natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen fandt, at parter, der ønsker at anfægte nationale myndigheders kompetence til at behandle en fusion på grund af dens fællesskabsdimension, må klage til Kommissionen inden for en rimelig frist.
The ECJ held that parties who wish to challenge the competence of national authorities to examine a concentration owing to its Community dimension must complain to the Commission within a reasonable period of time.
Domstolen fandt, at proportionalitetsprincippet var blevet tilsidesat og annullerede den pågældende retsbestemmelse.
It found that the principle of proportionality had been infringed and annulled the contested act.
Domstolen fastholdt desuden, at hvis en virksomhed udtrykkeligt indrømmer at have begået en overtrædelse og ikke blot anerkender Kommissionens sagsfremstilling, kan det give anledning til en yderligere bødenedsættelse efter samarbejdsmeddelelsen fra 1996.
The ECJ also reiterated that an express admission of the infringement, on top of merely admitting the nature of the facts, may give rise to an additional reduction of the fine under the 1996 Leniency Notice.
Domstolen fastholdt imidlertid, at de nationale domstole har beføjelse hertil.
However, the ECJ held that national courts do have this power.
Domstolen fastholdt, at "begrebet handicap skal forstås således, at det omfatter en begrænsning, bl.a. som følge af fysiske, mentale eller psykiske skader, der hindrer, at vedkommende kan deltage i erhvervslivet".
The Court held that ‘the concept of disability must be understood as referring to a limitation which results from physical, mental or psychological impairments and which hinders the participation of the person concerned in professional life’.
Domstolen fastholdt, at "det væsentligste kendetegn ved et arbejdsforhold er, at en person i en vis periode præsterer ydelser mod vederlag for en anden og efter dennes anvisninger".42 Domstolen bekræftede især, at denne definition også skal anvendes ved fastlæggelse af, hvem der kan anses for at være arbejdstager i forbindelse med anvendelsen af visse EU-direktiver inden for det sociale område.43
The CJEU stated that ‘the essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration’.43 The CJEU notably confirmed that this definition shall also be used to determine who is to be considered as a worker when applying certain EU Directives in the social field.44
Domstolen fastholdt, at "sygdom" ikke kan sidestilles med "handicap" og forklarede desuden, at "handicap" i direktivets forstand skal undergives en ensartet fortolkning.
The Court held that ‘sickness’ was not similar to ‘disability’ and went on to explain that ‘disability’, in the sense of the Directive, had to be given a uniform interpretation.
Domstolen fastholdt, at rammeafgørelsen om den europæiske arrestordre fuldt ud var forenelig med chartret.
The Court held that the Framework Decision on the EAW was fully compatible with the Charter.
Domstolen fastlagde en række retlige principper vedrørende anvendelsen af forordning 4056/86.
The Court adopted a number of legal principles in the application of Regulation 4056/86.
Domstolen fastlagde i begge tilfælde, at nationale skatte- og afgiftsbestemmelser, som indebærer forskelsbehandling af udenlandske almennyttige institutioner, ikke er forenelige med bestemmelserne om fri bevægelighed for kapital.
In both cases, the Court ruled that domestic tax provisions that discriminate against foreign charities are incompatible with the provisions on free movement of capital.
Domstolen fastlagde, at anvendelsen af forskellige tilknytningskriterier for opkrævning af arveafgifter på pengefordringer ikke er i strid med EU-retten, fordi der i den nuværende EU-retlige situation ikke findes nogen generelle kriterier på EU-plan for kompetencefordelingen mellem medlemsstaterne, hvad angår afskaffelse af dobbeltbeskatning i Den Europæiske Union.
The Court ruled that the use of different connecting criteria for levying inheritance tax on capital claims is not contrary to EU law because at the current stage of EU law, there are no general criteria at EU level for the attribution of competence between the Member States in relation to the elimination of double taxation within the European Union.
Domstolen fastlagde, at artikel 63 er til hinder for en sådan lovgivning, hvis en nonprofit-organisation, der er anerkendt som sådan i den medlemsstat, hvor den er etableret, opfylder de betingelser, beskatningsmedlemsstaten pålægger tilsvarende organisationer.
The Court ruled that Article 63 precludes such legislation where a non-profit organisation recognised as such in its Member State of establishment fulfils also the conditions governing analogous organisations  imposed by  the taxing Member State.
Domstolen fastsatte kriterier i sin dom i sag C-7/93, Beune, i henhold til hvilke den tidligere artikel 119 i EF-traktaten finder anvendelse i forbindelse med visse ordninger for tjeneste­mænd.
In its judgment in Case C-7/93 Beune, the Court sets out the criteria according to which ex-Article 119 EC Treaty applies in connection with certain schemes for civil servants.
Domstolen fastslog betydningen af friheden til at oprette og drive egen virksomhed i de vigtige domme i Scarlet-sagen61 og Sabam-sagen62.
The Court of Justice recognized the importance of the freedom to conduct a business in its landmark rulings in the Scarlet61 and Sabam cases62.
Domstolen fastslog derfor, at arbejdssøgende skal behandles på lige fod med hensyn til ydelser, der skal fremme adgangen til arbejdsmarkedet.
The CJ therefore concluded that jobseekers must enjoy equal treatment as regards access to benefits that aim to facilitate access to the labour market.
Domstolen fastslog dog, at denne sidstnævnte rettighed ikke gav IMS mulighed for at monopolisere alle strukturer, der svarede til eller stammede fra 1860‑strukturen.
However, the court held that this latter right did not allow IMS to monopolise all structures similar to or derived from the 1860 structure.
Domstolen fastslog dog, at direktivets artikel 1, nr. 1), litra b), var ugyldigt under hensyn til proportionalitetsprincippet.
However, the Court ruled that in the light of that principle, Article 1(1)(b) of the Directive was invalid.
Domstolen fastslog dog, at proportionalitetskravet kun ville være opfyldt, hvis der ikke fandtes effektive teknologier til påvisning af sådanne smitsomme sygdomme eller – i mangel af sådanne teknologier – hvis der ikke var mindre bebyrdende metoder end en kontraindikation, der gør det muligt at sikre et højt sundhedsbeskyttelsesniveau hos modtagerne.
Nevertheless, the Court stated that the proportionality requirement would only be met if there were no effective techniques for detecting such infectious diseases or — in the absence of such techniques — if there were no methods less onerous than a contraindication that would ensure a high level of health protection for recipients.
Domstolen fastslog for nylig i en dom11, at disse tjenester skal organiseres i overensstemmelse med forordning nr. 1191/69, og den af Kommissionen foreslåede modernisering12 er mere nødvendig end nogen sinde.
As the Court of Justice pointed out in a recent case,11 such services have to be organised in accordance with Regulation No 1191/69, the modernisation of which, as proposed by the Commission,12 is more necessary than ever.
Domstolen fastslog følgende i sin dom: “For så vidt som en statslig foranstaltning må betragtes som en kompensation, der er et vederlag for de af de begunstigede virksomheder leverede ydelser til opfyldelse af forpligtelser til offentlig tjeneste, således at disse virksomheder reelt ikke har en økonomisk fordel, og denne foranstaltning således ikke har den virkning at sætte disse virksomheder i en konkurrencemæssigt fordelagtig position i forhold til de virksomheder, der konkurrerer med dem, falder en sådan støtte ikke ind under traktatens artikel 87, stk. 1”.
In its judgment, the Court stated that “where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not caught by Article 87(1) of the Treaty.”
Domstolen fastslog først, at sanitetsorganisationer er virksomheder i den i EU’s konkurrencelovgivning fastsatte betydning, fordi udbud af udrykningstransport samt sygetransport indebærer aktiviteter af økonomisk karakter.
The Court first held that MADs are undertakings within the meaning of EC competition law, because emergency transport and patient transport services constitute activities of an economic nature.
Domstolen fastslog i 1989, at ydelse af erstatning - som er et centralt behov for ofrene - ikke kan være begrænset på grund af nationalitet10.
In 1989, the Court of Justice confirmed that the provision of compensation, a key need of victims, could not be limited on grounds of nationality10.
Domstolen fastslog i Arens-Sikken-sagen, at det er i strid med EU-retten, hvis en arving kun har ret til fradrag for gæld vedrørende den arvede ejendom, hvis arvelader på dødstidspunktet var bosiddende i den medlemsstat, hvor ejendommen er beliggende.
The Court ruled in the Arens-Sikken case that it is contrary to EU law if an heir is allowed to deduct debts relating to the property inherited only where the person whose estate is being administered was residing, at the time of death, in the Member State in which the property is situated
Domstolen fastslog i denne sag, at en medlemsstat ikke kan anvende arveafgiftsregler, som vil kunne give et vist fradrag i skattemæssigt øjemed i værdien af et bo, hvis arveladeren på dødstidspunktet boede i den pågældende medlemsstat, men ikke, hvis arveladeren før dødstidspunktet havde bopæl i en anden medlemsstat.
The Court ruled in this case that a Member State cannot apply inheritance tax rules which would allow a certain deduction for tax purposes from the value of an estate if the deceased lived in that Member State at the time of death but would deny it if the deceased resided in another Member State prior to death.
Domstolen fastslog i disse sager, at medlemsstaterne kun kan forbeholde deres egne statsborgere stillingerne som skibsfører og førstestyrmand på handelsskibe under deres flag, hvis de rettigheder, skibsføreren og førstestyrmanden på sådanne skibe har i kraft af den myndighed, loven giver dem, udøves regelmæssigt, og ikke kun udgør en mindre del af deres aktiviteter.
The Court affirmed in these cases that Member States may reserve for their nationals the posts of master and chief mate of merchant ships flying their flag, only if the rights under powers conferred by public law on masters and chief mates of such ships are actually exercised on a regular basis and do not represent a very minor part of their activities.
Domstolen fastslog i dommen, at en medlemsstat tilsidesætter sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 28 sammenholdt med artikel 10, "såfremt de foranstaltninger, den træffer med henblik på at gribe ind over for private aktioner, der opstiller hindringer for den frie bevægelighed for visse landbrugsprodukter, i betragtning af hyppigheden og alvoren af de pågældende episoder åbenbart ikke har været tilstrækkelige til at sikre den frie samhandel inden for Fællesskabet med landbrugsprodukter i medlemsstaten, således at ophavsmændene til de pågældende ulovlige handlinger er blevet forhindret i og effektivt afholdt fra at begå og gentage disse"10.
In that judgment, the Court found that a Member State was failing to comply with the obligations deriving from Article 28 EC, in conjunction with Article 10 EC, "since the measures adopted to deal with actions by private individuals which create obstacles to the free movement of certain [...] products [...] were manifestly inadequate to ensure freedom of intra-Community trade in [...] products on its territory by preventing and effectively dissuading the perpetrators of the offences in question from committing and repeating them10”
Domstolen fastslog i Hoechst-sagen, at den nationale domstol ikke kan tilsidesætte Kommissionens vurdering og ikke kan drage gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning i tvivl.
The Court of Justice held in Hoechst that the national court cannot substitute its assessment for that of the Commission and cannot question the validity of the Commission decision.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom af juli 2003, hvordan traktatens bestemmelser om statsstøtte skal anvendes på offentlig tjeneste generelt og især offentlig transport.
In its judgment, delivered in July 2003, the Court clarifies how the provisions of the Treaty on State aid apply to public services in general and public transport in particular.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom C-29/99 af 10. december 2002, at fællesskabet har kompetence til at lovgive på området for nuklear sikkerhed.
In its ruling of 10 December 2002 in Case C-29/99, the European Court of Justice confirmed the Commission's remit to legislate in the field of nuclear safety.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom fra 1992, at Rådet og Kommissionen var erstatningspligtige.
In its judgment of 19 May 1992, the Court of Justice held that the Council and the Commission were liable to make good the damage.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom i 2003, at en national medfinansiering af særlige markedsstøtteforanstaltninger for oksekød ikke var i overensstemmelse med den daværende ordlyd af den tilsvarende rådsforordning, ifølge hvilken der kun var mulighed for 100 % finansiering over EF-budgettet.
In its ruling in 2003, the European Court of Justice stated that a national co-financing of exceptional market support measures is not in line with the current wording of the corresponding Council regulation; only a 100% financing by the Community budget would be possible.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom i Altmark-sagen3, at kompensation til virksomheder, der leverer tjenesteydelser af almen økonomisk interesse, ikke er statsstøtte, forudsat at visse betingelser er opfyldt.
In its judgment in the Altmark case3, the Court of Justice ruled that compensation to undertakings that perform a SGEI is not State aid, provided certain conditions are fulfilled.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom, at efterprøvelsen af nærhedsprincippets overholdelse skal foretages for direktivet som helhed og ikke for hver af dets bestemmelser (præmis 51).
In its judgment, the Court held that the determination of compliance with the principle of subsidiarity should be made for the Directive as a whole, and not for each of its provisions individually (paragraph 51).
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid også, at denne konkurrencebegrænsning, som bestod i, at virksomheder, der opererer uden for den eksklusive serviceudbyder, var forpligtet til at bidrage til dennes rentabilitet, kunne anses for at være berettiget under artikel 86, stk. 2366, hvis det finansielle bidrag var begrænset til det minimum, der er strengt nødvendigt for at udligne de eventuelle tab, som driften af den almindelige posttjeneste medfører for den virksomhed, der har fået den overdraget367.
However, the Court also held that this restriction of competition, which consisted in the fact that undertakings operating outside the universal service were obliged to contribute to the viability of the universal service provider, could be justified under Article 86(2)366 if the financial contribution was limited to the amount strictly necessary to offset any losses which may be incurred by the incumbent undertaking in the operation of the universal postal service.367
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid også, at forordning (EF) nr. 1968/2006 fortsat skulle være gældende indtil ikrafttrædelsen, inden for en passende frist, af en ny forordning, vedtaget med det rette retsgrundlag, og at annulleringen af forordning (EF) nr. 1968/2006 ikke skulle påvirke gyldigheden af betalinger eller tilsagn i henhold til denne forordning -
However, the Court also ruled that the effects of Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 were maintained until the entry into force, within a reasonable period, of a new regulation adopted on an appropriate legal basis and that the annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1968/2006 must not affect the validity of payments made or of undertakings given under that Regulation,
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid, at der skal  være udsigt til, at datterselskabet igen kan blive rentabelt.
However, the Court found that there had to be a prospect of the subsidiary finding its way back to profitability.
Domstolen fastslog især, at:
The Court notably held that:
Domstolen fastslog navnlig, at Fællesskabet har juridiske beføjelser til af sundhedsbeskyttelseshensyn at indføre et godkendelsessystem, som medlemsstaterne skal anvende foruden de grundlæggende normer.
In particular, the Court ruled that the Community has legislative competence to establish, for the purpose of health protection, an authorisation system which must be applied by the Member States in addition to the basic standards.
Domstolen fastslog også, at disse garantier skal anvendes på vidner, hvis de i realiteten mistænkes for at have begået en forbrydelse, idet den formelle betegnelse for personens stilling er uden betydning13.
The Court also ruled that these guarantees must apply to witnesses whenever they are in reality suspected of a criminal offence, as the formal qualification of the person is immaterial13.
Domstolen fastslog også, at eventuelle restriktive virkninger af den pågældende lovgivning for kapitalens frie bevægelighed blot ville være en uundgåelig konsekvens af dens virkninger for grænseoverskridende etablering.
The Court also held that any restrictive effects of the said legislation on the free movement of capital would merely be an unavoidable consequence from its effects on cross-border establishment.
Domstolen fastslog også, at Nederlandene ikke overtræder traktatens artikel 82 sammenholdt med artikel 86, når der stilles krav om obligatorisk tilslutning til en bestemt pensionsfond inden for en given branche, og når pensionsfonden indrømmes en eksklusiv ret til at administrere de indbetalte bidrag.
The Court also ruled that the Netherlands does not infringe Article 82, read in conjunction with Article 86 of the Treaty, where it provided for compulsory affiliation to a specified sectoral pension fund and granted the pension fund an exclusive right to administer the collected contributions.
Domstolen fastslog også, at ”i tilfælde hvor der foreligger en rent faktisk forskelsbehandling inden for det område, hvor artikel 119 er umiddelbart anvendelig, kun kan foretages sammenligninger i form af de paralleller, der kan drages ud fra en konkret vurdering af det arbejde, der faktisk udføres af arbejdstagere af forskelligt køn i samme virksomhed eller tjeneste”15.
The Court has also held that "in cases of actual discrimination falling within the scope of the direct application of Article 119, comparisons are confined to parallels which may be drawn on the basis of concrete appraisals of the work actually performed by employees of different sex within the same establishment or service"15.
Domstolen fastslog specifikt i sag C-618/10 under henvisning til sag C-473/0027, at effektivitetsprincippet har forrang for national lovgivning, hvorefter en ret, der skal behandle en sag, selv om den allerede råder over de retlige og faktiske oplysninger, der er nødvendige i denne forbindelse, ex officio må efterprøve, om et vilkår om morarenter, der er indeholdt i en kontrakt, som er indgået mellem en erhvervsdrivende og en forbruger, er urimeligt, såfremt forbrugeren ikke har fremsat indsigelse vedrørende vilkåret.
The Court ruled specifically in Case C-618/10 referring to Case C-473/0027 that the principle of effectiveness precludes national legislation which does not allow the responsible court in the case where a consumer has not lodged an objection, to assess of its own motion, even though it already has the legal and factual elements necessary for that task available to it, whether a term relating to interest on late payments contained in a contract concluded between a seller and a consumer is unfair.
Domstolen fastslog udtrykkeligt, at læge- og hospitalshjælp er sådanne ydelser, der er omfattet af traktaterne.
The Court explicitly stated that medical and hospital care were services within the meaning of the Treaties.
Domstolen fastslog, at "eftersom de grundlæggende rettigheder, som er sikret ved chartret, følgelig skal efterleves, når en national lovgivning falder ind under EU-rettens anvendelsesområde, findes der ikke situationer, som henhører under EU-retten, uden at de grundlæggende rettigheder finder anvendelse.
The Court held that, ‘[s]ince the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter must (…) be complied with where national legislation falls within the scope of European Union law, situations cannot exist which are covered in that way by European Union law without those fundamental rights being applicable.
Domstolen fastslog, at betingelserne for anvendelse af EF-traktatens artikel 95 som retsgrundlag var opfyldt.
The Court held that the conditions warranting the choice of Article 95 of the EC Treaty as the legal basis were met.
Domstolen fastslog, at da dekretet anvendte direktiv 2004/33 om krav til blod og blodkomponenter43, fandt chartret anvendelse.
The Court stated that, as the decree applied Directive 2004/33 regarding requirements for blood and blood components,42 the Charter was applicable.
Domstolen fastslog, at da der ikke er blevet foretaget en harmonisering af de nationale mekanismer til inddrivelse af ubestridte krav, henhører måderne for gennemførelsen af de nationale procedurer for betalingspåkrav i medfør af princippet om medlemsstaternes procesautonomi under disses nationale retsorden, dog på den betingelse, at disse ikke må være mindre gunstige end dem, som regulerer tilsvarende situationer, der er underlagt den nationale ret (ækvivalensprincippet), og at de i praksis ikke umuliggør eller uforholdsmæssigt vanskeliggør udøvelsen af rettigheder, der er tillagt forbrugerne ved EU-retten (effektivitetsprincippet)26.
The Court held that in the absence of harmonisation of the national mechanisms for recovery of uncontested claims, the rules implementing national order for payment procedures are a matter for the national legal order, in accordance with the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, on condition, however, that they are no less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and do not make it in practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred on consumers by European Union law (principle of effectiveness).26
Domstolen fastslog, at datalagringsdirektivet var ugyldigt, fordi det indebar et uforholdsmæssigt indgreb i retten til privatliv og beskyttelsen af personoplysninger som fastsat i chartret.
It declared the Data Retention Directive invalid because it disproportionately restricted rights to privacy and to the protection of personal data as guaranteed by  the Charter.
Domstolen fastslog, at datalagringsdirektivet7 var ugyldigt, da der forelå en tilsidesættelse af den grundlæggende respekt for privatlivet og retten til beskyttelse af personoplysninger som tilsikret ved chartrets artikel 7 og 8.
The Court ruled the Data Retention Directive7 invalid for infringements of the fundamental rights to privacy and protection of personal data guaranteed by Article 7 and 8 of the Charter.
Domstolen fastslog, at den ikke var kompetent til at behandle sagen og afviste den.
The Court held that it was not competent to deal with the case and declared it inadmissible.
Domstolen fastslog, at den rentesats en kreditor kræver ved fastsættelse af fristen for tilbagebetaling bestemmes af andre kriterier end markedsrenten for lån.
The Court held that the rates a creditor asks for when rescheduling repayment of a debt are determined by criteria other than market rates for bank loans.
Domstolen fastslog, at denne forskelsbehandling er uforenelig med den frie bevægelighed for kapital.
The Court ruled that such a difference in treatment is incompatible with the free movement of capital.