natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Antager man. at et dommerflertal normalt ikke vil lade et eller flere mindretal tale for døve øren. skulle løsrevne spor af de dissentierende opfattelser dukke op i domsbegrundelserne.
On the assump­tion that judges holding the majority view usually pay some regard to the views of one or more of their colleagues in the minority, it is to be expected that the grounds of judgment will bear the imprint of different minds.
Dette sker faktisk også efter omstændighederne på bekostning af stringensen i opbygningen af den pågældende doms præmisser.
On the occasions when this happens, it is at the expense of incisiveness in the wording of the grounds for its decision.
For retstilstanden betyder forbudet mod dissens en ringere grad af nuancering. Denne omkostning kompenseres for en del af generaladvokaternes konklusioner.
The prohibition, in the interests of justice, of disclosure of a dissenting opinion has the effect of obscuring the finer points, a disadvantage which is to some extent offset by the opinions of the advocates-general.
Afsnit IV — De forskellige former for sagsbehandling ikke-overholdelse af deres
Section IV — The machinery for resolving disputes
Søgsmål vedrørende medlemsstaternes forpligtelser (EØFT artikel 169 til 171)
Action to establish that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obli­gation
Det påhviler Kommissionen at drage omsorg for gennemførelsen af traktaten og de af institutionerne trufne beslutninger (EØFT artikel 155).
It is the duty of the Commission to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty and the acts adopted by the institutions are applied (Article 155 EEC).
Før artikel 169 tages i brug. drøfter Kommissionen normalt klager over påståede traktatbrud med den pågældende stat. blot med henvisning til denne generelle regel 14).
Before applying Article 169, the Commission, acting purely under the terms of this general rule, normally goes into the complaint of an alleged infringement of the Treaty with the State con­cerned. 14
Artikel 169 giver Kommissionen en søgsmålsbeføjelse, der gør den i stand til med styrke udenretsligt at forlange af medlemsstaterne, at de i alle enkeltheder efterlever fællesskabsreglerne.
the Commission's refusal could not be annulled and its inaction could not be remedied by an injunction of the Court calling upon it to take action under Article 169. 16
Artikel 169 bestemmer, at såfremt Kommissionen finder, at en medlemsstat ikke har overholdt sine fællesskabsforpligtelser, kan den rejse en retssag herom for Domstolen (§ 2).
The second paragraph of Article 169 lays down that, if the Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil a Community obligation, the Commission may bring the matter before the Court.
Forud for retssagen skal dog gå en administrativ procedure (§ 1). Herunder skal Kommissionen først afgive en begrundet udtalelse, hvori den fremfører sine anklager og opfordrer medlemsstaten til at gennemføre de nødvendige juridiske og praktiske forholdsregler.
Before doing so, however, the Commission must take the administrative steps provided for in the first paragraph of Article 169, under which it must first deliver a reasoned opinion setting out its complaints and calling upon the Member State to take the necessary legal and practical measures.
Den skal tillige give staten lejlighed til at fremsætte sine bemærkninger til klagepunkterne.
It must also give the State concerned the opportunity to submit its observations regarding the complaints.
Som artikel 169 blev affattet, er det udenfor tvivl, at Kommissionen ved et frit skøn afgør, om den vil anvende sine beføjelser efter denne artikel 17).
The way in which Article 169 has been drafted leaves no doubt whatever that the Commis­sion is to decide for itself whether it makes use of the powers which the article confers on it. 17
Medens traktatbrudsøgsmålene blev sjældnere, fandt der en udvikling sted, som for en tid optog alle : Domstolen begyndte aktivt at virke for at flytte kontrollen med medlemsstaternes traktatbrud fra artiklerne 169 og 170 (der jo beror på kommissionsog medlemsstatsinitiativ) over på artikel 177, om præjudiciel forelæggelse af spørgsmål om fællesskabsrettens fortolkning og gyldighed. Denne beror i det væsentlige på borgerinitiativ.
The Court actively began to promote the use of Article 177 (rather than Articles 169 and 170) as a means of bringing Treaty infringements by the Member States before it, proceedings under Articles 169 and 170 being dependent for their initiation on the Commission or a Member State, whereas Article 177, which provides for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation and/or validity of Community law, largely depends on the initiative of private parties.
Jeg skal komme nærmere ind herpå nedenforls). Her skal jeg blot nævne, at de fleste kommentatorer antagelig udfra pro-kommunitære policy-hensyn hilste denne udvikling velkommen.
I shall deal with the latter aspect later;18meanwhile it should be noted that, probably on pro­Community policy grounds, most commentators warmly welcomed this development.
I videnskabelige tidsskrifter mv. passerede ikkebrugen af artikel 169 og 170 derfor, uden at nævneværdig kritik blev artikuleret.
The non­application of Articles 169 and 170 was discussed in legal journals and else­where without the criticisms which could with justice have been levelled at it.
Midt i halvfjerdserne tog Kommissionen som sagt øjensynligt den politiske situation op til grundig fornyet overvejelse.
As already stated, in the mid­1970s the Commission subjected its policy to a thorough reappraisal.
Disse overvejelser gav — således ser det i hvert fald ud udefra — resultat, idet takten i anvendelsen af søgsmålsbeføjelsen siden da blev øget kendeligt.
So far as an outside observer can judge, this produced an appreciable increase in the frequency with which the Commission used its power to institute pro­ ceedings.
Samtidig er de problemer, som indbringes for Domstolen, blevet politisk langt mere sensible. De angår nu ofte spørgsmål, der er afgørende for sammenhængen i Fællesskabet.
At the same time, the issues brought before the Court were politically much more difficult; many of them are of vital importance for the unity of the Community.
Det var gennem forelæggelse al et præjudicielt spørgsmål, at den omstridte nationale retsakt blev kendt traktatstridig.
Concurrently, the Commis­ sion brings 'minor' cases before the Court, such as actions for exceeding the time limit in the application of directives.
Domstolens røffel til Kommissionen, som nu skal omtales, var antagelig en af de begivenheder, der fik Kommissionen til at skifte praksis med hensyn til anvendelse af artikel 169.
The rebuke which the Court administered to the Commission, and which will now be discussed, was undoubtedly one of the factors which induced the Commission to apply Article 169 in a different manner.
Det var som antydet givetvis politisk-praktiske hensyn, der bar den ældre praksis.
As already stated, considerations of political tactics without doubt lay behind the pre­vious practice.
Længe mærkede man dog i dommene intet til, om Domstolen fandt Kommissionens lave profil retfærdiggjort — eller om den gerne så, om artikel 169, stk. 2, blev anvendt noget flittigere.
For a long time there was nothing in the Court's judgments to indicate whether it considered the Commission's adoption of a low profile to be justified or whether it would have welcomed greater efforts to apply the second paragraph of Article 169.
Som nævnt var Domstolen dog i denne periode beskæftiget med at styrke den præjudicielle procedure som instrument for judiciel kontrol med medlemsstaternes efterlevelse af deres fællesskabsforpligtelser.
As has been said, during this period the Court strove to consolidate the preliminary ruling procedure as the vehicle of judicial review of the way in which the Member States were fulfilling their obligations.
Så Domstolens tavshed er vel forståelig.
The Court's silence was, therefore, quite understandable.
Et mærkbart vendepunkt indtraf dog med dommen i den præjudicielle Defrenne (II) sag om ligeløn23). I et obiter dictum gav Domstolen Kommissionen en formelig røffel for inaktivt at have været vidne til, at medlemsstaterne ignorerede deres forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 119 til at indføre ligeløn for mænd og kvinder for samme eller lignende arbejde.
However, a turning-point was reached when judgment was delivered in the Second Defrenne case on equal pay.23In paragraph 73 of the grounds of judgment the Court formally rebuked the Commission for having stood by while the Member States failed to fulfil their obligation under Article 119 to ensure that men and women should receive equal pay for equal (or comparable) work.
Flere grunde kan formentlig anføres for. at de nye signaler blev givet netop i Defrenne-sagen.
In the circumstances of the time, it is possible to detect advance indications of the change of attitude by the Court which was to be revealed by Defrenne.
For det første var traktatkrænkelsen manifest, og den havde stået på længe.
The infringement of the Treaty was manifest and it had gone on for a long time.
Da nye udsættelser med efterlevelsen undervejs var blevet vedtaget med Kommissionens medvirken, var ikke-overholdelsen dernæst blevet forlenet med et uberettiget skær af legitimitet.
Then, since it had been decided with the concurrence of the Commission to postpone the application of Article 119, the Member States' failure to fulfil the obligation took on an unjustified appearance of legality.
For det tredje antog selv indviede iagttagere, at artikel 119 ikke havde direkte virkninger.
Moreover, those in a position to comment admitted that Article 119 had no direct effect.
En person, mod hvem der blev lønmæssigt diskrimineret på grund af vedkommendes køn. havde derfor ringe udsigt til ved egen hjælp at rette situationen op.
A person who had, as regards pay, been discriminated against on grounds of sex had little chance of obtaining redress on his or her own.
Søgsmål for de nationale domstole og forelæggelse for Domstolen i henhold til artikel 177 måtte nemlig på forhånd forekomme at være et håbløst forehavende.
Proceedings before a national court or a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities under Article 177 must, prima facie, have seemed a hopeless enterprise.
For det fjerde var det antageligt blevet klart for Domstolen, at de præjudicielle sager i faktisk henseende langtfra i alle tilfælde var fuldt oplyste, når de nåede Domstolen.
For the Court must un­doubtedly have realized that the facts were far from being fully brought to light in all references for a preliminary ruling.
Denne kunne derfor have besvær med i alle enkeltheder at vurdere, hvilke værdier og interesser, der var på spil.
It was therefore correspondingly difficult for it to determine with any accuracy the values and interests involved.
Sjældent forelå der dertil tilstrækkeligt mange oplysninger til, at Domstolen fuldt ud kunne bedømme konsekvenserne af. om en afgørelse faldt ud på den ene eller den anden måde.
There was rarely enough information to enable the Court to make a satisfactory appraisal of the consequences which would ensue from a decision one way or another.
For det femte kan det vel have generet Domstolen at have været vidne til, at medlemsstaterne ofte og upåtalt kunne unddrage sig opfyldelsen af deres fællesskabsforpligtelser.
Furthermore, it may have been embarrassing for the Court to find that, quite often and without receiving any complaint, the Member States could avoid discharging their obligations to the Community.
Det forekommer mig at være naivt at betragte det lille antal politisk set forholdsvis betydningsløse traktatbrudsager som bevis for, at selve truslen om sagsanlæg gjorde medlemsstaterne føjelige.
Indeed, to see in the insignificant number of infringement cases, most of them deprived of much political importance, which came before the Court an indication that the mere threat of proceedings imbued the Member States with greater respect for Community law, can only be described as naive.
For det sjette, og endelig, må man ej heller glemme, at i hvert fald i en enkelt sag havde en medlemsstat ligefrem forsvaret sig med, at når Kommissionen så længe havde været
A sixth and final consideration is that, in a given case, a Member State had defended itself with the argument that, as the Commission had so long been aware of the failure to fulfil a provision of the Euratom Treaty, this merely confirmed the State in its belief that the binding effect of the provision had fallen into desuetude.24 The
Fællesskabets frugtavl. ") Se note 12.
See footnote 12 above.
De sidste betragtninger kan sammenfattes ved at sige, at Domstolen formentlig havde fået mere brug for traktatbrudsproceduren i henhold til artikel 169 og 170.
These last considerations can be summarized by stating that the Court had felt itself to be in increasing need of the procedure for infringements of the Treaty as provided for in Articles 169 and 170.
Målet måtte være at få sagerne fuldt ud belyst i faktisk henseende og at få bedre hold på, hvilke samfundsmæssige problemer der var medvirkende årsager til, at parterne kom i retlig konflikt.
The intention was no doubt to ensure that cases coming before it were fully documented as to the facts and to secure a better grasp of the social problems which had produced the dispute which divided the parties in law.
Det var formentlig således flere sammenfaldende omstændigheder, der fik Domstolen til at slå alarm.
We can confidently assume that a combination of circumstances decided the Court to sound the alarm.
Siden Defrenne (Il)-sagen har Domstolen ved flere lejligheder genanslået temaet om betydningen af at bruge artikel 169, stk. 2, behørigt ofte.
After the Second Defrenne case the Court seized several opportunities to emphasize the importance of using the second paragraph of Article 169 whenever the need arose.
Anser Domstolen det alt i alt for godtgjort, at staten bør domfældes, kan den konstatere ikke-overholdelsen, jfr. artikel 171.
If the Court comes to the conclusion that a State should be censured it can, as provided in Article 171, find that the State has failed to fulfil an obligation.
Som denne bestemmelse blev affattet, er det uden for rimelig tvivl, at Domstolen med konstateringen af retsbruddet udtømmer sin kompetence.
The wording of Article 171 makes it clear that, after a finding that there has been an infringement of Community law, the Court has exhausted its competence.
Måske følger det af princippet om adskillelsen af fællesskabsinstitutionernes og medlemsstaternes beføjelser, at Dom stolen ikke ifølge artikel 171's bogstav fik magt til at rette et påbud til den pågældende medlemsstat om at foretage bestemte opfyldelsesforanstaltninger, endsige til at annullere virkningerne af den traktatstridige nationale retsakt.
Perhaps the principle of the separation of powers between the Community institutions and the Mem­ber States is responsible for the fact that, as Article 171 is worded, the Court was not empowered to enjoin the Member State concerned to take the necessary measures to discharge its obligations or empowered to annul any national legislative acts which con­flict with the Treaties.
Ifølge artikel 171 påhviler det i hvert fald medlemsstaten at »gennemføre de til dommens opfyldelse nødvendige foranstaltninger«.
However, in the words of Article 171, the Member State 'shall be required to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice'.
Herunder kan Domstolen konstatere, om forpligtelser, der følger af dens første afgørelse, er krænkede.
The outcome of this will be a finding by the Court that the obligations arising from the first decision have not been discharged.
Dette er endnu kun sket en gang, nemlig i en sag anlagt af Kommissionen mod Italien25). I begyndelsen af 1980 anlagde Kommissionen dog en lignende sag mod Frankrig, der dengang endnu ikke havde opfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til dommen af 25. september 1979 i den såkaldte fårekødssag2ft). Under denne nye sag blev
To date, this has happened only once, in Commission ν Italy.25At the beginning of 1980, however, the Commission, in similar circumstances, brought an action against France, which had not yet taken the necessary measures to fulfil its obligations under the judgment of 25 Sep­tember 1979 in the 'sheepmeat' case.26In this second case the Court was asked to authorize an interim measure ordering France to cease to apply any import restrictions on sheepmeat from the United Kingdom.
Der stilles ingen specielle krav til Kommissionens søgsmålsinteresse.
The Commission's legal interest is not subject to any particular conditions.
Medlemssta terne har ved flere lejligheder argumenteret for, at søgsmål i henhold til artikel 169, stk. 2, skal afvises, såfremt Kommissionen mangler søgsmålsinteresse.
On several occasions, the Member States have contended that an action brought under the second paragraph of Article 169 must be dismissed in cases where the Commission has no legal interest.
Konkretere er det blevet anført, at en stats, omend forsinkede, opfyldelse af sine pligter må medføre, at Kommissionen ikke længere har fornøden interesse i at forfølge traktatbruddet 28).
Specifically, it was claimed that, once a State has fulfilled its obligation, even belatedly, the Commission no longer has the interest necessary to pursue an infringement of the Treaty.28The Court has invariably dismissed this plea and similar
27) Kendelse al 28.3.1980, sag 24 og 97/80 R. (Kommissionen/Frankrig), Sml. 1980. s. 1319.
Case 48/71 [1972] ECR 527.
2") Se f.eks. dom af 19.12.1961, sag 7/61, (Kommissionen/Italien), Sml. 195464. s. 271.
For example, Case 7/61 Commission ν Italy [1961] ECR 317.
Sådanne og lignende synspunkter har Domstolen stedse underkendt29). Navnlig har Domstolen afgjort, at dette søgsmål i henhold til artikel 169, foruden til konkret konstatering af en krænkelse af en pligt, tjener til at gøre spørgsmålet om medlemssta tens eventuelle erstatningsansvar lettere at besvare i en sag for nationalt forum ).
In particular, it has declared that, over and above a finding that a State has been in breach of one of its obligations, an action brought under Article 169 may establish a basis on which the State's possible liability may be the subject of decision in proceedings before a national court.30
Stedse har Domstolen dog insisteret på, at den indstævnede medlemsstat ifølge traktaten skal have haft lejlighed til at forsvare sig mod substansen i Kommissionens anklager mod den.
However, the Court has always emphasized that, under the terms of the Treaty, a Mem­ber State which is the subject of proceedings before the Court must always have had the opportunity to answer the substance of the complaints brought against it by the Com­mission.
Er statens ret til at blive hørt blevet forskertset på grund af Kommissionens behandling af sagen, hjemviser Domstolen sagen til fornyet administrativ behandling 31).
If the State's right to submit its observations has been compromised by the way in which the Commission has dealt with the case, the Court sends it back for fresh examination through administrative channels.31The Commission's duties are con­cretized in Commission ν Denmark.
Domstolen forsøger at øge gennemslagskraften af en dom afsagt i henhold til artikel 171.
The Court of Justice tries to enhance the efficacy of its judgments under Article 171.
Af største vigtighed for effektiviteten af traktatbrudssøgsmålet er det, at Domstolen har anset sin beføjelse efter artikel 171 for at række videre end til blot at konstatere en aktuel eller fortidig tilsidesættelse af en forpligtelse.
In this connection, considerable importance must be attached to its view that the power conferred upon it by Article 171 extends beyond a mere finding that there is or was a failure to fulfil a Community obligation.
Den anser sig i praksis for kompetent til at give anvisning på, hvorledes staten, der dømmes, skal fjerne traktatbruddet, hvilket selvsagt har størst betydning, hvor flere muligheder står åbne32).
The Court considers that it is competent to tell a State which the Court has found to be in default of its obligations how it should remedy the breach of the Treaty.
Senest har den således f.eks. afgjort, at det ikke fyldestgjorde fællesskabsret tens krav til en stats opfyldelse af et direktiv, at dens lovgivning ikke afskar landets myndigheder fra i praksis at virkeliggøre direktivets mål.
This is obviously of the greatest importance where more than one course is open.32 Quite recently, for example, the Court ruled that the obligation of a State to comply with a directive is not fulfilled simply by the fact that there is nothing in its laws to prevent the relevant authorities from giving practical effect to the objectives laid down in the directive.
Medlemsstaten skulle, sagde Domstolen, gennemføre direktivet ved hjælp af samme retsakter, hvormed den i henhold til sin egen højhedsmagt regulerer samme retsområde ). Domstolen har tillige givet anvisning på, at en retsstridig lov skulle ophæves med tilbagevirkende kraft34).
The Court expressly declared that the Member State must implement the provision of the same type of legislative measures as those which, in accordance with its sovereign powers, it applies to the same field of law.33The Court also declared that a law which conflicts with Community law must be repealed with retroactive effect.34The Court devoted its full attention to a discussion of the effects of a judgment under Articles 169 and 171 in a decision of 14 December 1982, that should be noted here.
Det skal ligeledes bemærkes, at retten kan bestemme, at der skal træffes foreløbige foranstaltninger.
It should, moreover, be noted that the Court is free to order interim meas­ures.
Da Domstolen fandt, at krænkelsen af forpligtelsen efter artikel 171 kunne føre til ny traktatbrudssag, øgede den ligeledes kendeligt effektiviteten af traktatbrudsproceduren efter artikel 169.
As the Court found that the failure of a Member State to fulfil an obligation within the meaning of Article 171 may lead to an action for infringement, it also contrived to enhance the efficacy of the infringement procedure provided for in Article 169.
Derimod er Domstolen ikke gået så vidt som til selv at ophæve en traktatstridig statslig retsakt, og den gør det næppe heller.
On the other hand, the Court has not yet reached the stage of annulling an act of government which conflicts with the Treaty, nor is its attitude likely to change on this point.
Se ligeledes de i note 28 og note 30 anførte domme. '")
For example, Case 167/73 Commission ν France [1974] ECR 359; see also judgments cited at footnotes 28 above and 30 below.
Dom ar 7.2.1973, sag 39/72. (Kommissionen/Italien), Sml. 1973. s. 101. ") Dom al 17.2.1970, sag 31/69, (Kommissionen/Italien). Sml.
Case 39/72 Commission ν Italy [1973] ECR 101.
Ultimo december 1980 er kun to sådanne søgsmål blevet indbragt.
As already stated, over a long period of time the Commission made only sporadic use of the second paragraph of Article 169.
Det første blev frafaldet straks efter anlægget35). Kun i det sidste faldt der dom36).
Moreover, the States brought hardly any actions against each other under Article 170: byDecember 1980, only two had been brought.
Medlemsstaterne intervenerer ret ofte i sager, der indbringes for Domsto len af Kommissionen mod andre medlemsstater.
The first was immediately withdrawn.35the other went to judgment.36Nevertheless, the Member States often intervene in cases of which the Court is seised as the result of an action brought by the Commission against other Member States.
Den præjudicielle forelæggelsesprocedure (EØFT artikel 177). Domstolssamarbejde
Preliminary reference proceedings under Article 177 and cooperation between courts
A. Genstanden for den præjudicielle procedure
A. Object of preliminary proceedings
Hvornår kan eller skal præjudiciel forelæggelse ske?
When can and when must a reference for a preliminary ruling be made?