natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I den juridiske afdeling modsatte man sig denne bestemmelse, og den blev trukket tilbage i sidste øjeblik. Denne afdeling fandt, at en sådan tilpasningsperiode indebar en forskelsbehandling, som var i strid med traktaten.
This provision was withdrawn at the last minute when the legal service opposed it on the ground that the period of adaptation was discriminatory and therefore incompatible with the Treaty.
Og det kan da ikke bestrides, at denne bestemmelse, hvis den tages bogstaveligt, kun gælder for udlændinge og ikke berører landets statsborgere.
And there was indeed no denying that, taken literally, this provision applied to foreign nationals only and did not affect nationals of the host country.
Man kunne ganske vist i modsat retning have henvist til en passage i kommentarerne til dette almindelige program, hvor der udtrykkeligt tales om muligheden af en prøve i kendskab til værtslandets sprog.
Against this, of course, it would have been possible to quote a passage from the memorandum commenting on the General Programme which specifically envisaged the possibility of an examination to test knowledge of the language of the host country.
Man kunne også se på teksten i forordningen om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, hvor denne mulighed ligeledes var taget i betragtning. ning.
The Regulation on freedom of" movement for workers also made provision for such a possibility.
Måske kunne man have indtaget en mere smidig holdning og antaget som en juridisk fiktion, at de kundskaber, der var tilegnet i løbet af en tilpasningsperiode, allerede var erhvervet af landets statsborgere, og at dette krav derfor ikke indebar nogen forskelsbehandling. Men der var stadig en virkelig vanskelighed, som gjorde sig gældende: tilpasningsperioden vanskeliggjorde, for ikke at sige umuliggjorde, udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
A more flexible attitude could perhaps have been adopted by accepting the legal fiction that the knowledge gained during the period of adaptation had been acquired by nationals of the host country, so that this requirement was not discriminatory.
Man rettede sig derfor efter den juridiske afdelings opfattelse: tilpasningsperioden blev opgivet.
The opinion of the legal service was therefore accepted and the period of adaptation was abandoned.
I den kommende tid skulle det dog vise sig, at dette sproglige problem stadig medførte vanskeligheder.
However, subsequent events were to show that the language problem was still a difficulty.
Diskussionen herom blev genoptaget i Rådets instanser, og Kommissionen foreslog, at man erstattede tilpasningsperioden med en »informationstjeneste«, som værtslandet skulle stille til rådighed for de begunstigede ifølge direktiverne; de kunne herigennem få lejlighed til at gøre sig bekendt med de nationale lovgivninger og sproget.
As debate flowed back and forth in the Council, the Commission proposed an alternative to the period of adaptation: an 'information service' that the host country would make available to persons taking advantage of the provisions of the directives, to give them an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the national laws and language.
En bestemmelse af denne art blev vedtaget.
This proposal was adopted.
Desværre gav et stykke, som mere direkte angik sprogproblemet, stadig anledning til uklarhed.
Unfortunately, the paragraph which refers directly to the language problem failed to clear the matter up entirely.
Det er således affattet:
It is worded as follows:
»Medlemsstaterne drager omsorg for, at de begunstigede i deres egen og i deres patienters interesse i givet fald erhverver de sprogkundskaber, der er nødvendige for udøvelsen af deres erhvervsmæssige virksomhed i den medlemsstat, der er værtsland.«
'Member States shall see to it that, where appropriate, the persons concerned acquire, in their interest and in that of their patients, the linguistic knowledge necessary to the exercise of their profession in the host country'.
Kommissionen har siden da stadig hævdet, at denne tekst ikke gav en medlemsstat ret til at indføre en eksamen.
The Commission consistently maintained afterwards that this did not allow a Member State to introduce an examination.
Det må erkendes, at dette da heller ikke fremgår tydeligt.
It has to be admitted that this is not self-evident.
Dette emne har været diskuteret mellem Kommissionen og Storbritannien i anledning af, at denne medlemsstat havde indført en sådan eksamen.
A debate arose on this subject between the Commission and the United Kingdom, which had introduced just such an examination.
Storbritanniens regering er gået ind på at afskaffe den eksamen, den havde besluttet at indføre.
The Government of the United Kingdom agreed to drop the examination.
e) Benyttelse af en titel
(e) Use of titles
Med hensyn til titler må der skelnes mellem: — en uddannelsestitel, som nærmere angiver arten af den erhvervede uddannelse, og
A distinction is to be made here between: — an academic title, which indicates the nature of training undergone;
— en erhvervstitel, som godtgør opfyldelsen af forskellige betingelser med hensyn til uddannelse, disciplin, indskrivning, alder osv., der er fastsat for at få adgang til at optage og udøve en erhvervsvirksomhed.
— a professional title, which attests to fulfilment of various conditions (regarding training, discipline, registration, age, etc.) governing admission to and practice in a profession.
I direktivet findes to forskellige bestemmelser herom:
The directive contains two types of provision on this subject:
— Hvad uddannelsestitlen angår, kan den ifølge direktivet begunstigede i værtslandet benytte sin akademiske tiel, som er erhvervet i hjemlandet og på denne stats sprog.
— In the case of an academic title, a person taking advantage of the provisions of the directive can use a title obtained in his country of origin, in the language of that country, when practising in the host country.
Dette gælder, selv om der findes et direktiv om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser og en aftale om akademisk ligestilling af eksamensbeviserne.
This holds true even where there is a directive on mutual recognition of diplomas, which clearly underlines the difference between a decision on mutual recognition of diplomas and an agreement on academic equivalence of diplomas.
— Hvad erhvervstitlen angår: når der findes gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, benytter den begunstigede den i værtslandet brugte erhvervstitel. Hvis der ikke findes nogen gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbevis, benyttes erhvervstitlen fra hjemlandet.
— In the case of a professional title, where there is mutual recognition of diplomas, the professional title of the host country is used; otherwise, the professional title of the country of origin is used.
f) Vedrorende gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser
(f) Aspects of mutual recognition of diplomas
Tvivl om eksamensbevisets ægthed
Doubt as to the authenticity of a diploma
Den britiske delegation har henledt Rådets opmærksomhed på det store antal bedragerier i forbindelse med eksamensbeviser: der fremlægges dokumenter, som i virke ligheden er forfalskninger.
The United Kingdom delegation drew the Council's attention to the many cases of fraud over diplomas, in which documents presented were actually forgeries.
For at fjerne denne bekymring har Rådet indført en bestemmelse, hvorefter der gives de medlemsstater, som nærer begrundet tvivl om ægtheden af et eksamensbevis, mulighed for af de kompetente myndigheder i hjemlandet at kræve en bekræftelse af denne ægthed... »samt en bekræftelse på, at den begunstigede har opfyldt alle de uddannelsesbetingelser, som kræves i direktivet.«
In response to this concern, the Council included an article under which a Member State which had justified doubts about the authenticity of a diploma could require the competent authorities in the country of origin to provide confirmation of its authenticity and 'confirmation of the fact that the person concerned has fulfilled all the training requirements laid down in (the) directive'.
Eksamensbevis, der er anerkendt i en medlemsstat og erhvervet i et tredjeland
The case of a diploma obtained outside the Community which is recognized by a Member State
Dette princip har til følge, at medlemsstaterne for alle de eksamens beviser, de anerkender, skal fastsætte samme normer som de, der findes i direktivet.
According to this principle, Member States must apply the standards of a directive equally to all diplomas that they recognize.
Da man i visse stater anerkender eksamensbeviser fra en tredjestat under betingelser, som afviger fra de i direktivet fastsatte, kunne gennemførelsen af en samordning i så fald give anledning til vanskeligheder.
Since some Member States recognized diplomas obtained in third countries under conditions that were different from those stipulated in the directive, there was a problem over coordination in such cases.
For at løse dette spørgsmål har Rådet indsat følgende bestemmelse i direktivet:
In order to deal with this problem, the Council included the following provision in the directive:
»Dette direktiv udelukker på ingen måde medlemsstaternes mulighed for på deres eget område og efter deres egen lovgivning at give indehavere af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifi kationsbeviser, som ikke er erhvervet i en medlemsstat, adgang til at optage og udøve virksomhed som...«.
'Nothing in this Directive shall prejudice any facility which may be granted in accordance with their own rules by Member States in respect of their own territory to authorize holders of diplomas, certificates or other evidence of formal qualifications which have not been obtained in a Member State to take up and pursue the activities of a ...'.
g) Stiftelse af selskaber mellem udøvere af liberale erhverv
(g) Formation of companies or firms by members of the professions
Iværksættelsen af etableringsretten rejste problemet om sammenslutning af udøvere af liberale erhverv i form af erhvervsselskab med status som juridisk person.
Implementation of the right of establishment raised the problem of what was to be done about associations of members of the professions in the form of companies or firms having legal personality.
I denne forbindelse skulle der tages stilling til de to spørgsmål:
Two questions arose:
— vil sådanne selskaber have etableringsret i medfør af artikel 58?
— were such companies or firms entitled to freedom of establishment under the terms of Article 58?
— hvorledes stiller forholdet sig for en erhvervsudøver, som er deltager i et sådant selskab i sit hjemland, og som er begunstiget i henhold til den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser i et land, hvor sådanne selskaber ikke er tilladt?
— what was the position of a professional practitioner who was a member of such a company or firm in his country of origin and took advantage of the freedom to provide services in a country where such companies or firms were prohibited?
I virkeligheden har Rådet ikke taget disse spørgsmål op til realitetsbehandling.
In the event, the Council did not deal thoroughly with these questions.
Det har ved vedtagelsen af »læge«-direktivet afgivet følgende erklæring:
When adopting the directive on the medical profession, it issued the following Declaration on the subject:
»Rådet opfordrer Kommissionen til at undersøge spørgsmålene vedrørende de forskellige administrativt og ved lov fastsatte bestemmelser i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til selskabers virksomhed på de liberale erhvervs område og snarest muligt at forelægge det passende forslag herom.«
'The Council invites the Commission to examine matters relating to the differences between the provisions laid down by law or regulation in the Member States concerning the activities of companies in the field of the liberal professions and to submit to it appropriate proposals in the matter as soon as possible.'
»Det europæiske Sekretariat for liberale, intellektuelle og sociale Erhverv« (SEPLIS) udførte i 1979 på Kommissionens vegne en undersøgelse af dette spørgsmål om virksomhed under selskabsform. Denne undersøgelse skal indgå i udførelsen af det arbejde, som Rådet har pålagt Kommissionen på dette område.
In 1979 a study of this problem of professionals practising as members of companies or firms was carried out on behalf of the Commission by the Secretariat Européen des Professions Libérales, Intellectuelles et Sociales (SEPLIS), whose report should help the Commission in the examinations of this subject which the Council has asked it to undertake.
For så vidt angår artiklerne med almindelige bestemmelser har SEPLIS foreslået Kommissionen, at den i et forslag til direktiv optager bestemmelser herom, der skal gælde for alle disse erhverv. Sekretariatet finder nemlig, at et sådant direktiv ville indebære flere fordele.
SEPLIS has suggested to the Commission that all these general provisions could be brought together in a proposal for a directive which would make them applicable to all the professions.
For det første ville det lette arbejdet i Rådet, som ikke mere ville behøve at tage sig af disse bestemmelser bortset fra at give regler for enkelte særlige tilfælde.
First of all, it would simplify the work of the Council, which would no longer have to reconsider these provisions on each occasion, except to deal with specific cases.
Desuden ville behandlingen af dette forslag give de europæiske forbindelsesudvalg lejlighed til på grundlag af en konkret tekst at komme ind på en række spørgsmål, som ligger dem på sinde, og som giver dem anledning til nogle betænkeligheder i forbindelse med bevægelsesfriheden, som i virkeligheden er ubegrundede .
In addition, examination of such a proposal, which would provide a concrete basis for discussion, would give the European liaison committees an opportunity to ventilate various issues close to their hearts, about which they harbour unfounded fears on account of freedom of movement.
Paradoksalt nok er etableringsretten og den fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke blevet fastslået ved en beslutning i Rådet, men ved domme afsagt af Domstolen.
Paradoxically enough, the right of establishment and freedom to provide services were not brought into effect by any decision of the Council, but by judgments of the
vedtaget de første direktiver.
Court of Justice. Since the Council's adoption of the first directives, further principles have been established by judgments of the Court.
Vi skal i det følgende kort omtale de vigtigste af disse domme, som udgør en tredje og meget betydningsfuld del af den gældende fælles skabsret.
The most significant of these judgments, which make up a third and very important aspect of the Community patrimony, are summarized below.
En nederlandsk advokat med eksamensbevis fra Belgien bliver nægtet tilladelse til at udøve sin erhvervsvirksomhed i Belgien, fordi den belgiske lovgivning herfor kræver, at han er belgisk statsborger.
Mr Reyners, a Dutch lawyer who had obtained his diploma in Belgium, had been excluded from practising as an avocat in that country because, under its laws, Belgian nationality was a condition governing the right to practise as an avocat there.
Advokat Reyners indanker sagen for Conseil d'Etat de Belgique, som igen stiller følgende to spørgsmål til De europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol:
He appealed to the Conseil d'Etat of Belgium, which in turn put the following two questions to the Court of Justice of the European Communities:
»1) Hvorledes skal udtrykket »virksomhed, som varigt eller lejlighedsvis er forbundet med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed i en medlemsstat«, i Romtraktatens artikel 55 forstås?
'(1) What is meant by "activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority" within the meaning of Article 55 of the Treaty of Rome?
Skal denne artikel fortolkes således, at kun den virksomhed inden for advokaterhvervet, som er forbundet med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed, er undtaget fra traktatens kapitel 2, eller således, at dette erhverv som helhed er undtaget, fordi dets udøvelse omfatter virksomhed, der er forbundet med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed?
Should this article be interpreted as meaning that, within a profession such as that of avocat, only those activities which are connected with the exercise of official authority are excepted from the application of the Chapter on the right of establishment, or that the whole of this profession is excepted by reason of the fact that it comprises activities connected with the exercise of this authority?
2) Er Romtraktatens artikel 52 efter udløbet af overgangsperioden en »bestemmelse, der gælder umiddelbart«, uanset, at de direktiver, som er nævnt i traktatens artikler 54, stk. 2, og 57, stk. 1, ikke er udstedt?«
(2) Since the end the transitional period, is Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, a "directly applicable provision" despite the absence of directives as prescribed by Articles 54 (2) and 57 (1) of the Treaty?'
» 1 ) EØF-traktatens artikel 52 er efter udløbet af overgangsperioden en umiddelbart gældende bestemmelse, uanset at der inden for et bestemt område ikke er udstedt de direktiver, der er nævnt i traktatens artikler 54, stk. 2, og 57, stk. 1.
'(1) Since the end of the transitional period Article 52 of the Treaty is a directly applicable provision, despite the absence, in a particular sphere, of the directives prescribed by Articles 54 (2) and 57 (1) of the Treaty.
2) Den i EØF-traktaten hjemlede undtagelse fra etableringsfriheden skal begrænses til sådanne af de i artikel 52 omhandlede former for virksomhed, der i sig selv er direkte og særligt forbundet med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed; dette kriterium rammer under ingen om stændigheder inden for et liberalt erhverv som advokaterhvervet virksomhed som rådgivning og juridisk bistand eller repræsentation og forsvar af parter i retten, endog selv om udøvelsen af sådan virksomhed er pligtmæssig eller undergivet en lovbestemt eneret.«
(2) The exception to freedom of establishment provided for by the first paragraph of Article 55 must be restricted to those of the activities referred to in Article 52 which in themselves involve a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority; it is not possible to give this description, in the context of a profession such as that of avocat, to activities such as consultation and legal assistance or the representation and defence of parties in court, even if the performance of these activities is compulsory or there is a legal monopoly in respect of it.'
Man vil se betydningen af denne dom.
The importance of this judgment is clear.
Den indeholder to adskilte afgørelser:
It comprised two distinct decisions:
— dels er etableringsretten erhvervet efter udløbet af overgangsperioden, dvs. fra den 1. januar 1970 at regne;
— first, the right of establishment had been effective since the end of the transitional period, i.e. since 1 January 1970;
— dels skal undtagelsen fra etableringsretten på grund af forbindelse med udøvelse af offentlig myndighed anvendes strengt, dvs. restriktivt; den pågældende virksomhed skal være direkte og specifikt forbundet med udøvelsen af offentlig myndighed.
— secondly, the exception to freedom of establishment by reason of activities con nected with the exercise of official authority was to be applied strictly, i.e. restrictively; the activity in question had to have a direct and specific connection with the exercise of official authority.
Dette er ikke tilfældet med de vigtigste former for virksomhed i advokat erhvervet.
This was not true of the main activities of the profession of avocat.
Advokaten nægtes adgang hertil, idet det efter ne derlandsk lov kræves, at han er bosat i Nederlandene.
Mr Van Binsbergen had asked a Dutch lawyer established in Belgium to defend him in a social security case to be heard by the Dutch Court of Appeal.
Advokaten anmodede i virke ligheden om at kunne præstere en tjenesteydelse i traktatens forstand.
The lawyer had in fact been seeking leave to provide a service within the meaning of the Treaty.
Den nederlandske appelret forelagde Domstolen to spørgsmål:
The Dutch Court of Appeal referred two questions to the Court of Justice:
»1) ... hvorvidt artiklerne 59 og 60 i EOF-traktaten er umiddelbart gældende og skaber indivi duelle rettigheder for borgerne, som de nationale domstole skal beskytte;
'(1) ... whether Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty are directly applicable and create individual rights which national courts must protect:
2) i bekræftende fald ... hvorledes disse artikler, og navnlig artikel 60, sidste stykke, skal fortolkes.«
(2) if the reply to the first question is in the affirmative ... what is meant by these articles and, in particular, by the provision in the final sentence of Article 60.'
Sidste stykke i artikel 60 har følgende ordlyd:
The final sentence of Article 60 reads as follows:
»Med forbehold af bestemmelserne i kapitlet om etableringsretten kan tjenesteyderen midlertidigt udøve sin virksomhed i det land, hvor ydelsen præsteres, på samme vilkår, som det pågældende land fastsætter for sine egne statsborgere.«
'Without prejudice to the provisions of the Chapter relating to the right of establishment, the person providing a service may. in order to do so. temporarily pursue his activity in the State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals.'
»1) EOF-traktatens artikler 59, stk. 1, og 60, stk. 3, bør fortolkes således, at national lovgivning ikke gennem et krav om fast opholdssted på territoriet må umuliggøre tjenesteydelser fra personer, der er bosat på en anden medlemsstats territorium, når tjenesteydelserne ikke er undergivet noget særligt krav i henhold til gældende national ret;
• ( 1 ) The first paragraph of Article 59 and the third paragraph of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the national law of a Member State cannot, by imposing a requirement as to habitual residence within that State, deny persons established in another Member State the right to provide services, where the provision of services is not subject to any special condition under the national law applicable;
2) artiklerne 59, stk. 1, og 60, stk. 3, har umiddelbar virkning og kan følgelig påberåbes for de nationale retter i hvert fald i den udstrækning, hvori de sigter mod afskaffelsen af enhver forskelsbehandling over for tjenesteyderen på grundlag af hans nationalitet eller den omstændighed, at han er bosat i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor ydelsen skal præsteres.«
(2) The first paragraph of Article 59 and the third paragraph of Article 60 have direct effect and may therefore be relied on before national courts, at least in so far as they seek to abolish any discrimination against a person providing a service by reason of his nationality or of the fact that he resides in a Member State other than that in which the service is to be provided.'
— for det første er den fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, ligesom det er tilfældet med etableringsretten, en ret, som er erhvervet fra den 1. januar 1970 at regne;
— first, that the freedom to provide services, like the right of establishment, had been an established right since 1 January 1970;
— dernæst er bopælskravet en restriktion, som skal ophæves, såfremt der ikke i den nationale lovgivning er fastsat nogen særlig betingelse for landets egne statsbor gere. Derimod kan et fast forretningssted inden for et bestemt jurisdiktionsområde kræves, såfremt dette krav er »objektivt nødvendigt for at sikre overholdelsen af regler om erhvervsudøvelse, der særlig er knyttet til retsudøvelsen og til re spekten for den faglige etik«.
— secondly, that the requirement as to habitual residence was a restriction which had to be abolished, where there were no special conditions applicable to nationals under the national laws; on the other hand, a permanent professional establishment within the jurisdiction of certain courts could be stipulated where such a require ment was 'objectively justified by the need to ensure observance of professional rules of conduct connected, in particular, with the administration of justice and with respect for professional ethics'.
Jean Thieffry, som er belgisk statsborger, har juridisk grad, »doctorat en droit«, erhvervet i Belgien.
Jean Thieffry, a Belgian national, held a Belgian diploma in law.