natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Court of First Instance ought, in particular, to have held that the limitation period had started to run when the application of the unlawful system for payment of Community aid provided for in Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82 had actually and objectively caused damage to the Cantine by failing to guarantee them direct payment of the Community aid at the time of DAI’s insolvency.
Sodi�če prve stopnje bi moralo predvsem presoditi, da je navedeni zastaralni rok začel teči, ko je uporaba nezakonite ureditve izplačila pomoči Skupnosti, določene v členu 9 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 vinskim kletem, dejansko in objektivno povzročila �kodo, s tem da jim ni zagotovila neposrednega izplačila pomoči Skupnosti, ko je bil DAI plačilno nesposoben.
That time should therefore have been fixed as the day on which the Cantine were unable to obtain that payment within 90 days from the entry of the wine into the distillery referred to in that provision, that is, at the end of June 1983, as is clear in particular from paragraph 132 of the judgment under appeal.
Ta trenutek bi torej moral biti dan, ko vinske kleti niso mogle doseči navedenega izplačila v roku devetdesetih dni po prejetju vina v destilarni, določenem v navedeni določbi, torej konec junija 1983, kot to izhaja zlasti iz točke 132 izpodbijane sodbe.
By holding, in paragraph 147 of the judgment under appeal, that the limitation period laid down in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice could not have begun to run before 28 November 1994 and therefore, in paragraph 150 thereof, declaring
Vendar s tem, da je Sodi�če prve stopnje v točki 147 izpodbijane sodbe presodilo, da zastaralni rok, ki ga določa člen 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, ni mogel začeti teči pred
COMMISSION v CANTINA SOCIALE DI DOLIANOVA AND OTHERS admissible, on the ground that it was not out of time, the action for compensation brought before it on 12 October 1998, that is to say, more than 15 years after the damage actually occurred, the Court of First Instance misapplied the provisions governing the rules on limitation contained in that article.
28. novembrom 1994, in zato, ker je v točki 150 navedene sodbe ugotovilo, da je tožba, ki je bila pri njem vložena 12. oktobra 1998, kar je več kot petnajst let po dejanskem nastanku �kode, dopustna, ker ni bila vložena prepozno, je napačno uporabilo določbe v zvezi z zastaranjem iz navedenega člena.
Furthermore, the Cantines’ argument based on Adams v Commission, in which the Court held that the expiry of a limitation period cannot constitute a valid defence to a claim by a person who has suffered damage where that person could only belatedly have become aware of the event giving rise to it, must be rejected.
Sicer je treba zavreči sklepanje vinskih kleti, ki temelji na zgoraj navedeni sodbi v združenih zadevah Adams proti Komisiji, v kateri je Sodi�če presodilo, da nastop zastaranja ni veljavna obramba zoper zahtevek osebe, ki je utrpela �kodo, ker je bila ta oseba pozno seznanjena z dejstvom, zaradi katerega je nastala �koda.
Unlike the case which gave rise to the Adams judgment, the Cantine cannot claim in the present case that they were not aware, from the end of June 1983, of the event giving rise to their damage, as they knew perfectly well from that time that Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82 did not provide them with any guarantee whatsoever of direct payment of the Community aid in question in the event of the distiller’s insolvency.
Nasprotno kot v zadevi, v kateri je bila izdana navedena sodba, vinske kleti v obravnavanem primeru ne trdijo, da od konca junija 1983 niso bile seznanjene z dejstvom, zaradi katerega je nastala �koda, saj so bile v celoti seznanjene, v tem obdobju, da jim s členom 9 Uredbe �t. 2499/82 ni zagotovljeno nikakr�no neposredno izplačilo zadevne pomoči Skupnosti ob morebitni plačilni nesposobnosti destilaterja.
It should also be added that the fact that the Cantine were interveners in the proceedings relating to the security brought by DAI before the Italian courts did not prevent them from bringing parallel proceedings to establish liability before the Court of Justice under Article 235 EC.
Poleg tega je treba dodati, da dejstvo, da so vinske kleti intervenirale v postopku v zvezi z var�čino, ki ga je pri italijanskih sodi�čih začel DAI, tem ne preprečuje, da vzporedno vložijo tožbo zaradi odgovornosti pri Sodi�ču na podlagi člena 235 ES.
That provision specifically confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Community Courts to hear actions for compensation under the second paragraph of Article 288 EC brought against the Community (see, inter alia, Joined Cases 106/87 to 120/87 Asteris and Others [1988] ECR 5515, paragraph 15).
Ta določba natančno podeljuje sodi�čem Skupnosti izključno pristojnost za odločanje o od�kodninskih tožbah na podlagi člena 288, drugi odstavek, ES, zoper Skupnost (glej zlasti sodbo z dne 27. septembra 1988 v združenih zadevah Asteris in drugi, od 106/87 do 120/87, Recueil, str. 5515, točka 15).
Lastly, it must be noted, as is clear from the very wording of Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, that an action brought before a national court cannot constitute an interruption of the limitation period for an action for damages under Article 235 EC (see, to that effect, Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi v Commission, paragraph 56).
Nazadnje je treba ugotoviti, kot izhaja iz samega besedila člena 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, da tožba, vložena pri nacionalnem sodi�ču, ne pomeni dejanja, ki prekini zastaranje od�kodninske tožbe na podlagi člena 235 ES (glej v tem smislu zgoraj navedeni sklep Autosalone Ispra dei Fratelli Rossi proti Komisiji, točka 56).
Likewise, it follows that the commencement of proceedings at national level cannot defer the point at which the limitation period for that action begins to run.
Iz tega prav tako izhaja, da vložitev tožbe na nacionalni ravni ne odloži začetka tega zastaralnega roka navedene tožbe.
It follows from all the foregoing that the judgment under appeal must be set aside in so far as it declared admissible the action for noncontractual liability brought by the
Iz vseh zgornjih ugotovitev izhaja, da je treba izpodbijano sodbo razveljaviti v delu, v katerem je bila tožba vinskih kleti zaradi nepogodbene odgovornosti razgla�ena za
Cantine and ordered the Commission to make good the damage which they suffered, following the insolvency of DAI, by reason of the absence of a procedure capable of guaranteeing, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Regulation No 2499/82, payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for by that regulation.
2499/82, izplačilo pomoči Skupnosti, določene s to uredbo, zadevnim proizvajalcem.
Under the second sentence of the first paragraph of Article 61 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, the latter may, where the decision of the Court of First Instance has been quashed, itself give final judgment in the matter, where the state of the proceedings so permits.
Člen 61, prvi odstavek, drugi stavek, Statuta Sodi�ča določa, da lahko to ob razveljavitvi odločitve Sodi�ča prve stopnje, če stanje postopka to dovoljuje, samo dokončno odloči o zadevi.
That is the case here.
Poudariti je treba, da je v tem primeru tako.
As regards the claim by the Cantine that the Commission should be ordered to pay them compensation in amounts equivalent to the outstanding amounts still owed to them by DAI, this cannot be accepted for the reasons set out in paragraphs 63 to 66 of the present judgment.
Glede zahteve vinskih kleti, da se Komisiji na podlagi člena 235 ES naloži, naj jim izplača od�kodnine v znesku, ki ustreza vi�ini njihovih �e neplačanih terjatev do DAI, se tej zahtevi iz razlogov, predstavljenih v točkah od 70 do 73 te sodbe, ne ugodi.
As is clear in particular from paragraph 65 of this judgment, the fiveyear limitation period provided for in Article 46 of the Statute of the Court of Justice began to run at the end of June 1983, with the result that the action for compensation under Article 235 EC brought in 1998 must be regarded as timebarred and, therefore, must be dismissed as being inadmissible.
Kot namreč izhaja predvsem iz točke 72 te sodbe, je petletni zastaralni rok, določen v členu 46 Statuta Sodi�ča, začel teči konec junija 1983, tako da je treba �teti, da je od�kodninski zahtevek na podlagi člena 235 ES, vložen leta 1998, zastaral, ter ga zavrniti kot nedopustnega.
Accordingly, since, in the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance has already dismissed as inadmissible the Cantines’claims that the Commission’s letter of 31 July 1998 be annulled, that a declaration be made that the Commission unlawfully failed to act, and that the Commission be found guilty of unjust enrichment, the action brought by the Cantine must be dismissed in its entirety.
Posledično, ker je Sodi�če prve stopnje v izpodbijani sodbi kot nedopustne že zavrglo zahtevke vinskih kleti glede razglasitve ničnosti dopisa z dne 31. julija 1998 in ugotovitve nedelovanja navedene institucije ter njihove zahteve za naložitev Komisiji povračila zaradi neupravičene obogatitve, je treba tožbo vinskih kleti v zadevi T-166/98 zavreči v celoti.
Under Article 122 of the Rules of Procedure, where the appeal is well founded and the Court of Justice itself gives final judgment in the case, the Court is to make a decision as to costs.
Člen 122 Poslovnika Sodi�ča določa, da če je pritožba utemeljena in če Sodi�če samo dokončno odloči v sporu, Sodi�če odloči tudi o stro�kih.
Under Article 69(2) of those Rules, which applies to appeals by virtue of Article 118, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.
V členu 69(2) tega poslovnika, ki se uporabi v pritožbenem postopku na podlagi člena 118 tega poslovnika, je določeno, da se neuspeli stranki naloži plačilo stro�kov, če so bili ti prigla�eni.
Since the Commission has applied for costs to be awarded against the Cantine, and since the latter have been unsuccessful, the Cantine must be ordered to pay the costs of the present proceedings and of those brought before the Court of First Instance.
Komisija je predlagala, naj se vinskim kletem naloži plačilo stro�kov, in ker te s svojimi predlogi niso uspele, se jim naloži plačilo stro�kov tega postopka in postopka pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje.
Annuls the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 23 November 2004 in Case T-166/98 Cantina sociale di Dolianova and Others v Commission to the extent to which it declared admissible the action to establish noncontractual liability brought by Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla — Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl and Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari and ordered the Commission of the European Communities to make good the damage suffered by them as a result of the insolvency of Distilleria Agricola Industriale di Terralba by reason of the absence of a procedure capable of guaranteeing, under the system introduced by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2499/82 of 15 September 1982 laying down provisions concerning preventive distillation for the 1982/1983 wine year, payment to the producers concerned of the Community aid provided for by that regulation;
Sodba Sodišča prve stopnje Evropskih skupnosti z dne 23. novembra 2004 v zadevi Cantina sociale di Dolianova in drugi proti Komisiji (T-166/98) se razveljavi v delu, v katerem je bila tožba, ki so jo vložile Cantina sociale di Dolianova Soc. coop. arl, Cantina Trexenta Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale Marmilla – Unione viticoltori associati Soc. coop. arl, Cantina sociale S. Maria La Palma Soc. coop. arl in Cantina sociale del Vermentino Soc. coop. arl Monti-Sassari, razglašena za dopustno in kjer je bila Komisiji Evropskih skupnosti naložena povrnitev škode, ki so jo te utrpele zaradi stečaja družbe Distilleria Agricola Industriale de Terralba, ker ni bilo mehanizma, ki bi zagotavljal, v okviru ureditve, uvedene s členom 9 Uredbe Komisije (EGS) št. 2499/82 z dne 15. septembra 1982, ki predpisuje določbe o preventivni destilaciji za vinsko tržno leto 1982/1983, izplačilo pomoči Skupnosti, določene s to uredbo, zadevnim proizvajalcem.
Dismisses the action in Case T-166/98;
Tožba v zadevi T-166/98 se zavrže.
Case C-389/05
Zadeva C-389/05
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services — Animal health — Artificial insemination centre for bovine animals — National rules conferring on authorised centres the exclusive right to provide the service of artificially inseminating bovine animals in a defined geographical area and making the issue of an inseminator’s licence subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres)
„Neizpolnitev obveznosti države – Člena 43 ES in 49 ES – Svoboda ustanavljanja in svoboda opravljanja storitev – Varovanje zdravja živali – Sredi�če za osemenjevanje goveda – Nacionalna ureditev, ki odobrenim sredi�čem podeljuje geografsko določeno izključno pravico do storitve osemenjevanja goveda in izdajo licenc za osemenjevalca pogojuje s sklenitvijo pogodbe z enim od teh sredi�č“
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 17 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (četrti senat) z dne 17. julija 2008
Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of establishment — Restrictions (Art. 43 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Omejitve (člen 43 ES)
Freedom to provide services — Restrictions (Art. 49 EC)
Svoboda opravljanja storitev – Omejitve (člen 49 ES)
Agriculture — Harmonisation of laws — IntraCommunity trade of semen from bovine purebred animals
Kmetijstvo – Usklajevanje zakonodaj – Promet znotraj Skupnosti s semenom čistopasemskega goveda
SUMMARY — CASE C-389/05
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-389/05
(Arts 43 EC and 49 EC)
Prosto gibanje oseb – Svoboda ustanavljanja – Svoboda opravljanja storitev – Omejitve (člena 43 ES in 49 ES)
of the Member State concerned, the distribution and insemination of bovine semen.
distribucije in osemenjevanja goveda na ozemlju zadevne države članice.
The fact that those measures are applicable without distinction to national operators and to those of other Member States does not preclude that finding, given that such national measures, even though applicable without discrimination on grounds of nationality, are liable to hamper or to render less attractive the exercise by Community nationals, including those of the Member State which enacted the measure, of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom of establishment.
Okoli�čina, da se ti ukrepi brez razlikovanja uporabljajo za nacionalne gospodarske subjekte in za tiste iz drugih držav članic, ni ovira za to ugotovitev, ker bi taki nacionalni ukrepi, čeprav se uporabljajo brez diskriminacije glede na državljanstvo, za državljana Skupnosti, vključno z državo članico avtorico ukrepa, lahko pomenili oviro pri izvajanju temeljne svobo�čine, zagotovljene s Pogodbo, kot je svoboda ustanavljanja.
The exclusive rights over a geographical area conferred by a Member State on authorised insemination centres to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals in a determined territory, restricting the overall number of operators permitted to open and manage such centres in that State’s territory, and the unlimited duration of those exclusive rights hamper the access of other operators, including those from other Member States, to the insemination market.
Geografsko določena izključna pravica, ki jo država članica podeli odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem za zagotavljanje storitev osemenjevanja goveda na določenem ozemlju in ki omejuje skupno �tevilo gospodarskih subjektov, ki jim je dovoljeno ustanoviti in upravljati taka sredi�ča na ozemlju te države, ter neomejeno trajanje te izključne pravice ovirata dostop drugih gospodarskih subjektov do trga storitev osemenjevanja, vključno s tistimi iz drugih držav članic.
The fact that the geographical areas covered by those exclusive rights can be adjusted or divided cannot affect that assessment.
Okoli�čina, da bi se geografska območja, na katera se nana�a ta izključna pravica, lahko prilagodila ali razdelila, ne vpliva na to presojo.
(see paras 50, 53-56)
(Glej točke 50 in od 53 do 56.)
In the absence of the possibility of acquiring rights over a determined geographical area, an operator who seeks to carry on an activity in the artificial insemination sector is required to conclude an agreement with the territorially competent insemination centre in order to obtain an inseminator’s licence.
Če gospodarski subjekt, katerega cilj je opravljanje dejavnosti v sektorju osemenjevanja, ne more pridobiti pravic na določenem geografskem območju, mora z osemenjevalnim sredi�čem, pristojnim za določeno območje, skleniti pogodbo, da pridobi licenco za osemenjevalca.
Since the conclusion of such an agreement depends on the managing directors of authorised centres, that requirement is likely to prevent such an objective from being attained.
Ker je sklenitev take pogodbe odvisna od predsednikov odobrenih sredi�č, je mogoče, da taka obveznost prepreči uresničevanje takega cilja.
Such measures render it difficult, if not impossible or, in any event, less attract -ive, to exercise freedom of establishment with a view to carrying on, in the territory
Dejstvo, da država članica zahteva, da mora čezmejni izvajalec storitev, ki želi na ozemlju te države opravljati postopke osemenjevanja goveda, nujno pridobiti licenco za osemenjevalca, in da po pridobitvi te licence gospodarskim subjektom predpi�e, da lahko osemenjevanje goveda izvajajo le pod nadzorom odobrenega osemenjevalnega sredi�ča, pristojnega za določeno območje, ne glede na pogoje za izdajo navedene licence pomeni omejitev svobode opravljanja storitev, saj lahko ti zahtevi gospodarske subjekte s sedežem ali prebivali�čem v drugi državi članici, kjer zakonito opravljajo enako dejavnost, ovirata pri opravljanju storitev osem-
The fact that a Member State requires cross-border service providers wishing to carry out the artificial insemination of bovine animals on that State’s territory to obtain an inseminator’s licence and the fact that it requires, after that licence has been obtained, that those operators may carry out the insemination of bovine semen only under the authority of a territorially competent insemination centre is, regardless of the conditions under which that licence is issued, a restriction on the freedom to provide services, since those requirements are liable to impede or render less attractive the provision of the insemination service by operators established and already
Taki ukrepi otežujejo, če ne onemogočajo, vsekakor pa zmanj�ujejo privlačnost izvr�evanja svobode ustanavljanja, z namenom izvajanja dejavnosti
COMMISSION v FRANCE lawfully operating in other Member States.
KOMISIJA PROTI FRANCIJI enjevanja ali zmanj�ujeta privlačnost opravljanja te storitve.
An overriding reason in the public interest cannot be relied upon where there is harmonisation at Community level providing for measures necessary to ensure that that interest is protected.
Nujni razlog splo�nega interesa je mogoče uveljavljati le, če obstaja usklajevalni ukrep Skupnosti, ki predvideva ukrepe, potrebne za zagotovitev varstva tega interesa.
Therefore, the aim of protecting the purebred bovine stock by national pedigree requirements cannot justify obstacles to intraCommunity trade in semen from those bovine animals not laid down by the Community legislation harmonising the field concerned.
Zato cilj varstva genetskega bogastva čistopasemskega goveda z nacionalnimi genealo�kimi zahtevami ne more upravičiti ovir prometa s semenom takega goveda znotraj Skupnosti, ki niso predvidene z ureditvijo Skupnosti za usklajevanje zadevnega področja.
(see paras 73-75)
(Glej točke od 73 do 75.)
The same is true so far as concerns the obligation to store semen in authorised artificial insemination centres which alone are authorised to deliver it to breeders.
Enako velja za obveznost shranjevanja semena v odobrenih osemenjevalnih sredi�čih, ki to seme edina dostavljajo rejcem.
Even if breeders may request the centre to which they are affiliated to order specific semen originating from a producer established in another Member State, the obligation to store the semen in that centre, after its dispatch, is likely to impede or render less attractive the provision of the distribution service by the producer.
Čeprav imajo namreč rejci možnost, da sredi�če, od katerega so odvisni, zanje naroči posebno seme, ki izvira od proizvajalca s sedežem v drugi državi članici, lahko obveznost shranjevanja tega semena v navedenem sredi�ču po njegovem po�iljanju pomeni oviro za proizvajalca pri opravljanju storitve distribucije ali zmanj�uje privlačnost tega izvajanja.
(see paras 61, 64, 65)
(Glej točke 61, 64 in 65.)
A Member State which allows only authorised artificial insemination centres, with exclusive rights over determined geographical areas, and persons holding an inseminator’s licence, the issue of which is subject to the conclusion of an agreement with one of those centres, to provide the service of artificial insemination of bovine animals, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Art -icles 43 EC and 49 EC.
Država članica, ki geografsko določeno izključno pravico zagotavljanja storitev osemenjevanja goveda pridrži odobrenim osemenjevalnim sredi�čem in imetnikom licence za osemenjevalca, katere izdaja je pogojena s sklenitvijo pogodbe z enim od teh sredi�č, ne izpolni obveznosti iz členov 43 ES in 49 ES.
Admittedly, it is legitimate for a Member State, in order to verify an applicant’s ability to carry out the tasks of an inseminator, to require a licence for the exercise of that activity. In the case of an authorisation procedure for carrying out an activity, in its application of the national provisions, the Member State concerned must take into account the knowledge and qualifications already acquired by the party concerned in another Member
Z direktivami 77/504 o čistopasemskem plemenskem govedu, 87/328 o sprejetju čistopasemskega plemenskega goveda za pleme in 91/174 o določitvi zootehni�kih in genealo�kih pogojev v prometu s čistopasemskimi živalmi in o spremembi direktiv 77/504 in 90/425 so bili genealo�ki pogoji v zvezi s prometom s semenom čistopasemskega plemenskega goveda znotraj Skupnosti popolnoma usklajeni na ravni Skupnosti.
State. Moreover, a prior administrative authorisation scheme must be based on objective nondiscriminatory criteria known in advance, in such a way as to circumscribe the exercise of the national authorities’ discretion, so that it is not used arbitrarily.
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-389/05 sistem predhodne odobritve temeljiti na objektivnih, nediskriminatornih in vnaprej poznanih merilih, ki določajo meje pooblastila nacionalnih organov za odločanje po prostemu preudarku, zato da to odločanje ni samovoljno.
is supposed to check and which, in addition, leaves the conclusion of that agreement to the discretion of the managing directors of those centres, who are not required to sign it even if the candidate fulfils the objective nondiscriminatory selection criteria known in advance and even if it is appropriate for ensuring the protection of animal health and the health of the operator carrying out the insemination, goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued.
pogodbe pridržuje prostemu preudarku predsednikov teh sredi�č, ki je niso zavezani podpisati, tudi če kandidat izpolnjuje objektivna, nediskriminatorna in vnaprej poznana merila usposobljenosti, čeprav bi bila ustrezna za zagotavljanje uresničevanja varovanja zdravja živali in zdravja osebe, ki opravlja osemenjevanje, presega to, kar je nujno za dosego zasledovanega cilja.