natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
To that extent, it would be unfair to require him to bear a loss which was actually attributable to contraventions committed by the administrative authorities.
V tem smislu ne bi bilo pravično, če bi moral nositi �kodo, ki dejansko izvira iz protipravnega ravnanja upravnih organov.
The arguments put forward by the appellant in favour of a reversal of the burden of proof are unconvincing.
Argumenti pritožnice, ki naj bi utemeljevali obrnitev porazdelitve dokaznega bremena, niso prepričljivi.
However, it must be borne in mind that those exceptions developed by way of judgemade law can only constitute ad hoc adaptations of settled caselaw so as to ensure that substantive justice is done in individual cases.
Pri tem pa je treba upo�tevati, da gre lahko pri teh dejanskih stanjih, ki jih je razvila sodna praksa, le za točkovne prilagoditve ustaljeni sodni praksi, da bi se zadostilo materialni pravičnosti v posameznem primeru.
As exceptions, they may be applied only restrictively.
Ker gre za izjeme, se lahko uporabijo le restriktivno.
45 That accords, moreover, with the existing caselaw of the Community judicature, according to which the remission of import duties may be made only under certain conditions and in cases specifically provided for, so that, as exceptions to the normal rules for imports, the relevant provisions are to be interpreted strictly.
45 To med drugim ustreza dozdaj�nji sodni praksi sodi�č Skupnosti, v skladu s katero je mogoče odpust uvoznih dajatev odobriti le pod določenimi pogoji in v posebno predvidenih primerih, tako da je treba ustrezne predpise kot izjeme od preostale običajne ureditve za uvoze razlagati ozko.
46Their application must therefore be preceded by a rigorous examination of the facts and circumstances, assessing the evidence offered.
46Pred njihovo uporabo je treba torej strogo preizkusiti dejansko stanje in presoditi predložene dokaze.
In accordance with the generally accepted rules of procedural law and in the light of the Court’s clear caselaw since Van Gend & Loos, I consider it logical to make the appellant bear the burden of pleading and proof, including in relation to the occurrence of those irregularities which may be capable 45 — Pursuant to the principle ‘exceptio est strictissimae interpretationis’.
Glede na splo�no priznana pravila procesnega prava in zaradi jasne sodne prakse Sodi�ča od sodbe Van Gend & Loos naprej menim, da je logično, da pritožnica nosi trditveno in dokazno breme tudi v primeru tistih nepravilnosti, ki bi 45 – V skladu z načelom „exceptio est strictissimae interpretationis“. Glede ozke razlage izjem s strani Sodi�ča glej na primer sodbe z dne 13. septembra 2007 v zadevi Del Cerro Alonso in drugi (C-307/05, ZOdl., str.
For the narrow interpretation of derogating provisions by the Court of Justice, see, for example, Case C-307/05 Del Cerro Alonso v Osakidetza [2007] ECR I-7109, paragraph 39; Joined Cases C-346/03 and C-529/03 Atzeni & Lilliu [2006] ECR I-1875, paragraph 79; and Case C-286/02 Bellio Fratelli [2004] ECR I-3465, paragraph 46. 46 — Case C-48/98 Söhl & Söhlke [1999] ECR I-7877, paragraph 52, and Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import v Commission, cited in footnote 23, paragraph 63. 120.
46 – Sodba Sodi�ča z dne 11. novembra 1999 v zadevi Söhl & Söhlke (C-48/98, Recueil, str. I-7877, točka 52) in sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje v zadevi Bonn Fleisch Ex- und Import proti Komisiji (navedena v opombi 23, točka 63). 120.
As the Commission correctly states, contrary to the appellant’s submissions, the present case does not primarily concern a question of allocation of the burden of proof.
Kot pravilno navaja Komisija, v obravnavani zadevi v nasprotju s trditvami pritožnice ne gre prednostno za vpra�anje o porazdelitvi dokaznega bremena.
The question of allocation of the burden of proof arises only when a factual claim at issue is at least prima facie provable.
To vpra�anje se namreč zastavi �ele takrat, ko je neka sporna trditev o dejstvu vsaj v zasnovi dokazljiva.
However, the appellant’s arguments lack any foundation, since the Court of First Instance found no basis for its submission that the Turkish authorities were guilty of deficiencies in the implementation of the Association Agreement and of infringing the rules on administrative assistance.
Medtem pa navedbe pritožnice nimajo nobene podlage, saj Sodi�če prve stopnje ni na�lo nobenih dokazov za njeno trditev, da tur�ki organi pri prenosu sporazuma o pridružitvi niso izpolnili svojih obveznosti in da so kr�ili predpise o upravni pomoči.
On the contrary, it is apparent from paragraph 194 of the contested judgment that the UCLAF missions in Turkey were undertaken within a reasonable period following the discovery of the initial forgery.
Iz točke 194 izpodbijane sodbe namreč izhaja, da so se misije UCLAF na tur�kem državnem ozemlju pričele v razumnih rokih od odkritja prve ponaredbe.
Moreover, the Court refers in paragraph 195 to the fact that the examinations carried out by the Turkish authorities concerned a very large number of certificates, but that the list of certificates considered by those authorities to be forged was nevertheless sent to the Ravenna customs services relatively quickly.
Poleg tega Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 195 opozarja na to, da so tur�ki organi preverili zelo veliko potrdil, vendar pa je bil seznam potrdil, za katera so ti menili, da so ponarejena, sorazmerno hitro posredovan carinski službi Ravene.
Finally, in paragraph 196, the Court drew attention to the voluminous correspondence between the Community authorities and the Turkish authorities concerning the certificates at
Končno, Sodi�če prve stopnje je v točki 196 poudarilo, da je bilo o spornih potrdilih izmenjane veliko korespondence med organi Skupnosti in tur�kimi organi.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION issue. Against that background, the Court’s conclusion that there was no substantiation for the appellant’s assertion that the Turkish authorities, and in particular the Turkish Permanent Representation, refused to cooperate with the Commission as of 2000 is unexceptionable.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI tur�ki organi, zlasti tur�ko stalno predstavni�tvo, od leta 2000 naprej zavračali sodelovanje s Komisijo, ni podkrepljena z nobenim dokazom.
It must be expressly reiterated in this connection that the Commission has no autonomous powers of investigation in third countries such as Turkey, but that it is reliant on their cooperation and where cooperation is refused it can at best draw appropriate inferences.
47Če njena prizadevanja niso pokazala na avtorstvo ponaredkov ali na kakr�nekoli indice v zvezi z ravnanjem pristojnih organov, ki bi bilo v nasprotju z njihovimi obveznostmi, ni jasno, kako bi obrnitev porazdelitve dokaznega bremena koristila udeležencem.
The same applies to the reduced obligation to present evidence claimed by the appellant, since the Commission is after all obliged to make the results of its investigations available to the Court of First Instance.
Isto velja za zmanj�ano obveznost predložitve dokazov, ki jo zahteva pritožnica, saj je Komisija končno zavezana, da sklepe svojih preiskav da na voljo Sodi�ču prve stopnje.
The information thereby obtained is therefore also of benefit to the appellant.
Tako pridobljena spoznanja zato koristijo tudi pritožnici.
Challenging the division of the burden of pleading and proof specified by the Court of First Instance can therefore be aimed only at calling into question retrospectively and for no good reason the Court’s findings of fact which it made without erring in law.
Izpodbijanje porazdelitve trditvenega in dokaznega bremena, kot jo je določilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, ima zato lahko za cilj le to, da brez razloga naknadno izpodbija ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje o dejstvih, pri katerih pravo ni bilo napačno uporabljeno.
In the light of the fact that not only
Ker Sodi�če načeloma poleg ugotovitev dejstev
There were still less, according to the Court’s findings of fact, any indications of supposed involvement of the Turkish authorities in forging the import certificates in question, so that the appellant’s attempt to draw a parallel between the facts in the main proceedings and those in Kaufring and Others does not succeed.
Glede na ugotovitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje o dejstvih niso obstajali nobeni indici za domnevno sodelovanje tur�kih organov pri ponarejanju zadevnih uvoznih potrdil, tako da je poskus pritožnice, da je mogoče enačiti dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari in tistega v zadevi Kaufring in drugi, napačen.
Contrary to the appellant’s submissions, presentation of documents found to be forged does not of itself permit it to be concluded that there was some kind of collusion between the exporters and the customs authorities which issued them, since otherwise the rule contained in Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation would be superfluous.
V nasprotju s trditvijo pritožnice predložitev dokumentov, ki so se izkazali za lažne, sama po sebi ne kaže nujno na goljufivo sodelovanje med izvozniki in carinskimi organi, ki jih izdajajo, saj bi bila sicer ureditev iz člena 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS odveč.
Apart from the lack of cogency of its argument, I am of the opinion that a reversal of the burden of proof would hardly be beneficial to the appellant’s cause, since the Commission and UCLAF/OLAF, on their own initiative, obviously did everything necessary, including undertaking on-the-spot investigative missions, in order to clarify the facts in the main proceedings in agreement with the Turkish authorities.
Ne glede na nezadostno sklepčnost argumentacije pritožnice menim, da ji obrnitev porazdelitve dokaznega bremena niti ne bi koristila, saj sta Komisija in UCLAF/OLAF po uradni dolžnosti očitno storili vse, vključno s preiskavami na kraju samem, da bi sporazumno s tur�kimi organi pojasnili dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari. Zato je zaradi neobstoja nasprotnih indicev treba izhajati iz tega, da so Komisija in tur�ki organi izčrpali vse pravne možnosti upravne pomoči, ki jim jo priznava sporazum o pridružitvi.
In the absence of any indications to the contrary, it must therefore be assumed that the Commission and the Turkish authorities exhausted
47 – Alexander, S., Zollkodex, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), člen 220, točka 72, opozarja na to, da je obseg preiskav, ki jih opravi misija Skupnosti, odvisen le od predmeta preiskave in dopustitve preiskav s strani konkretne tretje države.
Against that background, the appellant’s complaints of procedural irregularities are unfounded.
Glede na navedeno so kr�itve postopka, ki jih zatrjuje pritožnica, neutemeljene.
Fourth ground of appeal: decision not to order measures of organisation of procedure for taking of evidence
Četrti pritožbeni razlog: odpoved ukrepom procesnega vodstva glede dokazov
So far as the alleged failure to present the UCLAF mission reports of 9 and 23 December 1998 is concerned, the Court of First Instance rightly assumed, in paragraph 99 of the contested judgment, that the appellant had access to those documents.
Kar zadeva domnevno neposredovanje poročil misij UCLAF z dne 9. in 23. decembra 1998, je treba ugotoviti, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 99 izpodbijane sodbe pravilno sklepalo, da je imela pritožnica vpogled v te dokumente.
49In answer to the further complaint concerning the incompleteness of the reports presented, it must be stated that the appellant itself admits, in point 88 of its appeal, that it received the missing parts of those reports on 12 December 2005, so that, at the time of the hearing on 15 November 2005, the appellant was aware of the full contents of those documents.
49Nadaljnjemu očitku o nepopolnosti predloženih poročil je treba oporekati s tem, da pritožnica v točki 88 svoje pritožbe priznava, da je manjkajoči del teh poročil prejela 12. oktobra 2005, tako da je bila na dan obravnave 15. novembra 2005 seznanjena s celotno vsebino teh dokumentov.
Consequently, its request for presentation of documents contained in the file was rightly to be rejected as devoid of purpose.
Zato je bilo pravilno, da je bil njen zahtevek za posredovanje dokumentov iz spisa zavrnjen kot brezpredmeten.
By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant challenges the rejection of the measures of organisation of procedure requested under Articles 64(4) and 65 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance and thus alleges a misapplication of procedural law, which in principle is amenable to review by the Court of Justice.
Pritožnica s četrtim pritožbenim razlogom izpodbija zavrnitev ukrepov procesnega vodstva, zahtevanih na podlagi členov 64(4) in 65 Poslovnika Sodi�ča prve stopnje, in s tem zatrjuje napačno uporabo procesnega prava, ki jo Sodi�če načeloma lahko preveri.
However, the decision regarding the usefulness of measures of organisation of pro -cedure for the purpose of resolving the dispute remains a matter for the Court of First Instance. 48
Kljub temu ostane Sodi�ču prve stopnje pridržana odločitev o smotrnosti ukrepov procesnega vodstva za re�itev spora. 48
In addition, in paragraph 324 of the contested judgment, the Court referred to the fact that the Turkish authorities had clearly identified the certificates at issue as forgeries.
Poleg tega je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 324 izpodbijane sodbe napotilo na to, da so tur�ki organi jasno navedli, da so bila sporna potrdila ponarejena.
The Court concluded that, in the light of the case-file and in view of the appellant’s claims, measures intended to demonstrate that the documents were authentic were neither relevant nor necessary for the purpose of resolving the present dispute.
Sodi�če prve stopnje je zaključilo, da ob upo�tevanju vsebine spisa in tožbenih razlogov, na katere se je sklicevala pritožnica, ukrepi za dokaz pristnosti dokumentov niso niti upo�tevni niti potrebni za odločanje o tem sporu.
48 — Under Article 49 of its Rules of Procedure, at any stage of the proceedings the Court of First Instance may, after hearing the Advocate General, prescribe any measure of organisation of procedure or any measure of inquiry.
48 – Sodi�če prve stopnje lahko v skladu s členom 49 svojega poslovnika po opredelitvi generalnega pravobranilca v kateri koli fazi postopka odredi kateri koli ukrep procesnega vodstva ali pripravljalni ukrep.
The purpose of measures of organisation of procedure is to ensure that cases are prepared for hearing, procedures carried out and disputes resolved under the best possible conditions.
Ukrepi procesnega vodstva zagotavljajo, da se zadeve pripravijo za obravnavanje, postopki odvijajo in spori re�ujejo v najbolj�ih mogočih razmerah.
According to settled caselaw, it is for the Court of First Instance to appraise the usefulness of measures of inquiry for the purpose of resolving the dispute.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso mora Sodi�če prve stopnje preizkusiti, ali so pripravljalni ukrepi uporabni za odločitev v sporu.
See Case T-138/98 ACAV and Others [2000] ECR II-341, paragraph 72, and Case T-68/99 Toditec [2001] ECR II-1443, paragraph 40.
II-341, točka 72) in z dne 16. maja 2001 v zadevi Toditec (T-68/99, Recueil, str. II-1443, točka 40).
In that respect, the Court of First Instance has discretion within the limits imposed on it by the Rules of Procedure.
Sodi�če prve stopnje ima glede tega diskrecijsko pravico v mejah, ki mu jih določa Poslovnik.
49 — See above, point 105.
49 – Glej točko 105 zgoraj.
C.A.S. v COMMISSION
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI ukrepov ne odredi.
That decision is unexceptionable in law.
Te odločitve ni mogoče pravno prerekati.
It should further be observed that, in so far as the appellant takes as the starting point for its arguments a different allocation of the burden of pleading and proof from that which the Court of First Instance took as a basis, 51 its view must, in view of my conclusions on the third ground of appeal, be rejected.
Pripomnim naj �e to, da je treba, če pritožnica pri svojih navedbah izhaja iz drugačne porazdelitve trditvenega in dokaznega bremena, kot je tista, na katero se je oprlo Sodi�če prve stopnje, 51to pravno stali�če zavrniti ob upo�tevanju preudarkov v zvezi s tretjim pritožbenim razlogom.
Consequently, this ground of appeal also must be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti tudi ta pritožbeni razlog.
Fifth ground of appeal: legal classification of documents/facts in relation to alleged deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities and the Commission
Peti pritožbeni razlog: pravna opredelitev dokumentov/dejstev v zvezi z domnevnimi kr�itvami obveznosti tur�kih organov in Komisije
I shall examine below the alleged deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities and the Commission, on which the appellant bases its arguments concerning the existence of a ‘special situation’.
V nadaljevanju bom obravnavala domnevne kr�itve obveznosti tur�kih organov in Komisije, s katerimi pritožnica utemeljuje svoje navedbe glede obstoja „posebne okoli�čine“.
In order, as far as possible, to avoid repetition, I shall concentrate my observations on those aspects which appear particularly relevant to me, and refer only briefly to any which have already been dealt with in my legal assessment.
Da bi se čim bolj izognila ponavljanjem, se bom osredotočila na tiste vidike, ki se mi zdijo posebej pomembni, na tiste, ki so že bili predmet moje pravne presoje, pa se bom le na kratko sklicevala.
(a) The alleged deficiencies attributable to the Turkish authorities
a) Domnevne kr�itve obveznosti tur�kih organov
By way of introduction, it should be pointed out that, by its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant chiefly challenges findings of fact and assessments of fact which, in principle, cannot be the subjectmatter of the present proceedings.
Najprej je treba opozoriti na to, da pritožnica s petim pritožbenim razlogom pretežno izpodbija ugotovitve in presojo dejstev Sodi�ča prve stopnje, ki načelno ne morejo biti predmet tega postopka.
Their examination is permissible only in so far as it constitutes a review of their legal classification and of the legal inferences which the Court drew from them in order to find that there is no ‘special situation’ as referred to in Article 239 of the CCC. 50
Njihov preizkus je dopusten le, če gre za nadzor nad njihovo pravno opredelitvijo in nad pravnimi posledicami, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje izpeljalo iz njih, da je zanikalo obstoj „posebne okoli�čine“ v smislu člena 239 CZS.
(i) Classification of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question as forgeries
50 i) Presoja, ali je spornih 32 potrdil A.TR.1 ponarejenih
With regard to the classification of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates as forgeries, it is sufficient to note that the Court of First Instance
V zvezi s presojo, ali je spornih 32 potrdil A.TR.1 ponarejenih, zadostuje napotilo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje s pravilno
50 — Where the Court of First Instance has found or appraised the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 225 EC, to carry out a review of the legal classification of those facts and the legal inferences drawn from them by the Court of First Instance (to that effect, Lenaerts, K./Arts, D./Maselis, I., cited above (footnote 20), p.
50 – Če je Sodi�če prve stopnje ugotovilo ali presodilo dejstva, potem je Sodi�če v skladu s členom 225 ES pristojno za nadzor nad pravno opredelitvijo teh dejstev in nad pravnimi posledicami, ki jih je Sodi�če prve stopnje iz njih izpeljalo (v tem smislu Lenaerts, K., Arts, D., Maselis, I., na navedenem mestu [opomba 20], str.
457, paragraph 16-007).
457, točka 16-007).
51 — Point 108 of the appeal.
51 – Točka 108 pritožbe.
(iii) Deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities as regards the stamps found, without erring in law, that, pursuant to the division of powers prescribed under Community law, the authenticity of Turkish certificates was to be determined only by the competent Turkish authorities.
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P iii) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih carinskih organov v zvezi z žigi uporabo prava ugotovilo, da so morali pristnost tur�kih potrdil na podlagi porazdelitve pristojnosti, ki jo določa pravo Skupnosti, ugotavljati zgolj pristojni tur�ki organi.
52The latter had, as correctly recognised by the Court, confirmed the authenticity of those certificates. 53
52Ti so, kot je pravilno spoznalo Sodi�če prve stopnje, potrdili nepristnost teh potrdil. 53
The appellant’s submissions concerning a deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities in relation to the stamps must also be rejected, since it has not shown with the necessary clarity how the Court of First Instance made an error of law which is amenable to review.
Dalje je treba zavrniti trditve pritožnice glede kr�itve obveznosti tur�kih carinskih organov v zvezi z žigi, saj ni dovolj jasno razložila, v kolik�ni meri naj bi Sodi�če prve stopnje napačno uporabilo pravo, kar bi bilo mogoče izpodbijati.
That factor is sufficient in itself to justify a rejection of this submission.
Že samo ta okoli�čina upravičuje, da se ta trditev zavrže kot nedopustna.
(ii) A.TR.1 movement certificate D437214
ii) Potrdilo A.TR.1 WVB D 437214
As correctly found by the Court of First Instance in paragraph 129 et seq., by their letter of 22 August 2003, the Turkish authorities had also removed any doubt that certificate D437214 was a forgery.
Kot je Sodi�če prve stopnje pravilno ugotovilo v točki 129 in naslednjih, so tur�ki organi z dopisom z dne 22. avgusta 2003 odpravili tudi vse dvome v zvezi s tem, da je potrdilo D 437214 ponarejeno.
Purely as a precaution, it should be pointed out that, in so far as the appellant seeks to infer from the supposed similarity between the stamps on the certificates in question and those on the certificates classified as correct that the certificates in question were not forged, but only incorrect, that argument must be answered by stating that, from a legal point of view, such a finding cannot replace the Turkish authorities’ clear classification, for the reasons already set out.
Zgolj iz previdnosti je treba opozoriti na to, da če želi pritožnica na podlagi domnevne podobnosti med odtisi žigov na spornih potrdilih in tistimi na potrdilih, ki so bila ugotovljena za pravilna, sklepati na to, da sporna potrdila niso ponarejena, ampak zgolj nepravilna, je treba temu nasprotovati s tem, da to spoznanje v pravnem smislu iz že predstavljenih razlogov ne more nadomestiti jasne presoje tur�kih organov.
(iv) Deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities with regard to the registration of official documents
iv) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov pri registraciji uradnih dokumentov
Nevertheless, the nature of the certificates in question as forgeries is not, in itself, sufficient to justify the allegation of a deficiency, let alone that of an involvement, on the part of the Turkish authorities.
Ne glede na to ponarejenost spornih potrdil sama po sebi ne more utemeljiti očitka kr�itve obveznosti, kaj �ele sodelovanja tur�kih organov.
Accordingly, the appellant’s submissions regarding a deficiency in the classification of the A.TR.1 certificates in question as forgeries must be rejected.
Zato je treba zavrniti navedbe pritožnice v zvezi s kr�itvijo obveznosti pri presoji, da je spornih 32 potrdil A.TR.1 ponarejenih.
52 — See above, point 83.53 — See above, point 85.
52 – Glej točko 83 zgoraj.53 – Glej točko 85 zgoraj.
The Court of First Instance is correct when it observes that no obligation for the Turkish authorities to keep appropriate registers can be inferred from either the Association Agreement or the provisions for its
Sodi�ču prve stopnje je treba pritrditi, da niti iz sporazuma o pridružitvi niti iz predpisov za njegovo izvajanje ne izhaja obveznost tur�kih organov glede vodenja ustreznih evidenc. Kljub temu se je treba
(vi) Deficiency attributable to the Turkish authorities in the provision of administrative assistance implementation. Nevertheless, the appellant is also correct in its view in point 136 of its appeal that the registration of official documents is a common practice for an organised authority and thus, in actual fact, a matter of course.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI vi) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov v okviru upravne pomoči strinjati tudi z mnenjem pritožnice v točki 136 pritožbe, da je registracija uradnih dokumentov običajna praksa organiziranega organa in s tem pravzaprav samoumevna.