natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sammen holdt med en tidligere kendelse af 17. juni 1971 (2), giver den i sag 92-71 afsagte kendelse en slående illustration af landbrugsrettens autonomi: i forbindelse med samme note i den fælles toldtarif, vedr. begrebet varer med eller uden tilsætning af sukker, anerkender disse to kendelser faktisk to forskellige fortolkninger af denne, alt efter om det drejer sig om anvendelsen af told- eller landbrugsimportafgifter.
Taken together with an earlier judgment of 17 June 1971,2the judgment in case 92/71 affords a striking illustration of the separate status of the agricultural legislation: both dealing with the same provision in the Tariff, concerning the meaning of products with or without added sugar, the two judgments embody two different inter pretations according to whether the point at issue is the charging of customs duties or of agricultural levies.
Det fremgår af den den 13. juni 1972 (l) afsagte kendelse, i modsætning til artikel 40 i EØF-traktaten, at der ikke har været tale om diskrimination deri, at Rådet kun delvist har villet give kompensation for virkningerne af devalueringen af den franske frank på import hidrørende fra tredjelande og yderligere har givet fuld kompensation for den virkning, som udvidelsen af den tyske og nederlandske valutas svingningsmargen har haft på priserne på de fællesskabsprodukter, som eksporteres til tredjelande.
The Court in a judgment of 13 June 19721 found that there had been no discrimination contrary to Article 40 EEC in the Council's having only partly offset the effects of the devaluation of the French franc on the prices of imports from third countries, and then offset in full the effects of the widening of the margins of fluctuation of the mark and guilder on the prices of Community products exported to third countries.
Domstolen konstaterer efter at have bemærket, at en forordningslovlighed under ingen omstændigheder kunne anfægtes på grund af senere indtrufne omstændigheder, at den økonomiske situation, der er resultatet af den franske devaluering og udvidelsen af markens og gyldens svingningsmargen, var » tilstrækkeligt forskellige til at udelukke den påståede diskrimination «, og at det i betragtning af den fælles landbrugspolitiks mål var lovligt at støtte eksporten til tredjelande mere end importen fra disse lande (2).
After pointing out that in any case a Regulation could not be questioned by reason of subsequent circumstances the Court ruled that the economic situations resulting from the devaluation of the French franc and from the widening of the margins of fluctuation of the mark and guilder were " sufficiently different to exclude the discrimination alleged", and that in consideration of the aims of the common agricultural policy it was right and proper to support exports to third countries more than imports from them.2
I tidligere sager havde Domstolen allerede haft lejlighed til at konstatere, at Medlemsstaterne i overgangsperioden havde frihed til at bevilge restitutioner eller lade være hvilket havde fået den til at konkludere, at de også havde
The Court had already found in previous cases that during the transitional period the Member States were at liberty to grant or withhold refunds, and on the strength of this had concluded that they were also "entitled to make additional conditions as to the granting of the refund provided for in the Community Regulations",3 as for example "to make the refund payable only on certain types of a product presenting further characteristics and over above
En anden illustration af ikke-diskriminationsprincippet blev givet af EF-Domstolens kendelse af 2. december 1971 (Aktien-Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt/Rådet, 5-71), Samling 1971, s. 975.
The non-discrimination principle is also exemplified in CJEC, 2 December 1971 (Aktien-
Importafgiftsordningen
Import levies
Den dag, en vare importeres, er bestemmende for satsen for den import afgift, der skal erlægges (se f.eks. artikel 15, stk. 1 i forordning nr. 120/67/EØF, vedr. korn).
The rate of levy chargeable on any import is that applicable for the day of its importation (see e.g. Article 15(1) of Regulation No. 120/67/EEC, for cereals).
Ifølge Domstolen (*) må et sådant begreb nødvendigvis have samme betydning i alle Medlemslandene, da man ellers risikerer at anvende forskellige afgiftssatser på varer, der økonomisk befinder sig i samme situation på samme dato, og hvis indførelse i Fællesskabet har ensartede virkninger på markedet.
In the Court's view,3"day of importation" must necessarily bear the same meaning in all the Member States, as otherwise different rates of levy could be charged on goods which were economically in the same position at the same date and the entry of which into the Community had comparable effects on the market.
Dette begreb fremgår af afgiftsordningens målsætning, nemlig at undgå efter virkninger af svingninger i verdensmarkedets priser på det interne marked.
This meaning of "day of importation" arises from the purpose of the levy system, which is to avoid repurcussions on the internal market of world price movements.
Det drejer sig altså om det øjeblik, da varen uigenkaldeligt frit kan omsættes.
417 market—that is from which, having finally entered that market, it comes into competition with home products.
Når det drejer sig om oplagrede varer, er det disses udtagelse fra lageret, der betyder, at de frit kan omsættes.
In a word, it was the juncture when the import is definitively put into free circulation.
Den afgiftssats, der skal anvendes, er altså den, der gælder den dag, da varen udtages fra lageret (').
Goods placed in bond are put into free circulation only upon their release from bond: hence the levy chargeable in their case must be that for the day of the release from bond.J
For så vidt angår bestemmelsen af de faktiske eller formelle, toldmæssige betingelser, der er forbundet med udtagelsen fra lageret (datoen for udtagelseserklæringen og slettelsen fra lagerregisteret eller datoen for varernes faktiske udtagelse) er det imidlertid, ifølge Domstolen, den nationale ret, der må præcisere disse aspekter.
The details of the actual steps or customs procedure whereby release from bond is effected (date of declaration of release from bond and deletion from the bonded warehouse's books, and date of physical removal of goods) is, however, the Court found, entirely a matter of domestic law.
På det principielle plan forlænger kendelsen mærkbart Domstolens retspraksis, for så vidt angår afgrænsningen af Fællesskabets og de enkelte landes kompetence inden for de fælles markedsordninger, men den tilkendegiver samtidig grænserne for den normale rækkevidde af Fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser på dette område.
As to principles, the judgment forms a notable addition to the Court's case law on the demarcation of Community and national jurisdiction with respect to the common organizations of markets, but at the same time makes clear the limits to the regulatory scope of the provisions of Community law in this connection.
Denne kendelses vigtige bestemmelse — nemlig at indførsel forudsætter, at varen uigenkaldeligt frit kan omsættes — må iøvrigt, for så vidt angår import afgifterne, tages i betragtning inden for rammerne af den (endnu ikke gennem førte) alm. harmonisering af toldlovgivningerne.
The important definition which the judgment contains with regard to the levy legislation—namely that "importation" presupposes definitive putting of the goods into free circulation—will need to be borne in mind in the general harmonization (not yet achieved) of customs legislation.
Hertil svarer forpligtelsen til at angive det sted, hvor varerne befinder sig i det øjeblik, da tilbudet gives, og til at stille dem til interventionsorganets disposition, for at dette kan kontrollere tilbudets lovmæssighed, og til derefter at lade dette organ tage initiativet til deres øvrige befordring og til angivelse af det sted, hvor overtagelsen af dem skal ske. Kravet bevarer sin betydning og sin nytte i det tilfælde, hvor overtagelsesstedet angives i forvejen og generelt.
Accordingly, there was the corresponding obligation on the other party to state where the goods were located at the time of making the offer and to hold them at the agency's disposal there so that the latter could check that the offer was in order, the agency being thereafter responsible for giving instructions as to the future movement of the goods and the point of collection.
Ganske vist er interventionsordningens korrekte funktion ikke nogen hindring for, at et ufuldstændigt, men formelt korrekt tilbud, simpelthen senere kan gøres fuldstændigt. Imidlertid kan det først gøre sin virkning, når det er blevet fuldstændiggjort.
It was true that the intervention system would still function normally if an offer initially incomplete but otherwise in order as to form were simply completed subsequently: nevertheless the offer could not produce results until it was so completed.
Sag 82-71 frembød problemet, om eneret til salg af et produkt inden for visse zoner af en Medlemsstats område, som lokale offentlige organer sad inde med, eller som henhørte under disse organer, er i modstrid med EØF-traktatens artikel 37.
In case 82/71 the Court had to decide whether the sole right held by or through certain local-level public bodies to sell a particular product in particular areas of a Member State was contrary to Article 37 EEC.
Da det drejer sig om et landbrugsprodukt, frembød sagen ligeledes det problem, om en sådan ret, i det omfang hvor den udgør en del af en national markedsordning falder uden for 37's anvendelsesområde på grund af de særlige bestemmelser for landbruget, idet en sådan ordning skal opretholdes, så længe den ikke erstattes af en fælles ordning.
As the product was an agricultural one, it had further to decide whether such right, to the extent it formed part of a national organization of a market, fell outside the scope of Article 37 by reason of the specific provisions on agriculture, and accordingly had to remain in being until such time as a common organization of the market was established in its stead.
Det øjeblik, fra hvilket forpligtelsen til i1
The case related specifically to the milk marketing centres operating in
Konkurrencereglerne (EØF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86)
(Articles 85 and 86 EEC Treaty)
Ved ni kendelser dateret den 14. juli 1972 (2) pådømte Domstolen de klager mod Kommissionens beslutning af 24. juli 1969 (3), der var indgivet af ni
The Court on 14 July delivered nine judgments1on appeals by nine dyestuffs manufacturers2against a Commission Decision of 24 July 19693 fining one of them 40 0004and the others 50 000 u.a. for acting in breach of Article 85(1) EEC by the introduction of concerted price increases in 1964, 1965 and 1967.
(*) EF-Domstolen, 21. marts 1972 (Det italienske ministerium for offentlige anliggender/
Its sole concession was to reduce the fine on ACNA to 30 000 u.a., ACNA having joined in the concerted practice only once, in 1964.
) Virksomheden Ciba SA i Basel har ikke indbragt klage. ) ACNA.
A tenth undertaking, CIBA SA, of Basle, did not appeal.
FORTOLKNING AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS REGLER
COMMUNITY LAW same position would act in the same way.
425 derpå, når den fører til konkurrencebetingelser, der ikke stemmer overens med de normale markedsbetingelser, produkternes art, virksomhedernes betydning og antal og omtalte markedsvolumen taget i betragtning.
In court, the Commission had submitted that concertation need not involve the devising of a joint plan to engage in concerted market behaviour: all it need involve was undertakings' keeping one another informed of the attitude they intended to take, so that each could plan its own course of action in reliance on its competitors' acting in parallel.
Ovenikøbet har Domstolen fast slået, at markedet for farvestoffer i Fællesskabet kendetegnes ved eksistensen af fem nationale, isolerede markeder, omfattende forskellige prisniveauer, uden at det er muligt at forklare disse forskelle gennem de omkostninger og afgifter, der påhviler producenterne i disse lande. I følge de eksperters udtalelse, som Dom stolen forhørte om dette punkt, skulle denne inddeling skyldes nødvendigheden af at kunne stille en teknisk assistance på stedet, til forbrugernes disposition og sikre øjeblikkelige leverancer.
The Court in the main upheld the Commission's contention. Parallelism, it found, while not per se to be equated with concerted practices, was strongly suggestive of these when it led to competitive conditions not tallying with the normal market conditions given the nature of the products, the importance and number of the undertakings and the size of the market in question.
Domstolen mener, at denne inddeling var af en sådan art, at den isolerede forbrugerne på deres nationale marked ved at splitte konkurrencens frie spil, og at den forhindrede en almindelig konfrontation af producenter på hele Fællesskabets område.
Expert witnesses who had testified on this point had given it as their opinion that this compartmentation was due to the need to provide consumers with on-the-spot technical assistance and ensure prompt delivery: the Court considered that it was calculated, by splitting up the operation of competition, to confine consumers to their respective national markets and prevent any general confrontation of procedures throughout the Common Market.
Domstolen fastsatte, at virksomhedernes praksis, der bestod i påhinandenfølgende prisforhøjelser, afslører et tiltagende samarbejde mellem virksomhederne.
The Court found the undertakings' practice of consecutive prices increases to be indicative of progressive cooperation between them.
Domstolen mener, at det ikke er antageligt, at de forhøjelser fra januar 1964, der blev indført på det italienske marked og genoptaget på de hollandske og belgisk-luxembourgske markeder, der har få forbindelser indbyrdes, hvilket gælder såvel prisniveau som konkurrencestruktur, har kunnet realiseres inden for et tidsrum fra 48 timer til tre dage uden forudgående samordning.
It was hard to credit that the increases made in January 1964 first in the Italian and then in the Dutch and Belgian/Luxembourg markets, which had little in common as regards either price level or pattern of competition, could have been effected in the space of 48 hours to three days without prior concertation. tion.
Med hensyn til forhøjelserne fra 1965 og 1967, mener Domstolen, at virksomhederne på forhånd indbyrdes svækkede usikkerheden med hensyn til deres fremtidige handlemåde og derigennem en stor del af den risiko, som enhver selvstændig, ændret handlemåde normalt medfører på et eller flere markeder.
As to the 1965 and 1967 increases, the Court considered the undertakings had disposed in advance, among themselves, of any uncertainty as to one another's future behaviour, and hence of much of the risk ordinarily attending an independent change of behaviour in one or more markets.
Faktisk havde virksomhederne taget initiativet til forhøjelserne, og havde i nogen tid i forvejen meddelt at de havde til hensigt at forhøje priserne i et vist omfang.
In effect the undertakings which triggered the increases had made it known some time beforehand that they planned to mark up their prices to a specific extent.
I beslutningen blev det på dette punkt forklaret, at i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 1 er al samordnet praksis, hvis følge er at fordreje konkurrencen inden for fællesmarkedet, uforenelig med fællesmarkedet og forbudt og at der altså ikke er grund til at undersøge, om de virksomheder, der er skyld i disse konkurrence restriktioner, har deres hjemsted indenfor eller udenfor Fællesskabet.
On the other hand it was a breach of the rules .of competition for a producer to cooperate in any way with his competitors in determining a coordinated course of action with respect to the raising of prices and ensuring its success by disposing in advance of all un certainty as to how each would react on the main aspects involved, such as the amount, subject, date and place of the increases.
På dette punkt fastsatte Domstolen på den ene side, at de stigninger, der blev foretaget i fællesmarkedet, angik konkurrencen mellem producenter, der arbejdede i dette, og på den anden side, at sagsøgerne overfor deres filialer i Fællesskabet på en bindende måde havde fastsat priser og andre salgsbetingelser. Domstolen mener altså: » under disse betingelser ville den formelle adskillelse mellem disse selskaber, resulterende i deres adskilte juridiske selvstændighed, ikke kunne danne modsætning til enheden i deres handlemåde på markedet, i overensstemmelse med anvendelsen af konkurrencereglerne «.
It had been pointed out in the original Decision that Article 85(1) pro hibited as incompatible with the Common Market " all... concerted practices... which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the Common Market", and that it was therefore immaterial whether the undertakings behind the restrictions of competition which had occurred had their head offices inside or outside the Community.
Domstolen konstaterer således, at de tre sagsøgere ganske rigtigt har gennem ført den samordnede praksis indenfor fællesmarkedet, den udtalte sig altså ikke angående spørgsmålet, om hvorvidt det er tilstrækkeligt for at anvende konkurrence reglerne overfor virksomheder, hvis hjemsted er i tredjelandene, at disse udøver en vis indflydelse indenfor fællesmarkedet på grund af de konkurrencebegrænsninger, de foretager udenfor fællesmarkedet.
In the court proceedings, moreover, the Commission had pleaded that the three appellant undertakings had acted through their wholly-controlled subsidiaries the head offices of which were in the Community.
I denne forbindelse er der grund til at minde om, at Domstolen allerede i sin dom af 25. november 1971 (x) gav udtryk for, at for at kunne forbydes i henhold til artikel 85, bør en aftale være egnet til at påvirke handelen mellem Medlemsstaterne og have til følge eller til formål at skade konkurrencen indenfor fællesmarkedet. »
On this head the Court found, firstly, that the price increases in the Com mon Market affected competition among producers operating there, and secondly, that the appellants' determination of prices and other conditions of sale had been binding on their Community subsidiaries.
Den kendsgerning, at en af de deltagende parter i aftalen er anbragt i et tredjeland, hindrer ikke anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse, såsnart aftalen får virkninger på fællesmarkedets territorium « (2).
Its conclusion was therefore: " this being so, the fact that these companies are formally separate, in consequence of their distinct legal personality, cannot be taken as disproving the contention that, for the purpose of the application of the rules of competition, their market behaviour is of one piece. "
) EF-Domstolen, 25. november 1971 (Béguelin Import Co/SACL Import-Export og Marbach, 22-71), Samling 1971, s. 949, Femte Almindelige Beretning, nr. 617. ) Loc. cit. Samling 1971, s. 959-960. ) EF-Domstolen, 17. oktober 1972 (Vereniging van Cementhandelaren/Kommissionen, 8-72).
CJEC, 25 November 1971 (Béguelin Import co./SACL Import-Export and Marbach, case 22/71), Ree. 1971, p. 949; cf.
Ifølge Domstolen har en aftale, der strækker sig over en Medlemsstats hele område, i kraft af dens natur, til formål at styrke de nationale skranker og beskytte den nationale produktion, hvorved den hindrer den af Traktaten ønskede økonomiske vekselvirkning.
In the first place, the Court took the view that a cartel comprising a substantial number of dealers in a given market, who were supplying that market with the aid of imported products, did "affect trade between Member States": an agreement covering the whole of a member country had ipso facto the effect of consolidating country-by-country compartmentation, thereby impeding the economic interpénétration aimed at by the Treaty and affording protection to the home production of that country.
I foreliggende tilfælde praktiserede de handlende hovedsageligt et vejledende prissystem.
The second point covered by the Court in its judgment concerned the actual tenor of the agreement.
Domstolen mente, at fastsættelse af priser, selv om de kun er vejledende, påvirker konkurrencen, idet den tillader alle de deltagende parter med en rimelig sikkerhedsgrad at forudse, hvilken prispolitik deres konkurrenter vil følge.
In this particular case the dealers in the main operated a system of guide prices: the Court ruled that the fixing even of a guide price affected competition in that it enabled all parties to calculate with fair certainty beforehand what their competitors' pricing policy was going to be.
EØF-traktatens sociale bestemmelse
Social provisions of the EEC Treaty
Foruden forskellige domme (a) inden for området vandrende arbejds tageres sociale sikring har Domstolen med hensyn til arbejdskraftens frie bevæge lighed indenfor Fællesskabet udtrykt sig om rækkevidden af forbudet mod forskelsbehandling, indeholdt i artiklerne 48 i EØF-traktaten og 7 i forordningen (EØF) nr. 1612/68.
In addition to a number of judgments3in connection with the social security of migrant workers, the Court defined, in the field of free movement of workers within the Community, the scope of the prohibition on discrimina-
(!) — Angående adgang til den frivillige franske alderdomsforsikringsordning: EF-Domstolen, 22. marts 1972 (Merluzzi/Centralsygesikringskassen i Paris, 80-71),
CJEC, 17 October 1972 (Vereniging van Cementhandelaren / Commission, case 8/72). (a) With reference to the right to affiliate to the French volunatry old-age insurance scheme: CJEC, 22 March 1972 (Merluzzi/ Caisse Primaire Centrale d'Assurance Maladie de la Région Parisienne, case 80/71), Ree. 1972, p.
FÆLLESSKABSRET kvindelige tjenestemænd: ved anvendelsen af artikel 4 stk. 3 i bilag VII i De europæiske Fællesskabers tjenestemandsvedtægt havde sagsøgerne på grund af deres ægteskab set sig frataget retten til udetillæg, en integrerende del af deres løn, idet man tog hensyn til, at deres ægtemænd, betragtet som familieoverhoveder, ikke opfyldte betingelserne for bevilling af dette tillæg.
The Court also gave two important judgments2under Article 184 EEC with respect to the principle of equal treatment for male and female Community officials. The plaintiffs had, pursuant to Article 4(3) of annex VII of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities, forfeited upon their marriage their entitlement to expatriation allowance—an integral part of the salary—inasmuch as their husbands, who were regarded as the head of household in each case, did not qualify for the allowance.
De gjorde overfor Domstolen gældende, at afskaffelsen af dette tillæg var ulovlig og i strid med såvel et alment retsprincip, der udelukkede enhver forskelsbehandling, baseret på køn, som med artikel 119 i EØF-traktaten, der opstiller princippet for ligeløn til mandlige og kvindelige arbejdere.
They submitted that its withdrawal from them was illegal, being contrary both to a general principle of law prohibiting all discrimination on grounds of sex alone, and to Article 119 EEC, which contained the principle of equal pay for men and women.
Domstolen (1) mente, » at ved at gøre bevarelsen af tillægget betinget af egenskaben som familie-overhoved... har vedtægten skabt en arbitrær forskelsbehandling angående løn for tjenestemænd. «
The Court3ruled that " by making continued payment of the allowance conditional on acquisition of the status of head of household ... the Staff Regulations instituted an arbitrary difference of treatment between officials. "
Beslutningerne angående ændringer af valutakurserne fortsætter med at henhøre under Staterne. Ifølge Domstolen (2) er Fællesskabet altså ikke ansvarlig for den forskelligartethed, som en sådan ændring kan skabe mellem en Stats eksport- og importsituation og den tilsvarende situation i de andre medlemsstater.
Decisions on adjustments to currency exchange rates being still a matter for the Member States, the Court has ruled4that the Community is not ans werable for any disparity which such adjustments may produce between the position of exporters and importers in the State concerned and that of their opposite numbers in the other Member States.