOB Reuter cannot therefore be liable to the sanction provided for under Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 unless the failure to comply with the requirement concerning the departure of the goods from the Community customs territory is sufficient to justify application of that sanction.
Po mnenju predložitvenega sodi�ča se torej lahko za to družbo uporabi kazen iz člena 11(1) Uredbe �t. 3665/87 le, če nespo�tovanje pogoja v zvezi z iznosom blaga iz carinskega območja Skupnosti zadostuje za utemeljitev uporabe te kazni.
Taking the view that the application of such a sanction depends on the interpretation of Article 11(1) of the regulation, the Finanzgericht Hamburg decided to stay proceedings and to refer to the Court of Justice the following question for a preliminary ruling:
Ker meni, da je uporaba tak�ne kazni odvisna od razlage navedenega člena 11(1), je Finanzgericht Hamburg prekinilo odločanje in Sodi�ču v predhodno odločanje predložilo to vpra�anje:
‘Is it only the supply of false information by an exporter in its export declaration which is liable to sanction under Article 11(1) of … Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 or is it the failure to comply with the material requirements for claiming a refund alone that is the subject of sanctions?’
„Ali so v skladu s členom 11(1) Uredbe […] �t. 3665/87 predmet kazni samo napačni podatki, ki jih posreduje izvoznik v izvozni deklaraciji, ali pa je predmet le neizpolnitev materialnih pogojev za nadomestilo?“
By its question, the referring court asks essentially whether Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export refund for goods, where, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the exporter’s contracting partner, those goods were not exported.
Predložitveno sodi�če v bistvu spra�uje, ali je treba člen 11(1) Uredbe �t. 3665/87 razlagati tako, da se v njem predvidena kazen uporabi za izvoznika, ki je zahteval izvozno nadomestilo za blago, ki zaradi goljufivega ravnanja njegovega sopogodbenika ni bilo izvoženo.
With regard to the Community budget, the first recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2945/94 states that, ‘… in the light of experience, measures to combat irregularities and notably fraud prejudicial to the Community budget should be intensified , to that end, provision should be made for … sanctions to encourage exporters to comply with Community rules.’
Glede proračuna Skupnosti je v prvi uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 2945/94 določeno, da „[…] je glede na izku�nje treba poostriti ukrepe za boj proti nepravilnostim in predvsem proti prevaram, ki bi lahko �kodljivo vplivale na proračun Skupnosti[, in da] je treba v ta namen predvideti […] kazni, da bi spodbudili izvoznike k upo�tevanju Skupnostne ureditve“.
The nature of the sanction provided for in Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 emerges clearly both from its wording and from the caselaw of the Court relating to that provision.
Narava kazni, ki so predvidene v členu 11(1) Uredbe �t. 3665/87, jasno izhaja iz besedila in iz sodne prakse Sodi�ča v zvezi s to določbo.
According to the second recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2945/94,‘sanctions should be applied regardless of the subjective element of fault’.
V drugi uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 2945/94 je določeno, da je „treba izvajati kazni ne glede na krivdo“.
In reality, it is only the level of the sanction which increases if there is an intentional act, in accordance with Article 11(1)(b) of Regulation No 3665/87, whereas the sanction provided for in Article 11(1)(a) is applicable even if the exporter has not committed any fault.
V skladu s členom 11(1), prvi pododstavek, točka (b), Uredbe �t. 3665/87 se v bistvu poveča le vi�ina kazni, če gre za namerno dejanje; kazen, predvidena v tem pododstavku, točka (a), pa velja tudi, če ni podana izvoznikova krivda.
In the latter case, the sanction provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 11(1) is applicable, except in the cases listed exhaustively in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1).
V slednjem primeru se kazen, predvidena v navedenem členu 11(1), prvi pododstavek, ne uporabi le v primerih, ki so taksativno na�teti v navedenem členu 11(1), tretji pododstavek.
In paragraph 41 of Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister, the Court held that the sanction constitutes a specific administrative instrument forming an integral part of the scheme of aid which is intended to ensure the sound financial management of Community public funds and, in paragraph 44 of that judgment, that it cannot be said to be of a criminal nature.
V točki 41 zgoraj navedene sodbe Käserei Champignon Hofmeister je Sodi�če ugotovilo, da je kazen posebno upravno sredstvo, ki je sestavni del sistema pomoči in ki je namenjeno zagotavljanju dobrega finančnega vodenja javnih skladov Skupnosti, ter v točki 44 navedene sodbe, da se ji ne more priznati kazenskopravne narave.
In order to determine the conditions relating to the applicability of that sanction, it is necessary to examine the provisions of Article 11 in their entirety.
Da bi se ugotovilo pogoje za uporabo te kazni, je treba preučiti vse določbe navedenega člena 11.
The first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of the regulation provides for the application of a sanction to an exporter who has requested a refund in excess of that applicable to the product actually exported.
V odstavku 1, prvi pododstavek, tega člena je določeno, da se kazen uporabi za izvoznika, ki je zahteval vi�je izvozno nadomestilo od nadomestila, ki velja za dejansko izvoženi proizvod.
The Court has held in the context of Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1999 L 102, p.
Sodi�če je v okviru Uredbe Komisije (ES) �t. 800/1999 z dne 15. aprila 1999 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode (UL L 102, str. 11, in popravek UL 1999, L 180, str.
It follows from that caselaw that, in order to determine whether an exporter has requested a refund in excess of that applicable to the goods actually exported, it is not sufficient to take into account the facts known to the competent authorities at the time they examine the request; it is also necessary to take into consideration facts subsequent to that request, in particular those detected during checks carried out by those authorities.
Iz te sodne prakse izhaja, da za ugotovitev, ali je izvoznik zahteval vi�je izvozno nadomestilo od nadomestila, ki velja za dejansko izvožen proizvod, ne zado�ča upo�tevanje dejstev, ki so pristojnim organom znana v trenutku obravnave zahteve za nadomestilo, ampak je treba upo�tevati tudi dejstva, ki so poznej�a od te zahteve, zlasti tista, ki so jih ti organi odkrili med nadzorom.
The raison d’être and the effectiveness of the checks by the competent authorities could otherwise be jeopardised.
Če to ne bi veljalo, bi se postavilo vpra�anje o smislu obstoja in učinkovitosti nadzora pristojnih organov.
Should it prove to be the case that export of the goods on which a refund was granted did not take place, it is obvious that the exporter has requested a refund in excess of that applicable, since, in the absence of actual exportation, no refund is due.
Če se izkaže, da proizvod, za katerega je bilo odobreno nadomestilo, ni bil izvožen, je očitno, da je izvoznik zahteval vi�je nadomestilo od veljavnega, ker zaradi neobstoja dejanskega izvoza ni upravičen do nadomestila.
In such a situation, the sanction applicable can therefore be based on the first sub -paragraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 alone.
V tem primeru lahko kazen, ki se uporabi, temelji na samem členu 11(1), prvi pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 3665/87.
However, other express provisions of that article also require that a sanction be imposed on the exporter on the basis of findings made after acceptance of the export declaration.
Vendar druge izrecne določbe tega člena zahtevajo tudi, da se naloži kazen izvozniku na podlagi ugotovitev, ki so poznej�e od sprejetja izvozne deklaracije.
Thus, according to the fifth subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, where the competent authorities have established that the exportation has not been effected and that no reduction of refund is possible, the exporter is to pay the amount equivalent to the sanction provided for under Article 11(1)(a) or (b).
Tako mora v skladu s členom 11(1), peti pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 3665/87, če so pristojni organi ugotovili, da izvoz ni bil izveden in se zato nadomestilo ne more zmanj�ati, izvoznik plačati znesek, ki ustreza kazni iz istega odstavka 1, prvi pododstavek, točka (a) ali (b).
Article 11(3) of the regulation provides that, where a refund is unduly paid, the beneficiary is to reimburse the amounts unduly received, including any sanction applicable pursuant to the first subparagraph of Article 11(1).
V odstavku 3 istega člena je določeno, da mora upravičenec povrniti neupravičeno prejeta nadomestila, kar vključuje tudi kazni, ki veljajo v skladu z navedenim členom 11(1), prvi pododstavek.
According to the documents submitted to the Court of Justice by the referring court, the export operation on the basis of which AOB Reuter received a refund did not take place and, in those circumstances, the refund was paid unduly; moreover, AOB Reuter does not dispute the fact that it received such a refund unduly.
Iz spisa, ki ga je predložitveno sodi�če posredovalo Sodi�ču, izhaja, da izvozni posel, na podlagi katerega je bilo družbi AOB Reuter odobreno nadomestilo, ni bil izveden in da je bilo v teh okoli�činah izplačilo neupravičeno; poleg tega ta družba ne izpodbija dejstva, da je tak�no nadomestilo neupravičeno prejela.
In those circumstances, it is necessary to apply the sanction provided for under Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation No 3665/87, unless one of the exceptions as exhaustively defined in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) applies.
V tak�nih okoli�činah je treba uporabiti kazen, ki je predvidena v členu 11(1), prvi pododstavek, točka (a), Uredbe �t. 3665/87, razen če je podana ena izmed izjem, ki so taksativno določene v tretjem pododstavku istega odstavka.
Therefore, the argument that only the supply of false information by the exporter in his export declaration can justify the application of that sanction cannot be accepted.
Zato ni mogoče sprejeti trditve, v skladu s katero bi lahko samo napačni podatki, ki jih predložil izvoznik v svoji izvozni deklaraciji, utemeljili uporabo navedene kazni.
With regard to the exceptions provided for in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, the case documents do not show that, in the case in the main proceedings, any of those conditions was fulfilled.
V zvezi z izjemami, ki so predvidene v členu 11(1), tretji pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 3665/87, iz spisa ne izhaja, da bi bila katera izmed njih v postopku v glavni stvari podana.
None the less, the referring court raises the question of the applicability of a sanction in situations such as that in the main proceedings having regard to the principles of legality, of legal certainty and of proportionality.
Kljub temu se predložitveno sodi�če spra�uje o uporabi kazni v primerih, kot so obravnavani v postopku v glavni stvari, ob upo�tevanju načel zakonitosti, pravne varnosti in sorazmernosti.
AOB Reuter, which cites the same principles, takes the view that, in the present case, by taking out a bank guarantee, it took diligent precautions against possible default by its contractual partners.
Družba AOB Reuter, ki se sklicuje na ista načela, meni, da se je v obravnavani zadevi z bančno garancijo skrbno zavarovala pred morebitnimi neizpolnitvami svojih sopogodbenikov.
First, with regard to the principles of legality and of legal certainty, it must be held that Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87 constitutes a legal basis for the application of the sanction which is clear and sufficient.
Prvič, v zvezi z načeloma zakonitosti in pravne varnosti je treba ugotoviti, da je člen 11(1) Uredbe �t. 3665/87 jasna in zadostna pravna podlaga za uporabo kazni.
Second, with regard to the principle of proportionality, it should be pointed out that, in the fifth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 2945/94, the legislature refers to past experience and, in particular, irregularities and fraud already recorded in the context of export refunds.
Drugič, v zvezi z načelom sorazmernosti je treba ugotoviti, da se v peti uvodni izjavi Uredbe �t. 2945/94 zakonodajalec sklicuje na izku�nje in predvsem na nepravilnosti ter že ugotovljene prevare, povezane z izvoznimi nadomestili.
Third, with regard to the justification relied upon by AOB Reuter, it is sufficient to point out that it is not possible to add a new exception, based in particular on the absence of fault on the part of the exporter, to the exhaustive list contained in the third subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Regulation No 3665/87, and that the Court has already held that the fault or error of a contracting partner is an ordinary commercial risk and cannot be considered to be unforeseeable in the context of commercial transactions.
Tretjič, v zvezi z utemeljitvijo, ki jo je navedla družba AOB Reuter, zado�ča opozorilo, da se, na eni strani, k taksativnemu seznamu iz člena 11(1), tretji pododstavek, Uredbe �t. 3665/87 ne more dodati nov primer izjeme, in sicer neobstoj krivdnega ravnanja izvoznika, ter da je, na drugi strani, Sodi�če že presodilo, da krivda ali napaka sopogodbenika spada pod običajno poslovno tveganje in da se jo ne more obravnavati kot nepredvidljivo v okviru trgovskih poslov.
The exporter is fully at liberty to select his trading partners and it is up to him to take the appropriate precautions, either by including the necessary clauses in the contracts which he concludes with them or by effecting appropriate insurance (see, to that effect, Case C-210/00 Käserei Champignon Hofmeister, paragraph 80, and the caselaw cited).
Izvoznik je prost pri izbiri svojih sopogodbenikov in mora biti ustrezno previden tako, da ali vključi klavzule v zvezi s tem v pogodbe, ki jih sklene, ali sklene posebno zavarovanje (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeno sodbo z dne 11. julija 2002 v zadevi Käserei Champignon Hofmeister, točka 80 in navedena sodna praksa).
Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that the sanction for which it provides is applicable against an exporter who has requested an export refund on goods, where those goods, as a result of fraudulent conduct on the part of the exporter’s contracting partner, were not exported.
Člen 11(1) Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 3665/87 z dne 27. novembra 1987 o skupnih podrobnih pravilih za uporabo sistema izvoznih nadomestil za kmetijske proizvode, kot je bila spremenjena z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 2945/94 z dne 2. decembra 1994, je treba razlagati tako, da je treba v njem predvideno kazen uporabiti za izvoznika, ki je zahteval izvozno nadomestilo za blago, ki zaradi goljufivega ravnanja njegovega sopogodbenika ni bilo izvoženo.
Case C-256/06: Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl (Free movement of capital — Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 EC and 58 EC) — Inheritance tax — Valuation of assets forming part of the estate — Agricultural and forestry assets in another Member State — Less favourable method of valuation of assets and calculation of the tax payable) (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zadeva C-256/06: Theodor Jäger proti Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl („Prosti pretok kapitala – Člena 73b in 73d Pogodbe ES (postala člena 56 ES in 58 ES) – Davek na dediščino – Vrednotenje premoženja, vključenega v dediščino – Premoženje v obliki kmetijskega zemljišča in gozdov, ki se nahaja v drugi državi članici – Manj ugodna metoda za vrednotenje premoženja in izračun dolgovanega davka“) (Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Bundesfinanzhof) . . . . . .