natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen udtalte, at dette direktiv er ud tømmende i den forstand, at det kun overlader medlemsstaterne den begrænsende kompetence, som fællesskabsretten tillægger den med hensyn til at indrømme afgiftsfritagelser, som er forskellige fra de i direktivet fastlagte.
The Court held that the Directive was exhaustive in that it left the Member States with only the limited power conferred on them by Community law to grant duty-free allowances different from those specified in the Directive.
I trafikken mellem medlemsstater gælder afgiftsfritagelserne (med to undtagelser) imidlertid kun over for varer, som er blevet købt under almindelige skatte- og afgiftsbetingelser på en af medlemsstaternes interne marked, og som ikke giver ret til nogen godtgørelse af om sætningsafgifter.
On the other hand, in the case of travel between Member States, the duty-free allowances apply—apart from two exceptions—only to goods purchased in accordance with the general conditions governing taxation on the internal market of a Member State and do not qualify for any reimbursement of turnover tax.
Med hensyn til etableringsret har Domstolen afsagt en dom6), som for første gang fortolker Rådets direktiv 75/362 om gensidig anerkendelse af eksamensbeviser, certifikater og andre kvalifikationsbeviser for læger omfattende foranstaltninger, som skal lette den faktiske udøvelse af retten til etablering og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
In the field of right of establishment, the Court delivered a judgment2 which, for the first time, interprets Council Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifica­tions in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services.
Domstolen fastslog, at en medlemsstat, som på sit område gør den faktiske adgang til erhvervet som alment praktiserende læge afhængig af, at der gennemføres en uddannelse ud over den grunduddannelse, som fører til en medicinsk embedseksamen, ikke længere har ret til at kræve denne betingelse opfyldt af statsborgere fra en af Fællesskabets medlemsstater, som i en anden medlemsstat end den, der stiller betingelsen, har opnået et i henhold til direktivets a)
The Court held that a Member State which makes effective access in its territory to the profession of general medical practitioner subject to training requirements in addition to the basic train­ing which led to the granting of the degree of doctor of medicine may not impose that obligation on nationals of a Community Member State who have obtained, in a Member State other than the State in question, a degree in medicine recognized under Article 3 of the Directive and conferring entitlement to practise general medicine.
EF-Domstolen, 10.10.1978 (Hansen/HZA Flensburg, sag 148/77), Sml. 1978, s. 1787. EF-Domstolen, 30.10.1980 (Schneider Import/HZA Mainz, sag 26/80), Sml. 1980, s. 3469. Nr. 828 i denne beretning.
States were still entitled to impose restrictions on the re-exportation of bank notes
EF-Domstolen, 6.10.1981 (C. Broekmeulen/Huisarts Registratie Commissie, sag 246/80) - endnu ikke offentliggjort.
2 Case 246/80 C. Broekmeulen ν Huisarts Registratie Commissie: not yet reported. 3 Similarly Case 115/78 Knoors [1979] ECR 399.
Fortolkningen og anvendelsen af Rådets forordning 1408/71 og 574/723) giver stadig anledning til mange præjudicielle spørgsmål.
The interpretation and application of Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72l continue, as in the past, to give rise to numerous references for preliminary rulings.
Herved får Domstolen lejlighed til at fortsætte og udvikle sin hidtidige retspraksis, som bekendt, under hensyntagen til de undersøgte bestemmelser, tager sigte på anlægge en fortolkning, der er i overensstemmelse med målene for den frie bevægelighed for personer og ordningens generelle sigte.
These give the Court an opportunity of affirming and amplify­ing its earlier decisions, which, as is well known, have sought to establish, on the basis of the provisions that fall to be considered, the interpretation which reflects the objectives of freedom of movement for persons and the general scheme of the rales.
Således har Domstolen i sag 116, 117, 119, 120 og 121/804) bekræftet sin omfattende tidligere a) Jf. også EF-Domstolen, 7.2.1979 (Knoors, sag 115/78), Sml. 1979, s. 399.
Thus, in Joined Cases 116,117,119, 120 and 121/802 the Court reaffirmed its extensive previous case-law3 on the interpretation of Article 51 of the Treaty and Article 46 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 concerning the overlapping of social security benefits.
EFT C 138 af 9.6.1980 (kodificeret udgave).
3The most recent being Case 4/80 D'Amico ν ONPTS [1980] ECR 2951.
EF-Domstolen, 2.7.1981 (G. Celestre m.fl./ONPTS eller FNROM, forenede sager 116, 117, 119, 120 og 121/80) - endnu ikke offentliggjort.
4 Case 99/80 Galinsky ν Insurance Officer [1981] ECR 941 ; Case 98/80 Romano ν IN AMI; Case 115/80
I sag 98/80 fortsatte og udvidede Domstolen sin retspraksis vedrørende rækkevidden af afgørelserne fra Den administrative Kommission for vandrende arbejdstageres sociale Sikring, idet den om en afgørelse om den vekselkurs, der skal benyttes ved beregningen af visse ydelser, udtalte, at en sådan afgørelse kan være et hjælpemiddel for de sociale sikringsinstitutioner, som skal anvende fællesskabsretten på dette område, men den kan ikke forpligte institutionerne til at følge bestemte metoder eller anlægge bestemte fortolkninger, når de anvender fællesskabsreglerne.
In Case 98/80 the Court reaffirmed and amplified its earlier judgments on the scope of decisions of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Mig­rant Workers, stating that, while a decision on the conversion rate to be applied in the calculation of certain benefits may be of assistance to social security institu­tions charged with applying Community law in this field, it is not of such a nature as to require those institutions to follow certain methods or adopt certain interpreta­tions when they come to apply Community rales.
Domstolen har afsagt to nye domme vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 119.
The Court delivered two further judgments on the interpretation of Arti­cle 119.
Domstolen anerkendte i sin dom fuldt ud kvindernes ret, idet den fandt, at disse bidrag er med til at fastsætte lønnens størrelse, og de er derfor løn efter EØF-traktatens artikel 119, stk. 2.
In its judgment the Court fully recognized the rights of women, ruling that such contributions help to determine the amount of the salary and therefore constitute 'pay' within the meaning of the second para­graph of Article 119.
I den anden sag (96/80)3) drejede det sig om problemet deltidsbeskæftigelse, mere præcist, spørgsmålet, om en kvinde, som udførte »cirka« tredive timers arbejde pr. uge, i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 119 skulle have samme timeløn som en mandlig arbejdstager, der udførte det samme arbejde, men på grundlag af fuldtidsbeskæftigelse, dvs.
Case 96/802 concerned the question of part-time work, in particular whether or not a woman who worked 'more or less 30 hours per week' should receive, pursuant to Article 119, the same hourly rate of pay as a man who performed the same work, but on a full-time basis, for 40 hours per week.
FORTOLKNING OG ANVENDELSE AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS MATERIELLE REGLER
INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION PF SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW 309 Common agricultural policy
Medlemsstaterne skal overholde fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser nøje for at få udgifterne refunderet hos Kommissionen.
Member States must comply strictly with the provi­sions of Community law in order to obtain financing for such expenses from the Commission.
For at der kan tages hensyn til en sådan adfærd, skal denne i øvrigt ligge forud for den periode, i hvilken den pågældende medlemsstats overtrædelse af fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser fandt sted.
Such actions, moreover, if they are to be taken into account, must have preceded the period during which the Member State concerned failed to comply with the provi­sions of Community law.
Domstolen har ved flere lejligheder måttet tage stilling til foreneligheden af de nationale prisordninger vedrørende landbrugsprodukter med de fælles markedsordninger4), og dens retspraksis bygger i det væsentiige på den tanke, at mens medlemsstaterne under ingen
The Court has been asked on a number of occasions in the past for a ruling on the compatibility of national rules on the prices of agricultural products with the common organizations of the markets.4 Its judgments are essentially based on the idea that, while the Member States have absolutely no power to determine prices at the production and wholesale stages, that is to say, the stages directly regulated by the Community, they have more freedom as regards retail prices, provided that they do not impede the proper functioning of the common organizations. It is for the national courts to decide whether this condition is fulfilled.
') EF-Domstolen, 14.1.1981 (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland/Kommissionen, sag 819/79), Sml. 1981, s. 21 ;
1 Case 819/79 Federal Republic of Germany ν Commission
1979, s. 245; EF-Domstolen, 7.2.1979 (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland/Kommissionen, sag 18/76), Sml. 1979, s. 343 ; EF-Domstolen, 25.11.1980 (Belgien/Kommissionen, sag 820/79), Sml. 1980, s. 3357.
2 Case ΙΙΠ6 Netherlands ν Commission [1979] ECR 245; Case 18/76 Federal Republic of Germany ν
En intem afgift som den omtvistede irske afgift er ikke i sig selv i strid med fællesskabsreglerne.
It follows that a national tax such as the Irish tax in question is not in itself contrary to the Community rales.
I sag 107/80J) blev Domstolen endvidere stillet over for spørgsmålet om af grænsningen af anvendelsesområdet for direktiv 72/159 om modernisering af land brugsbedrifter i forhold til anvendelsesområdet for forordning 355/77 om forbedring af landbrugsvarer.
In Case 107/801the Court was concerned with determining the scope of Directive 72/159/EEC on the modernization of farms in relation to that of Regula­tion (EEC) No 355/77 on common measures to improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and marketed.
Efter at have fastslået, at der er en forskel mellem de to retsakters anvendelsesområde i materiel henseende, udtalte Domstolen, at et projekt bestemt til forbedring afforarbejdningen og af afsætningen af landbrugsvarer fra én og samme bedrift, hvori der skal investeres, absolut ikke falder uden for forordningens anvendelsesområde, såfremt det godtgøres, at det rent faktisk kan bidrage til at rationalisere forarbejdnings- og afsætaingsstrukturerne.
Having found a difference in scope in relation to the subject matter of the two instruments, the Court held that a project for the improvement of the processing and marketing of agricultural prod­ucts from the same farm where the investment programme is to be carried out is not excluded from the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 where it is established that it may effectively contribute to the rationalization of the processing and marketing arrangements.
Men eftersom det pågældende projekt ikke havde til formål at forøge rentabiliteten af bedriften ved en forbedring af vilkårene for produktionen af basislandbrugsvarer, var det ikke omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for direktiv 72/159.
Since, however, the project was not intended to increase the farm's income by improving the conditions under which the basic agricultural products were produced, it does not fall within the scope of Directive 72/159/EEC.
Denne transaktion fandt sted på et tidspunkt, hvor muligheden for at forudfastsætte tiltrædelsesudligningsbeløb gjorde det lønsomt for eksportøren først at sende hveden til Det forenede Kongerige, for derefter, når den var blevet losset og importformaliteteme opfyldt, at få den indladet på ny i de samme skibe og sendt til det endelige bestemmelsessted i Tyskland.
The transaction took place at a time when as a result of the possibility of advance fixing of accession monetary compensatory amounts it was profitable for the exporter first to ship the wheat to the United Kingdom, unload it and complete the import formalities, and then reload it on to the same ships for shipment to its final destination in Germany.
Under den straffesag, som i denne anledning blev anlagt i Danmark, blev det spørgsmål rejst, om de danske myndigheder havde ret til at nægte at betale tiltrædelsesudligningsbeløb ved eksport fra Danmark til Det forenede Kongerige.
Referring to the objectives of the MCA system, the Court inter­preted the provisions on this subject as meaning that the completion of customs formalities in the Member State declared as the country of destination (in this case the United Kingdom) was not sufficient to found a claim to the MCAs.
Domstolen, som fik sagen forelagt til præjudiciel afgørelse, svarede bekræftende.
It is also necessary for the products actually to be placed on the market in that State.
Dom stolen tog sit udgangspunkt i formålet med ordningen med tiltrædelsesudligningsbeløb og fortolkede bestemmelserne herom således, at det ikke var nok at opfylde toldformaliteterne
Thus, following its previous case-law in particular with regard to export refunds, the Court again underlined the importance it attaches in interpreting Community legislation to the underlying purposes of the legislation.3
1) EF-Domstolen, 3.6.1981 (Cattaneo Adorno/Kommissionen, sag 107/80) - endnu ikke offentliggjort.
1 Cattaneo Adorno ν Commission: not yet reported.
2) EF-Domstolen, 27.10.1981 (anklagemyndigheden/Toepfer m.fl., sag 250/80) - endnu ikke offentliggjort.
2 Public Prosecutor ν Toepfer and Others: not yet reported. 3 For example, Case 125/75 Eier Kontor ν HZA Hamburg-Jonas [1976] ECR 771.
FORTOLKNING OG ANVENDELSE AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS MATERIELLE REGLER
INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION OF SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW 311 Unlike the Advocate­General in his Opinion, the Court did not, however, go into another argument advanced by the Commission, to the effect that the exports from Denmark to the United Kingdom, being purely speculative, could not benefit from MCAs since they were fraudulent or at least an abuse of Community law. '
I de forenede sager 197-200, 243, 245, 247/803) der var anlagt mod Rådet og Kommissionen af 6 tyske melfabrikanter og en dejvarefabrikant, og hvori der nedlagdes påstand om erstatning, fastslog Domstolen, idet den her henviste til de principper, som ifølge dens praksis4) gælder for Fællesskabets ansvar uden for kontrakt, at sagsøgeren i de her foreliggende sager langt fra havde bevist, at der forelå en overtrædelse af en retsregel af højere gyldighed til beskyttelse af de private, idet de hverken havde påvist, at der var tale om en ulovlig adfærd fra Rådets eller Kommissionens side, eller på anden måde godtgjort at der forelå en årsagsforbindelse mellem på den ene side Rådets og Kommissionens her nævnte retsakter og på den anden side det tab, sagsøgerne påstod at have lidt.
Lastly, in Joined Cases 197 to 200,243, 245 and 247/802 actions for damages brought by six German flour producers and a manufacturer of pasta products against the Council and the Commission, the Court held, on the basis of the principles which, according to its past decisions,3 govern the Community's non­ contractual liability, that in those cases the applicants, far from establishing a flagrant breach of an overriding legal principle for the protection of individuals, had not succeeded either in demonstrating that the Council or the Commission had acted unlawfully or in establishing the existence of a relationship between the Council and Commission acts in question and the damage which they claimed to have suffered.
Sagsøgerne gjorde gældende, at Fællesskabets institutioner for året 1979 havde fastsat tærskelprisen for hård hvede på et for højt niveau for herved at beskytte Fællesskabets produktion af hård hvede i de sydlige områder af Italien og Frankrig.
The applicants claimed that the Community institutions had fixed the threshold price of durum wheat imported from non­member countries in 1979 at too high a level in order to protect the production of Community durum wheat in the southern parts of Italy and France.
Institutionerne havde på denne måde begunstiget producenterne af dejvarer i de områder, hvor hård hvede produceres.
In this way, the institutions had favoured the manufactur­ers of pasta products in the durum wheat­producing areas.
Fællesskabsinstitutionerne var ligeledes ansvarlige for, at hård hvede i stigende grad erstattedes af blød hvede ved dejfremstillingen i den nordlige del af Fælles skabet, hvilket således havde påført sagsøgerne et tab.
They had also been responsible for the growing substitution of common wheat for durum wheat in the manufacture of pasta products in the north of the Community, whereby the appli­cants had suffered damage.
3) offentliggjort.
Internal arrangements
SenavnligEF-Domstolen,2.7.1974(HoltzogWillemsen/RådetogKommissionen,sag 153/73),Sml. 1974, s. 675; EF-Domstolen, 2.12.1971 (Zuckerfabrik Schöppenstedt/Rådet, sag 5/71), Sml. 1971, s. 975.
1 On this issue see also Case 196/80Anglo­Irish Meat Co ν Minister for Agriculture: not yet reported.
Den har ved dom af 5. maj 19811) dømt Det forenede Kongerige for den 1. juli 1979 at have sat visse nationale bevaringsforanstaltninger i kraft uden tilstrækkelig forudgående konsultation og på trods af Kommissionens indvendinger, og for at have opretholdt en fiskerilicensordning, der var så diskretionær, at de, hvis interesser berørtes, ikke var i stand til at skaffe sig juridisk vished om deres rettigheder.
IV-2 having brought into force certain national conservation measures on 1 July 1979 without appropriate prior consultation and in spite of the Commission's objections and for having maintained in force a system of fishing licences which was so discretionary that those concerned were unable to enjoy any legal certainty as to their rights.
Den har fastslået, at beføjelsen til at træffe foranstaltninger inden for den fælles fiskeripolitik med hensyn til bevarelse afhavets ressourcer — efter udløbet den 1. januar 1979 af den overgangsperiode, der er fastsat i tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 102 — fuldstændigt og endeligt tilkommer Fællesskabet.
It found that since the expiry on 1 January 1979 of the transitional period laid down in Article 102 of the Act of Accession, the power to adopt measures to conserve fish stocks has, as part of the common fisheries policy, been fully and definitively vested in the Community.
Med lemsstaterne er således ikke længere berettigede til at træffe egne foranstaltninger på dette område efter den 1. januar 1979.1 den udstrækning, hvor Rådet ikke inden for de fastsatte frister har truffet bevaringsforanstaltninger, har medlemsstaterne dog ret og endog pligt til at træffe sådanne midlertidige bevaringsforanstaltninger, som efter forholdene måtte være nødvendige, men udelukkende i samarbejde med Kommissionen og under skyldig hensyntagen til den generelle overvågningsrolle, som er pålagt denne institution ved artikel 155.
Since that date, Member States have no longer been entitled to introduce measures of their own in this area. However, as the Council failed to introduce conservation measures on schedule, the Member States have the right, and indeed a duty, to introduce any interim conservation measures that may be required by the situation, provided this is done as part of a process of collaboration with the Commission, having regard to its general duty of supervision under Article 155 of the EEC Treaty.
De spanske fiskere, mod hvem der var anlagt sag for uautoriseret fiskeri i Frankrigs økonomiske zone eller i de franske territorialfarvande, påberåbte sig navnlig deres fiskerirettigheder i henhold til den fransk-spanske aftale af 1967.
Spanish fishermen who had been prosecuted for fishing without a licence in the French economic zone or French territorial waters argued that they enjoyed fishing rights under the 1967 Agreement between France and Spain.
Domstolen understregede, at de forbindelser mellem Fællesskabet og Spanien, som blev skabt ved rammeaftalen, undertegnet den 15. april 1980, »erstattede« de tidligere internationale forpligtelser mellem nogle medlemsstater og Spanien2) — og ikke blot »supplerede« dem, som Domstolen havde fastslået i Burgoa-dommen 3).
The Court held that the relations between the Community and Spain now established in the outline agreement signed on 15 April 1980 had 'superseded'—not merely been 'superimposed on', as it had ruled in the Burgoa case1 —the previous international commit ments between certain Member States and Spain.2
EF-Domstolen, 5.5.1981 (Kommissionen/Det forenede Kongerige, sag 804/79) - endnu ikke offentliggjort.
1 Case 812/79 Burgoa [1980] ECR 2787.
EF-Domstolen, 8.12.1981 (Crwjeiras Tomé, forenede sager 180 og 266/80); (Arbelaiz-Emazabel, sag 181/80) - endnu ikke offentliggjorte. EF-Domstolen, 14.10.1980 (Burgoa, sag 812/79), Sml. 1980, s. 2787.
2Joined Cases 180/80 Crujeiras Tomé and 266/80 Yurrita; Case 181/80 Arbelaiz-Emazabel: not yet reported.
Adspurgt vedrørende fortolkningen af begreberne agentur eller en lignende virksomhed i denne konventions forstand fandt Domstolen i sag 139/80 *), at såfremt en handelsagent (mellemmand) er selvstændig i den forstand, at han i medfør af sin retlige status i det væsentlige frit kan indrette sin virksomhed, såfremt det selskab, han repræsenterer, ikke kan forbyde, at han samtidigt repræsenterer flere konkurrerende selskaber, og såfremt han desuden blot videresender ordrer til hovedvirksomheden uden at have del i ordrernes afvikling eller opfyldelse, foreligger der ikke kendetegnene for en filial, et agentur eller en lignende virksomhed, jf. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 5.
INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION PF SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW 313 jurisdiction, a defendant domiciled in a particular Contracting State may, in the case of a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, be sued in another Contracting State, in the courts of the place in which the branch agency or other establishment is situated. In response to a reference for a ruling on the interpretation of the words 'agency or other establishment' in Article 5(5), the Court ruled in Case 139/801 that a commer­ cial agent or intermediary who is independent in the sense that his legal status leaves him basically free to arrange his own work, whom the undertaking he represents may not prevent from representing at the same time several competing firms and who merely transmits orders to the parent undertaking without being involved in their terms or execution does not have the character of a branch, agency or other establishment within the meaning of the Convention.
I sag nr. 150/802) blev Domstolen anmodet om at fortolke artikel 17 (aftaler om retternes kompetence), 18 (fremmøde for at rejse indsigelse om inkompetence) og 22 (indbyrdes sammenhængende krav) i konventionen.
In Case 150/802 the Court was asked to rale on the interpretation of Articles 17 (agreements conferring jurisdiction), 18 (appearance for the purpose of contest­ing jurisdiction) and 22 (related actions).
Domstolen fortolker artikel 17 såle­des, at en kontraherende stats lovgivning ikke kan hindre, at en værnetingsaftale er gyldig, blot fordi det anvendte sprog ikke er det i denne lovgivning foreskrevne.
On Article 17, the Court held that this article was to be interpreted as meaning that the legislation of a Contracting State may not allow the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction to be called in question solely on the ground that the language used is not that prescribed by that legislation.