natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen og Retten har fastslået, at når der findes en sådan struktur, handler de relevante organer ikke som virksomheder40.
The Court of Justice and the General Court have confirmed that, where such a structure exists, the relevant organisations do not act as undertakings40.
Domstolen og Retten har også fastslået, at sundhedstjenester, der ydes af uafhængige læger og andre private behandlere mod vederlag på deres egen risiko, skal betragtes som en økonomisk aktivitet43.
The Court of Justice and the General Court have also clarified that health care services which independent doctors and other private practitioners provide for remuneration at their own risk are to be regarded as an economic activity43.
Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans
The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance
Domstolen opfordrede til, at der blev gennemført ændringer med hensyn til: EU-rettens forrang i forhold til de muligheder, der følger af chartrets artikel 53 for så vidt angår styrkelse af de grundlæggende rettigheder i medlemsstaternes forfatninger; gensidig tillid mellem medlemsstaterne, især inden for området med frihed, sikkerhed og retfærdighed; forbindelse med den nye tillægsprotokol nr. 16 til den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention; bevarelse af Domstolens enekompetence til at afgøre tvister mellem medlemsstaterne vedrørende fortolkningen eller anvendelsen af traktaterne; visse aspekter af proceduren ved Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedsdomstol, når EU er berørt; og retsbeskyttelse inden for den fælles udenrigs- og sikkerhedspolitik.
The Court called for certain amendments: primacy of Union law in relation to the possibilities conferred by Article 53 of the Charter as regards stronger fundamental rights in Member States’ constitutions; mutual trust between Member States in particular in the area of freedom, security and justice; relation with the new Additional Protocol 16 to the ECHR; preservation of the exclusive jurisdiction of the CJEU for deciding disputes between Member States concerning interpretation or application of the Treaties; certain aspects of the procedure before the European Court of Human Rights involving the EU; and judicial protection in the area of common foreign and security policy.
Domstolen opstillede de betingelser, hvorunder det undtagelsesvis kan anses for godtgjort, at der er en sådan trussel, selvom truslen ikke specifikt er rettet mod ansøgeren på grund af specielle omstændigheder ved den pågældendes situation, og gav retningslinjer for brugen af den grad af vilkårlig vold, der karakteriserer den væbnede konflikt, som kriterium for vurderingen af, om der foreligger en alvorlig og individuel trussel.
The Court defined the conditions under which such a threat can be exceptionally considered as established in the case of an applicant who is not specifically targeted by reason of factors particular to his/her personal circumstances and provided guidance on the use of the degree of indiscriminate violence characterising the armed conflict as a criterion for assessing the existence of a serious and individual threat.
Domstolen pegede ikke på nogen bestemt af de ovennævnte faktorer som værende af særlig betydning for, om der kan anses at foreligge en kollektiv dominans, men fastslog, at alle disse faktorer kan være tegn på, om et marked udviser tendenser, der kan fremme en konkurrencebegrænsende parallel adfærd.
Although the Court did not provide any guidance as to which of the above factors should be considered particularly important in order to find collective dominance, it accepted that all these factors can be indicators of whether markets are prone to exhibit anticompetitive parallel behaviour.
Domstolen pegede på tre områder hvor kun Fællesskabet har beføjelse: lufthavnenes landings/start-intervaller, edb-baserede reservationssystemer og takster og priser inden for Fællesskabet.
The Court identified three such areas of exclusive Community competence: airport slots, computer reservation systems and intra-Community fares and rates.
Domstolen præciserede derefter, at artikel 11 imidlertid fortolkes således, at den ikke er til hinder for, at den nationale ret finder, at i den retssag, som inden for den i den nævnte artikel fastsatte frist er blevet indledt mod det helejede datterselskab af producenten i henhold til artikel 3, stk. 1, kan datterselskabet udskiftes med producenten, hvis retten fastslår, at beslutningen om at bringe det pågældende produkt i omsætning faktisk er blevet truffet af denne producent.
However, it then made clear that Article 11 must be interpreted as not precluding a national court from holding that, in the proceedings instituted within the period prescribed by that article against the wholly owned subsidiary of the “producer”, within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Directive 85/374, that producer can be substituted for that subsidiary if the court finds that the putting into circulation of the product in question was, in fact, carried out by that producer.
Domstolen præciserede dog, at det ikke er til hinder for en national regel, hvorefter mellemhandleren uden begrænsning hæfter for producentens culpaansvar.
However, the Court specified that the Directive does not preclude a national rule under which the supplier is answerable without restriction for the producer’s fault-based liability.
Domstolen præciserede følgende: "En lovbestemmelse som den omhandlede har imidlertid som virkning at afskrække en medlemsstats statsborgere, der bor i Nederlandene, fra at investere i selskaber, der har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat".
"has the effect of dissuading nationals of a Member State residing in the Netherlands from investing their capital in companies which have their seat in another Member State."
Domstolen præciserede imidlertid, at forordningens retsvirkninger skulle opretholdes, indtil der under anvendelse af de korrekte hjemmelsbestemmelser og inden for en rimelig frist kunne vedtages en ny forordning.
The Court did however specify that the effects of the regulation would be maintained pending the adoption, within a reasonable period of time, of a new regulation founded on appropriate legal bases.
Domstolen præciserede også nogle vigtige aspekter af forskriftsrammerne, da den den 7. juni afsagde dom i VEMW-sagen38.
The Court of Justice also clarified some important aspects of the regulatory framework when, on 7 June, it handed down its judgment in the VEMW case38.
Domstolen præciserede senere i dom af 11. december 1997 i sag C-246/96, Magorrien, og i dom af 16. maj 2000 i sag C-78/98, Preston, sin retspraksis med hensyn til deltidsansatte arbejdstageres situation.
The Court clarified more recently in judgments of 11th December 1997 in case C-246/96, Magorrian, and of 16th May 2000 in case C-78/98 Preston, its caselaw concerning the situation of part-time workers.
Domstolen præciserede således, at et produkt bringes i omsætning, når det har forladt den fremstillingsproces, der benyttes af producenten, og er indgået i en markedsføringsproces i den form, hvor det bliver udbudt til offentligheden med henblik på anvendelse eller forbrug.
It also specified that a product is put into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed.
Domstolen præciserede videre sin fortolkning af direktivets artikel 11 i sin dom i sagen Aventis Pasteur SA mod OB8, hvor den fastslår, at denne artikel skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for, at en national lovgivning, hvorefter den sagsøgte part kan udskiftes med en anden under retssagen, kan anvendes efter udløbet af den i artiklen fastsatte frist til at inddrage en producent, som defineret i dette direktivs artikel 3, som sagsøgt i en retssag, der er indledt inden for den nævnte frist mod en anden person end denne.
The Court again clarified its interpretation of Article 11 of the Directive in the Aventis Pasteur SA v OB8 judgment, ruling that this article must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, which allows the substitution of one defendant for another during proceedings, from being applied in a way which permits a “producer”, within the meaning of Article 3 of that Directive, to be sued, after the expiry of the period prescribed by that article, as defendant in proceedings brought within that period against another person.
Domstolen præciserede yderligere i efterfølgende domme (i sagerne Evrenopoulos, Griesmar, Mouflin og Niemi39) sin dom af 28. september 1994 i sagen Beune om, at pensionsordninger for offentligt ansatte (ordninger fra den offentlige sektor) også indgår i begrebet løn i henhold til den tidligere artikel 119 i EF-traktaten, når de stammer fra arbejdsforholdet.
In subsequent judgements (judgements in cases Evrenopoulos, Griesmar, Mouflin and Niemi39) the Court further clarified its judgement of 28 September 1994 in case Beune, that civil service retirement schemes (public sector schemes) are also covered by the concept of pay within the meaning of the former Article 119 of the EC Treaty when derived from the employment relationship.
Domstolen præciserede, at lagring af datatrafik (og dermed implicit direktivet) udgør et alvorligt indgreb i den grundlæggende ret til privatlivets fred, som knæsættes i artikel 7 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.
The Court stated that the retention of traffic data (and implicitly the directive) constitutes serious interference with the fundamental right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 7 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Domstolen præciserede8 nemlig, at retsmidler, "som afhænger af begivenheder, som på tidspunktet for den oprindelige retsafgørelse ikke kan forudses, eller af søgsmål fra tredjemænd, der ikke er bundet af de tidsfrister, som følger den oprindelig afgørelse" ikke omfattes og ikke kan betegnes som "ordinære retsmidler".
Thus, the Court specified8 that appeals "which are dependent either upon events which were unforeseeable at the date of the original judgement or upon the action taken by persons who are extraneous to the case and who are not bound by the period for entering an appeal which starts to run from the date of the original judgement" cannot be considered as "ordinary appeals."
Domstolen pålagde Belgien30, Tjekkiet31, Luxembourg32 og Sverige33 tvangsbøder, mens den afviste Kommissionens sag mod Tyskland34.
The Court imposed penalty payments against Belgium,30 the Czech Republic,31 Luxembourg32 and Sweden33 but it dismissed the claim of the Commission against Germany.34
Domstolen påpegede i sin dom, at direktiv 2004/38/EF ikke er til hinder for, at medlemsstaterne kan bekæmpe misbrug af EU-rettigheder, herunder proformaægteskaber, jf. direktivets artikel 35.
The Court recalled in the ruling that Directive 2004/38/EC does not prevent Member States from fighting against abuse of EU rights, including marriages of convenience, as stipulated in Article 35 of the Directive.
Domstolen påpegede, at direktivet overholder de grundlæggende rettigheder om overholdelse af den menneskelige værdighed og integritet.
The Court pointed out that the Directive complies with the fundamental rights relating to the respect of human dignity and human integrity.
Domstolen påpegede, at i henhold til EU-retten er medlemsstaterne forpligtede til at sikre opkrævningen af al moms for derved at bekæmpe ulovlige aktiviteter, der skader EU's finansielle interesser, og navnlig at træffe de samme foranstaltninger for at bekæmpe svig, der skader EU's finansielle interesser, som til bekæmpelse af svig, der skader deres egne interesser14.
The Court pointed to the fact that under EU law, the Member States have an obligation to ensure the collection of all the VAT due, to counter illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU, and to take the same measures to counter fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU as they take to counter fraud affecting their own interests.14
Domstolen påpeger, at hvis den blotte konstatering af forskelle mellem de nationale lovgivninger samt den abstrakte risiko for hindringer for de grundlæggende friheder eller tænkelige konkurrencefordrejninger, der kan udledes deraf, var tilstrækkelig til at begrunde valget af artikel 100 A som hjemmel, ville den retlige efterprøvelse af overholdelsen af hjemmelskravet være berøvet enhver virkning.5
The Court notes that, if a mere finding of disparities between national rules and of the abstract risk of obstacles to the exercise of fundamental freedoms or of distortions of competition liable to result therefrom were sufficient to justify the choice of Article 100a as a legal basis, judicial review of compliance with the proper legal basis might be rendered nugatory5.
Domstolen sender det eksigible europæiske betalingspåbud til sagsøger.
The court shall send the enforceable European order for payment to the claimant.
Domstolen sikrede beskyttelsen af de grundlæggende rettigheder og friheder, samtidig med at den anerkendte det tvingende behov for at bekæmpe international terrorisme.
The Court ensured the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms whilst recognising the imperative need to combat international terrorism.
Domstolen sikrer, at påbuddet forkyndes for sagsøgte i overensstemmelse med national lovgivning på en måde, der opfylder de mindstestandarder, som er fastsat i artikel 13-15.
The court shall ensure that the order is served on the defendant in accordance with national law by a method that shall meet the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13 to 15 below.
Domstolen skal desuden have kompetence til at træffe bevissikrende forholdsregler, som der vil blive fastsat bestemmelser om i Kommissionens forslag til Rådets afgørelse om oprettelse af EF-Patentretten og om appel til Retten i Første Instans.
Also, the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction for evidence-protection measures which will be provided for in the context of the Commission proposal for a Council decision establishing the Community Patent Court and concerning appeals before the Court of First Instance.
Domstolen skal føre regnskab over alle sine udgifter og fremlægge en endelig opgørelse for parterne.
The tribunal shall keep a record of all its expenses, and shall furnish a final statement thereof to the parties.
domstolen skal i princippet træffe afgørelse inden for en frist på 30 dage efter at have hørt parterne på et retsmøde, eller efter at have modtaget alle nødvendige oplysninger til at kunne træffe afgørelse.
the court should in principle give its judgment within 30 days of hearing the views of the parties at a hearing or of having received all the information it needs to take a decision.
Domstolen skal udstede en europæisk betalingsmeddelelse efter at have undersøgt, om formkravene i denne forordning er overholdt.
The court should deliver a European payment notification after an examination of compliance with the formal requirements set out in this Regulation.
Domstolen skal undersøge anmodningen, herunder spørgsmålet om kompetence og dokumentation, på grundlag af oplysningerne i formularen.
The court shall examine the claim, including the issue of jurisdiction and the description of evidence, on the basis of the information provided in the form.
Domstolen skal, i henhold til en voldgiftsklausul, have kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i tvister vedrørende observatoriets ansvar i og uden for kontraktforhold.
The Court of Justice must have jurisdiction to hear and determine, pursuant to an arbitration clause, disputes regarding the contractual liability of the Centre as well as disputes on the non-contractual liability of the Centre.
Domstolen slog dog samtidig fast, at kompetencen i forbindelse med konvention nr. 170 tilkom medlemslandene og Fællesskabet i forening, og at der følgelig måtte etableres et snævert samarbejde mellem dem om konventionens tiltrædelse.
States and the European Union and that, as a consequence, they would have to cooperate closely in
Domstolen slog endvidere fast, at dagpenge, der udgør godtgørelse for at skulle være væk hjemmefra, også udbetales til udstationerede arbejdstagere i samme udstrækning som til lokale arbejdstagere i en lignende situation.
The Court also ruled that daily allowances constituting a compensation for being sent away from home must also be paid to posted workers to the same extent as it is paid to local workers in a similar situation.
Domstolen slog fast, at det er tilladt på fraflytningstidspunktet at kræve en selvangivelse, som skal danne grundlag for beskatningsfordelingen, når gevinsten realiseres.
The ECJ ruled that a tax declaration could be required on leaving the country, to be used as a basis for apportioning tax revenue when the gain is realised.
Domstolen slår således fast, at sådanne konventioner falder inden for Kommissionens og medlemsstaternes fælles kompetence, og at et indbyrdes samarbejde er nødvendigt, eftersom Fællesskabet ikke selv, men kun gennem medlemsstaterne, kan indgå en ILO-konvention.
The Court thus holds that such conventions fall within the joint competence of the Commission and the Member States and that their cooperation is necessary because the Community cannot conclude an ILO Convention itself, but only through the agency of the Member States.
Domstolen stadfæstede derfor Førsteinstansrettens dom om annullation af kommissionsbeslutningen til trods for Rettens retlige vildfarelse angående den afskrækkende virkning af EF-traktatens artikel 82.
Consequently, the ECJ found that the CFI’s judgment annulling the Commission’s decision had to be upheld despite the CFI’s error of law regarding the deterrent effect of Article 82 EC.
Domstolen stadfæstede dermed Kommissionens opfattelse af, at bevisførelsen i alle fusionssager må være baseret på en sandsynlighedsafvejning.
The ECJ’s judgment thus upholds the Commission’s view that the requisite standard of proof in all merger cases is that of a balance of probabilities.
Domstolen stadfæstede dermed Kommissionens praksis med at behandle klager indgivet efter EF-traktatens artikel 86, stk. 3, på samme måde som klager efter EF-traktatens artikel 226.
In doing so, the ECJ confirmed the practice of the Commission of handling Article 86(3) EC complaints in a way similar to the approach taken under Article 226 EC.
Domstolen stadfæstede dette ræsonnement i sin dom af 11. november 19999.
The Court of Justice upheld this reasoning in its judgement of 11 November 19999.
Domstolen stadfæstede Rettens kendelse og benyttede lejligheden til at belyse, hvilke forpligtelser Kommissionen har i relation til klager i fusionssager.
The ECJ upheld the order of the CFI and took the opportunity to clarify the Commission’s obligations regarding complaints in merger proceedings.
Domstolen stadfæstede ved sin dom115 af 18. september 2003 på alle punkter Førsteinstansrettens dom116, der igen i al væsentlighed havde stadfæstet Kommissionens beslutning117, hvori den fastslog, at VW havde aftalt en række foranstaltninger med sine forhandlere for at forhindre eller begrænse paralleleksport fra Italien til Tyskland og Østrig.
By its judgment115 of 18 September 2003, the Court of Justice confirmed in its entirety the judgment116 of the Court of First Instance (CFI) upholding the substance of the Commission decision117 finding that VW had agreed with its dealers a series of measures intended to prevent or restrict parallel imports from Italy into Austria and Germany.
Domstolen stadfæster i vid udstrækning Kommissionens traditionelle holdning ved at afveje behovet for at sikre finansieringen af public service og behovet for at forhindre urimelige konkurrenceforvridninger.
The Court broadly upholds the traditional approach of the Commission, balancing the need to ensure the financing of SGEI against the need to prevent unwarranted distortions of competition.
Domstolen statuerede derefter, at adgangen til at være indehaver af rettigheder i medfør af traktaten og afledt ret vedrørende personers frie bevægelighed ikke kan være undergivet en betingelse om, at den pågældende har opnået den alder, der kræves for retligt at være i stand til selv at udøve disse rettigheder.
The Court then held that the capacity to be the holder of rights guaranteed by the Treaty and by secondary law to move and reside freely cannot be made conditional upon the attainment by the person concerned of the age prescribed for the acquisition of legal capacity to exercise those rights personally.
Domstolen statuerede eksplicit i AMID-sagen, at situationen for et selskab med et fast driftssted i udlandet er den samme som for et selskab uden et sådant14.
The ECJ explicitly stated in AMID that the situation of a company with a permanent establishment abroad is in a comparable situation to that of a company without one.14
Domstolen statuerede i præmis 22, at:
The Court stated in point 22 of its reasoning that:
Domstolen statuerede ligeledes, at det er begrundet for en medlemsstat kun at tildele støtte til studerende, der har godtgjort at være integreret til en vis grad i samfundet i denne stat ved at kræve, at den studerende har opholdt sig der i en vis periode.
The Court also held that it is legitimate for a Member State to grant the assistance only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State by requiring that the student has resided there for a certain period of time.
Domstolen statuerede også, at henstand med betaling af skat ikke må være underlagt bestemte betingelser som f.eks. krav om en bankgaranti eller udpegning af en fiskal repræsentant.
The ECJ also ruled that tax deferral may not be made subject to certain conditions, such as the requirement of a bank guarantee or the appointment of a fiscal representative.
Domstolen statuerede, at denne fremgangsmåde ikke er i strid med princippet om beskyttelse af berettigede forventninger.
The ECJ held that the application of such a method is not contrary to the principle of protection of legitimate expectations.
Domstolen tager stilling den 16. juli 2015.
The Court will give its ruling on 16 July 2015.
Domstolen tilføjede, at den i disse sager ikke ville ændre klassifikationen af bortskaffelsesformerne, blot fordi der som en sekundær effekt af processen skabes og anvendes varme.
The Court added that, in the cases analysed, this classification as disposal operation would not be changed if, as a secondary effect of the process, energy is generated and used
Domstolen tilføjede, at denne sidste betingelse er særlig væsentlig, såfremt det omhandlede direktiv tilsigter at give rettigheder til statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater (ovennævnte dom i sagen Kommissionen mod Grækenland, præmis 9, og i sagen Kommissionen mod Nederlandene, præmis 18.
The Court added that this last condition is of particular importance where the directive in question is intended to accord rights to nationals of other Member States (Commission v Greece, Case 365/93, point 9 and Commission v The Netherlands, Case 144/99, point 18).
Domstolen tilføjede, at dette i de fleste tilfælde svarer til det sociale og sproglige område, arbejdstagerne tilhører.
The Court also stated that this most often corresponds to the social and linguistic environment with which the employees are familiar.
Domstolen tilføjede, at disse aspekter meget vel kunne gøre fondene mindre konkurrencedygtige end forsikringsselskaberne, men deres aktiviteter var ikke desto mindre økonomiske aktiviteter.
The Court added that these latter aspects may well make the fund less competitive than insurers, but its activities nevertheless remain economic.
Domstolen tilføjede, at med henblik på ikke at berøve forordningens dens effektive virkning skal afgørelsen vedrørende anmodningen om en erklæring om eksigibilitet træffes særligt hurtigt, og at en appel af en sådan afgørelse ikke kan tillægges opsættende virkning78.
In order not to deprive the Regulation of its effectiveness, the CJEU added that the decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability must be made with particular expedition and that appeals brought against that decision will not have a suspensive effect78.