natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Med hensyn til afgørelsen om Fællesskabets egne indtægter udtalte forfatningsrådet, at denne retsakt indgik blandt de bestemmelser, der var truffet med henblik på gennemførelsen af en fælles politik.
At a pinch, the Court foresaw a possibility of its intervening if the Treaty were to be given a 'manifestly unreasonable' interpretation contrary to fundamental rights and the principles of the Italian Constitution.
Det konstaterede endvidere, at de grundlæggende betingelser for udøvelse af nationale suverænitetsbeføjelser ikke var krænket. ket.
In that case the challenge would no doubt be mounted via an appeal against the statute ratifying the Treaty.
Afgørelsen afdramatiserer således de forelagte spørgsmål ved at bagatellisere rækkevidden af de pågældende retsakter.
But the jurisdiction to review the constitutionality of a Community measure was seen as a residual power that was unlikely ever to be used.
Den 30. december 1976, hvor forfatningsrådet skulle tage stilling til en forespørgsel fra præsidenten om, hvorvidt akten om almindelige direkte valg til Europa-Parlamentet var forfatningsmæssig, syntes rådet at indtage en meget reserveret holdning til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt denne nye udvikling inden for den europæiske integration var forenelig med den franske forfatning.
In its 1984 judgment in Granita!,2which will be discussed in para graph 130 below, the Constitutional Court confirmed its view that the national and Community legal systems were autonomous and expressly referred to the reservation of jurisdiction to test the constitutionality of Community measures.
Noget tyder på, at forfatningsrådet var af den opfattelse, at en mere vidtgående overførsel af beføjelser til fordel for en myndighed, der har reel autonomi i forhold til medlemsstaterne, ville kræve en forud gående ændring af forfatningen.
But the 1973 judgment dispelled doubts about the conformity of the Community legal order with the Italian Constitution, so that the fears
Forholdet til national ret
Relationship to national law the Court of Justice had mentioned in the San Michele decision appeared to have been finally laid to rest.'
I senere afgørelser af 30. december 1977 ') beskrev forfatningsrådet i præcise vendinger fællesskabsforordningers retsvirkning i henhold til artikel 189, stk. 2, hvoraf det følger, at »den bindende karakter, som er knyttet til de i forordningen indeholdte bestemmelser, ikke forud sætter en intervention fra medlemsstaternes myndigheder, herunder det franske parlament; disse myndigheder skal blot fastsætte de gennemførelsesforanstaltninger, som fællesskabsforordningerne over lader dem«.
It is still, however, necessary to qualify the optimism that the 1973 (Frontini) judgment, confirmed by the Granita! decision, understand ably aroused among commentators.
Det franske parlament kunne derfor ikke intervenere ved den fastsættelse af beregningsgrundlaget og af afgiftssatsen ved frem stilling af isoglukose, som var fastsat i forordning nr. 1111/77, og det kunne kun udstede sådanne regler for inddrivelsen, som ikke var fastsat i forordningen.
In a judgment delivered in April 1989, and not yet reported, the Constitutional Court again reviewed its conception -of the relationship between Community law and the fundamental principles of national law.
Der var her tale om »virkningerne af kompetencefordelingen mellem Fællesskabets institutioner og de nationale myndigheder« som følge af en traktat, og dette var derfor ikke uforeneligt med forfatningen.
It had been asked to rule on whether decisions of the Court of Justice, in which the Court had asserted jurisdiction to limit the period for which it declared regulations invalid following a successful challenge in a preliminary ruling reference under Article 177, were compatible with the citizen's right to protection through the courts guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution.
De beføjelser, der kan afgives, gælder også anliggender, hvor de selvstyrende regioner har kompetence i henhold til deres respektive selvstyrelove.
The Court dismissed the plea of unconstitutionality in the instant case as irrelevant, but expressed 'grave doubts' as to whether the position that a declaration of invalidity had no effect on the act or acts in dispute in the case was compatible with the 'essential content of the right to protection by the courts'.
Det er et omtvisteligt spørgsmål, om der kan anlægges søgsmål ved forfatningsdomstolen i tilfælde, hvor menneskerettighederne påstås krænket.
Thus, the possibility of a conflict between the fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution and Community law is less academic than might be supposed from a reading of the Frontini and Granita! judgments, and there is a danger that the Constitutional Court will claim to exercise its constitutional control on the basis of the criteria
b) Fællesskabsret og yngre lov
The supremacy of Community law
Der skal ikke her gøres rede for hele den udvikling, der er sket, men blot nævnes de vigtigste afgørelser, som for hovedpartens vedkommende faldt i tiden fra 1970 til 1975.
143 of Italian law, as a correction to the system of judicial protection under Community law, however 'extensive and effective' that might be.
Princippet følger nemlig af sig selv, og man kan konstatere, at det implicit anvendes i en lang række afgørelser, der ofte er truffet af lavere retsinstanser og navnlig i forbindelse med et præjudicielt spørgsmål.
Article 24 of the Constitution ('Basic Law') of the Federal Republic of Germany provides that: 'The Federation may delegate by statute sovereign rights to inter-State organizations.'
') Se den mere udførlige behandling af spørgsmålet i J. Mégret, op. cit., bind 10, del 1, s. 527-535.
'Regulations made by the Council or the Commission are acts of a special ' supranational ' public authority, which was established by the Treaty and is distinct from the public authority of the Member States.'1
Det er udviklingen i retspraksis, som har bevirket, at der ikke indføjedes en bestemmelse vedrørende dette spørgsmål i forfatningen fra 1956.
It is true, the Court explicitly left open the question of the relationship between the system of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and the decision transferring sovereignty under Article 24(1) thereof, and hence ultimately the question of constitutional review of the statute ratifying the Community Treaty and the legitimacy of legal actions other than applications for a declaration of unconstitutionality.
Forholdet til national ret indsats til i den juridiske debat, hvor anklagemyndigheden ved kassationsdomstolen gik i spidsen '), og også en påvirkning fra EF-Domstolens retspraksis, før en tradition, der var til ugunst for både folkeretten og fællesskabsretten, definitivt blev kuldkastet.
But as early as 1967 Article 24 was treated in the Court's decisions as a channel opening the German legal system to the Community and not as an ally of restrictive interpretations as the lower courts and some commentators had originally thought.
Domstolen i første instans gav ikke firmaet medhold.
A 1971 ruling confirmed this trend.
Appeldomstolen i Bruxelles tog derimod sagen under påkendelse, idet den fastslog, at loven af 19. marts 1968 ikke in casu forbød dommeren at anvende fællesskabsreglen.
This will be discussed below in connection with the relationship between Community law and later national legislation.2
»Når der består en konflikt mellem en intern retsnorm og en folkeretlig regel, som har direkte virkning i den interne retsorden, skal den ved traktaten fastsatte regel gå forud; en sådan forrang følger af selve karakteren af den traktatskabte folkeret; dette gælder så meget desto mere, når konflikten, som i dette tilfælde, består mellem en intern retsnorm og en fællesskabsretlig norm; Traktaterne, som har skabt fællesskabsretten, har nemlig indført en ny retsorden, til fordel for hvilken medlemsstaterne har begrænset deres suverænitetsbeføjelser på de områder, som disse Traktater fastlægger«4). ger«4).
This satisfactory development received a setback with the Constitu tional Court's 1974 decision3in an interlocutory reference from a lower court.4The Court asserted its own jurisdiction to test the conformity of Community regulations with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution, as long as there was no Bill of Rights at Community level identical in scope to those in the German Consti-
157 italiensk lov og fællesskabsretten.
Relationship to national law tution and adopted by a directly elected assembly.
Rækkevidden af disse forbehold er ret betragtelig i relation til princippet om fællesskabsrettens forrang. Men betydningen heraf skal dog ikke overvurderes ').
The decision disregarded both the requirements of the supremacy of Community law and the case­law of the Court of Justice on fundamental rights.
En fransk fabrikant af pulverkaffe havde betalt en højere afgift for kaffeekstrakt fra Nederlandene end for grøn kaffe importeret direkte til Frankrig. Denne diskriminering var i strid med Traktatens artikel 952).
Subsequently the Constitutional Court gradually distanced itself from this unfortunate decision.
Kassationsretten afviste, på grundlag af generalprokurør Touffaits forslag til afgørelse, i et retsmøde in pleno, dvs, hvor retten beklædes af retspræsidenten, der fører forsædet, og af repræsentanter fra alle rettens afdelinger, kassationsbegæringen fra tolddepartementet, idet den udtalte:
At the end of the decision, the Court said it 'left open' the question whether the principles established in the 1974 decision still held and, if so, to what extent, given the intervening legal developments at European level.
»Traktaten af 25. marts 1957, som i medför af nævnte artikel i forfatningen har forrang frem for love, indfører en selvstændig retsorden, der er integreret i medlemsstaternes retsorden; som følge af denne særlige karakter finder den ved Traktaten skabte retsorden direkte
Here the Court was referring no doubt to the direct election of the European Parliament, the issue by the European institutions of the Joint Declaration on the Respect of Human Rights on 5 April 1977,2 and probably also to the reactions aroused by its 1974 decision.
') Man må håbe, at der ikke her er tale om en principbeslutning, der er et tilbageskridt i forhold til den retspraksis, der blev fulgt i Gra;;/7f//-dommen, men blot om et beklageligt »faux pas« — se i den anledning G. Sgarbanti, Corte costituzionale e Corte di giustizia: un dissidio sanato?. Riv. dir. agrario, 1987, s. 293 ff, navlig s. 321 — forfatningsdomstolens dom nr. 286 af 19.-23. december 1986.
Two decisions handed down by the Federal Constitutional Court in 1981 concerning action by the international air traffic control organi­zation Eurocontrol took the recognition of international cooperation and integration in its decisions a stage further.3The Court held that, while the delegation of sovereignty to intergovernmental organizations under Article 24(1) of the Constitution was not unlimited, especially in relation to the respect for fundamental rights, including the right to judicial review of government action guaranteed by Article 19(4) of the Constitution, that did not mean that an organization of which the Federal Republic was a member had to have a system of judicial protection of civil rights similar in all respects to the judicial review system in Germany.
Gazzella Ufficiale, prima serie speciale, nr. 61 af 31.12.1986, s. 35-36, hvor forfatningsdomstolen anså sig for kompetent til at afgøre den påståede konflikt — som den materielt afviste — mellem fællesskabsretten og en lov, hvorved der pålagdes en afgift på tobak, der importeredes fra Fællesskabets medlemsstater.
To decide otherwise would run counter to the opening of the Constitution to international cooperation, create problems in the relations with other Member States and make the Federal Republic practically incapable of entering into agreements establishing international organizations under Article 24 of the Con­stitution.
I en nyere afgørelse gik forfatningsrådet, der skulle tage stilling til lovmæssigheden af valget af deputerede til nationalforsamlingen, imod Conseil d'État ').
The decisive step was taken in a ruling handed down on 22 October 1986.' The Constitutional Court declared that it would waive the exercise of its jurisdiction to test the conformity of Community legislation with fundamental rights recognized by the German Constitution, as long as the European Community, and in particular the Court of Justice, provided effective protection against infringement of those rights by the Community authorities.
Forfatningsrådet sammenholdt tillægsprotokol nr. 1 til den europæiske menneskerettighedskonvention med bestemmelserne i lov nr. 86-825 af 11. juli 1986, der fastlægger afstemningsreglerne ved valg af deputerede til nationalforsamlingen, men bemærkede dog samtidig, at det ikke havde kompetence til — når det skulle tage stilling til lovligheden af et valg — at bedømme en lovs forfatnings mæssighed.
This decision of the Court, which was based on an examination of the case-law of the Court of Justice and on the commitments to human rights expressed by the Community institutions, reversed the ruling in the 1974 decisions, while leaving open the possibility of the Court's intervening in the unlikely event of a lowering of the standards of fundamental rights protected by the Community legal system.
Forfatningsrådet henviste udtrykkeligt til artikel 55 i forfatningen.
In a 1989 decision,2the Constitutional Court appears to have wished to indicate the limits of this waiver of jurisdiction.
Det havde allerede tidligere fastslået, at den i artikel 55 fastsatte regel måtte overholdes — selv om loven forholdt sig tavs — og at statens forskellige organer måtte sikre overholdelsen af internationale konventioner inden for rammerne af deres respektive kompetenceområder2).
Cigarette manufacturers had asked the Court for an injunction restraining the Federal Government from giving its consent to a proposal for a directive to introduce tougher health warnings on cigarette packets. The Court refused the application.
Rådet må så forventes at forkaste en lov, der udtrykkeligt krænker princippet om fællesskabsrettens forrang.
However, it pointed out that when the directive was transposed into domestic law the use the Government had made of the discretion which the directive allowed it in the details of the warnings could be subject to the Constitutional Court's control of the observance of fundamental rights. It went on :
Conseil d'Etat opgav i en dom af 20. oktober 1989 sin sædvanlige retspraksis og anerkendte internationale traktaters forrang for en lov, selv om denne er senere.
'To the extent that the directive violated the standards of fundamental rights guaranteed by Community law, the Court of Justice would ensure that such rights were protected.
Skønt EØF-Traktaten i dommen sidestilles med en almindelig traktat, og begrundelsen for forrangen ikke er den samme som EF-Domstolen anvender i sin retspraksis, er dette dog et betydningsfuldt skridt3).
If this failed to ensure the standards of protection of fundamental rights that are mandatory under the Constitution, then the matter could be brought before the Constitutional Court.'
I betragtning af forholdene hen imod slutningen af 60'erne kan man ikke andet end blive grebet af beundring over den betydelige udvikling, der er sket i et spørgsmål, som unægtelig er ømtåleligt.
Does this imply an important difference from its 1986 decision in so far as the treatment of directives is concerned?
På den baggrund kan man med optimisme imødese afgørelserne ved domstolene i de stater, der tiltrådte i 1973, i 1981 og i 1986, hvis disse domstole skal løse en virkelig konflikt, dvs. hvor løsningen ikke kan findes ved hjælp af traditionelle fortolkningsmetoder.
Is the Court claiming the right to follow a case-by-case approach in determining whether the protection of fundamental rights by the Court of Justice is satisfactory in relation to the standards of German constitutional law?
I Det Forenede Kongerige har de standpunkter, som man finder i to af appelrettens domme afsagt under forsæde af dens præsident Lord Denning, og hvorefter
Since 1953 Article 20(1) of the Danish Constitution provides that 'powers which under the Constitution are vested in the authori-
I dommen i sagen Macarthys Ltd mod Smith, tillagde Court of Appeal EØF-Traktatens artikel 119 forrang for den i forhold til Traktaten ældre Equal Pay Ad og for den i forhold til Traktatens nyere Sex Discrimination Act3).
If a ratification Bill only obtains an ordinary majority, it must be submitted to a referendum. This happened with the 1972 Accession Treaty.
Artikel 28, stk. 1, i den græske forfatning svarer til artikel 55 i den franske forfatning, dog med en vigtig nuance, fordi princippet om forrang også gælder til fordel for den almindelige folkeret.
There have not been any significant decisions by the Danish Supreme Court on this provision.
Det må følgelig forventes, at en græsk domstol ikke vil tøve med at lade fællesskabsretten gå forud for selv senere lov, uanset den hjemmel, der vælges for en sådan forrang.
But the Appeal Court in 1972 dismissed an action (Lars O. Grønborg ν Prime Minister) challenging the decision to apply Article 20 of the Constitution when Denmark acceded to the Community and instead demanding application of the procedure for amending the Constitution.
Bestemmelser i traktater kan kun fraviges, ændres eller suspenderes efter de regler, der er fastsat i de pågældende traktater, eller i overensstemmelse med almindelige folkeretlige regler«.
It reads: 'No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State necessitated by the obligations of membership of the Communities or prevents acts enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the Communities, or institutions thereof, from having the force of law in the State.'
Af denne bestemmelse, samt af artikel 5, stk. 1, i den borgerlige lovbog som ændret ved dekret af 31. maj 1974, kan man generelt udlede, at internationale traktater har forrang for loven.
Title III of the Single Act on political cooperation prompted the Supreme Court ruling; these provisions were considered to impair the independence of Irish foreign policy.
De argumenter, der bygger på domstolspraksis, underbygges og suppleres således af Spaniens nationale ret.
But far from giving blanket authority for Ireland to participate in future qualitative developments of European integration, the new clause inserted into Article 29, section 4, subsection 3 of the Constitution following the referendum held on 26 May 1987, merely provides that 'The State may ratify the Single European Act.'
Flere juridiske forfattere er af den opfattelse, at den traktatskabte folkerets forrang følger af artikel 8, stk. 2, i forfatningen fra 1976, der
The Conseil d'Etat repeated in a 1961 judgment on an appeal against the decree ordering publication of the EEC Treaty that it had no power to judge the legality of the procedures followed in ratifying international treaties.2
161 indeholder følgende bestemmelse: »Retsnormer, der er fastsat i behørigt ratificerede eller godkendte internationale aftaler, får retskraft i den interne retsorden, når aftalerne er blevet officielt offentliggjort, og i det omfang hvor de folkeretligt binder den portugisiske stat«.
In 1970 it upheld the constitutionality of the EC Council Decision of 21 April 1970 on the replacement of the Member States' financial contributions by the Community's own resources and the Treaty of Luxembourg of 22 April 1970 increasing the powers of the Parliament in the budget process.'
Af sidstnævnte passage kan det udledes, at EØF-Traktaten har den nødvendige forrang i den interne retsorden. Hvad angår fællesskabs retten kan det nye stk. 3 ') i artikel 8 for Portugals vedkommende komme til at spille den samme rolle som »løftestang for integrationsprocessen« som de tilsvarende bestemmelser i andre forfatninger.
With regard to the Luxembourg Treaty, the Council based its decision on the fact that the instrument was concerned with the allocation of responsibilities between the Community institutions and not the respective powers of the Community and its Member States, and that the obligations under the Treaty were undertaken on the basis of reciprocity.
Bestemmelsen lader formode, at fællesskabsretten ifølge selve sin natur fuldt ud anerkendes som værende en del af den portugisiske retsorden.
Regarding the 'own resources' Decision, the Constitutional Council said that this measure was part of a set of provisions introduced to implement a common policy.
Usikkerheden med hensyn til den forfatningsretlige bestemmelse kan under alle omstændigheder fortolkes i denne retning 2).
It also noted that the basic conditions for the exercise of national sovereignty were not affected.
c) Konklusion med hensyn til princippet om forrang
This decision clearly strove to play down the issues by minimizing the importance of the measures concerned.
Princippet om forrang er et grundlæggende krav i et integrationssystem. Hvis man tillagde en tilkendegivelse fra de nationale myndigheders side, som er i strid med de fælles regler, nogen som helst retsvirkning, ville dette undergrave hele den struktur, der var tilsigtet af medlemsstaterne, dvs. Traktaternes forfattere.
However, in a 1976 ruling requested by the French President on the constitutionality of the decision calling direct elections to the European Parliament, the Council was more reserved in its acceptance of the compatibility with the French Constitution of new developments in European integration.
En sådan holdning ville kunne skade den gensidige tillid og således forskertse mulighederne for fællesskabsprocessens fortsatte udvikling.
While holding that the EC Council's Decision of 20 September 1976 did not contain anything contrary to the Constitution, the Constitutional Council drew a rather unconvincing distinction between permissible limitations of sovereignty and illegitimate transfers of sover-
En gennemgang af national retspraksis viser dog, at der stadig er visse problemer, hvis man sammenligner den med EF-Domstolens retsteori.
Relationship lo national law eignty,' suggesting that major transfers of powers to an authority enjoying real autonomy vis-à-vis the Member States would require a prior revision of the Constitution.
Princippet om absolut forrang er ikke sikret i forhold til forfatningerne.
Parliament therefore had no say in determining the base and the rate of the isoglucose levy provided for by Regulation 1111/77, and only had the power to decide the procedures for recovery not established by the Regulation.
Fænomenet viser sig navnlig i de lande, hvor der udøves kontrol med loves forfatningsmæssighed.
These facts were 'a result of the division of powers between the Community institutions and the national authorities' laid down by a treaty, and there was therefore no conflict with the Constitution.
Retsgrundlaget for fællesskabsrettens forrang for national lovgivning er undertiden usikkert, og i visse tilfælde - - der dog bliver sjældnere og sjældnere — anfægtes denne forrang stadig.
Subsection 2(1) provides for the Treaties and Community legisla tion to be directly applicable without further enactment in the United Kingdom, while subsections 2(2) and 2(4) seek to solve the problem of possible conflicts with later national statutes by providing for such statutes to be construed in favour of the provisions of the European Communities Act, that is to say indirectly in favour of Community law itself.
Men det allerede generelt anerkendte princip om forrang er et af de vigtigste resultater af Fællesskabets retsorden, der i bemærkelsesværdig grad har vundet indpas i national retspraksis.
It is made clear that such transfers may not prejudice 'human rights and the foundations of democratic government'.
Afsnit 3: Fællesskabsrettens gennemførelse
77ie supremacy of Community law