natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rådet gør dette ved en officiel retsakt, der kan fortolkes af Domstolen med hjemmel i EØFT artikel 177 29). Spørgsmål, der opstår under behandlingen af sager ved de nationale domstole angående rækkevidden af aftaler indgået mellem Fællesskabet og tredjelande, skal således også henvises til Domstolen.
It is the Council which concludes the agreement and it does so by an official act which is open to interpretation by the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.29 Questions which arise before a national court regarding the effect of agreements concluded by the Community with nonmember countries must, therefore, also be refer­red to the Court of Justice.
Europa-Parlamentet spiller ikke nogen særligt fremtrædende rolle ved indgåelsen af internationale aftaler.
The European Parliament does not play a very important part in the conclusion of agreements.
Det skal ikke rådspørges vedrørende aftaler, der indgås af EKSF og Euratom.
It need not be consulted in connection with ECSC or EAEC agreements.
Det er imidlertid inden for rammerne af EØF-traktaten. at
The great majority of the Community's agreements are concluded under the EEC Treaty.
27) Dom af 14.7.1976, forenede sager 3. 4 og 6/76 (Kramer). Sml.
The provisions of the EEC Treaty require the Parliament to be consulted in the case of association agreements (Article 238) but not in the case of trade agreements (Article 114).
For så vidt angår associeringsaftaler blev Parlamentet oprindeligt først hørt efter undertegnelsen af aftalen, men inden dennes ratifikation.
substantial in the form of the 'Luns procedure'.30which was named after the President of the Council at that time and provides for a debate in the Parliament before negotia­tions begin.
Under forhandlingerne opretholder Kommissionen kontakt med de udvalg i Europa-Parlamentet, hvorunder dette område hører.
During the negotiations, the Commission keeps in touch with the committees of the European Parliament responsible for the subject­matter involved.
Efter forhandlingerne, men inden underskriften, forelægger Rådet underhånden indholdet af aftalen for disse udvalg.
On completion of negotiations but before signature, the Council informs these committees, in con­fidence, of the contents of the agreements.
Med hensyn til handelsaftaler er rådslagningen med Europa-Parlamentet langt mindre omfattende.
Consultation with the Parliament is even less noteworthy in the case of trade agreements.
Fra »Luns-proceduren« er alene hentet reglen om. at ordlyden afen handelsaftale inden underskriften underhånden skal forelægges de berørte udvalg i Parlamentet.
The only rule of the 'Luns procedure' which is applied is that the text of a trade agree­ment is communicated in confidence to the parliamentary committees concerned before it is signed.
Aftalernes retsvirkninger inden for fællesskabsretten
Effects of agreements under Community law
Ved fortolkningen af indholdet af aftaler i medfør af artikel 177 må Domstolen lægge til grund, at dette indhold er resultatet afen retsakt fra Rådet.
In order to interpret the content of an agreement within the meaning of Article 177, the Court of Justice must treat that content as ensuing from an act of the Council.
Dette betyder ikke nødvendigvis, at Domstolen i almindelighed er tilhænger af den doktrin, hvorefter folkeretlige regler skal transformeres til fællesskabsretlige regler for at blive gældende ret i Fællesskabet.
This does not necessarily mean that, as a general rule, the Court supports the thesis that the rules of public international law must be transposed into Community law in order to have the force of law for the Community.
Dette ville være i modstrid med den stilling, som Domstolen altid har indtaget med hensyn til forholdet mellem national ret og fællesskabsretten.
That would be contrary to the attitude which the Court has always adopted on the relationship between national law and Community­law.
Den har nemlig altid forsvaret den grundsætning, at fællesskabsretten uden videre indgår i de nationale retssystemer, uanset på hvilken måde disse har inkorporeret den3I),
It has always upheld the principle that Community law automatically forms part of the national legal system, regardless of the manner in which that system incorporated it.31
De øvrige medlemsstater transformerer derimod folkeretlige regler til national ret. hvilket vil sige, at de har samme gyldighed som den lovgivningsakt — der almindeligvis er af temmelig uformel karakter — hvorved de transformeres, og at de som følge heraf må vige for en overordnet national regel og en senere vedtagelse af en regel af samme rang. Denne konsekvens af det dualistiske system bevirker, at sondringen mellem monisme og dualisme får praktisk betydning. Hvis sondringen ophæves, bortfalder denne konsekvens.
On the other hand, the other Member States transpose the rules of international law into nation­al law, which means that they have the same force as the national act by which they were transposed and that, in consequence, they must yield to a higher ranking provision of national law and to one of the same rank but of later date.
Hvis Domstolen i Haegeman-sagen havde lagt vægt på. om der var sket transformation, ville der have været tale om en transformation som resultat af en ubestemt retsakt fra Rådet.
If the Court had in mind, in Haegeman, the phenomenon of transposition, that transpo­sition arose from an unspecified act of the Council.
En sådan akt vedrører ikke den folkeretlige regels placering i fællesskabsretten.
Such an act does not affect the ranking of the international rule in Community law.
Man kan antage, at de aftaler, der er indgået af Fællesskabet, har forrang for fællesskabsreglerne, selvom de kun er blevet til fællesskabsregler ved Rådets akt.
Agreements adopted by the Com­munity can be recognized as taking precedence over other provisions of Community law, even though it is only the act of the Council that has made them part of Community law.
Domstolens argumentation i sagerne Van Gend en Loos og Costa/ENEL går i monistisk retning.
ν ENEL is based on the monist doctrine.
Alle argumenter, der taler for en forrang for fællesskabsretten fremfor national ret, taler ligeledes for folkeretlige reglers forrang for fællesskabsretlige regler.
Every argument in support of the precedence of Community law over national law is also an argument in favour of the precedence of international law over Community law.
Til syvende og sidst har den klassiske doktrin om transformation ikke nogen mening inden for Fællesskabet.
All in all, the classic doctrine of transposition has no relevance for the Community.
Denne doktrin er nemlig skabt i de nationale parlamenters interesse.
The doctrine was, in fact, created for the benefit of national parliaments.
Man ønsker ikke, at folkeretlige regler, der blev vedtaget uden for disse parlamenter, skulle integreres i den nationale retsorden.
There was opposition to the idea that international regulations adopted outside these parliaments should be integrated into the national legal system.
At transformere vil sige at erstatte en bestemmelse inden for folkeretten med en national bestemmelse, der er vedtaget af Parlamentet.
Transposition means replacing a provision of public international law by a provision of national law adopted by parliament.
I Fællesskabet er forholdene helt anderledes.
The position is quite different in the Community.
Den folkeretlige regel og den interne regel står på lige fod.
A rule of public international law and a provision of internal law are on an equal footing.
I begge tilfælde er det Rådet, der træffer beslutning på Kommissionens initiativ.
In either case, the Council takes the decision, on the initiative of the Commission; in neither case has the European Parliament a decisive vote.
Blandede aftaler
Mixed agreements
På basis af Domstolens retspraksis kan det siges, at Fællesskabet er kompetent til at indgå aftaler på alle områder, på hvilke det kan fastsætte bindende regler.
On the basis of the precedents established by the Court of Justice, the Community can be said to be empowered to conclude agreements in all fields in which it can adopt binding rules.
De øvrige områder er stadig forbeholdt medlemsstaterne.
The remaining fields are reserved to the States.
Der findes naturligvis mange aftaler, der vedrører forskellige områder, således at de delvis hører under Fællesskabets kompetence og delvis under medlemsstaternes kompetence.
Of course, many agreements cover different fields, so that they come partly within the competence of the Community and partly within the competence of the Member States.
I disse tilfælde tiltrædes aftalen både af Fællesskabet og de berørte medlemsstater hver for sig.
Generally, in these cases, both the Community and the individual Member State sign the agreement.
Man taler her om blandede aftaler.
These are called mixed agreements.
De angår meget forskellige forhold, og her skal kun nævnes aftalerne om beskyttelse af
There are a large number of them. Their objects vary widely: for example, the protection
De blandede aftaler betegner en nyhed som institutioner betragtet.
As an instrument, a mixed agreement is something new.
De giver anledning til visse teoretiske og praktiske problemer, som endnu ikke helt har fundet deres løsning.
It raises a number of theoretical and practical problems which have not yet been fully resolved.
Aftalerne har ofte karakter af »pakkeløsninger«.
An international treaty often takes the form of a 'package deal'.
De deltagende stater gør indrømmelser på visse punkter for at opnå fordele på andre. Som eksempel kan anføres et forhold på havrettens område.
The contracting States concede certain points to obtain the benefit of others.
De store søfartsnationer er særdeles interesserede i at bevare havenes frihed.
The great maritime powers have every interest in safe­guarding the freedom of the seas.
Derimod ønsker kyststaterne et bredt søterritorium, inden for hvilket de kan udøve eller befæste enerettigheder til fiskeri.
On the other hand, coastal States want to have wide territorial waters in which they can exercise or claim exclusive fishing rights.
Ved gensidige indrømmelser er det blevet muligt at nå frem til en aftale angående brede søterritorier og fri adgang til stræder.
Some give-and-take has made it possible to reach an agreement providing for wide territorial waters on the one hand and freedom of innocent passage in particular through straits on the other.
Ved indgåelsen af et sådant kompromis kan der ikke tages forbehold.
A compromise of this nature cannot be subject to reservations.
Hvis kyststaterne nemlig alene henholdt sig til reglerne angående søterritorierne, og de søfarende nationer alene henholdt sig til reglerne vedrørende stræder, ville der ikke være tale om noget kompromis.
If the coastal States could make a reservation as to the freedom of navigation through territorial waters and if the maritime powers could make reservations on the coastal States' exclusive fishing rights, the compromise would have been impossible.
Fællesskabet kan kun være part i aftaler på fiskeriområdet, for stræder hører ikke ind under dets kompetenceområde.
The Community can be a party only to the rules on fishing, since shipping does not fall within its competence.
Omvendt er medlemsstaterne enekompetente med
Conversely, the Member States alone have competence in regard to the rules on shipping but no longer have any with respect to fishing.
) F.eks. konventionen af 16.2.1976 angående forureningen af Middelhavet, indgået inden for rammerne af UNEP (FN's miljøbeskyttelsesprogram).
For example, the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment against Pollution in the Mediter­ranean of 16 February 1976, concluded under the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme).
Den blandede aftale rummer løsningen, idet Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne forpligter sig under et til at respektere samtlige regler.
undertake to observe all the rules.
Men hvilke beføjelser har Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne hver for sig?
However, what is the respective jurisdiction of the Community and of the Member States, taken individually?
Man kan forestille sig tre løsninger, nemlig: a) Samtlige medlemsstater er forpligtede til at tiltræde, så snart Fællesskabet gør det.
There are three possible solutions:
Retsenheden opretholdes derfor, men staternes individuelle frihed falder helt bort.
This ensures the maintenance of uniform rules but the individual Member States lose their freedom of action.
Den eneste grund til, at Fællesskabet ikke optræder alene, er den formelle fordeling af kompetence-områderne.
The only reason why the Community does not act alone is the formal division of powers.
På grund af denne fordeling skal medlemsstaterne ligeledes underskrive, men de besluttende beføjelser tilkommer alene Fællesskabet.
The Member States want to remain free to decide on their own participation. If the Member States are obliged to participate then their separate participation serves no purpose.
Indtil i dag har medlemsstaterne ikke akecpteret denne løsning.
So far, the Member States have not accepted this solution.
b) Den modsatte løsning lader sig lettere anvende på Fællesskabets nuværende udviklingstrin.
(b) The reverse possibility is more consonant with the present state of the Community's development.
Efter denne kan Fællesskabet tiltræde en blandet aftale, såsnart alle medlemsstater har ratificeret den.
Under this solution, the Community would accede to a mixed agree ment as soon as all the Member States had ratified it.
Denne løsning er i overensstemmelse med det princip om enstemmighed, som Rådet faktisk anvender, og den synes desuden at være den mest akceptable.
This solution accords with the principle of unanimity which is, in fact, applied in the Council and it is likely to be the most acceptable one.
Med hensyn til indgåelse af aftaler mangler den imidlertid smidighed, og den er desuden heller ikke særlig gunstig for Fællesskabets interesser.
However, it lacks the flexibility needed for the conclusion of agreements and, moreover, is hardly in the Community's interests, since the Community would be entirely at the mercy of its most recalcitrant Member State.
Fællesskabet er helt og holdent afhængigt af den mest modvillige medlemsstat.
Under this system the existing Member States would keep their freedom of action.
Medlemsstaternes frihed bibeholdes, når man ser bort fra nye tiltrædende stater, som kan være bundet af tiltrædelsesakten til at akceptere eksisterende blandede aftaler, medmindre Fællesskabet er rede til at opsige aftalerne og har mulighed for at gøre dette.
New Member States on the other hand should be bound by the Act of Accession to accept existing mixed agreements. Otherwise, the Community would be compelled to denounce the agreements.
I de fleste tilfælde er der imidlertid ingen hjemmel i aftalerne til ensidigt at opsige dem.
As the majority of agreements make no provision for unilateral denunciation, this will normally be impossible.
c) Enheden brydes, og hverken medlemsstaterne eller Fællesskabet tiltræder andre aftaler end de finder for godt.
(c) Unity is abandoned and both the Member States and the Community decide for themselves whether to accede to an agreement.
Denne løsning synes vanskelig at akceptere for parterne i aftalen.
This would not be readily accepted by the other parties to the agreement.
I ovennævnte eksempel fra havretten skulle Fællesskabet kunne tiltræde ordningen vedrørende søterritorierne, som er gunstig for det, medens medlemsstaterne skulle være neutrale med hensyn til ordningen angående stræderne, som ikke er gunstig for Fællesskabet.
To take the example we drew from the Law of the Sea, the Community could commit itself to the rules on fisheries, which are to its advantage, while the Member States could refuse to commit themselves to the rules on shipping, and in particular on navigation through straits, which place the Com munity members at a territorial disadvantage.
Enhver form for kompromis i forbindelse med aftalerne ville herefter fuldstændigt bortfalde.
All the give-and-take elements in the agreement would thus be cancelled out.
Dette kunne naturligvis være forudsat i forbindelse med aftalernes indgåelse.
Provision could, of course, be made for this when the agreement was concluded.
Hvis de øvrige parter i aftalen akcepterer en ordning, inden for hvilken én eller flere medlemsstater holder sig uden for visse dele af aftalen, kan Fællesskabet blive part i den, men alene med en del af medlemsstater ne.
If the other parties to the agreement accepted a formula which enabled one or more Member States not to be bound by certain parts of it, the Community could become a party to the agreement with some only of its Member States.
Dette tilfælde har navnlig foreligget i forbindelse med en aftale mellem Euratom og USA angående udveksling af nukleare oplysninger35). USA akcepterede, at kun seks af de ni medlemsstater udover Euratom blev parter i aftalen.
This is what happened in connection with an Agreement between the EAEC and the United States of America on the exchange of nuclear information.35 The United States agreed that, apart from the EAEC, only six of the nine Member States should be party to the agreement.
Følgen heraf har været, at USA alene har modtaget oplysninger fra disse seks lande og Euratom, medens de øvrige tre medlemsstater (Danmark, Frankrig og Det forenede Kongerige) har fået kendskab til de fra USA modtagne oplysninger via Euratom.
As a result, the United States received information only from the six States and from the EAEC, while the three other Member States (Denmark, France and the United Kingdom) received the American data via the EAEC.
Ligeledes er den aftale om kontrol, der er afsluttet mellem på den ene side Det internationale s
Similarly, the Agreement on safeguards concluded between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the EAEC, together with seven of its Member States, in connection with non-proliferation,36 constitutes an incomplete mixed
Atomenergiagentur (lAF^A) og på den anden side Euratom sammen med syv af dets medlemsstater angående forbud mod spredning ), en ufuldstændig blandet aftale, ved hvilken den anden part under hensyn til den store interesse, man har i denne kontrol, har akcepteret denne situation.
agreement in which, because of the importance attached to safeguards, the other party accepted the position.
Der findes endnu andre ufuldstændige aftaler ").
There are other incomplete mixed agreements in existence.37
Disse giver ofte de medlemsstater, der ikke er parter i aftalen, eller disses borgere en uberettiget fordel.
This type of agreement frequently secures an unfair advantage for the Member States which are not parties to it, and for their citizens.
De har nemlig alle fordelene ved aftalen via Fællesskabet, men de er ikke forpligtede til at overholde alle forpligtelserne i henhold til aftalen.
They reap the benefit of the agree ment through the Community but they are not bound to honour all the obligations which go with it.
Moderne aftaler indeholder ofte bestemmelser af institutionel karakter, i henhold til hvilke der tillægges nyoprettede organer normative funktioner eller opgaver med hensyn til overvågning af aftalens gennemførelse.
Modern agreements often contain institutional provisions vesting newly-created agencies with responsibility for making regulations or supervising their application.
Det sker tillige, at blandede aftaler indeholder bestemmelser af institutionel karakter.
Mixed agreements may also contain institutional provisions.
I så tilfælde kan Fællesskabets stilling give anledning til særlige problemer.
When this occurs, the position of the Community gives rise to special problems.
Navnlig opstar der spørgsmål om, hvorledes det skal være repræsenteret i de nye organer, og hvilken stilling det skal have i dem.
The main question is to decide how it should be represented and what position it should occupy in the agency.
Den europæiske Menneskerettighedskommission er måske den, som giver det bedste eksem­pel til illustration af disse former for problemer.
This kind of problem is best exemplified by the European Convention on Human Rights.
I sit memorandum af 4. april 1979 3a) foreslog Kommissionen, at Fællesskabet skulle tiltræde konventionen.
In a memorandum of 4 April 1979,38the Commission proposed that the Community should become a party to it.
Konventionen ville herved blive til en blandet aftale, eftersom medlemsstaterne allerede er deltagere i den. Hvilke institutionelle konsekvenser ville Fællesskabets tiltrædelse af konventionen få?
This would make the Convention a mixed agreement, since the Member States are already parties.
Fællesskabet skulle have et medlem i menneskerettighedskommissionen, men da det ikke er tilladt, at to medlemmer af kommissionen har samme nationalitet, måtte Fællesskabets medlem være statsborger i et tredjeland, medmindre artikel 20 i konventi­onen blev fraveget.
A member would have to serve on the European Commission of Human Rights for the Community but, since no two members of the Commission may be of the same nationality, the Community member would have to be a national of a nonmember State, unless there were a derogation from Article 20 of the Convention.
Stemmeretten volder endnu flere vanskeligheder.
Voting rights present even greater problems.
Lad os forudsætte, at en klage imod Fællesskabet skal behandles af Europarådets ministerkomité ). Skulle Fællesskabet i dette tilfælde råde over ti stemmer og måske i fremtiden (efter tiltrædelse af nye stater) over det absolutte flertal4")?
Let us suppose that a complaint against the Community had to be investigated by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.39In that event, would the Community have 10 votes and, in the future, perhaps, on the accession of further Member States, an absolute majority?40
Også på sådanne problemer må man søge specielle løsninger, der foreløbig træffes fra sag til sag, når Fællesskabet bliver part i en blandet aftale, der indeholder bestemmelser af institutionel art. Der kan muligvis senere findes mere almene regler.
Efforts must be made, for the time being on an ad hoc basis, to find specific answers to this kind of question every time the Community becomes party to a mixed agreement containing institutional provisions. More general rules could be worked out later.
**) Efter den procedure, der er omhandlet i konventionens artikel 32.
In accordance with the procedure prescribed in Article 32 of the Convention.
4") Kommissionen har derfor i sit memorandum foreslået, at man helt skulle udelukke klager til ministerkomi­ teen i »fællesskabssager«.
In the memorandum, the Commission suggested that no reference whatever to the Committee of Ministers should be permitted in 'Community' cases.
Fællesskabets politik
The activities of the Community
Kapitel I — Frie varebevægelser af Christian W.A.
Chapter I — The free movement of goods by Christiaan W.A. Timmermans
Afsnit I — Indledning
Section I — Preliminary observations
De frie varebevægelser er det væsentligste element inden for det fællesmarked, som er oprettet ved EKSF-, Euratom- og EØF-traktaterne.
The free movement of goods is the essential element in the common market established by the ECSC, EAEC and EEC Treaties.
De frie varebevægelser er reguleret ved EØF-traktatens anden del som det første af de grundlag, på hvilke Fællesskabet hviler (afsnit I, artikel 9-37).
Part Two of the EEC Treaty governs the free movement of goods as the first of the foundations of the Community (Title I, Articles 9 to 37).
De frie varebevægelsers historie i De europæiske Fællesskaber er først og fremmest historien om gennemførelsen og anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser i EØF-traktaten.
The history of the free movement of goods within the European Communities is first and foremost the history of the implementation and application of these provisions of the EEC Treaty.
Efter en kort fremstilling af de vigtigste udviklinger inden for kul- og stålsektoren samt atomenergisektoren vil jeg derfor i det følgende først og fremmest beskæftige mig med EØF-reglerne.
The principal subject of this study will therefore be the law of the EEC, after a short account of the main developments in the coal and steel and atomic energy sectors.
Endnu en enkelt generel bemærkning til indledning.
Some general observations may be made by way of introduction.