natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen finder, at artikel 59 og 60 i princippet kræver ophævelse af enhver forskels behandling over for en person, der præsterer en tjenesteydelse, på grund af dennes nationalitet eller den omstændighed, at han bor i en anden af medlemsstaterne end den, hvor tjenesteydelsen præsteres.
The Court held that Articles 59 and 60 in principle require the abolition of all forms of discrimination against persons wishing to provide services where the discrimination is based on nationality or on the fact that the person resides in a Member State other than that in which the services are to be provided.
Domstolen accepterer dog, at der kan træffes særlige foranstaltninger, når disse er objektivt nødvendige, for at sikre overholdelsen af de faglige regler, der gælder i værtslandet, og som er begrundet i almenvellets interesse.
However, it agreed that specific measures may be taken where they are objectively necessary in order to enforce professional rules applicable in the host country, where these are justified by the general interest.
Domstolen har ligeledes i en dom af 12. december 19742) måttet tage stilling til anvendelsesområdet for artikel 59. Domstolen, der havde fået forelagt et spørgsmål vedrørende de af en international sportsorganisations fastsatte regler af privat karakter, stadfæstede, at artikel 59 lige som artikel 483) ikke blot forbyder restriktioner, der hidrører fra en offentlig myndighed, men også regler af anden art, der har som formål på kollektiv måde at opstille regler for lønarbejde og tjenesteydelser.
The Court was also called upon to consider the scope of Article 59 in a judgment of 12 December.3To a question relating to the internal rules of an international sporting organization, the Court replied that Article 59, like Article 48,4prohibits not only restrictions originating in the action of public authorities but also any other type of rule seeking to regulate on a collective basis employment or the provision of services.
Hermed tages navnlig sigte på enhver form for forkelsbehandling, der måtte eksistere i erhvervsorganisationers vedtægter; da disse bestemmelser i traktaten gælder umiddelbart, vil statsborgerne fra medlemsstaterne ikke længere kunne mødes ved sådanne eventuelle restriktioner.
Thus it covers all forms of discrimination which may exist in the statutes of professional organizations; in view of the direct applicability of these provisions of the Treaty, such restrictions may no longer be imposed on nationals of Member States.
I betragtning af de generelle vendinger, som Domstolen anvender, er det givet, at artikel 52 vedrørende etableringsretten har samme anvendelsesområde som artikel 48 og 49.
In view of the broad terms used by the Court it is clear that Article 52, relating to right of establishment, has the same scope as Articles 48 and 49.
For så vidt angår sidste artikel, erindres om, at forordning nr. 1612/68 forbyder enhver forskels behandling selv i det interne forhold mellem arbejdsgiver og arbejdstager. ) Sag 41-74 (Van Duyn/Home Office).
As regards Article 48, it should be recalled that Regulation No 1612/68 prohibits any form of discrimination, even in relations between employers and individual employees.
297 af hver enkelt medlemsstat og herved være unddraget fællesskabsinstitutionernes kontrol.
It held that the concept of public policy in the context of the Community is applied as a derogation from the general principles of free movement of workers, and must be interpreted strictly, so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without being subject to control by Community institutions.
De særlige forhold, der gør det berettiget at anvende begrebet den offentlige orden, kan dog variere fra et land til et andet og fra et tidspunkt til et andet, hvilket medfører, at de kompetente nationale myndigheder på dette område bør have beføjelse til at udøve et vist skøn inden for de af traktaten fastsatte grænser.
However, special circumstances justifying recourse to the concept of public policy can vary from one country to another and from one period to another; and it is therefore necessary to allow the competent national authorities an area of discretion within the limits imposed by the Treaty.
Domstolen har desuden i denne dom fastslået, at en medlemsstat af hensyn til den offentlige orden kan nægte en statsborger fra en anden medlemsstat adgang til dens område, når pågældende person har til hensigt der at udøve en virksomhed i en orga­nisation, som denne stat anser for at kunne være samfundsskadelig, selv om den ikke forbyder egne statsborgere at udøve en tilsvarende virksomhed inden for rammerne af denne organisation.
In this judgment the Court also agreed that a Member State may refuse, on grounds of public policy, to allow a national of another Member State to enter its territory in order to exercise an activity with an organization which it regards as socially harmful, even if it does not prohibit its own nationals from exercising similar activities within the same organization.
Domstolen støtter sig på det princip inden for international ret, der går ud på, at en medlemsstat ikke kan nægte egne statsborgere indrejsetilladelse.
The Court relied here on the rule of international law that a State is precluded from refusing its own nationals the right of entry or residence.
Domstolen har ligesom i de forudgående år afsagt flere domme vedrørende van­drende arbejdstageres sociale sikkerhed1). Den har særlig fastslået den tidligere rets­ praksis vedrørende medlemsstaternes lovgivning, der på en gang omfatter social sikkerhed og socialunderstøttelse.
As in previous years, the Court has given judgment in a number of cases relating to social security for migrant workers.2Among other things, it confirmed an earlier decision concerning laws in the Member States dealing both with 'social security' and with 'social assistance'.
Domstolen fandt, at for så vidt det her drejer sig om arbejds­tagere i den i artikel 1, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 fastsatte betydning, er de ydelser, der er givet i henhold til disse blandede lovgivninger, at betragte som sociale sikringsydelser i henhold til ovennævnte forordning ­) og har endog præciseret, at en forsikret, der oppebærer invalidepension, der er erhvervet som følge af, at han er lønmodtager i en enkelt medlemsstat, og som på grund af denne pension får et yderligere tilskud, bevarer retten hertil ved flytning af bopæl til en anden medlemsstats område, også » selv om dette yderligere tilskud i den nationale lovgivning er forbeholdt personer, der opholder sig inden for statens område « 3
It held that, as regards workers within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, benefits granted under such mixed laws were social security benefits for the purposes of that Regulation,3and even held that an insured person who is in receipt of an invalidity pension acquired under a sickness insurance scheme by reason of employment in a Member State wherein he was resident, and who receives a supplementary allowance by virtue of that pension, is entitled to continue to receive such allowance if he transfers his residence to another Member State, and this is so even if such supplementary allowance is by national legislation limited to persons residing within the national territory.4
Med hensyn til udførsel af disse ydelser: Sag 39­74 (Mazzier Costa/Den belgiske stat).
As to transfer of such benefits from one State to another, see Case 39/74 (Mazzier Costa ν Belgium).
Domstolen kom til den konkulsion, at artikel 28, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 3 er uforenelig med traktatens artikel 51 og desuden er formålsløs i betragtning af den ret, som den pågældende arbejdstager har til maksimumsydelsen alene på grundlag af den pågældende medlemsstats lovgivning og » følgelig for så vidt ugyldig«1).
It concluded that Article 28(3) of Regulation No 3 was incompatible with Article 51 of the Treaty 'and accordingly to that extent void'; in any case it was devoid of any purpose, given that the worker concerned was entitled to the maximum benefit on the basis solely of the laws of the Member State concerned.1
For så vidt angår arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet, fandt Domstolen, skønt den objektive retstilstand er klar som følge af, at artikel 48 i traktaten og at forordning nr. 1612 er umiddelbart gældende, og fællesskabsretten har forrang frem for den nationale ret, at det i artikel 48, stk. 2, fastsatte forbud mod forskels behandling har en absolut karakter, hvoraf følger, at enhver forskelsbehandling selv af mindre væsentlig betydning, for så vidt angår lighed i beskæftigelsen og andre arbejdsvilkår, skal ophæves2).
As regards freedom of movement for workers in the Community, the Court considered that although the objective legal situation was clear, in view of the direct applicability of Article 48 of the Treaty and of Regulation No 1612/68 as well as of the primacy of Community law over national law, the prohibition against discrimi­nation in Article 48(2) was of an absolute nature, so that any discrimination, even of a secondary nature, in equality of employment and other working conditions had to be abolished.2
Domstolen har endvidere præciseret rækkevidden af den i traktatens artikel 48, stik. 4, fastsatte undtagelse med hensyn til adgangen til stillinger i den offentlige administration.
The Court also clarified the scope of the exception in Article 48(4) as regards access to employment in public administration.
I betragtning af den grundlæggende karakter af princippet om fri bevægelighed for og ens behandling af arbejdstagere inden for Fællesskabet, fandt Domstolen, at den pågældende undtagelse ikke bør have en rækkevidde, der går ud over det med denne undtagelse tilstræbte formål ; undtagelsen vedrører » udelukkende adgangen til visse hverv i den offentlige administration « uanset retsforholdet mellem den ansatte og administrationen3).
It felt that in view of the fundamental nature of the principles of free movement and equal treatment for workers within the Community, the exceptions made by Article 48(4) cannot have a scope going beyond the aim in view of which the derogation was included; the derogation concerns only access to posts forming part of the public services, and the nature of the legal relationship between the employee and the employing administration is of no conse­quence in this respect.3
Det følger heraf, at stasborgere fra en af EØFs medlemsstater, der allerede er ansat i den offentlige administration i en anden medlemsstat, med hensyn til arbejds- og ansættelsesvilkår skal behandles på nøjagtig samme måde som de nationale statsborgere.
Hence nationals of a Member State of the EEC already taken into employment in the public service of another Member State must be treated in the same way as that State's own nationals as regards conditions of work and employment.
Domstolen har desuden statueret, at artikel 12 i forordning nr. 1612/68 omfatter ikke alene reglerne vedrørende adgangen til undervisning for børn af arbejdstagere, der er statsborgere i en af medlemsstaterne på samme vilkår som de nationale statsborgere » men også de generelle foranstaltninger, der skal lette deltagelsen i denne « som f.eks. tildeling af uddannelsesstøtte eller studielegater4).
The Court also held that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 requires Member States to accord to the children of workers from other Member States the same rights as their own nationals, not only as regards admission to educational establishments but also as regards 'general measures intended to facilitate educational attendance', such as the provision of grants or scholarships.4
I modsætning til den fortolkning, som Kommissionen altid har forfægtet på dette område, i overensstemmelse med en næsten enig doktrin, har Domstolen statueret, at » selv om en national markedsordning, der eksisterede før traktatens ikrafttræden, under overgangsperioden kan hindre anvendelsen af dennes artikel 33 i det omfang, denne anvendelse berører den måde, hvorpå markedsordningen fungerer, vil dette ikke kunne ske efter denne periodes udløb, da bestemmelserne i artikel 33 herefter bør anvendes fuldt ud.
In contrast with the view which the Commission had always taken here, in accordance with virtually all legal writers, the Court held that although a national market organization existing when the Treaty entered into force could during the transitional period preclude the application of Article 33 where such application would have interfered with its operation, this could nevertheless not be the case after the end of the transitional period, when Article 33 is to be given its full effect.
Bestemmelsen i stk. 1 i protokollen af 25. marts 1957 vedrørende den tyske indenrigshandel og de dermed forbundne problemer, der findes som bilag til EØF-traktaten, har udelukkende til formål at fritage forbundsrepublikken Tyskland for at anvende de fællesskabsretlige regler på » den tyske indenrigshandel «.
The sole purpose of paragraph 1 of the Protocol of 25 March 1957 on German Internal Trade and Connected Problems annexed to the EEC Treaty is to exempt the Federal Republic of Germany from applying Community law in respect of 'German internal trade'.
Denne fritagelse har ikke til følge, at Den tyske demokratiske Republik optages i Fællesskabet, men muliggør, at der indrømmes den en særordning som område, der ikke hører ind under Fællesskabet.
The effect of this provision is not to incorporate the German Demo­cratic Republic into the Community but it does enable special terms to be granted to the GDR as a non-Community territory.
Indførselen af varer til forbundsrepublikken Tyskland inden for rammerne af aftalen om samhandel mellem de tyske områder skal således ikke betragtes som en indførsel fra et tredjeland, da det drejer sig om tysk indenrigshandel.
The importation of goods into the Federal Republic of Germany under the Agreement on Interzone Trade is therefore not to be regarded as an import from a third country, since such imports are part of German internal trade.
Selv om det følger af stk. 1 i protokollen, at produkter med oprindelse i Den tyske demokratiske Republik kan bevæge sig frit uden toldklarering inden for Forbundsrepublikken, anses de ikke af den grund for at have oprindelse i denne medlemsstat2).
Although, under paragraph 1 of the Protocol, products originating in the German Democratic Republic have the right to move freely in the Federal Republic without customs clearance, they are nevertheless not thereby deemed to have originated in the Federal Republic.2
Den dom, der blev afsagt i sag 153/733) giver værdifulde oplysninger om ret mæssigheden af de af Fællesskabets støtteforanstaltninger, der er begrænset til visse medlemsstater.
The judgment in Case 153/733 provides valuable pointers as to the validity of Community aids applicable only in certain Member States.
Selv om der midlertidigt kan træffes særlige foranstaltninger inden for rammerne af fælles markedsordning til fordel for visse medlemsstater, der står over for særlige vanskeligheder, forudsætter de formål, der opregnes i EØF-traktatens artikel 40, dvs. oprettelse af en fælles landbrugspolitik og en fælles ordning af markederne for land brugsvarer, at der anvendes fælles regler og kriterier for producenter og forbugere af
Although transitional measures can provisionally be taken within the framework of the establishment of a common organization of the market in favour of certain Member States facing particular difficulties, the objectives of Article 40 of the Treaty, that is the establishment of a common agricultural policy and a common organization of agricultural markets, presuppose the adoption of common rules and criteria and the consequent exclusion of any discrimination based on the nationality or locality of producers. In this light the various factors in the common organization of the markets,
3) Sag 153-73 (Holtz & Willemsen/Rådet og Kommissionen), Domssamling 1974. 8.
Case 153/73 (Holtz and Willemsen ν Council and Commission): [1974] ECR.
Under denne synsvinkel kan den fælles markeds ordnings forskellige elementer, beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, tilskud, støtte m.m. kun differentieres regionalt eller under hensyn til andre produktions- og forbrugerbetingelser på grundlag af objektive kriterier, der sikrer de involverede en forholdsmæssig fordeling af fordele og ulemper, uden at der sondres mellem medlemsstaternes territorier.
COMMUNITY LAW protective measures, subsidies, aids, etc., may be distinguished according to the areas and other conditions of production or consumption only in terms of criteria of an objective nature which ensure a proportionate distribution of advantages and disadvantages for those concerned without territorial distinction as between the Member States.
Som følge heraf er de supplerende støtteforanstaltninger, der er forbeholdt oliemøller i en enkelt medlemsstat, i princippet uforenelige med formålene med den fælles landbrugspolitik, i det omfang de ikke er begrundet i særlige forhold for hele det pågældende nationale marked.
Additional subsidies limited to oil mills established in one of the Member States are therefore in general incompatible with the objectives of the common agricultural policy in so far as they are not justified by circumstances special to the whole of the national market in question.
I Domstolens dom i sag 186-73 ') har den kunnet fremsætte nogle nyttige præciceringer, for så vidt angår bestemmelserne for licenser (forordning nr. 1373/70)2) og særlig begrebet » import « i den betydning, hvori dette begreb er anvendt i denne for ordning.
The judgment in Case 186/731casts a useful light on the rules on import and export licences (Regulation No 1373/70)2and in particular on the meaning of
For at forpligtelsen til at importere som omhandlet i artikel 15 i denne forordning er opfyldt, er det efter Domstolens opfattelse en betingelse, at varen faktisk er blevet bragt i fri omsætning inden for Fællesskabet.
'importation' for the purposes of that Regulation. In order for the obligation to import under Article 15 of the Regulation to be met, it is essential as the Court sees it for the goods to have actually been put into free circulation within the Community.
Ligheden med begrebet import ved beregning af afgiftssatserne, hvorom Domstolen allerede tidligere havde udtalt sig3), er således blevet klart fastslået.
There is thus a clear parallel with the notion of 'importation' as previously defined by the Court3in connection with the calculation of the rate of levy.
Ved fastlæggelsen af det tidspunkt, der skal lægges til grund i henhold til denne bestemmelse kræves det ikke ved gennemførelsen af toldformaliteterne ved import, at toldekspeditionen er definitivt afsluttet.
However, as regards the date to be taken into consideration for the purpose of the Article in question, the reference to the completion of customs import formalities does not imply that the relevant customs procedure must have been terminated.
Domstolen har afvist klagepunktet gående ud på, at den pågældende markedsordning, der fremmede produktionen af hård hvede i visse områder inden for Fællesskabet, og som således skabte nye handelsmønstre til skade for virksomheder andre steder, skulle være i strid med de i EØF-traktatens artikel 39, stk. 1, c) fastsatte formål, stabilisering af markederne.
The Court dismissed the applicants' claim that the rules for the organization of the markets designed to promote durum wheat production in certain regions of the Community, and thus creating new trade flows to the detriment of firms established elsewhere, were contrary to the objective of stabilizing markets set forth in Article 39(l)(c) of the EEC Treaty.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse » er begrebet stabilisering af markederne ikke ensbetydende med at de positioner, der er opnået under tidligere markedsvilkår under alle omstændigheder skal opretholdes ... og den omstændighed, at institutionerne i en periode har givet nogle af de formål, der er omhandlet i artikel 39 en fortrinsstil- l
The Court stated that 'the concept of stabilization of the markets cannot cover the maintenance at all costs of positions already established under previous market conditions...
-) EFTL 158 af 20.7.1970.
OJ L 158 of 20.7.1970. Case 35/71 (Schleswig-Holsteinische Hauptgenossenschaft ν Hauptzollamt Itzehoe): [1971] Recueil.
) Sagerne 63 til 69-72 (Wehrhann og andre/Rådet og Kommissionen), Domssamling 1973.
Cases 63 to 69/72 (Werhahn and others ν Council and Commission): [1973] ECR.
Se desuden nr. 593 ff i den Syvende Almindelige Beretning, for så vidt angår de generelle problemer, som denne dom rejser i forhold til anvendelsen af EØF-traktatens artikel 215.
As to the general problems arising from this judgment in the application of Article 215 of the EEC Treaty, see Seventh General Report, point 593 et seq.
301 ling på bekostning af opretholdelsen af opnåede positioner, indebærer ikke nogen krænkelse af denne bestemmelses stk. 1, litra c) «.
French undertakings'.
Domstolen konstaterede imidlertid, at det tab, som de sagsøgende virksomheder påstod at have lidt, oversteg omfanget af denne fordel og undersøgte derfor, om dette tab ikke kunne have været undgået gennem andre foranstaltninger.
Nevertheless the Court held that the loss suffered by the applicant firms exceeded what would result from this advantage and therefore considered whether the loss could have been avoided by other measures.
Domstolen afviste et sådant krav i betragtning af sagens omstændigheder, idet den blandt andet fremhævede, at fastsættelsen af en differentieret tærskelpris for de enkelte regioner var i strid med Fællesskabets mål sætninger og ville true princippet om de frie varebevægelser.
In the particular circumstances of the case, it held that there was no obligation to take such measures, stressing inter alia that the fixing of a different threshold price for different regions was contrary to the objectives of the Community and would jeopardize the free movement of goods.
I flere retssager ved tyske domstole er gyldigheden af Rådets forordning nr. 941/71 af 12. maj 1971 om visse konjunkturpolitiske foranstalninger, der skal træffes inden for landbrugssektoren som følge af den midlertidige udvidelse af grænserne for kursudsving i visse medlemsstaters valutaerJ) samt af forskellige af Kommissionens gennemførelsesbestemmelser, der fastsætter udligningsbeløb, blevet anfægtet.
In a number of actions before the German courts, the validity of Council Regulation No 974/711of 12 May 1971 on certain measures of conjunctural policy to be taken in agriculture following the temporary widening of the margins of fluctuation for the currencies of certain Member States, and of a number of other Commission implementing Regulations fixing compensatory amounts, was attacked.
Dom stolen, for hvilken sagerne blev indbragt i henhold til artikel 177, har i denne for bindelse afsagt flere domme, hvis betydning rækker ud over de her rejste særlige problemer2).
The Court of Justice, to which the matter was brought under Article 177, issued a number of decisions, whose interest goes beyond the specific scope of the actual questions involved.2
For så vidt angår det retlige grundlag for forordning nr. 974/71, der hviler på EØF-traktatens artikel 103, har Domstolen anerkendt den konjunkturbestemte karakter af de pågældende foranstaltninger, der efter Domstolens mening havde til formål at undgå en desorganisering af interventionsprissystemet og fastholde de normale handelsmønstre for landbrugsvarer.
As regards the legal basis of Regulation No 974/71, Article 103 of the EEC Treaty, the Court recognized that the measures were of a 'conjunctural' nature and that their aim was to prevent the collapse of the intervention price system and preserve the normal flow of trade in agricultural products.