natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
3 — Joined Cases T-186/97, T-187/97, T-190 to T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, T-216 to T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 and T-147/99 Kaufring and Others [2001] ECR II-1337.
3 – Sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2001 v združenih zadevah Kaufring in drugi (T-186/97, T-187/97, od T-190/97 do T-192/97, T-210/97, T-211/97, od T-216/97 do T-218/97, T-279/97, T-280/97, T-293/97 in T-147/99, Recueil, str. II-1337).
By its ninth ground of appeal, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance found that there was no active involvement on the part of the Turkish customs authorities in the issuing and use of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question in this case for the purposes of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC.
Pritožnica z devetim pritožbenim razlogom graja dejstvo, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje zanikalo aktivno sodelovanje tur�kih carinskih organov pri izdaji in uporabi spornih 32 potrdil A.TR.1 v smislu člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
In that regard, the Commission submits that, in view of the fact that this case concerns forged certificates which were not issued by the Turkish authorities, it is precisely any ‘active error’ on the part of the Turkish authorities for the purposes of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC that is lacking.
Komisija v zvezi s tem navaja, da ravno zato, ker gre v obravnavanem primeru za ponarejena potrdila, ki jih niso izdali tur�ki organi, ne gre za „aktivno napako“ tur�kih organov v smislu člena 220(2)(b) CZS.
IV — Legal assessment other measures, including agricultural and commercial policy measures, introduced at Community level in connection with trade in goods between the Community and third countries.
IV – Pravna presoja politike, sprejetih na ravni Skupnosti v zvezi z blagovno menjavo med Skupnostjo in tretjimi državami.
The codification of Community customs legislation was not confined to the technical reproduction of existing customs legislation; amendments were also made, at the same time, with the aim of making the customs legislation more consistent, simplifying it and remedying existing omissions with a view to adopting complete Community legislation in this area.
Kodifikacija carinske zakonodaje Skupnosti se ni omejila na norma-tivno-tehnično podajanje obstoječe carinske zakonodaje; hkrati so bile uvedene tudi spremembe, da bi bili carinski predpisi bolj konsistentni in poenostavljeni ter da bi bile odpravljene praznine, ki �e vedno obstajajo, da se tako lahko na tem področju sprejme popolna ureditev Skupnosti.
Accordingly, the Customs Code lays down new provisions for, inter alia, the postclearance recovery, repayment and remission of import and export duties, which in part carried forward the earlier legislation and in part introduced amendments. 4
Tako carinski zakonik med drugim za naknadno izterjavo, povračilo in odpust uvoznih in izvoznih dajatev predvideva nove določbe, ki so deloma pomenile nadaljnji razvoj prej�njih predpisov, deloma pa so uvedle spremembe. 4
The older Community provisions which were repealed in the course of introducing the Customs Code included, pursuant to Article 251 of the CCC, Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79, 5 Article 13 of which is regarded as the predecessor provision of the presentday Article 239 of the CCC 6and has been interpreted on several occasions by the Court.
K starej�im predpisom Skupnosti, ki so bili razveljavljeni zaradi uvedbe carinskega zakonika, je v skladu s členom 251 CZS spadala Uredba (EGS) �t. 1697/79, 5katere člen 13 velja za predhodno določbo dana�njega člena 239 CZS 6in ga je Sodi�če večkrat razlagalo.
Like that earlier provision, Article 239 of the CCC is also a general equitable provi-
Kot pri tej določbi gre pri členu 239 CZS za generalno klavzulo,
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code entered into force on 22 October 1992 and, pursuant to Article 253 thereof, was to apply from 1 January 1994.
Uredba (EGS) �t. 2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti je začela veljati 22. oktobra 1992, v skladu z njenim členom 253 pa se uporablja od 1. januarja 1994.
The customs provisions contained in a large number of Community regulations and directives were assembled, on the basis of the Customs Union, in a Customs Code containing the customs legislation including the implementing provisions to be adopted at Community and national level.
Carinski predpisi, vsebovani v �tevilnih uredbah in direktivah Skupnosti, so bili na podlagi carinske unije strnjeni v carinski zakonik, ki vsebuje carinsko zakonodajo, vključno s predpisi za izvajanje, ki se sprejmejo na ravni Skupnosti in na nacionalni ravni.
Based on the concept of an internal market, the general rules and procedures of the Customs Code were to ensure the common implementation of all tariff and
Splo�na pravila in postopki carinskega zakonika naj bi z vidika koncepta notranjega trga zagotavljali enotno izvajanje vseh ukrepov v zvezi s carinsko tarifo in drugih ukrepov, tudi ukrepov skupne kmetijske in trgovinske
C.A.S. v COMMISSION compared with other operators engaged in the same business.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI zadevni gospodarski subjekt v primerjavi z drugimi gospodarskimi subjekti, ki opravljajo enako dejavnost, v „izrednem položaju“. 9
9Both the Court in its caselaw and the Community legislature in the CCC implementing regulation have spe -cified when such ‘special situations’ within the meaning of Article 239 of the CCC exist.
Kdaj gre za take „posebne okoli�čine“ v smislu člena 239 CZS, sta podrobneje opredelila tako Sodi�če v svoji sodni praksi kot tudi zakonodajalec Skupnosti v uredbi za izvajanje CZS.
10 sion 7under which, for the purpose of ensuring the protection of legitimate expectations in situations other than those arising most often in practice and for which express provision is made, import and export duties which are legally payable may be repaid or remitted, provided that no deception or obvious negligence is attributable to the person concerned.
10 ki temelji na načelih pravičnosti, 7v okviru katere se zaradi uresničevanja načela varstva zaupanja v pravo v drugih primerih, kot so v praksi najpogostej�i in izrecno urejeni, lahko odpustijo ali povrnejo dolgovane uvozne ali izvozne dajatve, če ne gre niti za goljufivo ravnanje niti za malomarnost udeleženega.
When deciding whether a special situation within the meaning of that provision exists, the Commission must, within the limits of the wide discretion which it has in that regard, assess all of the facts and circumstances and balance, on the one hand, the Community interest in ensuring that the customs provisions are respected and, on the other, the interest of the economic operator acting in good faith in not suffering harm which goes beyond normal commercial risks.
Komisija mora pri odločitvi, ali gre za poseben primer v smislu te določbe v okviru �iroke diskrecijske pravice, ki jo ima pri tem, presojati celotno dejansko stanje ter tehtati interes Skupnosti glede upo�tevanja carinskih predpisov in interes gospodarskega subjekta, ki ravna v dobri veri, da ne bo utrpel �kode, ki presega običajno poslovno tveganje.
In any event, pursuant to Article 904 of the CCC implementing regulation, Community law expressly does not recognise as
Pravo Skupnosti pa v skladu s členom 904 uredbe za izvajanje CZS za tako posebno okoli�čino izrecno ne priznava
9 — Case C-86/97 Trans-Ex-Import [1999] ECR I-1041, paragraph 21; Case C-61/98 De Haan Beheer [1999] ECR I-5003, paragraph 52; and Kaufring and Others, cited in footnote 3, paragraph 218.
I-1041, točka 21) in z dne 7. septembra 1999 v zadevi De Haan Beheer (C-61/98, Recueil, str. I-5003, točka 52); sodba Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 10. maja 2001 v zadevi Kaufring in drugi (navedena v opombi 3, točka 218).
The general provision in Article 239 of the CCC applies, in particular, where, in view of the relationship between a trader and the administration, it would be inequitable to require the trader to bear a loss which he normally would not have incurred.
Generalna klavzula iz člena 239 CZS se uporabi predvsem takrat, ko bi bilo zaradi razmerja med gospodarskim subjektom in upravo nepravično, da bi moral gospodarski subjekt odgovarjati za �kodo, ki mu ob pravilnem ravnanju ne bi nastala.
8In principle, the Court’s caselaw requires the trader to be in an ‘exceptional situation’ as
8 Sodna praksa Sodi�ča načeloma zahteva, da je
1, C. II, paragraph 82, p.
II, točka 82, str.
27, mentions only Article 905 of the CCC implementing regulation as the general equitable provision of enormous importance for practical purposes, clearly because that provision contains the factual precondition for the ‘special situation’ itself.
27, omenja le člen 905 uredbe za izvajanje CZS kot splo�no določbo, ki upo�teva načelo pravičnosti in ki je izjemno pomembna v praksi, očitno zato, ker ta določba vsebuje predpostavko za obstoj „posebnega primera“.
Other authors, such as Müller-Eiselt, P., cited above (footnote 6), p.
Drugi avtorji, na primer Müller-Eiselt, P., na navedenem mestu (opomba 6), str.
106, mention solely or mainly Article 239 of the CCC as the relevant provision.
106, kot odločilno določbo izključno ali pretežno omenjajo člen 239 CZS.
It would be more correct to use the second indent of Article 239(1) of the CCC in conjunction with Article 905 of the CCC implementing regulation as the basis for the remission or repayment of import duties on account of special circumstances.
Pravilneje bi bilo, da se člen 239(1), druga alinea, CZS v povezavi s členom 905 uredbe za izvajanje CZS uporabi kot pravno podlago za odpust oziroma povračilo uvoznih dajatev na podlagi posebnih okoli�čin.
414, the interpretation of this vague legal concept has been outlined by the Court and the Commission.
414, meni, da sta Sodi�če in Komisija vnaprej začrtala razlago tega nedoločnega pravnega pojma.
Article 239 of the CCC pursues two different aims.
Člen 239 CZS zasleduje dve vrsti ciljev.
First, it expands the groups of cases contained in Articles 236, 237 and 238 to include a catalogue of individual cases specified in the CCC implementing regulation (Article 900 of the CCC implementing regulation), in which repayment or remission is also possible.
Po eni strani raz�irja skupine primerov, vsebovanih v členih 236, 237 in 238, s seznamom posameznih primerov, določenih v uredbi za izvajanje CZS (člen 900 uredbe za izvajanje CZS), pri katerih sta povračilo oziroma odpust prav tako mogoča.
The fact that this catalogue is in the CCC implementing regulation enables the Commission, acting within the limits of its delegated legislative powers under the third indent of Article 202 EC and pursuant, for example, to proposals from the national customs administrations or to the Court’s caselaw, to include further individual cases in that group.
To, da je bil ta seznam uvr�čen v uredbo za izvajanje CZS, omogoča Komisiji, da v okviru svojih prenesenih zakonodajnih pristojnosti v skladu s členom 202, tretji odstavek, ES v to skupino vključi nove posamezne primere, na primer na podlagi predlogov nacionalnih carinskih uprav ali na podlagi sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
Secondly, the national administration is enabled, over and above all the cases mentioned in Articles 236 to 238 and in Article 900 of the CCC implementing regulation, to grant a repayment or a remission in ‘special’ individual cases where there are circumstances which do not result from deception or obvious negligence on the part of the person concerned (Article 899(2) of the CCC implementing regulation).
Po drugi strani je nacionalna uprava poobla�čena, da poleg vseh primerov, navedenih v členih od 236 do 238 in v členu 900 uredbe za izvajanje CZS, v „posebnih“ posameznih primerih odobri povračilo ali odpust, če gre za okoli�čine, ki ne vključujejo niti goljufivega ravnanja niti malomarnosti udeleženega (člen 899(2) uredbe za izvajanje CZS).
However, the cases of repayment listed in the CCC and the CCC implementing regulation are not ex -haustive since, in addition, there are further situations in which repayment is merited.
Primeri, v katerih je povračilo mogoče in ki so na�teti v CZS in v uredbi za izvajanje CZS, pa niso dokončni, saj poleg tega obstajajo položaji, ki so lahko predmet povračila.
In that way, equitable considerations can play a part and fairness in individual cases can be achieved.
Tako lahko pridejo do izraza vidiki pravičnosti in v posameznem primeru se lahko doseže pravičnost.
Here too, the caselaw of the Community courts plays a special role.
Tudi pri tem ima posebno vlogo kazuistika sodi�č Skupnosti. Tako Huchatz, W., Zollkodex (ur.
Procedural considerations such a special situation the presentation in good faith of preference or other documents subsequently found to be forged or falsified.
Procesnopravni preudarki predložitve dokumentov ali potrdil, ki utemeljujejo preferencialno tarifno obravnavanje in za katere se naknadno izkaže, da so bili lažni ali ponarejeni, čeprav so bili predloženi v dobri veri.
By incorporating that exclusion, the Community legislature incorporated the Court’s previous caselaw into the customs legislation of the Community. 11
Zakonodajalec Skupnosti je s sprejetjem izključitve tega dejanskega stanja v carinsko zakonodajo Skupnosti prevzel dosedanjo sodno prakso Sodi�ča. 11
From a procedural point of view, in view of the appellant’s extensive and detailed observations on the exact course of the events which gave rise to these proceedings, I feel compelled to point out that an appeal to the Court of Justice under the second paragraph of Article 225(1) EC is limited to points of law.
S procesno-pravnega vidika menim, da je zaradi ob�irnih in podrobnih navedb pritožnice o natančnem poteku dogodkov, ki so bili povod za ta spor, nujno treba spomniti na to, da je pritožba na Sodi�če v skladu s členom 225(1), drugi pododstavek, ES omejena na pravna vpra�anja.
Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice states that the appeal may lie on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of pro -cedure or the infringement of Community law.
Člen 58 Statuta Sodi�ča podrobneje določa, da se pritožba lahko vloži zaradi nepristojnosti Sodi�ča prve stopnje, zaradi kr�itve postopka ali zaradi kr�itve zakonodaje Skupnosti.
Given that, on the one hand, at first instance the appellant contested the Commission’s decision by way of an action for annulment under Article 230 EC essentially on the ground that, in its case, there was a special situation within the meaning of the second indent of Article 239 of the CCC in conjunction with Article 905 of the CCC implementing regulation, and, on the other hand, Article 904 of the CCC implementing regulation appears, at least prima facie, to preclude its claim for remission of import duties, it must be assumed that those provisions constitute the substantive framework within which the Court of Justice will have to decide whether the present appeal is admissible and well founded.
Če upo�tevamo, da je po eni strani pritožnica na prvi stopnji z ničnostno tožbo v skladu s členom 230 ES izpodbijala odločbo Komisije v glavnem z obrazložitvijo, da gre v njenem primeru za obstoj posebne okoli�čine v smislu člena 239(1), druga alinea, CZS v povezavi s členom 905 uredbe za izvajanje CZS in da po drugi strani njeni zahtevi po odpustu uvoznih dajatev vsaj na prvi pogled nasprotuje člen 904 uredbe za izvajanje CZS, je treba izhajati iz tega, da pravkar navedene določbe predstavljajo materialnopravni okvir, v katerem bo moralo Sodi�če odločati o dopustnosti in utemeljenosti te pritožbe.
In assessing whether a plea may properly be put forward in the context of an appeal, it should therefore be noted that the purpose of the appeal procedure is to review the application of the law by the Court of First Instance and not to repeat the proceedings at first instance.
Pri presoji, ali se lahko neki očitek dopustno poda v okviru pritožbe, je zato treba upo�tevati, da je namen pritožbenega postopka nadzor nad uporabo prava s strani Sodi�ča prve stopnje in nikakor ne ponovitev postopka na prvi stopnji.
The mere repetition of the pleas in law at first instance does not constitute an admissible plea on appeal.
Zgolj ponovitev tožbenih razlogov na prvi stopnji ni dopusten očitek v okviru pritožbe.
The appeal must, on the contrary, indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside and also the arguments on which the claim that it should be set aside is based. 12
Pritožba mora namreč natančno označiti tako dele izpodbijane sodbe, glede katerih se ugotavljajo napake, kot tudi argumente, na katerih temelji predlog za razveljavitev. 12
Case C-41/00 P Interporc v Commission [2003] ECR I-2125, paragraph 15, and Case C-496/99 P Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta [2004] ECR I-3801, paragraph 48.
Sodbi z dne 6. marca 2003 v zadevi Interporc proti Komisiji (C-41/00 P, Recueil, str. I-2125, točka 15) in z dne 29. aprila 2004 v zadevi Komisija proti CAS Succhi di Frutta (C-496/99 P, Recueil, str.
7 of Decision No 1/95. That assistance is to take place in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of that annex in such a way that information regarding operations noted or planned, which are or could be in breach of customs legislation, is exchanged upon request or of their own motion between the authorities of the Parties.
B – Presoja pritožbenih razlogov členoma 3 in 4 te priloge izvaja tako, da se informacije o ugotovljenih ali nameravanih ravnanjih, ki kr�ijo ali bi lahko kr�ila carinsko zakonodajo, na zahtevo ali po uradni dolžnosti izmenjujejo med organi pogodbenih strank.
The effectiveness of that system of administrative cooperation necessarily presupposes a division of powers between the authorities concerned, which the Court expressly recognises.
Učinkovitost tega sistema upravnega sodelovanja nujno predpostavlja delitev pristojnosti med udeleženimi organi, ki jo Sodi�če izrecno priznava.
With regard to the alleged breach of the principle of the division of responsibilities between the competent authorities of the exporting country and of the importing country in determining the authenticity or accuracy of movement certificates, it should be observed that the conclusions of the Court of First Instance in paragraphs 120, 121, 150, 323 and 324 of the contested judgment, to which the appellant refers in its appeal, were reached having regard to the provisions of the Association Agreement between the EEC and the Republic of Turkey and on the basis of the Court’s settled case-law.
Glede na zatrjevano kr�itev načela delitve nalog med pristojnimi organi države izvoznice in države uvoznice pri presoji pristnosti oziroma pravilnosti potrdil o gibanju blaga je treba ugotoviti, da so bili sklepi Sodi�ča prve stopnje v točkah 120, 121, 150, 323 in 324 izpodbijane sodbe, na katere pritožnica napotuje v svoji pritožbi, sprejeti ob upo�tevanju določb sporazuma o pridružitvi med EGS in Republiko Turčijo ter na podlagi ustaljene sodne prakse Sodi�ča.
According to settled caselaw, the determination of the origin of goods is based on a division of powers between the authorities of the exporting country and those of the importing country; whilst the former determine origin, the proper working of the system is ensured jointly by the authorities concerned on both sides.
V skladu z ustaljeno sodno prakso določitev porekla blaga temelji na porazdelitvi pristojnosti med organi države izvoznice in organi države uvoznice; medtem ko prvi določajo poreklo, se delovanje te ureditve zagotavlja s sodelovanjem udeleženih uprav obeh strani.
That system is justified by the fact that the authorities of the exporting state are in the best position to verify directly the facts which determine origin.
Ta ureditev je utemeljena s tem, da organi države izvoznice lahko najbolje neposredno ugotovijo dejstva, ki so odločilna za poreklo.
See also Joined Cases C-153/94 and C-204/94 Faroe Seafood and Others [1996] ECR I-2465, paragraph 19.
Glej tudi sodbo z dne 14. maja 1996 v združenih zadevah Faroe Seafood in drugi (C-153/94 in C-204/94, Recueil, str. I-2465, točka 19).
It follows that, under the Association Agreement, the customs authorities of the importing country cannot refuse preferential treatment to goods which are imported under cover of a certificate properly issued by the customs authorities of the exporting country.
Iz tega izhaja, da carinski organi države uvoznice za blago, ki je bilo uvoženo na podlagi zakonito izdanega potrdila carinskih organov države izvoznice, v skladu z določbami sporazuma o pridružitvi ne smejo zavrniti uporabe preferencialnega obravnavanja.
That mechanism can function only if the customs authorities of the importing country accept the determinations legally made by the authorities of the exporting country.
Ta sistem lahko deluje le, če carinska uprava države uvoznice prizna ugotovitve, ki so jih zakonito podali organi države izvoznice. 14 Kot je Sodi�če ugotovilo v sodbi Les Rapides Savoyards in drugi, 15je v okviru
That system of cooperation and division of responsibilities between the customs administrations necessarily means that they are also bound by the results of that subsequent verification where the customs authorities of the exporting State have been able to determine the origin of the goods in question.
Ta sistem sodelovanja in porazdelitve nalog med carinskimi upravami nujno privede do tega, da so naloge vezane tudi na rezultate naknadnega preverjanja, če so carinski organi države izvoznice lahko določili poreklo zadevnega blaga.
According to the Court’s own caselaw, only in exceptional cases, where the customs authorities of the exporting State are not in a position duly to carry out the subsequent verification, may the customs authorities of
Le v posebnem primeru, če carinski organi države izvoznice niso mogli izpeljati naknadnega preverjanja v skladu s predpisi, lahko carinski organi države uvoznice v skladu s sodno prakso Sodi�ča sami preverijo pristnost in pravilnost
It is true that the customs authorities of the importing country are not legally bound by the presentation of a preference certificate to grant the importer the preferential treatment applied for.
Carinski organi države uvoznice na podlagi predložitve dokazila o preferencialnem dogovoru sicer niso pravno zavezani uvozniku odobriti zahtevanega preferencialnega obravnavanja.
However, provided that the preference certificate was properly issued in accordance with formal requirements, it is prima facie substantively accurate.
Če pa je bilo dokazilo o preferencialnem dogovoru izdano v skladu s predpisi, velja pravna domneva o njegovi materialni pravilnosti.
The presentation of the preference certificate therefore produces at least a binding effect in point of fact, that is, as regards the findings
Zato s predložitvijo dokazila o preferencialnem dogovoru nastane vsaj zavezujoč učinek v dejanskem
16 — Prieß, H.-J., Zollkodex, cited above (footnote 10), Article 27, paragraph 41.
16 – Prieß, H.-J., Zollkodex, na navedenem mestu (opomba 10), člen 27, točka 41.
14 — Faroe Seafood and Others, cited in footnote 13, paragraph 20, and Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04 Sfakianakis [2006] ECR I-1265, paragraph 23.
14 – Sodbi Faroe Seafood in drugi (navedena v opombi 13, točka 20) in z dne 9. februarja 2006 v zadevi Sfakianakis (od C-23/04 do C-25/04, ZOdl., str. I-1265, točka 23).
17 — See the Opinion of Advocate General Léger in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04 Sfakianakis [2006] ECR I-1265, point 33.
17 – Glej sklepne predloge generalnega pravobranilca Légerja, predstavljene 20. oktobra 2005 v zadevi Sfakianakis (sodba, navedena v opombi 14, točka 33).
C.A.S. v COMMISSION the importing State check the authenticity and the accuracy of the certificate at issue and take account of other evidence as to the origin of the goods in question.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI spornih potrdil in upo�tevajo druge dokaze glede porekla spornega blaga. 18
Rather, I concur with the Commission’s assessment that the Community customs authorities would themselves have been in no position to determine whether a third country’s export certificates presented to them were authentic or forged.
Skupnosti sploh ne bi bili sposobni sami presoditi, ali so izvozna potrdila tretje države, ki so jim bila predložena, pristna ali ponarejena.