natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Da Retten ved en dom annullerede de anfægtede beslutninger, anmodede de virksomheder, der ikke havde været med til at anlægge annulla­tionssøgsmålet, Kommissionen om at revidere de beslutninger, som de ikke havde anfægtet, men som de påstod var behæftet med samme fejl som de annullerede beslutninger.
The Court of First Instance having annulled the contested deci­sions, those companies which had not brought proceedings asked the Commission to review the non­contested decisions which, they claimed, contained the same irregularity as the annulled decisions.
Det nægtede Kommissionen at gøre.
The Commis­sion refused to carry out such a review.
I første omgang annullerede Retten den skrivelse fra Kommissionen, hvori den havde meddelt, at den nægtede
The Court of First Instance then annulled the Commission's letter containing this refusal, holding that the
( ) Statistiske oplysninger om Domstolens og Rettens virksomhed i 1999 kan findes i Domstolens årsberetning (1999­udgaven er endnu ikke udkommet) og på Internettet: http://curia.eu.int/fr/pei/ rapan.htm (2) Sag T­220/97, H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd mod Kommissionen (Sml. 1999 og Bull. 9­1999, punkt 1.8.21). (■') Sag C­310/97 P, AssiDomän KraftProductsm.fi. mod Kommissionen (Sml.
Statistics concerning the activities of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance in 1999 will be published in the Court's Annual Report (1999 edition forthcoming) and on the Internet (http://curia.eu.int/ft/pei/rapan.htm).
1999 og Bull. 9­1999, punkt 1.8.25).
Case T­220/97 H & R Ecroyd Holdings ν Commission [ 1999] ECR; Bull. 9­1999, point 1.8.21. Case C­310/97 Ρ AssiDomän Kraft Products and Others ν Commission _BAR_1999] ECR; Bull. 9­1999, point 1.8.25. GEN. REP. EU 1999
385 at tage beslutningerne op til revision. Kommissionen indbragte denne afgørelse for Domstolen under henvisning til, at det i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 233 (tidl. artikel 176) var Retten, der skulle tage stilling til en sådan anmodning om revision.
385 institution was obliged under Article 233 to comply with the request for a review.
Domstolen tog sagen til behandling og statuerede, at når flere individuelle beslut­ninger om samme emne, hvorved der er pålagt bøder, er blevet vedtaget som led i en samlet procedure, og kun nogle af de parter, beslutningerne er rettet til, har anlagt annullationssøgsmål og opnået annullation af de beslutninger, der angår dem, indebærer hensynet til retssikkerheden, at den institution, der har vedtaget de pågældende beslutninger, ikke skal revidere de beslutninger, der ikke blev anfæg­tet, ud fra præmisserne i annullationsdommen og tage stilling til, om de bøder, der er betalt, skal tilbagebetales.
The Commission subsequently lodged an appeal, to which the Court of Justice gave favourable consideration, invoking the principle of legal certainty to rule that, where several similar decisions imposing fines had been adopted under a common procedure and where only certain addressees had sought and obtained the annulment of the decisions applying to them, the institution which had adopted these decisions was not required to review, in the light of the grounds for the judgment granting annulment, the legality of non­contested decisions or to assess whether, on the basis of such a review, any fines already paid should be reimbursed.
I en dom af 28. januar ( ) fastslog Domstolen, at de Nederlandske Antiller ikke skal betragtes som en del af Fællesskabets område, hvad angår opkrævning af en afgift som moms ved indførsel af varer til en medlemsstat.
On 28 January, the Court decided that the Netherlands Antilles should not be considered as forming part of the territory of the Com­munity for the purposes of levying a tax such as VAT which is collected when goods are imported into a Member State (').
Når en vare fra De Nederlandske Antiller ankommer til en medlemsstat, skal den således betragtes som værende ankommet i Fællesskabet, og der kan derfor opkræves moms ved ankomsten til Fællesskabet.
The entry into a Member State of goods from the Netherlands Antilles had therefore to be regarded as entry into the Community and VAT could therefore be levied at the point of entry into the Community.
Domstolen erindrede om, at de almindelige traktatbe­stemmelser ikke gælder for de oversøiske lande og territorier (OLT), uden at det udtrykkeligt fastsættes i en fællesskabsretsakt.
The Court pointed out that the general provisions of the Treaty did not apply to the overseas countries and territories except where there was an explicit reference to this effect in a Community legal instrument.
Den bemærkede, at der ikke findes nogen udtrykkelig bestemmelse i fællesskabsretten om, at når en vare ankommer til en medlemsstat fra De Nederlandske Antiller, skal det betragtes som en transaktion inden for Fællesskabet med henblik på anvendelsen af momssystemet.
It noted that no provision of Community law explicitly stipulated that the entry into a Member State of goods from the Netherlands Antilles must be regarded as an intra­Community operation for the purposes of applying VAT.
Domstolen fastslog desuden, at det i artikel 101 i sjette OLT-afgørelse bestemmes, at varer med oprindelse i OLT og visse andre varer, som befinder sig i fri omsætning dér, fritages for told og afgifter med tilsvarende virkning ved indførsel i Fællesskabet.
The Court also noted that Article 101 of the sixth OCTs decision provided that products originating in the OCTs and certain products which were in free circulation there were to be admitted into the Community free of customs duties and charges having equivalent effect.
Derimod fastslog den, at en afgift som moms, der opkræves ved indførsel af varer, ikke opfylder kriterierne for at blive betragtet som en afgift med tilsvarende virkning som told.
The Court stressed, however, that a tax such as the VAT levied on imports did not have the ingredients of a charge having an effect equivalent to customs duties.
I en dom af 3. juni ( ) statuerede Domstolen, at i mangel af en fuldstændig harmonisering af de sprogkrav, der stilles til angivelser på indførte varer, kan medlemsstaterne vedtage nationale bestemmelser om, at disse angivelser skal affattes på det sprog, der anvendes i det område, hvor varerne sælges, eller på et andet sprog, der let forstås af forbrugerne i dette område, forudsat at de pågæl-
On 3 June, the Court ruled that in the absence of full harmoni­sation of the language requirements applicable to information appearing on imported products, Member States could adopt national measures requiring such information to be given in the language of the area in which the products were sold or in another language which might be
X-2 dende nationale bestemmelser uden forskel anvendes på alle indenlandske og importerede varer og står i et rimeligt forhold til det forbrugerbeskyttelsesformål, der er baggrunden for dem. Disse nationale bestemmelser må bl.a. kun gælde for de angivelser, som er obligatoriske i den pågældende medlemsstat, og som nød­vendigvis må oversættes for at sikre en tilfredsstillende information af forbrugerne. gerne.
COMMUNITY· LAW readily understood by consumers in that area, provided that those national measures applied without distinction to all national and imported products and were proportionate to the objective of consumer protection which they pursued (]).
I en dom af 26. juni ( ) fastslog Domstolen, at fællesskabsretten, navnlig bestemmelserne om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, kan påberåbes af en ar­bejdstager over for den medlemsstat, som han er statsborger i, når han har boet og arbejdet i en anden medlemsstat.
On 26 January, the Court held that Community law, and in par­ticular the provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers, could be relied on by a worker against the Member State of which he was a national, where he had resided and been employed in another Member State (2).
I den foreliggende sag havde en nederlandsk statsborger arbejdet i Det Forenede Kongerige.
In this particular case, a Dutch national had worked in the United Kingdom.
Da han var flyttet tilbage til Nederlandene, havde de nederlandske myndigheder for det år, hvor flytningen fandt sted, afkrævet ham et højere bidrag til den sociale sikring end det maksi­mumbeløb, den nationale lovgivning fastsætter for arbejdstagere, der bor i landet. Ved beregningen af bidragene havde myndighederne medregnet de indtægter, han havde haft i Det Forenede Kongerige i det pågældende år, og som ikke var indkomstskattepligtige i Nederlandene.
On his return to the Netherlands the Dutch authorities had asked him to pay, in respect of the year of his return, social security contributions in excess of the ceilings which the national legislation set for residents, having taken into account, for the calcula­tion of the said contributions, the income which he had earned in the United Kingdom during the year in question and which had not been subject to Dutch income tax.
Domstolen udtalte, at enhver EU-borger — uafhængigt af bopæl og nationalitet — som i kraft af arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed har haft erhvervsbeskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, henhører under de relevante fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser herom.
The Court pointed out that any Commu­nity national who, irrespective of his place of residence or his national­ity, had exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who had been employed in another Member State fell within the scope of the relevant provisions of Community law.
En nederlandsk stats­borger, som hævder at være ugunstigt behandlet, fordi han har været beskæftiget i en anden medlemsstat, kan således over for de nederlandske myndigheder påbe­råbe sig bestemmelserne om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed.
For example, a Dutch national who complained that he had been placed at a disadvantage because he had worked in another Member State could rely on the rules relating to freedom of movement for workers vis­à­vis the Dutch authorities.
Domstolen fast­slog desuden, at EF-traktatens artikel 39 (tidl. artikel 48) er til hinder for, at én medlemsstat afkræver en arbejdstager, der i årets løb har flyttet sin bopæl fra en medlemsstat til en anden for at udøve lønnet beskæftigelse dér, højere bidrag til den sociale sikring end dem, som under tilsvarende omstændigheder skulle betales af en arbejdstager, som i hele årets løb havde haft bopæl i den pågældende medlemsstat, uden at den førstnævnte arbejdstager i øvrigt modtager ekstra sociale ydelser.
The Court held, moreover, that Article 39 (ex Article 48) of the EC Treaty precluded a Member State from levying, on a worker who had transferred his residence in the course of a year from one Member State to another in order to take up employment there, larger social security contributions than those which would be payable, in simi­lar circumstances, by a worker who had continued to reside throughout the year in the Member State in question, where the non­resident worker was not entitled to additional social benefits.
I en dom af 16. marts ('), der drejede sig om fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 56 (tidl. artikel 73 B) om frie kapitalbevægelser, udtalte Domstolen, at denne bestemmelse betyder, at medlemsstaterne ikke kan fastsætte bestemmelse om, at en pant, der skal tjene som sikkerhed for en fordring, der skal indfris i en anden medlemsstats valuta, skal tinglyses i national valuta.
On 16 March, the Court held that Article 56 (ex Article 73b) of the EC Treaty on the free movement of capital precluded any national rules requiring the registration in national currency of a mortgage secur­ing a debt payable in the currency of another Member State (').
Domstolen fastslog, at en bestemmelse om, at en pant i fast ejendom, der skal tjene som sikkerhed for en fordring, som skal betales i en anden medlemsstats valuta, skal tinglyses i national valuta, svækker forbindelsen mellem den fordring, som skal sikres — og som skal betales i en anden medlemsstats valuta — og panteretten, der på grund af efter­følgende valutabevægelser kan tænkes at få en lavere værdi end den sikrede fordring.
It found that the requirement whereby such mortgages had to be registered in national currency had the effect of loosening the connection between the debt to be secured, which was payable in the currency of another Mem­ber State, and the mortgage, the value of which could fall below that of the debt as a result of subsequent currency fluctuations.
En sådan risiko kan ikke undgå at nedsætte sikkerhedens effektivitet og dermed gøre den mindre attraktiv.
This risk would inevitably render such a mortgage less effective and, consequently, less attractive.
En sådan national bestemmelse kan derfor afholde de pågældende fra at denominere en fordring i en anden medlemsstats valuta og dermed fratage dem en ret, som udgør en bestanddel af den frie bevæge­lighed for kapital og betalinger.
National rules of this kind were therefore likely to deter the persons concerned from denominating a debt in the currency of another Member State, thus depriving them of a prerogative which was a com­ponent of the free movement of capital and payments.
I tre domme af 8. juli ( ) stadfæstede Domstolen, at en praksis udøvet af flere virksomheder kan være udtryk for en fælles overtrædelse, hvoraf en del udgør en ulovlig aftale mellem virksomheder i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 81 (tidl. artikel 85), og en anden del kan betegnes som en ulovlig samordnet praksis i henhold til samme artikel.
On 8 July, the Court handed down three judgments (2) reaffirming that actions taken by several undertakings may be the expression of a single complex infringement partly covered by the concept of 'agreement between undertakings' and partly by the concept of 'concerted practice', both of which are prohibited by Article 81 (ex Article 85) of the EC Treaty.
Domstolen erindrede om, at begrebet samordnet praksis i den i artikel 81, stk. 1, omhandlede betydning kan defineres som en form for samordning mellem virksomheder, der uden at have indgået nogen egentlig aftale bevidst erstatter risikoen for konkurrence med et praktisk samarbejde mellem dem.
The Court pointed out that the term 'concerted practice' within the meaning of Article 81(1) referred to a form of coordination between undertakings who, without having concluded an agreement in the strict sense, knowingly cooperated with each other in practice instead of run­ning the risk of competition.
Enhver erhvervsdrivende må fastlægge den politik, han agter at følge på det fælles marked, helt uafhængigt.
All economic operators must independently determine the policy which they intend to pursue on the common mar­ket.
Dette krav om uafhængighed udelukker ikke, at de erhvervsdrivende har ret til at tilpasse sig til deres konkurrenters konstaterede eller forventede adfærd, men indebærer et forbud mod enhver direkte eller indirekte kontakt mellem dem, enten for at påvirke en aktuel eller potentiel konkurrents adfærd på markedet eller for over for denne konkurrent at afsløre, hvilken adfærd man selv har besluttet at anlægge eller agter at anlægge på markedet, når sådanne kontakter har til formål eller til følge, at der opstår konkurrencevilkår på markedet, der ikke svarer til de normale konkurrencevilkår
Although this requirement does not deprive economic operators of the right to adapt themselves intelligently to the existing or anticipated conduct of their competitors, it does, however, strictly preclude any direct or indirect contact between such operators, the object or effect of which is either to influence the conduct on the market of an actual or potential competitor or to disclose to such a competitor the course of conduct which they themselves have decided to adopt or are planning to adopt on the market, where the object or effect of such contact is to create conditions of competition which do not correspond to the normal
1999 I, s. 1661 og Bull. 31999, punkt 1.8.45). (~) Sag C-49/92 P, Kommissionen mod Anic Partecipazioni SpA; sag C-199/92 P, Hüls AG mod Kommissionen; sag C-235/92 P, Montecatini SpA mod Kommissionen (Sml.
3­1999, point 1.8.45.
X-2 på det pågældende marked.
COMMUNITY LAW conditions on the market in question.
Ud over en samordning mellem virksomheder inde­bærer begrebet samordnet praksis således en konkret adfærd på markedet som følge af denne samordning og en årsagsforbindelse mellem de to elementer.
It follows that the concept of a 'concerted practice' covers not only the concertation of undertakings' positions but also their subsequent conduct on the market and the rela­tionship of cause and effect between the two.
I en dom af 28. januar ( ) fastslog Retten, at en offentlig myndigheds køb af et bestemt antal transportkuponer kan udgøre statsstøtte efter EF-traktatens artikel 87 (tidl. artikel 92), selv om indtægterne fra et sådant køb kun udgør en ringe procentdel af transportvirksomhedens omsætning, og selv om myndigheden har et kulturelt og socialt formål med købet.
On 28 January, the Court of First Instance held that the purchase of a predetermined quantity of transport vouchers by a government body could constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87 (ex Article 92) of the EC Treaty even if the receipts from such purchases constituted only a small percentage of the transport company's turnover and even if the government body was pursuing a cultural and social objective (').
I den foreliggende sag havde de pågældende lokale og regionale myndigheder forpligtet sig til fra et rederi at aftage et vist antal billetter i en treårig periode.
In this particular case, provincial and regional bodies had undertaken to purchase a certain number of tickets from a sea-transport company over a three-year period.
Den samlede pris, som disse myndigheder betalte, udgjorde kun en ringe del af rederiets omsætning.
The total sum paid by these bodies represented only a small percentage of the company's turnover.
Retten henviste til tidligere afgørelser, hvorefter den omstændighed, at en støtte er forholdsvis ringe eller modtagervirksomheden forholdsvis lille, ikke udelukker, at det offentlige tilskud betragtes som støtte og kan påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
The Court drew attention to earlier rulings to the effect that government intervention could be regarded as aid and as affecting trade between Member States even if the aid was relatively small in amount and even if the beneficiary was a relatively small company.
Retten fastslog desuden, at de kulturelle og sociale formål, som myndighederne eventuelt havde med ordningen, ikke spiller nogen rolle i forbindelse med afgø­relsen af, om statstilskuddet skal betragtes som støtte som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 87 (tidl. artikel 92). I denne bestemmelse defineres offentlige tilskud efter virkningen og ikke efter årsager og formål.
The Court held that any cultural or social objectives pursued by the government bodies were not a factor in determining whether the arrangements in question could be described as State aid within the meaning of Article 87, the provi­sions of which define aid in terms of its effects rather than its causes or objectives.
Retten påpegede, at Kommissionen tager hensyn til sådanne formål, når den i forbindelse med ud­øvelsen af sine undersøgelsesbeføjelser i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 88 (tidl. artikel 93) afgør, om en foranstaltning, hvis karakter af statsstøtte allerede er fastslået, er forenelig med fællesmarkedet, og om der kan gøres undtagelse for denne foranstaltning i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87 (tidl. artikel 92), stk. 2 og 3.
The Court pointed out, however, that such objectives were taken into consideration by the Commission when, in the exercise of the powers conferred on it by Article 88 (ex Article 93) of the EC Treaty, it kept all systems of aid under constant review, deciding whether measures described as State aid were compatible with the common market and whether they could qualify for one of the exceptions listed in Article 87(2) and (3).
I en dom af 23. november ( ) opstillede Domstolen det princip, at aftalen om oprettelse af Verdenshandelsorganisationen (WTO) ikke har nogen direkte virkning i EU's retsorden og derfor ikke skal gøres til genstand for gennem førelsesforanstaltninger.
On 23 November, the Court held that the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (WTO) did not have direct effect in the Community legal order and had consequently to be the subject of imple­menting measures (2).
Ifølge Domstolen indgår WTO-aftalerne i princippet ikke blandt de normer, på grundlag af hvilke Domstolen skal kontrollere lovligheden af retsakter vedtaget af EU-institutionerne.
WTO agreements were not as a rule considered to be standards against which the Court should verify the legality of acts of the Community institutions.
1999 II, s. 123 og Bull. 31999, punkt 1.8.41).
Case T-14/96 BAI ν Commission [1999] ECR 11-123; Bull.
(2) Sag C-149/96, Den Portugisiske Republik mod Rådet (Sml. 1999 og Bull. 12-1999).
Case C-149/96 Portugal ν Council [1999] ECR; Bull. 12-1999.
389 adskiller sig fra de aftaler, det indgår med tredjelande, som indfører en vis asymmetri i forpligtelserne eller skaber særlige relationer med Fællesskabet.
389 the fact that, according to its own preamble, the WTO agreement (including the annexes thereto) had been negotiated, like the GATT of 1947, with a view to establishing 'reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements' and was thus, as far as the Community was concerned, unlike the agreements which the Community concluded with third coun­tries and which established certain asymmetrical obligations or special integrated relationships with the Community.
Domstolen fastslog desuden, at nogle af de kontraherende parter, der hører til blandt EU's vigtigste handelsparter, i lyset af WTO-aftalernes indhold og formål har draget den konklusion, at disse bestemmelser ikke indgår i de normer, på grundlag af hvilke deres domstole skal kontrollere lovligheden af deres interne retsregler.
The Court also found that certain contracting parties, which were among the Community's main trading partners, had not interpreted the aim and purpose of the WTO agreements as meaning that they were to be considered as standards against which their courts should verify the legality of provisions of national law.
Domstolen tilføjede, at den omstændighed, at den ene parts domstole finder, at nogle af bestemmelserne i en aftale indgået af Fællesskabet har direkte virkning, medens den anden parts domstole ikke anerkender denne direkte gyl­dighed, ikke i sig selv kan udgøre en mangel på gensidighed i aftalens gennem­førelse.
If the courts of one of the contracting parties held that the stipulations of an agreement concluded with the Community were directly applicable but those of another held that they were not, this would not, in itself or by itself, constitute a lack of reciprocity in the implementation of the agreement.
Manglende gensidighed i den henseende fra EU's handelspartneres side med hensyn til WTO-aftalerne, der bygger på princippet om »gensidighed og gensidige fordele« og derved adskiller sig fra aftaler indgået af Fællesskabet, risikerer at føre til skævheder i anvendelsen WTO-reglerne.
However, lack of reciprocity on the part of the Community's trading partners in implementing WTO agree­ments, which were based on 'reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements' and thus differed from the agreements concluded by the Community, might produce an imbalance in the ways the WTO rules were applied.
Ifølge Domstolen ville man berøve Fællesskabets lovgivende og udøvende organer det spillerum, som tilsvarende organer i Fællesskabets partnerlande har, hvis man gav EU's retsin­stanser til opgave at sikre EU-rettens overensstemmelse med disse regler.
In the Court's view, to hold that the Community courts were directly responsible for ensuring the compliance of Community law with the WTO rules would be to deprive Community legislative and executive bodies of the room for manoeuvre enjoyed by similar Com­munity trading partner bodies.