natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Præjudicielle sager (EF-traktatens artikel 177) skadeserstatning (EØF-traktatens artikel 178 og 215, stk. 2)
(i) There must be an unlawful act by a Com munity institution or by a member of its staff in the exercise of his functions as such.
Gældende er i denne forbindelse de almene retsprincipper i med lemsstaternes retsordener, som EF-Domstolen har udbygget.
(ii) There must be actual damage, (iii) There must be a causal link between the act of the Community institution and the damage sustained.
De nationale domstole kan stille præjudicielle spørgsmål til EF-Domstolen.
(iv) Intent or negligence do not have to be proved.
Formålet er at sikre, at EF-retten fortolkes på ensartet måde.
Actions for damages are within the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance.
Det er den nationale dommer, der afgør, om det EF-retlige spørgsmål er så vigtigt for den oprindelige retstvist, at han vil stille et pæjudicielt spørgsmål. Retstvistens parter kan kun foreslå dette.
Where a national court is required to apply provisions of Com munity law in a case before it, it may stay the proceedings and ask the Court of Justice questions regarding the validity of the Com munity instrument at issue and/or the inter pretation of the instrument and of the treaties.
EF-Domstolen vurderer, om der er tale om et reelt retligt spørgsmål eller om et konstrueret tilfælde.
The Court of Justice answers the question in a judgment, not in an advisory opinion; this highlights the mandatory nature of its ruling.
En domstol, der ikke kan træffe afgørelse med retsmidler fra den nationale ret, skal forelægge EF-Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål. Den kan kun undlade dette, hvis spørgsmålet er uden betydning for retstvistens udfald, hvis EF-Domstolen tidligere har truffet afgørelse i et lignende spørgsmål eller der ikke er tvivl om fortolkningen af den på gældende EF-bestemmelse.
Obligation to refer. A national court or tribunal against whose decision there is no judicial remedy in national law is obliged to refer, unless the question is of no material importance for the outcome of the case before it or has already been answered by the Court of Justice or the interpretation of Community law is not open to reasonable doubt.
Uindskrænket gælder denne pligt derimod, hvis en national domstol lægger til grund, at en EF-retsakt er ugyldig.
But the obligation to refer is unconditional where the validity of a Community instrument is in issue.
Manglende overholdelse af denne pligt medfører både ifølge EF-retten og national ret straf.
Failure to discharge the obligation to refer can be penalized in both national and Community law.
Fra et EF-retligt synspunkt betyder manglende overholdelse af pligten til at forelægge præjudicielle spørgsmål overtrædelse af EF-traktatens artikel 177, som kan for følges efter traktatkrænkelsesproceduren.
In Community terms it would constitute an infringement of the EC Treaty, of Article 177 to be precise, exposing the relevant Member State to infringement proceedings under Article 169.
Så vidt er det dog hidtil ikke gået.
But so far this has never been necessary.
Fra et nationalretligt synspunkt er det imidlertid tvivl somt, om en dom er gyldig, hvis EF-retten er tilsidesat.
In national terms there will be the question of the validity of a judgment given in disregard of obligations flowing from Community law.
Desuden har den præjudicielle afgørelse i praksis betydelig pra?cedensskabende virkning også for andre lignende sager.
And in practice it has a very high status as a precedent for subsequent cases of like nature.
FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS PLACERING I DET SAMLEDE RETSSYSTEM
THE POSITION OF COMMUNITY LAW IN RELATION TO THE LEGAL ORDER AS A WHOLE
På trods af alt det, som vi har fået at vide om EF's struktur og dets retsorden, er det allige- vel ikke så ligetil at placere EF-retten i det samlede retssystem og at fastlægge grænser- ne til andre retsordener.
After all that we have learnt about the struc­ture of the Community and its legal order, it is not easy to assign Community law its rightful place in the legal order as a whole and to define the boundaries between it and other legal orders.
To muligheder må på forhånd forkastes.
Two possible approaches to classifying it must be rejected from the outset.
EF-retten kan ikke betragtes som en ren og skær samling af mel lemstatslige aftaler, og den kan ligeså lidt an ses for at være en del af eller et tillæg til de nationale retssystemer.
Community law must not be conceiv­ed of as a mere collection of international agreements, nor can it be viewed as a part or an appendage of national legal systems.
Det kan snarere siges, at medlemsstaterne ved oprettelsen af Fællesskaberne har be­grænset deres lovgivningssuverænitet og derved skabt et selvstændigt retssystem, som er bindende for deres statsborgere og for dem selv.
State could then, by interpreting provisions in different ways, decide individually on the substance of the freedoms that Community law is supposed to generate.
udhuler EF­retten, og det eneste der sikrer, at EF­retten får ensartet gyldighed i alle med­lemsstater.
As an example, consider the concept of the worker, on which the scope of the concept of freedom of move­ment is based.
Med sit EF­specifikke ind­hold kan arbejdstagerbegrebet således afvi­ge fra de begreber, der anvendes i og kendes fra medlemsstaternes retsordener.
The specific Community con­cept of the worker is quite capable of deviating from the concepts that are known and applied in the legal orders of the Member States.
Dette slog EF­Domstolen allerede fast i 1964 i den berømte Costa/ENEL­sag.
One of the best-known cases heard in the Court of Justice was Costa ν ENEL in 1964.
I det nævnte år nationaliserede Italien nemlig elektrici­tetsproduktionen og ­forsyningen og over­drog de private elektricitetsselskabers drifts­anlæg til elektricitetsselskabet ENEL. Hr. Co­sta mistede som aktionær i aktieselskabet Edison Volta sin dividende ved dettes natio­nalisering og nægtede senere at betale sin elektricitetsregning på 1 926 LIT. For under­retten i Milano begrundede hr. Costa bl.a. dette skridt med, at nationaliseringsloven var i modstrid med en række bestemmelser i EØF­traktaten.
In 1962 Italy had nationalized electricity generation and distribution and vested the business of the former electricity companies in ENEL, the new public corporation.
Underretten indbragte derpå spørgsmålet om fortolkningen af forskellige bestemmelser i EØF­traktaten for EF­Dom­stolen.
The court refer­red questions on the interpretation of these provisions to the Court of Justice.
Under sagsbehandlingen i EF­Dom­stolen bestred den italienske regering, at un­derretten kunne anmode EF­Domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse, fordi det var natio­nale bestemmelser, som den nationale dom­stol skulle lægge til grund og forelæggelse for EF­Domstolen derfor var udelukket.
The Italian Government pleaded that the reference was 'absolutely inadmissible' since the national court could apply only national law and had no business presenting the case to the Court of Justice.
EF­Domstolens klare opfattelse vedrørende det­te spørgsmål var følgende:
The Court's answer was une­quivocal:
Selv om EF­retten udgør en selvstændig rets­orden i forhold til medlemsstaternes retsor­dener, kan man imidlertid ikke betragte EF­retsordenens og de nationale retsordeners indbyrdes placering som om de befandt sig i forskellige luftlag.
Even if Community law constitutes a legal order that is self-sufficient in relation to the legal orders of the Member States, this situa­tion must not be regarded as one in which the Community legal order and the legal orders of the Member States are super­imposed on one another like layers of bedrock.
Imod en så skarp afgræns­ning af disse retsordener taler for det første, at de vedrører de samme mennesker, som så­ledes samtidig er statsborgere i deres respek­tive medlemsstater og EF­borgere.
The fact that they are applicable to the same people, who thus become citizens of a national State and citizens of the Com­munity in one person, negates such a rigid demarcation of these legal orders.
For det an­det, ville man ved en sådan betragtningsmå­de ikke tage hensyn til, at EF­retten kun kan blive en levende ret, hvis den integreres i medlemsstaternes retsordener.
Secondly, such an approach disregards the fact that Community law can become operational only if it becomes part of the legal orders of the Member States.
I virkelighe­den griber EF­retsordenen og de nationale retsordener ind i hinanden og er gensidigt af­hængige af hinanden.
The truth is that the Com­munity legal order and the national legal orders are interlocked and mutually depend­ent on one another.
»Til forskel fra de almindelige internationale traktater har EØF­traktaten indført en særlig retsorden, derer integreret i medlemsstater­nes retssystemer... og som skal anvendes af deres retsinstanser.
'By contrast with ordinary international treaties, the EEC Treaty has created its own legal system which, on the entry into force of the Treaty, became an integral part of the legal systems of the Member States and which their courts are bound to apply.
Medlemsstaterne har ved at oprette et fællesskab på ubegrænset tid, der har egne institutioner, ... og navnlig egentlige beføjelser... faktisk begrænset de­[(■­. suverænitet, sel\ om det sket inden for af­grænsede områder, og har således skabt et re­gelsæt, som finder anvendelse på deres stats­borgere og på dem selv«.
By creating a Community of unlimited dura­tion, having its own institutions, its own legal capacity ... and, more particularly, real powers ..., the Member States have limited their sovereign rights, albeit within limited fields, and have thus created a body of law which binds both their nationals and themselves.'
EF­retsordenens autonomi er af grundlæg­gende betydning for EF's beståen, da den er det eneste bolværk imod, at den nationale ret
This is why the concepts of Com­munity law are interpreted in the light of the purposes pursued by Community law and the Community in general.
■ EF­RETTENS OG DEN NATIONALE RETS GENSIDIGE AFHÆNGIGHED
■ COOPERATION BETWEEN COMMUNITY LAW AND NATIONAL LAW
Dette aspekt af forholdet mellem EF­retten og den nationale ret omfatter den måde, hvorpå EF­retten og den nationale ret gensi­digt supplerer hinanden. I artikel 5 i EF­trak­taten beskrives dette tydeligt som følger:
This aspect of the interaction between Com­munity law and national law covers those areas where the two systems supplement each other.
»Medlemsstaterne træffer alle almindelige eller særlige foranstaltninger, som er egnede til at sikre opfyldelsen af de forpligtelser, som følger af denne traktat, eller af retsakter fore­taget af Fællesskabets institutioner.
'Member States shall take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of this Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community.
De letter Fællesskabet gennemførelsen af dets opga­ver.
They shall facilitate the achievement of the Community's tasks.
Dette almene princip blev formuleret i be­vidstheden om, at EF­retsordenen alene ikke kan virkeliggøre alle de mål, der blev fastlagt ved EF's oprettelse. Til forskel fra de nationa­le retsordener danner EF's retsorden ikke et i sig selv lukket system, men må til sin gen­nemførelse støtte sig til de nationale retsor­dener.
They shall abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objec­tives of this Treaty.' fixes in binding terms is the result to be achieved by the Member State; it is for na­tional authorities, via domestic law, to decide how and by what means the result is then actually achieved.
EF er der­med ikke blot et interessefællesskab, men ¡sær også et solidaritetsfællesskab. En følge heraf er, at medlemsstaternes myndigheder ikke blot skal tage EF­traktaterne og de rets­forskrifter, som EF­institutionerne har udstedt til gennemførelsen heraf, i betragtning.
In the judicial area, the two systems mesh through the preliminary ruling procedure of Article 177 of the EC Treaty, whereby national courts may, or sometimes must, refer questions on the interpretation and validity of Community law to the Court of Justice, whose ruling may well be of decisive authority in the settle­ment of the dispute before them.
De skal derimod gennemføre dem og fylde dem med substans.
Two things are clear.
Denne vekselvirkning mel­lem EF­retten og den nationale ret er så man­gesidig, at den kun kan beskrives ved hjælp af nogle vigtige eksempler: vendt.
For one, the court in the Member States are required to observe and apply Community law; for another, the interpreta­tion of Community law and declarations as to its validity are the sole preserve of the Court of Justice.
Således fastsættes det i selve direkti­vet, men i en form der er bindende for med­lemsstaten, kun, hvilke mål der skal nås.
The interdependence of Community and national law is further il­lustrated by what happens when gaps in Community law need to be filled in, as where Community law makes a renvoi to ex­isting rules of national law to complete the rules it itself determines.
Det overlades derimod til statsorganerne, dvs. den nationale ret at afgøre, hvorledes og med hvilke midler dette skal ske.
The fate of the rele­vant rules of Community law will then large­ly depend on the national rules.
På retsplejeom­råclet skabes denne snævre forbindelse via proceduren med præjudicielle afgørelser ef­ter EF­traktatens artikel 177.
An example of this isto be found in Article 192 of the EC Treaty, which reads:
Herefter kan (skal) de nationale domstole forelægge EF­Domstolen spørgsmål, når de er i tvivl om, hvorledes EF­retten skal fortolkes, og i hvilket omfang den er gyldig.
This general principle was inspired by an awareness that the Community legal order on its own is not able to fully achieve the ob­jectives pursued by the establishment of the EC.
Disse præjudicielle af­gørelser er af stor betydning for de oprindeli­ge sager, der behandles af de nationale dom­stole.
Unlike a national legal order, the Com­munity legal order is not a self­contained system but relies on the support of the na­tional systems for its operation.
Den præjudicielle procedure viser så­ledes tydeligt, at også medlemsstaternes domstole skal iagttage reglerne i EF­retten og anvende disse, men at fortolkningen og vur­deringen af EF­rettens gyldighed udelukken­de tilfalder EF­Domstolen.
All three branches of government — the legislative, the executive and the judicial — therefore need to acknowledge that the Community legal order is not a 'foreign' system but that the Member States and the Community in­stitutions have established indissoluble links between themselves so as to achieve their common objectives.
EF­retsordenens og de nationale retsordeners gensidige af­hængighed viser sig yderligere, når der skal »lukkes huller« i EF­lovgivningen.
The EC is not just a com­munity of interests; it is a community of solidarity.
Dette sker f.eks. ved, at der i EF­retten til supplering af egne regler henvises til de nationale retsor­dener.
It follows that national authorities are required not only to observe the Com­munity treaties and secondary legislation; they must also implement them and bring them to life.
Håndhævelsen af en EF­retslig regel afhænger dermed af et bestemt punkt i den gældende nationale lovgivning.
The interaction between the two systems is so thoroughly multifaceted that a few examples are called for.
Noget så­dant fastsættes udtrykkeligt f.eks. i EF­trakta­tens artikel 192, stk. 2 vedrørende tvangsfuld­byrdelse: »De ai Rådets og Kommissionens beslutninger, der indebærer en forpligtelse for andre end stater ti I at betale en pengeydel­se, kan tvangsfuldbyrdes.
' Decisions of the Council or the Commission which impose a pecuniary obligation on per­sons other than States shall be enforceable.
Tvangsfuldbyrdel­sen sker efter den borgerlige retsplejes regler i den medlemsstat, på hvis område den fin­der sted«.
Enforcement shal I be governed by the rules of civil procedure in force in the. State in the territory of which it is carried out...'
Generelt gælder dette desuden for fuldbyrdelsen af EF­retten, hvis der ikke i EF­retten selv findes særlige bestemmelser der­om.
This principle is actually applicable to the full range of obligations under Community law has not itself determined rules for its enforcement.
I alle disse tilfælde retter de nationale myndigheder sig ved gennemførelsen af EF­reglerne efter de formelle og materielle be­stemmelser i de nationale lovgivninger.
In any such case, national authorities enforce Community law by means of the substantive and procedural pro­visions of their own legal systems.
Det­te princip gælder ganske vist kun i det om­fang det EF­retlige krav om, at gennemførel­sen skal være ensartet, iagttages, da det un­der alle omstændigheder må undgås, at gennemførelsen sker uensartet, og at der der­med opstår uretfærdigheder.
But the principle is subject to one proviso: the uniformity of the application of Community law must be preserved, for it would be wholly unacceptable for citizens and firms to be affected unequally — and therefore un­justly — by it.
Systemet med direktiver, som vi tidligere har hørt om, viser klart den snævre forbindelse mellem EF's retsorden og de nationale retsor­dener og den måde, hvorpå de nationale rets­ordener supplerer EF's retsorden og om­
The first illustration of the way in which the Community and national legal orders mesh with each other and complement each other is the directive, already considered in the chapter on legislation. All the directive itself
■ KOLLISION MELLEM EF­RETTEN OG NATIONAL RET
■ CONFLICT BETWEEN COMMUNITY LAW AND NATIONAL LAW
For forholdet mellem EF­retten og de natio­nale retsordener gælder imidlertid, at de af og til »er i strid« med hinanden.
However, the relationship between Com­munity law and national law is also characterized by an occasional 'hostility' be­tween the Community legal order and the national legal orders.
Man taler her om kollision mellem EF­retten og national ret.
Here one speaks of a conflict between Community law and na­tional law.
En sådan situation opstår altid, når en be­stemmelse i EF­retten hjemler umiddelbare rettigheder eller pligter for EF­borgerne og indholdsmæssigt er i strid med en national retsregel.
Such a situation always arises when a provision of Community law confers rights and imposes obligations directly upon Community citizens while its content con­flicts with a rule of national law.
Bag dette tilsyneladende enkle problem skjuler der sig to principper af stor betydning for opbygningen af EF, hvis anven­delse skulle blive en prøvesten for fælles­skabsretsordenens eksistens:
Concealed behind this apparently simple problem area are two fundamental questions underlying the construction of the Community, the answers to which were destined to become the acid test for the existence of the Com­munity legal order, namely: (i) the direct applicability of Community law and
— EF­rettens forrang for modstridende natio­nal ret.
(ii) the primacy of Community law over con­flicting national law.
Det er en af EF­Domstolens største fortjen­ster, at den har fastslået, at EF­bestemmelser­ne finder direkte anvendelse, på trods af den modstand, der i begyndelsen var fra nogle medlemsstaters side. Dermed har den sikret EF­rettens eksistens.
Direct applicability of Community law munities is that is has enforced the direct ap­plicability of the provisions of Community law despite the initial resistance of certain Member States and has thus guaranteed the existence of the Community legal order.
Udgangspunktet var en ganske almindelig sag, som imidlertid skulle komme til at indtage en fremtrædende plads i Domstolens retspraksis.
Its case­law on this point started with a perfectly run­of­the­mill case which, however, was destined to go down in the annals of the Court.
I den pågældende sag sagsøgte den nederlandske transportvirk­somhed Van Gend & Loos ved en neder­landsk domstol det nederlandske toldvæsen, som ved indførelsen af et kemisk produkt fra Tyskland havde opkrævet en for høj told. Virksomheden anså denne praksis forat være en overtrædelse af EØF­traktatens artikel 12, hvori det forbydes medlemsstaterne at indfø­re en ny og at forhøje bestående told på det fælles marked. Retssagens udfald afhang i sidste ende af spørgsmålet, om en enkelt borger eller virk­somhed kunne påberåbe sig EØF­traktatens artikel 12 i forbindelse med en told, der blev opkrævet i strid med traktaten.
In this case, a Dutch transport firm, Van Gend & Loos, brought an action in a Dutch court against the Dutch customs authorities, who had charged increased customs duties on a chemical product im­ported from the Federal Republic of Ger­many. The firm regarded this practice as an infringement of Article 12 EEC, which pro­hibited the Member States from introducing new customs duties or increasing those that they already applied in the common market. In the final analysis, the outcome of these proceedings depended on the question whether individuals, also, can rely on Article 12 against customs duties levied in breach of the Treaty. As the answer to this question necessitated an interpretation of the EEC Treaty, the Dutch court suspended the pro­ceedings and referred the matter to the Court of Justice. Despite the advice of numerous governments and its Advocate­General, the Court decided that all the rules of the found­ing treaties, which are worded uncondi­ Firstly, the direct applicability of Community law simply means that the latter confers rights and imposes obligations directly not only on the Community institutions and the Member States but also on the Community's citizens.
Da besvarel­sen af dette spørgsmål krævede en fortolking af EØF­traktaten, udsatte den nederlandske domstol sagen og forespurgte EF­Domsto­len.
That bald statement does not, however, get us very far si nee the question re­mains which provisions of Community law have that effect.
På trods af de råd, som adskillige regerin­ger og generaladvokaten gav, fastslog Dom­stolen imidlertid, at alle de bestemmelser i traktaterne om oprettelse af EF, som er klare, ubetingede og ikke knyttede til nogen forbe­hold, og hvis gennemførelse og gyldighed derfor ikke kræver nogle yderligere forholds­
The Community treaties enlighten us in this regard only by reference to what is referred to as secondary legislation (enacted by the institutions). For example, Article 189(2) EC states that a regulation is 'directly applicable in all Member States'.
Sådanne rettigheder opstår ikke blot, når traktaten udtrykkeligt bestemmer det, men kan også følge af entydige forpligtelser, som traktaten pålægger borgere, medlemsstater eller Fællesskabets institutioner«.
tionally, are self-sufficient and legally com plete so that their implementation or validity does not require any further intervention by the Member States or the Commission, can apply directly to individuals.
59 regler fra medlemsstaternes eller Kommissionens side, er direkte anvendelige for den enkelte borger.
This was stated to be the case with Article 12, so that the Van Gend & Loos company could also derive rights from that provision which the Dutch court had to protect. The logical consequence was that the customs duties levied in 59 breach of the Treaty were declared void.
Disse betingelser fandtes op fyldt, for så vidt angår EØF-traktatens artikel 12, og virksomheden Van Gend & Loos kun ne derfor af denne bestemmelse udlede ret tigheder, som den nederlandske domstol skulle beskytte. I konsekvens heraf erklærede denne, at den told, der var opkrævet i strid med traktaten, var ugyldig. Som begrundelse anførte domstolen, »at Fællesskabet udgør en ny retsorden ..., en retsorden, hvis retssubjekter ikke blot er medlemsstaterne, men og så de enkelte borgere. Fællesskabsretten, der er uafhængig at medlemsstaternes lovgiv Denne afgørelse har Domstolen senere over ført på bestemmelser i EØF-traktaten, som har væsentlig større betydning for EF-borger ne end den nævnte artikel 12.
In the grounds for its judgment, the Court stated that 'the Community constitutes a new legal order... the subjects of which comprise not only the Member States but also their nationals. Independently of the legislation of Member States, Community law notonly imposes obligations on individuals but is also intended to confer upon them rights.