natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen er endnu ikke blevet anmodet om at tage stilling til dette særlige spørgsmål, men den har hidtil været af den opfattelse, at eftersom der ikke blandt medlemsstaterne er enighed om, hvorvidt partnere af samme køn kan sidestilles med ægtefæller i et traditionelt ægteskab, må konklusionen være, at ægtefæller af samme køn endnu ikke i alle medlemsstater har samme rettigheder som traditionelle ægtefæller i henseende til EU-lovgivningen om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed47.
The Court has not yet been called upon to pronounce on this specific point, but it has previously held that as there is no consensus among the Member States whether same sex partners can be assimilated to spouses of a traditional marriage, it should be concluded that same sex spouses do not yet have the same rights as traditional spouses for the purposes of Community law on the free movement of workers47.
Domstolen er nemlig i øjeblikket ved at undersøge, hvorledes den nugældende fritagelse skal fortolkes på et endnu mere liberaliseret postmarked.
This is because the Court presently is considering how the current exemption should be interpreted in an ever more liberalised postal market.
Domstolen erindrede i en række domme12 om, at alle EU-borgere ifølge EF-traktatens artikel 18 har ret til at opholde sig på en medlemsstats territorium, og den understregede behovet for at fortolke retten til fri bevægelighed i lyset af de grundlæggende rettigheder og navnlig retten til beskyttelse af familielivet og proportionalitetsprincippet.
In a number of judgments12 the ECJ recalled that the right to reside in the territory of a Member State is conferred directly on every Union citizen by Article 18 EC and underlined the need to interpret the right of free movement in the light of fundamental rights and in particular of the right to protection of family life and the principle of proportionality.
Domstolen erkendte rent faktisk for nylig i en dom234, at en situation, som en national myndighed kan anse for sort arbejde, i virkeligheden blot er legitim udøvelse af frihederne på det indre marked.
As the Court recognised in a recent case234, a situation which a national authority might consider clandestine working might in fact be no more than the legitimate exercise of the freedoms of the internal market.
Domstolen erklærede endvidere i sin udtalelse 1/76, at hvis Fællesskabet har en intern kompetence med henblik på at opnå et specifikt mål, er det underforstået, at den også har den eksklusive eksterne kompetence vedrørende dette spørgsmål i det omfang dette eksterne aspekt er nødvendigt for at nå målet3.
Later, in Opinion 1/76 the Court of Justice further declared that if the Community has an internal competence to achieve a specific objective, it implicitly holds the exclusive external competence on that subject as far as such an external exercise is necessary to achieve that objective3.
Domstolen erklærede i sin dom af 8. marts 2001 i Jauch-sagen, at det ikke er tilstrækkeligt, at en ydelse er opført i bilag IIa, for at den kan betegnes som en "særlig ikke-bidragspligtig ydelse", hvorfor der er grund til at se nærmere på, hvad der karakteriserer disse ydelser (som "særlige" og "ikke-bidragspligtige").
The Court of Justice declared in its judgement of 8 March 2001 in the Jauch case that it was not sufficient for a benefit to be entered in Annex IIa for it to qualify as a "special non-contributory benefit" and that the elements characterising such benefits (special and non-contributory) should be examined.
Domstolen erklærede, at "virkningerne af artikel 11, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1655/2000 opretholdes fuldt ud, indtil Parlamentet og Rådet har vedtaget nye bestemmelser om, hvilken udvalgsprocedure gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til forordningen er omfattet af".
The Court declared that "the effects of Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 are to be fully maintained until the Parliament and the Council adopt new provisions concerning the committee procedure to which the measures for the implementation of that Regulation are subject".
Domstolen erklærede, at :
The Court ruled that:
Domstolen erklærede, at der i den pågældende sag ikke var nogen elementer, der kunne give anledning til at stille spørgsmålstegn ved disse direktivers gyldighed, og den anførte bl.a., at medlemsstaterne stadig har en så bred manøvremargin, at de kan afbalancere forholdet mellem afgifter på vin og øl på en sådan måde, at der ikke bliver tale om beskyttelse af indenlandske produkter som beskrevet i Traktatens artikel 90.
The Court ruled that consideration of the question referred disclosed no factor capable of affecting the validity of these Directives, arguing, inter alia, that the Member States retain a sufficiently wide margin of discretion to ensure that the relationship of the taxes on wine and beer excludes any protection for domestic production within the meaning of Article 90 of the Treaty.
Domstolen erklærede, at selv når kun indenlandske produkter pålægges afgift, og der ikke er nogen diskriminering mellem indenlandsk forarbejdede produkter og produkter, der eksporteres til de øvrige medlemsstater, kan en parafiskal afgift være en overtrædelse af den fælles markedsordning, hvis den påvirker samhandelen.
The ECJ declared that even where only domestic products are taxed and there is no discrimination between domestic products processed and marketed at home and those that are exported to other Member states, a parafiscal tax can be in infringement of the CMO if it has an impact on trade.
Domstolen erklærede, at stenene er affald, hvis de oplagres forud for eventuel fremtidig brug eller fremtidig obligatorisk affaldsbehandling.
The Court stated that where the rocks were being stored prior to a possible future use or a future waste treatment obligation, they would be waste.
Domstolen erklærede, at:
The Court ruled in this case that:
Domstolen fandt bl.a., at forpligtelsen ikke kan retfærdiggøres med hensynet til beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed, og at den går videre end nødvendigt for at nå dette mål.
Among other things, the Court found that the obligation could not be justified by the objective of protecting public health and went beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
Domstolen fandt derfor i den foreliggende sag, at prisordningen for el i Tyskland, hvorefter en privat virksomhed skulle betale en anden en højere pris, end den ellers skulle gøre, ikke involverede anvendelse af statsmidler, og derfor ikke var støtte.
Having regard to the facts of the case, the Court found that the system of electricity pricing in Germany which required one private company to pay another a higher price than would otherwise have been the case did not involve the use of state resources and therefore could not be deemed to be aid.
Domstolen fandt desuden, at dette kriterium ikke desto mindre er foreneligt med udbudsdirektiverne, hvis det er i overensstemmelse med alle de relevante principper i fællesskabsretten.
The Court also held that this criterion was nevertheless compatible with the public procurement directives if it complied with all relevant principles of Community law.
Domstolen fandt det derfor nødvendigt at undersøge, om den eksklusive rettighed kunne retfærdiggøres på basis af artikel 86, stk. 2.
The Court therefore considered it necessary to examine whether that exclusive right can be justified on the basis of Article 86(2).
Domstolen fandt dette led af anbringendet begrundet, idet opkrævning af et gebyr, når en anmodning om oplysninger afslås, ikke kan betegnes som rimelig, da der i sådanne tilfælde ikke er blevet meddelt nogen oplysninger i henhold til definitionen i artikel 5.
The Court upheld this part of the ground on the basis that a charge made where a request for information is refused cannot be described as reasonable since, in such a case, no information has in fact been supplied within the meaning of Article 5.
Domstolen fandt dog, at kravet om oplysning efter anmodning fra kunden om de nøjagtige vægtprocenter af de fodermidler, der indgår i foderblandingerne, var ugyldigt under hensyn til proportionalitetsprincippet.
However, under the principle of proportionality, the Court did declare invalid the obligation to inform customers, on request, of the exact percentages by weight of feed materials used in the compound feedingstuffs.
Domstolen fandt for det første, at i modsætning til de franske myndigheders holdning skal den franske pension for embedsmænd betragtes som "løn" som beskrevet i artikel 141 i EF-traktaten og ikke som en ydelse under socialsikkerhedsordningen.
The Court held first that contrary to the view of the French authorities, French retirement pensions for civil servants must be considered as "pay" within the meaning of Article 141 of the EC Treaty and not as a social security benefit.
Domstolen fandt ikke, at der var nogen begrundelse for sådanne restriktioner for den frie bevægelighed for kapital, især fordi perioden på ti år ikke var baseret på den tid, der var nødvendig for at have mulighed for at anvende ordningen om gensidig bistand mellem skatteadministrationer eller andre alternative midler til undersøge værdien af de pågældende aktier.
The Court did not find any justification for such restriction on the free movement of capital, in particular because the period of 10 years was not based on the time needed to have effective recourse to mechanisms of mutual assistance between tax administrations or other alternative means of investigating the value of the shares in question.
Domstolen fandt imidlertid, at det indgreb, som direktivet indebar i den grundlæggende ret til respekt for privatlivet og i beskyttelsen af personoplysninger, ikke var begrænset til det strengt nødvendige.
However, it held that the interference by the Directive with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data was not limited to what is strictly necessary.
Domstolen fandt ligeledes i en dom afsagt den 16. juni, at Luxembourg ikke havde vedtaget de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at overholde direktivet59.
Similarly, in a judgment of 16 June the Court of Justice concluded that Luxembourg had failed to adopt the measures necessary to comply with this Directive59.
Domstolen fandt også, at Kommissionen ikke kan påbyde request of repayment af statsstøtte udbetalt inden dens beslutning alene med den begrundelse, at støtten ikke var anmeldt i overensstemmelse med traktaten.
The ECJ also found that the Commission cannot order the recovery of a state aid paid out before its decision on the sole ground that the aid was not notified in accordance with the Treaty.
Domstolen fandt også, at selv om oliekoks var et automatisk resultat af raffineringsprocessen, var det også et olieprodukt, der er fremstillet som sådan, og ikke et restprodukt fra produktionen, hvis der var sikkerhed for, at hele koksproduktionen ville blive anvendt til de i det væsentlige samme formål som de øvrige stoffer (som fremstilles i raffineringsprocessen).
They also held that even if petroleum coke was an automatic result of the refining process, if it was certain that the coke production in its entirety would be used, mainly for the same purposes as other substances (produced in the refining process), then petroleum coke was also a petroleum product, manufactured as such, and not a production residue.
Domstolen fandt på grundlag af artikel 21, at forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grund af etnisk oprindelse i direktivet ikke kun finder anvendelse på personer, der er af en vis etnisk oprindelse.
The Court again referred to Article 21 to find that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of ethnic origin in the directive does not apply only to persons who have a certain ethnic origin.
Domstolen fandt således, at forpligtelsen til efter anmodning at oplyse kunderne den nøjagtige mængdemæssige sammensætning af foderblandinger ikke kan retfærdiggøres med det hensyn til beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed, der forfølges, og som åbenbart rækker ud over, hvad der er nødvendigt for at nå dette mål4.
The Court considered indeed that the obligation to inform customers, on request, of the exact quantitative composition of compound feedingstuffs could not be justified by the objective of protecting public health which was being pursued and manifestly went beyond what is necessary to attain that objective4.
Domstolen fandt videre, at den nye metode for beregning af bøder, der er fastlagt i retningslinjerne herom, var rimeligt forudselig for de berørte virksomheder - her appellanterne - på det tidspunkt, hvor overtrædelserne blev begået.
Furthermore, the ECJ found that the new method of calculating fines contained in the Guidelines was reasonably foreseeable for undertakings, such as the appellants, at the time when the infringements concerned were committed.
Domstolen fandt, at afhøring af den pågældende, uden at denne fik juridisk bistand, udgjorde et indgreb i forsvarets rettigheder, idet der ikke forelå tvingende grunde, der samlet set ikke var til hinder for en retfærdig rettergang15.
The court found that the lack of legal assistance during an applicant’s questioning constitutes a restriction of his defence rights, in the absence of compelling reasons that do not prejudice the overall fairness of the proceedings15.
Domstolen fandt, at artikel 5, stk. 2, hvorefter de berørte medlemsstater uden tidsbegrænsning kunne opretholde en undtagelse til reglen om kønsneutrale præmier og ydelser ("unisex-reglen"), der er fastsat i artikel 5, stk. 1, er til hinder for virkeliggørelsen af målet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder ved beregningen af præmier og ydelser, hvilket er formålet med direktivet på forsikringsområdet.
The Court considered that by enabling Member States to maintain without temporal limitation an exemption from the unisex rule laid down in Article 5(1), Article 5(2) runs counter to achievement of the objective of equal treatment between men and women in relation to the calculation of insurance premiums and benefits, which is the purpose of the Directive in the insurance field.
Domstolen fandt, at asylkvalifikationsdirektivet31 og chartret rent faktisk indeholder sådanne grænser: De metoder, som de nationale myndigheder anvender, skal overholde de grundlæggende rettigheder såsom respekt for den menneskelige værdighed (artikel 1) og retten til respekt for privatliv og familieliv (artikel 7).
The CJEU held that the Asylum Qualification Directive31 and the Charter do impose limits: methods used by national authorities must respect fundamental rights, such as the right to respect for human dignity (Article 1) and the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7).
Domstolen fandt, at bestemmelsen udgør en teknisk specifikation i henhold til direktivet, idet vaccinationen er knyttet til selve produktionen af det pågældende landbrugsprodukt og dermed er en definition af en produktionsproces for det pågældende produkt.
According to the Court, this law is a technical specification within the meaning of the Directive, as the vaccination is linked to the actual production of the agricultural product concerned and therefore defines a procedure in the production of that product.
Domstolen fandt, at de offentlige myndigheders beslutning om at gøre tilslutning obligatorisk nødvendigvis indebærer, at fondene er i besiddelse af en eksklusiv rettighed som omhandlet i artikel 86, stk. 1.
The Court considered that the decision by the public authorities to make affiliation compulsory necessarily implied that the fund should be regarded as having an exclusive right within the meaning of Article 86(1).
Domstolen fandt, at de socialpolitiske målsætninger, der forfølges med sådanne aftaler, ville blive bragt alvorligt i fare, hvis arbejdsmarkedets parter var underlagt traktatens artikel 81 i forbindelse med deres fælles bestræbelser på at forbedre beskæftigelses- og arbejdsvilkårene.
It took the view that the achievement of the social policy objectives of such agreements could be seriously hindered if the social partners had to comply with Article 81 when together trying to improve labour conditions.
Domstolen fandt, at de spanske regler, der stiller krav om, at sådanne statsborgere først skal have opholdsvisum med henblik på familiesammenføring for at kunne få udstedt en opholdstilladelse, er en ukorrekt gennemførelse af bl.a. direktiv 90/365 og udgør en foranstaltning, der er i strid med nævnte direktivs bestemmelser.
The Court found that the Spanish rules requiring that a residence visa for family reunification be obtained by such nationals for the issue of a residence permit, constituted an incorrect transposition of and a measure contrary to, inter alia, Directive 90/365.
Domstolen fandt, at definitionen af et "rimeligt beløb" skal fastlægges i lyset af formålet med direktivet i henhold til artikel 1 og artikel 3, stk. 1.
The Court held that what constitutes a “reasonable cost” must be determined in the light of the purpose of the Directive as discerned from Articles 1 and 3(1).
Domstolen fandt, at den fortrinsret til adgang, som nederlandske forskrifter gav indgåede forsyningsaftaler (23 % af den samlede sammenkoblingskapacitet i dette særlige tilfælde) udgjorde forskelsbehandling, som er forbudt i henhold til eldirektivet fra 1996, hvis artikel 7 og 16 kræver ligebehandling af alle brugere af nettet, nye som gamle.
The Court found that the priority access granted by Dutch legislation and regulation to historic supply contracts (23% of the overall interconnector capacity in this particular case) constituted discrimination prohibited by the 1996 Electricity Directive, because Articles 7 and 16 of that Directive require all old and new users of the network to be treated equally.
Domstolen fandt, at den græske nationale konkurrencemyndighed ikke var en domstol i EF-traktatens artikel 234 omhandlede forstand.
The ECJ found that the Greek national competition authority (NCA) was not a tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC.
Domstolen fandt, at den nationale lovgivning er i strid med direktivet om urimelige kontraktvilkår i forbrugeraftaler33 og chartrets artikel 47 i de tilfælde, hvor loven ikke indrømmer forbrugerne ret til at appellere en afgørelse, når kreditor har en sådan ret i den modsatte situation.
It considered that national law was contrary to the Directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts 33 and to Article 47 of the Charter in cases where the law does not provide consumers with a right of appeal when the creditor does benefit from such a right in the reverse scenario .
Domstolen fandt, at den pågældende foranstaltning ubestrideligt var en fordel for de elproducenter, der producerede el fra vedvarende energikilder, fordi de fik garanterede højere priser end de ellers ville få.
In its judgment the Court ruled that the measure incontestably constituted an advantage for the producers of electricity from renewable sources as they received guaranteed higher prices than would otherwise be the case.
Domstolen fandt, at denne ydelse hverken var "særlig" eller "ikke-bidragspligtig", og de almindelige koordineringsbestemmelser skulle derfor finde anvendelse.
The Court found that this benefit was neither "special" nor "non-contributory" and that therefore, the normal co-ordination rules should apply.
Domstolen fandt, at der findes forskrifter, som fastsætter visse tekniske specifikationer for et produkt, der er beregnet til en bestemt brugergruppe, hvorved det særlige formål for denne gruppe er bestemmende for indholdet af specifikationerne.
The Court ruled that certain measures may impose, in respect of a product intended for a particular group of users, technical specifications whose content depends on the specific objective pursued by that group.
Domstolen fandt, at det blot at nævne oplysninger i uddrag i en bestemmelse om fastsættelse af gebyret ikke var tilstrækkeligt til at gøre de oplysningssøgende opmærksom på alle deres rettigheder og give dem mulighed for at påberåbe sig disse rettigheder ved de nationale domstole.
The Court found that the mere fact that partial communication was mentioned in a provision setting a tariff for charges was not sufficient to make those seeking information aware of the full extent of their rights and to enable them to rely on those rights before the national courts.
Domstolen fandt, at det forhold, at klagerne ikke i medfør af fusionsforordningen har krav på, at deres klage behandles på samme måde som klager, der falder ind under forordning 17/62, ikke medfører, at Kommissionen ikke har pligt til at afgøre, om en fusion falder inden for dens kompetence eller ej, og til at drage konsekvenserne heraf.
It considered that the fact that complainants under the Merger Regulation do not have the right to have their complaints investigated in the same way as complainants under Regulation 17/62 does not mean that the Commission is not required to decide whether or not a concentration falls within its competence and to draw the necessary conclusions.
Domstolen fandt, at det i praksis oftest er i det land, hvor arbejdsgiveren er etableret, at proceduren begæres indledt, og generelt er det ligeledes i dette land, at arbejdsgiveren bidrager til finansieringen af løngarantien som defineret i direktivet.
The Court considered that, in practice, such proceedings are most often requested in the country in which the employer is based, which is generally also the country in which the employer contributes to the financing of the guarantee institution as provided for in the Directive.
Domstolen fandt, at dette retsgrundlag var passende, eftersom gennemgangen af indholdet af bestemmelserne i direktiv 2011/82/EU bekræftede, at et system for udveksling af oplysninger mellem medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder som fastsat ved dette direktiv gør det muligt for EU at forfølge målet om at forbedre trafiksikkerheden.
The Court considered that this legal basis was appropriate since the examination of the content of the provisions of Directive 2011/82/EU confirmed that the system for the exchange of information between the competent authorities of the Member States set up by that Directive provided the means of pursuing the objective of improving road safety and enabled the European Union to attain that aim.
Domstolen fandt, at direktivet ved at stille krav om lagring af disse data og ved at give de kompetente nationale myndigheder adgang til disse i særligt alvorlig grad gør indgreb i den grundlæggende ret til respekt for privatliv og beskyttelse af personoplysninger.
The Court took the view that by requiring the retention of those data and by allowing the competent national authorities to access those data, the directive interferes in a particularly serious manner with the fundamental rights to respect for private life and to the protection of personal data.
Domstolen fandt, at en ydelse for at kunne betegnes som "særlig" skal være tæt knyttet til det sociale miljø i den pågældende medlemsstat, og det var denne ikke.
The Court held that in order to be "special" a benefit had to be closely linked to the social environment of the Member State in question, which this was not.
Domstolen fandt, at Kommissionen havde begået en procedurefejl ved ikke tydeligt at angive i den klagepunktsmeddelelse, der gik forud for beslutningen, at den ville pålægge de enkelte medlemmer af Cewal bøder.
The ECJ considered that the Commission had made a procedural error by failing to indicate clearly in the statement of objections which preceded the decision that it intended to impose fines on the individual members of Cewal.
Domstolen fandt, at Luxembourg13 og Italien14 ikke havde levet op til deres forpligtelser i henhold til direktivet.
The Court held that Luxembourg13 and Italy14 had failed to fulfil their obligations under the Directive.
Domstolen fandt, at man ved beregningen af bødens størrelse ikke kunne tage hensyn til omsætningen i Ciments Français SA’s datterselskab, da virksomheden først overtog kontrollen med det pågældende datterselskab efter sin deltagelse i den pågældende overtrædelse.
The ECJ considered that in order to establish the turnover for the purposes of calculating the fine, the turnover of Ciments français SA subsidiaries could not be taken into account, as it took control of the subsidiary in question only after its involvement in the infringement at issue.