natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This question invites the Court to express a view on certain factual elements on which the dispute in the main proceedings is based, that is to determine whether the inquiries, hearings and analyses carried out by the national authorities constitute, with respect to the projects concerned, an environmental impact assessment within the meaning of the amended directive.
Na podlagi tega vpra�anja bi moralo Sodi�če izraziti svoje mnenje o določenih dejstvih, na katerih temelji spor o glavni stvari, in sicer ali preiskave, obravnave in �tudije, ki so jih opravili nacionalni organi, glede projektov, obravnavanih v postopku v glavni stvari, pomenijo presojo vplivov na okolje v smislu spremenjene direktive.
It is for the national court to undertake such an examination, in the knowledge that a formal assessment may be replaced by equivalent measures where they satisfy the minimum requirements set out in Article 3 and Articles 5 to 10 of the amended directive.
Predložitveno sodi�če je pristojno, da to preuči ob upo�tevanju, da se formalna presoja lahko nadomesti z enakovrednimi ukrepi, če ti izpolnjujejo minimalne zahteve iz členov 3 in od 5 do 10 spremenjene direktive.
Therefore there is no need to answer the fourth question.
Zato ni treba odgovoriti na četrto vpra�anje.
Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, must be interpreted as meaning that it provides for environmental impact assessment of refurbishment and improvement projects for urban roads, either where they are projects covered by point 7(b) or (c) of Annex I to the directive, or where they are projects covered by point 10(e) of Annex II or the first indent of point 13 thereof, which are likely, by virtue of their nature, size or location and, if appropriate, having regard to their interaction with other projects, to have significant effects on the environment.
Direktivo Sveta 85/337/EGS z dne 27. junija 1985 o presoji vplivov nekaterih javnih in zasebnih projektov na okolje, kot je bila spremenjena z Direktivo Sveta 97/11/ES, je treba razlagati tako, da je treba glede projektov prenove in izboljšanja mestnih cest izvesti presojo vplivov na okolje, če gre za projekte iz priloge I, točka 7(b) ali (c), k tej direktivi ali če gre za projekte iz priloge II, točki 10(e) in 13, prva alinea, k navedeni direktivi, ki bodo zaradi svoje narave, velikosti ali lokacije in – če je to potrebno – ob upoštevanju njihovega sovplivanja z drugimi projekti verjetno pomembno vplivali na okolje.
Case C-204/07 P
Zadeva C-204/07 P
(Appeals — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 — Article 239 — Community Customs Code — Repayment and remission of import duty — Fruit juice concentrate from Turkey — Movement certificates — Falsification — Special situation)
„Pritožba – Sporazum o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija – Uredba (EGS) �t. 2913/92 – Člen 239 – Carinski zakonik Skupnosti – Povračilo in odpust uvoznih dajatev – Koncentrati sadnih sokov s poreklom iz Turčije – Potrdila o gibanju blaga – Ponareditev – Poseben primer“
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 25 July 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sodba Sodi�ča (tretji senat) z dne 25. julija 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Own resources of the European Communities — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Existence of a special situation
Lastni viri Evropskih skupnosti – Povrnitev ali opustitev uvoznih ali izvoznih dajatev – Obstoj posebnega primera
(Art. 211 EC; EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, Art. 7; Council Regulation No 2913/92, Art. 239)
(člen 211 ES; Sporazum o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija, člen 7; Uredba Sveta št. 2913/92, člen 239)
SUMMARY — CASE C-204/07 P
POVZETEK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P
A special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code is established where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that the person liable is in an exceptional situation as compared with other operators engaged in the same business and that, in the absence of such circumstances, he would not have suffered the disadvantage caused by the subsequent entry in the accounts of customs duties.
Poseben primer v smislu člena 239 Uredbe �t. 2913/92 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti je utemeljen, če iz okoli�čin v obravnavani zadevi izhaja, da je dolžnik v izjemnem položaju v primerjavi z drugimi subjekti, ki opravljajo isto dejavnost, in v primeru neobstoja teh okoli�čin ne bi utrpel �kode, povezane z naknadno opravljeno vknjižbo carin.
Furthermore, it follows from Article 211 EC and from Article 7 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement and the many decisions adopted in respect of its implementation that the Commission, as guardian of the EC Treaty and of the agreements concluded under it, must ensure the correct implementation by a third State of the obligations it has assumed under an agreement concluded with the Community, using the means provided for by the agreement or by the decisions taken pursuant thereto.
Poleg tega iz člena 211 ES, člena 7 Sporazuma o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija in iz �tevilnih sklepov, sprejetih za njegovo izvajanje, izhaja, da mora Komisija kot varuhinja Pogodbe ES in sporazumov, sklenjenih na njeni podlagi, zagotavljati, da tretja država pravilno izpolnjuje obveznosti, za katere se je dogovorila na podlagi sporazuma, sklenjenega s Skupnostjo v okviru sredstev, ki so predvidena v sporazumu ali s sklepi, sprejetimi na njegovi podlagi.
In that regard, it is for the Commission to make full use of the rights and powers which it has under those provisions so as to fulfil its obligation of supervising and monitoring the proper implementation of the Association Agreement, particularly in a situation in which exports to the same Community port by the same export company in the same reference period took place under cover of both irregular and inauthentic certificates.
Zato ima dolžnost, da v celoti uporabi pooblastila, ki ji pripadajo na podlagi teh določb, da ne bi kr�ila svojih obveznosti spremljanja in nadzora pravilnega izvajanja navedenega sporazuma, toliko bolj, če se je izvoz v isto pristani�če Skupnosti, z isto izvozno družbo v istem referenčnem obdobju opravljal na podlagi nepravilnih in nepristnih potrdil.
In that regard, the registration of certificates issued by the customs authorities is indispensable in international trade whilst as regards the
Zato ni dovolj, da se Komisija pri preizkusu zahtevka za povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev omeji na oceno ravnanja in dejanj uvoznika in izvoznika, ampak mora v okviru svojih nalog spremljanja in nadzora upo�tevati �e zlasti vpliv svojega ravnanja na položaj v posameznem obravnavanem primeru.
Consequently, when examining an application for repayment or remission of import duty, the Commission is not entitled merely to assess the behaviour and activities of the importer and the exporter, but must also take into account, in particular, the effect of its own behaviour on the specific situation in the course of its duty to supervise and monitor.
V zvezi s tem je registracija potrdil, ki jih izdajo carinski organi, neizogibna praksa v mednarodni trgovini, pri Sporazumu o pridružitvi EGS-Turčija pa obveznost tur�kih organov, da registrirajo potrdila A.TR.1, izhaja iz določb za izvajanje tega sporazuma, tako da mora Komi-
C.A.S. v COMMISSION and monitoring rights and powers which it has under the Association Agreement with a view to ensuring the proper implementation thereof, its failure to fulfil obligations constitutes a special situation for the purposes of Article 239 of the Community Customs Code, which justifies the repayment or remittance of import duty levied on the basis of irregular or inauthentic certificates.
C.A.S. PROTI KOMISIJI sija v primeru dvojnega uvoza v Skupnost na podlagi potrdil A.TR.1, ki imata isto �tevilko registracije, od katerih je eno pristno in drugo nepristno, preveriti, ali se je tak uvoz dejansko zgodil.
EEC-Turkey Association Agreement, the obligation on the Turkish authorities to register A.TR.1 certificates stems from the implementing provisions of that agreement so that, confronted with a case of double importation into the Community under cover of A.TR.1 certificates with the same registration number, one authentic and the other inauthentic, the Commission must check whether such importation has actually taken place.
ki ju ima na podlagi tega sporazuma o pridružitvi za zagotovitev pravilne uporabe, njena neizpolnitev obveznosti utemeljuje poseben primer v smislu člena 239 carinskega zakonika Skupnosti, kar upravičuje povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev, dolgovanih na podlagi nepristnih ali nepravilnih potrdil.
Where, in a particular case, the Commission has not made full use of the supervising
Če v danem primeru Komisija ni v celoti uporabila pooblastil spremljanja in nadzora,
(see paras 82, 88, 89, 92-96, 99, 104, 105, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 130, 131, 136)
(Glej točke 82, 88, 89, od 92 do 96, 99, 104, 105, 117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 130, 131 in 136.)
II — Legal framework ............................................................
Pravni okvir ................................................................
III — Facts and procedure .........................................................
Dejansko stanje in postopek ..................................................
A — Facts in the main proceedings ..........................................
Dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari ...................................
B — The proceedings before the Court of First Instance and the contested judgment ................................................................
Postopek pred Sodi�čem prve stopnje in izpodbijana sodba ...............
First plea in law ....................................................
Prvi tožbeni razlog ...............................................
The second plea in law ..............................................
Drugi tožbeni razlog ..............................................
The third plea in law ...............................................
Tretji tožbeni razlog ..............................................
Measures of organisation of procedure and measures of inquiry requested ..
Zahtevani ukrepi procesnega vodstva in pripravljalni ukrepi ...........
C — Proceedings before the Court of Justice and forms of order sought by the parties ...............................................................
Postopek pred Sodi�čem in predlogi strank .............................
D — Grounds of the appeal and arguments of the parties .......................
Pritožbeni razlogi in trditve strank .....................................
IV — Legal assessment ...........................................................
Pravna presoja ..............................................................
B — Examination of the grounds of appeal ...................................
Presoja pritožbenih razlogov ..........................................
First ground of appeal: breach of the principle of the division of responsibilities between the exporting and the importing country ...............
Prvi pritožbeni razlog: kr�itev načela delitve nalog med državo izvoznico in državo uvoznico ...............................................
I - 6157
I - 6157 a) Delitev nalog med državo izvoznico in državo uvoznico ...........
I - 6157
I - 6157 b) Vpra�anje drugačne presoje ob takem ravnanju organov države izvoznice, ki pomeni zlorabo ...................................
Second ground of appeal: breach of the right of access to documents or other rights of the defence ..........................................
Drugi pritožbeni razlog: kr�itev pravice do vpogleda v spis ali drugih pravic obrambe ..................................................
Third ground of appeal: allocation of the burden of pleading and proving the facts ...........................................................
Tretji pritožbeni razlog: porazdelitev trditvenega in dokaznega bremena ........................................................
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 .........................................................
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 - 6171
I - 6171 a) Domnevne kr�itve obveznosti tur�kih organov ...................
Classification of the 32 A.TR.1 certificates in question as forgeries ..
Presoja, ali je spornih 32 potrdil A.TR.1 ponarejenih ..........
(ii) A.TR.1 movement certificate D437214 ........................
I - 6171 ii) Potrdilo A.TR.1 WVB D 437214 ............................
I - 6172
I - 6172 iii) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih carinskih organov v zvezi z žigi .....
I - 6172
I - 6172 iv) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov pri registraciji uradnih dokumentov ..................................................
I - 6172
I - 6172 v) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov zaradi sodelovanja pri izdaji nepravilnih potrdil ........................................
I - 6173
I - 6173 vi) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov v okviru upravne pomoči ..
I - 6173
I - 6173 vii) Kr�itev obveznosti tur�kih organov zaradi drugih okoli�čin in zaradi preprečitve preiskav v Mersinu .......................
I - 6174
I - 6174 b) Domnevne kr�itve obveznosti Komisije .........................
Deficiency in monitoring the system of preferential treatment applicable to Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Kr�itev obveznosti pri nadzoru preferencialnega obravnavanja v primeru Turčije .........................................
I - 6174
I - 6174 ii) Kr�itev obveznosti zaradi neposredovanja odtisov žigov .......
(iii) Breach of a duty to warn importers in good time ................
TRSTENJAK – ZADEVA C-204/07 P iii) Kr�itev obveznosti pravočasnega opozorila uvoznikom ........
I - 6176
I - 6176 iv) Kr�itev obveznosti pri ugotavljanju in presoji dejanskega stanja v okviru preiskav v Turčiji .................................
Sixth ground of appeal: the Commission’s failure to call on the Customs Committee/Association Council .....................................
Šesti pritožbeni razlog: nevključitev carinskega odbora/pridružitvenega sveta s strani Komisije ............................................
Seventh ground of appeal: failure to take into account a legitimate interest of the appellant in relation to A.TR.1 movement certificate D 437214 ....
Sedmi pritožbeni razlog: napačna presoja upravičenega interesa pritožnice glede potrdila A.TR.1 WVB D 437214 ....................
Eighth ground of appeal: balancing of fairness and risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Osmi pritožbeni razlog: presoja pravičnosti in tveganja ...............
Ninth ground of appeal: infringement of Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC ....
Deveti pritožbeni razlog: kr�itev člena 220(2)(b) CZS .................
VI — Costs ......................................................................
Stro�ki .....................................................................
In this case, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has to rule on an appeal lodged by CAS SpA against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 February 2007 in CAS SpA v Commission. 2
Sodi�če Evropskih skupnosti v obravnavani zadevi odloča o pritožbi, ki jo je družba CAS SpA vložila zoper sodbo Sodi�ča prve stopnje z dne 6. februarja 2007 v zadevi CAS SpA proti Komisiji.
The appellant and applicant at first instance (‘the appellant’) seeks the setting aside of that judgment in which the Court of First Instance declared that the Commission’s decision of 18 October 2002 (REC 10/01, ‘the contested decision’) not to approve the repayment of import duties amounting to EUR 1 702 340.25, applied for by the appellant in respect of 32 of a total of 48 import certificates presented, was lawful and consequently dismissed the appellant’s action for annulment in part of that decision.
2Pritožnica in tožeča stranka iz postopka na prvi stopnji (v nadaljevanju: pritožnica) zahteva razveljavitev te sodbe, s katero je Sodi�če prve stopnje potrdilo odločbo Komisije z dne 18. oktobra 2002 (REC 10/01, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana odločba), s katero ta ni ugodila zahtevi pritožnice za povračilo uvoznih dajatev v vi�ini 1.702.340,25 EUR glede 32 od skupno 48 vloženih uvoznih potrdil, in je zato zavrnilo njeno tožbo za delno razglasitev ničnosti te odločbe.
2 — Case T-23/03 [2007] ECR II-289, ‘the contested judgment’.
2 – Sodba z dne 6. februarja 2007 (T-23/03, ZOdl., str. I-289, v nadaljevanju: izpodbijana sodba).
Community legislation on the remission of customs duties the [CCC] has been submitted cannot take a decision on the basis of Article 899, but the application is supported by evidence which might constitute a special situation resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned, the Member State to which this authority belongs shall transmit the case to the Commission to be settled under the procedure laid down in Art -icles 906 to 909.
Zakonodaja Skupnosti o odpustu carin odločiti na podlagi člena 899 in so bila zahtevku priložena dokazila, na podlagi katerih se lahko sklepa, da gre za poseben primer, ki izhaja iz okoli�čin, ki ne vključujejo niti goljufivega ravnanja niti malomarnosti udeleženega, država članica, h kateri spada ta organ, primer posreduje Komisiji, da ga ta re�i v skladu s postopkom iz členov [od] 906 do 909.
With regard to a possible remission of import duties, Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p.
Glede možnosti odpusta uvoznih dajatev je v členu 239 Uredbe Sveta (EGS) �t. 2913/92 z dne 12. oktobra 1992 o carinskem zakoniku Skupnosti (UL L 302, str.
1, ‘the CCC’) provides as follows:
1, v nadaljevanju: CZS) določeno:
Article 904(c) of the CCC implementing regulation reads:
Člen 904(c) uredbe za izvajanje CZS določa:
‘Import duties or export duties may be repaid or remitted in situations … resulting from circumstances in which no deception or obvious negligence may be attributed to the person concerned.
„Povračilo ali odpust uvoznih dajatev se ne opravi, če se, glede na primer, zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust utemeljuje izključno:
The situations in which this provision may be applied and the procedures to be followed to that end shall be defined in accordance with the Committee procedure …’
„Uvozne ali izvozne dajatve se lahko […] odpustijo v […] primerih […], ki izhajajo iz okoli�čin, pri katerih ne gre niti za malomarnost niti za goljufivo ravnanje udeleženega.
‘Import duties shall not be repaid or remitted where the only grounds relied on in the application for repayment or remission are, as the case may be:
Primeri, v katerih je mogoče uporabiti to določbo, in podrobnosti postopka, ki jih je treba v ta namen upo�tevati, se določijo skladno s postopkom odbora. […]“
1, ‘the CCC implementing regulation’) provides:
1, v nadaljevanju: uredba za izvajanje CZS) določa:
(c) presentation, for the purpose of obtaining preferential tariff treatment of goods declared for free circulation, of documents subsequently found to be forged, falsified or not valid for that purpose, even where such documents were presented in good faith.’
„Če carinski organ odločanja, ki mu je bil predložen zahtevek za povračilo ali odpust v skladu s členom 239(2) [CZS], ne more
‘Where the decisionmaking customs authority to which an application for repayment or remission under Article 239 (2) of
(c) s predložitvijo dokumentov za odobritev preferencialne tarifne obravnave za blago, prijavljeno za sprostitev v prosti promet, za katere se naknadno izkaže, da so bili lažni, ponarejeni ali neveljavni za odobritev te preferencialne tarifne obravnave, kljub temu, da so bili predloženi v dobri veri.“
Article 236 of the CCC provides: have been detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his part having acted in good faith and complied with all the provisions laid down by the legislation in force as regards the customs declaration.
Člen 236 CZS določa: veri in upo�teval vse veljavne predpise o carinski deklaraciji.
Import duties or export duties shall be repaid in so far as it is established that when they were paid the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2).
Uvozne ali izvozne dajatve se povrnejo, kolikor se ugotovi, da v trenutku plačila znesek teh dajatev ni bil zakonsko dolgovan ali da je bil vknjižen v nasprotju s členom 220(2).
III — Facts and procedure
III – Dejansko stanje in postopek
A — Facts in the main proceedings
A – Dejansko stanje spora o glavni stvari
Import duties or export duties shall be remitted in so far as it is established that when they were entered in the accounts the amount of such duties was not legally owed or that the amount has been entered in the accounts contrary to Article 220(2).
Uvozne ali izvozne dajatve se odpustijo, kolikor se ugotovi, da v trenutku vknjižbe znesek teh dajatev ni bil zakonsko dolgovan ali da je bil vknjižen v nasprotju s členom 220(2).
No repayment or remission shall be granted when the facts which led to the payment or entry in the accounts of an amount which was not legally owed are the result of deliberate action by the person concerned.
Povračilo ali odpust se ne odobri, če so dejstva, ki so povzročila plačilo ali vknjižbo zneska, ki ni bil zakonsko dolgovan, posledica goljufivega dejanja udeleženega.
The appellant is a company incorporated under Italian law and a 95.1% subsidiary of Steinhauser GmbH (‘Steinhauser’), established in Ravensburg (Germany).
Pritožnica je družba italijanskega prava in 95,1-odstotno odvisna družba družbe Steinhauser GmbH (v nadaljevanju: Steinhauser) s sedežem v Ravensburgu (Nemčija).
The appellant’s core business consists in processing imported fruit juice concentrates; it is also an importer of such products in Italy.
Osnovna dejavnost pritožnice je predelava uvoženih koncentratov sadnih sokov; poleg tega te proizvode uvaža v Italijo.
It is essentially Steinhauser which maintains the business relationship with foreign suppliers.
Poslovne stike s tujimi dobavitelji ima v glavnem podjetje Steinhauser.
Under Article 220(2)(b) of the CCC, subsequent entry in the accounts of the duty resulting from a customs debt must not occur where the amount of duty legally owed failed to be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of the customs authorities which could not reasonably
V skladu s členom 220(2)(b) CZS se naknadna vknjižba dajatev, ki ustrezajo carinskemu dolgu, ne opravi, če se zakonsko dolgovani znesek dajatev ni vknjižil zaradi napake carinskih organov in če dolžnik te napake ni mogel odkriti in je ravnal v dobri
According to the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance, between 5 April 1995 and 20 November 1997 the appellant imported and put into free circulation in the Community apple and pear juice concentrates declared as being from and
Glede na dejstva, ki jih je ugotovilo Sodi�če prve stopnje, je pritožnica od 5. aprila 1995 do 20. novembra 1997 uvozila in sprostila v prosti promet v Skupnosti koncentrate jabolčnega in hru�kovega soka, ki so bili prijavljeni, kot da izhajajo in imajo
They stated, moreover, that further checks were to be carried out.
Poleg tega so sporočili, da bodo opravili �e druga preverjanja.
That type of product was imported into the Community using A.TR.1 certificates with the effect that those products qualified for the exemption from customs duties provided for by the Association Agreement and the Additional Protocol.
Uvoz takega blaga v Skupnost se je opravil s potrdili A.TR.1, tako da je bilo zadevno blago upravičeno do oprostitve plačila carine, predvidene v sporazumu o pridružitvi in v dodatnem protokolu.