natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2) EF­Domstolen, 22.5.1980 (Regina/Santillo) 131/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort. ') EF­Domstolen.
the latter the Court decided two important cases concerning imports into the Commun­ity of goods being transferred between differ­ent parts of a group of companies.
18.3.1980 (offentlig anklager!Debauve m.fl. og CoditeliCine Vog Films m.fl.) 52/79 og 62/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjorte.
In Case 111/79 the national court asked inter alia whether in such a case the 'price paid or pay­able' for the goods could be taken as their
Domstolen er blevet anmodet om endnu en gang at fortolke artikel 9 i direktiv 64/221/EØF i sagen »Santillo«2). Efter at have understreget,
* CJEC 14.2.1980, Case 84/79 (Meyer­Uetze ν Haupt­zolfornt Bad Reichenalt), not yet reported; CJEC 13.3.1980, Case 111/79 (Caterpillar Overseas v Belgian State), not yet reported; CJEC 24.4.1980, Case 65/79 (Châtain), not yet reported.
Fortolkningen og anvendelsen af forordning 1408/71 og forordning 574/72 ') giver stadig anledning til talrige præjudicielle spørgsmål.
The Court was also called upon to rule on the compatibility of certain national measures with Articles 30 to 36 EEC.6Of for customs purposes and the Agreement of 22 July 1972 between the EEC and Switzer­land' permitted customs authorities to value the goods at a sum lower than the invoice price.
Det giver Domstolen lejlighed til at fortsætte og udvikle sin tidligere retspraksis, der, som be kendt, under hensyntagen til de undersøgte be stemmelser tager sigte på at anlægge en fortolkning, der er i overensstemmelse med målene for den frie bevægelighed for personer og det almindelige lovgivningssystem.
The Court held that these instruments did not empower customs authorities to do this, but added that Member States should combat the problem of improper exports of capital by other means, such as fiscal or financial measures, which were not yet sub­ject to Community action.
Domstolen har ligeledes skullet udtale sig om bestemmelserne i forordning 1408/71 vedrørende ikke-sammenlægning af ydelser.
these cases the most important was Case 788/79, the first in which the Court has had occasion to confirm its leading judgment in the Cassis de Dijon case.7 The case concerned the lawfulness of a national decree prohibit­ing the marketing of vinegar other than wine vinegar, whether domestic or imported.
Da det drejer sig om familieydelser til børn, der forsørges af pen sionister, har Domstolen på grundlag af dommen af 12. juni 1980 i sag 733/80 (Caisse de compensation des allocations familiales/C. La Terza) kunnet anvende den i Rossi-dommen5) anvendte, i retspraksis skabte retsregel med hensyn til artikel 79, stk. 3 i forordning 1408/71 på anvendelsen af denne forordnings artikel 77, stk 2.
The defendants in the main proceedings had been prosecuted for selling apple­based vinegar imported from another Member State con­trary to the provisions of this decree.
Til forskel fra bestemmelsen i art. 79 (udsættelsesklausul) synes bestemmelserne i artikel 77, stk. 2 at dreje sig om lovvalgsregler.
In line with its judgment in Case 120/78, the Court held that national measures restricting imports fell foul of Article 30 unless they were necessary to satisfy mandatory require­ments such as public health, the fairness of commercial transactions and consumer pro­tection.
Domstolen finder således, at det henhører under de enkelte medlemsstaters lov givning at fastsætte betingelserne for retten eller forpligtelsen til at være tilsluttet en social sikringsordning eller en gren af denne ordning.
In Case 61/792it held that the direct effect of Article 13(2) EEC meant that sums imposed contrary to that provision could be recovered even for the period prior to a rul­ing of the Court to that effect under Article 177.
Det påhviler ligeledes medlemsstaterne at fastsætte bestemmelser for konsekvenserne af en fejlagtig tilslutning.
However, national laws barring actions for recovery where unjust enrichment to the plaintiff would ensue were compatible with Community law.
') EFT C 138 af 9.6.1980 (kodificeret udgave).
' Regulation 31.12.1972.
Domstolen understreger i denne forbindelse, at en person, der ifølge en medlemsstats lovgivning har ret til de i forordning 1408/71 nævnte ydelser på grundlag af de medlemsbidrag, han skulle have indbetalt tidligere, ikke mister sin retsstilling som »arbejdstager« i nævnte forordnings forstand, blot fordi han ved sikringsbegivenhe-
Directive 71/118 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat: 0J L 55 of 8.3.1971. * CJEC 26.2.1980, Case 94/79 (Vriend), not yet reported; CJEC 27.2.1980, Case 55/79 (Commission ν Ireland), not yet reponed; CJEC 24.4.1980, Case 65/79 (Châtain), not yet reported; CJEC 26.6.1980, Case 788/79, (Gilli and Andres), not yet reported. "
Lige løn til mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere (EØF-traktatens artikel 119)
Competition here, the Court ruled that the prohibition in question infringed Article 30.
Der rejste sig et særligt problem for arbejdsløse grænsearbejdere, da de som undtagelse fra den almindelige bestemmelse modtager ydelser efter lovgivningen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område de er bosat, og ikke den medlemsstat, hvori de senest var beskæftiget (artikel 71, litra a), ii).
The object of the proceedings was to obtain the annulment of individual decisions taken by the Commission imposing fines on the applicants—steel undertakings—for selling concrete reinforcement bars at less than the minimum prices fixed by general decisions (962/77/ECSC and 3000/77/ECSC).
Målet er at sikre arbejdstagerne arbejdsløshedsydelser, der fastsættes i forhold til arbejdstagernes lønvilkår på tidspunktet for arbejdsløshedens ind træden.
The applicants had applied for either the annul­ment or a declaration of the inapplicability of these general decisions and, as a subsidiary claim, the reduction of the fines imposed.
I overensstemelse med dette mål overføres reglen til tilfældet med grænsearbejdere.
The Court rejected the applications as a whole but reduced three of the fines for reasons spe­cially connected with the cases in question.
Domstolen har på ny udtalt, at artikel 119 skal anvendes umiddelbart, uden behov for mere detaljerede gennemførelsesbestemmelser fra Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne, på alle former for direkte og åben forskelsbehandling, som kan påvises blot på grundlag af kriterier vedrørende samme arbejde og samme løn.
In the first of these, the Court's Order of 17 January 1980 in Camera Care Ltd ν Com­mission (Case 792/79R) established the Com­mission's power to order interim measures of protection in competition procedures under the EEC Treaty, a power which is not explicitly mentioned in Article 2 of Regula­tion No 17.'
Det blev i denne forbindelse fastslået, at begrebet »samme arbejde« ikke er begrænset til situationer, hvor mænd og kvinder samtidig udfører et arbejde af samme art for den samme arbejdsgiver.
The Court, however, relying once more on the doctrine of implied powers, found that the Commission's power to order an end to infringements under Article 3 of Regulation No 17 could become ineffectual or even illusory if this power could only be exercised on a definitive basis, at the end of the various procedural steps laid down else­where in that Regulation.
modtage foreløbige ydelser indtil den endelige udbetaling af ydelser i henhold til artikel 45 i forordning nr. 574/724), om betingelserne for
1CJEC 18.3.1980, Joined Cases 154, 205, 206, 226, 227, 228, 264/78, 31, 39, 83 and 85/79 (SpA Ferriera
') EF-Domstolen (3. afdeling), 12.6.1980 (FNROM/Salmon) 1/ 80— endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Valsabbia and Others ν Commission); CJEC 18.3.1980, Joined Cases 26 and 86/79 (Forges de Thy-Marcinelle and Monceau SA ν Commission), not yet reported. '
anvendelse af artikel 27 og 28 i forordning nr. 3 vedrørende sammenlægning og ydelser5), om
Council Regulation No 17 of 6.2.1962: OJ 13 of 21.2.1962, p. 204.
betingelserne for hensyntagen til »tillægsperioder« ved anvendelsen af artikel 46 i forordning 1408/71 (koordineret betaling af pension, der er forfalden til betaling i henhold til lovgivningen i flere medlemsstater)6), om muligheden for at
It is interesting to note that the joining of twelve actions brought by Italian, German, French and Belgian firms gave the Court an overall perspective of the divergent interests at issue and enabled it to reaffirm that the fixing of the level of minimum prices and the difference in charges—which, of themselves were not excessive—arising from the mea­sures complained of by the various firms was a consequence of the principle of solidarity between all ECSC undertakings.
Domstolen stemmelserne derhen, at import af orangejuice ikke bør pålægges afgifter, når det kan fastlås, at en sådan import ikke ville være pålagt lignende afgifter i andre medlemsstater.
The Court found that the powers granted the Commission by Article 14 of Regulation No 17 satisfied these conditions.
Konsekvenserne af »force majeure« er igen blevet undersøgt af Domstolen, denne gang i forbindelse med ydelse af monetære udligningsbeløb 3). Til forskel fra sin tidligere afgørelse i forbindelse med tiltrædelsesudligningsbeløb4) fandt Domsto len, at selv om varer ødelægges ved en hændelig begivenhed (f eks. skibbrud) under transporten fra en medlemsstat til en anden, skal samtlige monetære udligningsbeløb ikke udbetales, som om varerne var ankommet til bestemmelsesstedet. det.
The Court bound the exercise of this power by the Commission to a number of condi­tions: the case must be urgent; if no measures are taken a situation will result which is likely to cause serious and irreparable dam­age to the party concerned, or which is intol­erable for the public interest; the measures must be of a temporary and conservatory nature; before the measures are adopted, the parties concerned have a right to a hearing, and are generally protected by the safeguards of Regulation No 17; the decision ordering interim measures must be in a form which can be attacked before the Court of Justice.
Denne hypotese hører ind under indirekte og skjult forskelsbehandling, og til konstatering heraf kræves, at de lovgivende organer på EF-plan eller nationalt plan forudgående fast sætter visse bedømmelseskriterier.
In a third case3the Court pro­nounced upon what constitutes a proper notification of an agreement under Article 5 of Regulation No 17 and Article 4 of Regula­tion No 27.4The Court said that an agree­ment can be considered as properly notified in its entirety if the complete text has been annexed to the notification form, even if only some of the articles of the agreement are referred to in the form, provided that the description given in the form gives an accu­rate rendering of the clauses which, at the time, were considered most important.
Sammenligninger i sager, der henhører under artikel 119's direkte anvendelsesområde er begrænset til så danne, som kan opstilles på grundlag af konkrete vurderinger vedrørende ydelser, som faktisk udføres i samme virksomhed eller afdeling af arbejdstagere af forskelligt køn.
In the matter of a voluntary relaxation of the notified agreement followed by a later return to the original terms of the notification, the Court, following the Commission, did not take a very strict approach. It said that the reintroduction of a certain category of pro­ducts which had been temporarily excluded was covered by the effects of the original notification.
En mistanke om bedrageri i forbindelse med importafgifter på smør førte til en overtrædelsesprocedure anlagt af Kommissionen mod Italien for at have nægtet at lade Kommissionen deltage i kontrolforanstaltninger inden for rammerne af ordningen med Fællesskabets egne indtægter5).
The second case which concerned the Commission's powers concentrated upon the investigations without previous warning which the Commission can order under Arti­cle 14 of Regulation No 17.
Domstolen tiltrådte, at Kommissionen kunne udøve sine kontrolbeføjelser allerede ved »fastlæggelsen« af de egne indtægter, men fandt, at fællesskabsbestemmelserne ikke pålagde den italienske administration at meddele Kom missionen særlige oplysninger vedrørende straffesager (» undersøgelseshemmelighed «).
The Court ruled that unlike Article 11 of Regulation No 17, which obliges the Commission to ask an enterprise for information before adopting a legally binding decision ordering it to pro­vide it, Article 14 does not prescribe such a two-stage procedure and that the Commis­sion can adopt a decision ordering an investi­gation right away.'
2) EF-Domstolen, 3.6.1980 (Gedelfl/HZA Hamburg-Jonas) 135/ 79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort.
CJEC 16.6.1980, Case 136/79 (National Panasonic ν
') EF-Domstolen, 5.3.1980 (Nordmark!HZA Hamburg-Jonas) 38/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort.
Commission), not yet reported. !CJEC 14.5.1974, Case 4/73 (J-N°Id, Kohlen- und Baustoffgrosshandlung ν Commission) [1974] ECR 491 at 507.
6) EF-Domstolen 26.6.1980 (Pardini) 808/79 — endnu ikke
4Commission Regulation No 27, OJ 35 of 10.5.1962,
Som sædvanlig har sager vedrørende valutariske spørgsmål været i overtal.
The case is also interesting for the way in which it handles the question of fundamental rights.
Den er ligeledes blevet anmodet om ud fra en monetær synsvinkel at undersøge gyldigheden af fællesskabsbestemmelser vedrørende visse import afgifter på orangejuice2).
The applicant in the case had com­plained that a surprise investigation, such as had been ordered here, infringed its funda­mental rights, in particular its right to priv­acy.
Som følge af den den gang anvendte omregningskurs indførtes der i henhold til disse bestemmelser en afgift ved importen af en orangejuice til en medlemsstat, mens den samme juice kunne være importeret afgiftsfrit til andre medlemsstater. Domstolen har kunnet løse dette problem ved at fortolke be offentliggjort.
Here the Court did not restrict itself to restating its decision in the Nold case,2but referred to paragraph 2 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to privacy), which says that interfer­ence with this right is permissible if it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, for inst­ance, the economic well-being of the country.
Domstolen uanset om de i artikel 17 nævnte formelle betin­gelser er opfyldt3).
Court of Justice or compete, the tax arrangements applied to them must be the same.
licens til samme rettighed, er blevet fastholdt af Domstolen under hensyntagen til de risici og vanskeligheder, som et andet system ville kunne medføre.
While the Court, in the proceedings instituted against France, Italy and Denmark, held that there had been failure to fulfil the obligations under Article 95, it made an interlocutory order in the proceedings against the United Kingdom.
I artikel 1, udelukkes formueforholdet mellem ægtefæller fra dens anvendelsesområde.
However, in order to benefit from freedom to provide service it must be determined whether the main components of the activities in question are carried on within one Member State.
Ifølge Domstolen finder konventionen derimod anvendelse på foreløbige bestemmelser om un­derholdsbidrag og vederlagskrav under en skils­missesag 4).
They must also apply without distinction as to nationality to all who are established there and must apply only to persons who are not already subject to a similar requirement in another Member State.
Den i konventionens afsnit III omhand­lede anerkendelses­ og fuldbyrdelsesordning (arti­kel 27, 36, 46 og 47)5) finder ikke anvendelse på retsafgørelser om fastsættelse af foreløbige eller retsbevarende foranstaltninger, der er afsagt — uden at modparten er blevet indskrevet — og som skal fuldbyrdes uden at være forkyndt forin­den.
' CJEC 5 March 1980, Case 98/79 (Pecastaing ν Bel­gian State), not yet reported. ­ CJEC 22 May 1980, Case 131/79 (Regina ν Santillo), not yet reported.
Idet Domstolen erindrer om, at der i direktivet er fastsat indførelse af ordninger, der opfylder visse globale kriterier med hensyn til strukturændringer, men at det overlades den nationale lovgivning at tilrettelægge denne re­form, har den fundet, at der i direktivet ikke er fastsat særlige forpligtelser, for så vidt angår rets­midler.
Taking the objectives of Article 48 of the Tre­aty as a basis, however, the Court held that this provision must be interpreted as meaning that entitlement to family benefits in a State in whose territory a pensioner is resident does not preclude entitlement to higher benefits previously acquired in another Member State.
') EF­Domstolen 1.2.1980 (Vriend) 94/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort: allerede nævnt. 2) EF­Domstolen 6.5.1980 (Lee I Minister for Agriculture) 152/79
' CJEC (Third Chamber) 24.4.1980, Case 110/79 (Coonan ν Insurance Officer): previously CJEC 12.7.1979, Case 266/78 (Brunoriv Landesversicherungs­ anstalt Rheinprovinz) [1979] ECR 2705. !CJEC 24.4.1980, see note above.
Konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, her­under handelssager
( Walsh v National Insurance Officer), not yet reported. 1CJEC 6.3.1979, Case 100/78, [1979] ECR 831.
EF­Domstolen 17.1.1980 (Zeiger/'Salinilri) 56/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort.
The range of persons covered by the Community rules (the meaning of 'worker' in Article 1 (a) (ii) of Regulation No 1408/71) is to be interpreted in the broad sense.
79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort.
4CJEC (Third Chamber) 14 February 1980, Case 53/79 (ONPTS ν Damiani), not yet reported. '
6) EF­Domstolen, 6.5.1980 (Portaleasing/'Prestige International) 784/79 — endnu ikke offentliggjort.
CJEC (Third Chamber) 12 June 1980, Case 1/80 (FNROM ν Salmon), not yet reported. ­ CJEC 26 June 1980, Case 793/79 (Menzies ν Bundes­versicherungsanstalt für Angestellte), not yet reported.
Hvis stedet for opfyldelse af en kon­traktlig forpligtelse er blevet fastsat af parterne i en gyldig klausul i henhold til den nationale ret, der gælder for kontrakten, er Domstolen på dette sted i henhold til artikel 5, stk. 1 kompetent til at pådømme tvister vedrørende denne forpligtelse,
It should be noted finally that the Court was again called upon to rule on the meaning of the law of the Member States;' sickness benefits;3the right of parties to receive benefits on a provisional basis pend­ing final payment of their benefits under Arti­cle 45 of Regulation No 574/72;" the con­
Sagens genstand
The Court said no.
Kan virkningerne af §5 i den tyske lov om arbejdstid i bagerier og konditorier anses for foranstaltninger, som må ligestilles med kvantitative indførselseller udførselsrestriktioner?
Court of Justice inary ruling, in which the Court was asked to interpret the Directive on the modernization of farms, and in particular the extent to which the Directive requires Member States to make provision for appeal against standing that goods are accidentally des­troyed (e.g. by the sinking of a ship) on route from one Member State to another, they are not entitled to benefit from the full monetary compensatory amounts as if they had arrived at their destination.
Toldfri indførsel af varer, som er købt afgiftsfrit om bord på fartøjer, der foretager udflugter uden for territorialfarvandet (Butterfahrten).
' CJEC 1.2.1980 Case 94/79 ( Vriend) not yet reported. 4CJEC 6.5.1980 Case 152/79 (Lee ν Minister for Agriculture) not yet reported.
Fastsættelse ?f tariferingen af varen »Keltrol«, et gelatineringsmiddel fremstillet industrielt på basis af maisstivelse
It is not, however, necessary for that clause to be mentioned in a docu­ment separate from that constituted by the written instrument of the contract.4 ν
Bestemmelse af tariferingen af kirsebær, konserveret i en blanding af alohol og vand, med oprindelse i Jugoslavien
4CJEC 6 May 1980, Case 784/79 (Portaleasing v Pre­stige International) not yet reported.
Er det i strid med EØF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86, når en bank opkræver et gebyr ved overførsel af valuta og kapital inden for Fællesskabet?
Must the effects of § 5 of the German Working Article Hours in Bakeries Act be regarded as measures Treaty
Skattespørgsmål
Customs union
Kan et andelsselskab, som driver et kølelager for kartofler, og som tilbyder sine medlemmer gratis opbevaring af kartofler, påstå at denne lempelse falder ind under begrebet »modværdi« i henhold til artikel 8, litra a) i det andet momsdirektiv?
Tariff classification of Steffen, Kiel v Hauptzollamt Kiel·' goods contained in travellers' personal luggage
Landbrugspolitk
177 of the
Gyldigheden af artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning 1608/ 74 af 26. juni 1974
Case 160/80 — Smuling­De Tariff classification of 'Keltrol', a thickener Article Leeuw BV, Rotterdam ν Inspec­manufactured on an industrial scale from maize Treaty teur der invoerrechten en accijn­starch zen, Rotterdam'
Avendendelsen af forordningerne 804/68, 823/68, 1053/68 og 1054/68 om landbrugsafgifter i forbindelse med tariferingen af en fransk ost
Does the debiting by a bank of a charge on Article transfers of funds within the Community Treaty constitute an infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty?
Anmodning om at artikel 2 i forordning 1592/80 erklæres for ugyldig, for så vidt den fastsætter pro duktionskvoter for sukker og isoglucose for sagsøgeren ren
Case 154/80 — Staatssecretaris Can a cooperative association operating a refri­Article van Financien ν Coöperatieve gerated potato storage depot and offering its Treaty Aardappelen bewaarplaats GA, members storage of potatoes free of charge Heinikenzand4 claim that this facility is covered by the concept of 'consideration' in Article 8(a) of the second VAT Directive?
Kommissionens vægring ved at give dette firma adgang til at deltage i udførelsen af projekter i AVS-lande
& Co KG, Hamburg ν Bundes­'flakes of sorghum' contained in Article 5 of Treaty anstalt für landwirtschaftliche Regulation (EEC) No 141/64 on the system go­Marktordnung, Frankfurt verning processed products derived from (Main)4 cereals and from rice 177 of the
Indbragte sager (fortsat)
Type of action
Sagens genstand
European Development Fund
Overtrædelser
Articles 175 and 215
Ikke anvendeligheden af Rådets direktiv 76/769/ EØF af 27. juli 1976 vedrørende farlige stoffer og præparater
Case 171/80 — Commission ν Failure to implement Council Directive Article Italian Republic" 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on dangerous Treaty substances
5); 163 og 163 R/80
Disputes between the Community and its staff
— mod Europa-Parlamentet og Kommissionen: sag 167/803) — mod Kommissionen: sagerne 156/804); 161 og 161 R/805); 162 og 162 R/80165/806); 168/806); 173/807); 174/802); 175/802); 178/808
— against Parliament and the Commission: 167/80' — against the Commission: 156/80;" 161 and 161 R780f 162 and 162 R/80r 163 and 163 R/80r 164/80;" 165/80;" 168/80;" 173/80;" 174/80;' 175/80;' 178/80.'"
Sagens genstand
OJ C 21 9 of 27.8. 1980
Anmodning om fortolkning af konventionens artikel 27, stk. 2.
ΟΙ C 246 of 23.9. 1980
Retsafgørelser
Subject
Fri bevægelighed for personer
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
Udstedelsen af et særligt opholdsbevis har kun konstaterende virkning.
166/80 — Peter Klomps, Meijel ν Application for interpretation of Article 27(2) Κ Michel, Neuss' of the Convention.
En medlemsstat kan af en statsborger i Fællesskabet hverken kræve, at han skal være i besiddelse af en opholdstilladelse eller udøve sanktioner mod hâm for ikke at have skaffet sig det særlige opholdsbevis
Dispute concerning service of a Zahlungsbefehl (order for payment) and a Vollstreckungsbefehl (writ of execution) on the defendant
Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for anvendelse af nationale bestemmelser, der forbyder leveringsnægtelse, selv om de kontrakter, der påberåbt til støtte for leveringsnægtelsen, er blevet henlagt af Kommissionen.
The phrase 'entry visa or equivalent requirement' covers any formality for the purpose of granting leave to enter the territory of a Member State which is coupled with a passport or identity card check.
Retsafgørelser (fortsat)
Date and casc­
Sagen afvist; sagsøgeren afholder sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenienternes udgifter
10.7.1980 — 811/79 — Amministrazione delle Finanze The recovery of sums levied is not contrary to