natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen fandt, at Kommissionen, når den pålagde medlemsstaterne hvert år systematisk og generelt at fremlægge oplysninger om de finansielle forhold mellem staten og de offentlige virksomheder (med en årlig omsætning på over 250 mio. ECU) og mellem virksomhederne i samme holdingselskab, havde skabt nye forpligtelser i forhold til forpligtelserne i artikel 5 i ovennævnte direktiv.
It held that the Commission had imposed new obligations over and above those imposed by Article 5 of the Directive by requiring Member States to supply each year full details of all financial relations between the State and any public undertakings with an annual turnover exceeding ECU 250 million or undertakings belonging to the same holding company.
Disse forpligtelser kunne ikke pålægges blot ved at fremsende en meddelelse, men burde have været medtaget i en retsakt, som var vedtaget efter
Such obligations could not be imposed by a mere communication but only by an instrument enacted on the same basis as the Directive — Article 90(3) of the Treaty.
4) EFT L 195 af 29.7.1980 og 14. almindelige beretning, nr. 195.
OJ L 195, 29.7.1980; Fourteenth General Report, point 195.
Kommissionen kan således kun henholde sig til den indledende fase i artikel 93, stk. 3, og godkende støtten, hvis den efter en første gennem gang er overbevist om, at støtten er forenelig med traktaten.
The Commission could not adopt a decision approving an aid scheme solely on the basis of Article 93(3) unless it was able to establish, from preliminary investigations, that the scheme was compatible with the Treaty.
Ellers skal den indlede proceduren i artikel 93, stk. 2.
Otherwise, it was required to commence the Article 93(2) procedure.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der er en for stor produktionskapacitet, skal desuden, for så vidt som der er tale om et afgørende element i vurderingen af støttens forenelighed, afgøres på grundlag af tilstrækkelig pålidelige oplysninger.
Whatever the circumstances, sufficiently reliable data were needed to establish the existence (or absence) of overcapacity where this was a decisive factor in assessing the compatibility of the aid.
Til gengæld udtalte Domstolen i sin dom af 15. juni 1993 i sag C-225/912) om Republikken Portugals påtænkte støtte til et joint venture mellem Ford of Europe og Volkswagen AG, at Kommissionen ikke havde haft alvorlige vanskeligheder (bl.a. med hensyn til den økonomiske vurdering af risikoen for at skabe en for stor produktionskapacitet) ved at vurdere støttens forenelighed med traktaten, og at den derfor ikke behøvede at indlede proceduren i EØF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2.
But in its judgment of 15 June,lwhich related to Portuguese aid for a joint venture between Ford of Europe and Volkswagen, the Court held that the Commission had not encountered serious difficulties (particularly as regards its economic analysis of the risk of creating overcapacity) in assessing the scheme's compatibility with the Treaty and that, consequently, it had been justified in refraining from commencing the Article 93(2) procedure.
Arbejdstagernes frie bevægelighed, sociale bestemmelser
Free movement of workers and social policy
Domstolen udtalte i sin dom af 10. marts i sag C-lll/913), at de sociale bestemmelser i Luxembourg var i modstrid med fællesskabsretten, fordi de gjorde udbetalingen af fødsels- og moderskabsydelser betinget af, at den pågældende havde haft bopæl i Luxembourg i en vis periode inden fødslen eller erhvervelsen af retten til ydelsen. Det vurderedes, at disse betingelser er diskriminerende mod forskellige kategorier af personer, der i Luxembourg benytter sig af den fri bevægelighed for personer, og at de er i modstrid med forskellige bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten, nemlig artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning EØF nr. 1612/68 om fri bevægelighed for løn modtagere4), som fastslår reglen om ligebehandling med hensyn til sociale fordele,
On 10 March the Court ruled that Luxembourg's legislation was incom­patible with Community law in that it made the payment of childbirth and maternity allowances subject to requirements as to the minimum period of residence prior to the birth or prior to the event giving rise to entitlement.2 These conditions discriminated between different categories of beneficiaries in Luxembourg, presenting an obstacle to the free movement of persons and constituting an infringement of several provisions of Community law — Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community,3which provides for equal treatment in respect of welfare benefits; Article 18(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 concerning the totalization of insurance, employment or residence periods for the purposes of sickness and maternity benefits;4and Article 52 of the EEC Treaty, which provides that nationals of one Member State wishing to work as self-employed persons in another Member State are to receive the same treatment as nationals of the host State.
2) Matra SA mod Kommissionen (endnu ikke offentliggjort). 3) Kommissionen mod Luxembourg, Sml. 1993, s. 1-840.
Case C-225/91 Matra ν Commission.
4) EFT L 257 af 19.10.1968 og 2. almindelige beretning, nr. 398.
OJ L 257, 19.10.1968; Second General Report, point 398.
Etableringsret og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Freedom of establishment and free movement of services
I sag C-112/922) fik Domstolen forelagt spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt EØF-traktatens artikel 52 og 7 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat beskatter egne statsborgere, som udøver deres erhvervsmæssige virksomhed på dens område, og som der oppebærer hele eller næsten hele deres indkomst, hårdere, når de ikke har bopæl i medlemsstaten, end når de har bopæl der.
In Case C­112/91 'Werner ν Finanzamt Aachen­Innenstadt^ the Court was asked whether, in a situation where a national of a Member State carries on his professional activities within its territory and earns all or almost all of his income or possesses all or almost all of his assets there, Articles 52 and 7 of the EEC Treaty precluded that Member State from imposing a heavier tax burden on him if he does not reside there than if he does.
Ved dom af 26. januar svarede Domstolen benægtende, da det eneste element, der falder uden for de rent nationale rammer, er, at den pågældende, Hans Werner, bor i en anden medlemsstat end sit oprindelsesland, hvor han udøver sin erhvervsmæssige virksomhed.
On 26 January the Court ruled that Member States were not precluded from doing so. The only aspect of the case at issue which was other than purely national was that Mr Werner did not reside in his country of origin, although he did work there.
Denne omstændighed med fører ikke i sig selv, at reglen om ikke-diskrimination i artikel 52 bringes i anvendelse. Efter at have mindet om, at denne artikel konkretiserer reglen om ikke-diskrimination i EØF-traktatens artikel 7 hvad angår etableringsret, fastslog Domstolen, at de pågældende nationale bestemmelser, da de anses for at være i over ensstemmelse med artikel 52, også er i overensstemmelse med artikel 7.
This fact was not in itself sufficient for Article 52 to be relied upon.
I sag C-148/913) vurderede Domstolen, at lovgivningen i en medlemsstat (i dette tilfælde Nederlandene), som forbyder radio- eller tv-spredningsinstitutioner at hjælpe med oprettelsen af kommercielle radio- og tv-selskaber i udlandet, hvis udsendelser er rettet mod medlemsstatens område, ikke strider mod traktatens bestemmelser om frie kapitalbevægelser og fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, når for buddet er nødvendigt »for at sikre, at den ved lovgivningen indførte ordning på radio- og fjernsynsområdet bevarer sin alsidige og ikke-kommercielle karakter«.
On 3 February the Court held2that the legislation of a Member State (in this case the Netherlands) prohibiting a national broadcasting organization from helping commercial radio and television companies to set up in another Member State in order to broadcast to the territory of the first Member State was not contrary to the provisions of the EEC Treaty on the free movement of capital and the freedom to provide services, provided the prohibition in question was necessary 'to ensure the pluralist and non­commercial nature' of the audiovisual system set up by the legislation.
Domstolen fastslog således, at »sådanne kulturpolitiske formål udgør et alment hensyn, som en medlemsstat er berettiget til at tilgodese ved hjælp af en passende udformning af reglerne for indenlandske radio- eller fjernsynsinstitutioners retlige stilling«4), og at man ikke kan nægte en medlemsstat ret til at træffe foranstaltninger, der skal forhindre, at den i traktaten garanterede frihed udnyttes af en tjenesteyder, hvis virksomhed er helt eller fortrinsvis rettet mod denne stats territorium, med
The Court held (a) that such cultural objectives were in the public interest and a Member State might lawfully pursue them by framing the rules governing its broadcasting organizations appropriately,3and (b) that a Member State might not be denied the right to take measures designed to prevent the freedom guaranteed by the EEC Treaty from being used by a supplier of services whose operations were entirely or principally directed towards its territory in order to circumvent the rules which would apply to that supplier (cultural rules in this case) if he were established in the territory of that State.4
4) Jf. sagerne C-288/89 og C-353/89, Mediawet, Sml.
See the Mediawet cases — C­288/89 [1991] ECR 1­4007 and C­353/89 [1991] ECR 1­4069.
Ved dom af 4. maj bekræftede Domstolen sin retspraksis i sagen Coditel3), ifølge hvilken filmdistributionsvirksomhed henhører under bestemmelserne om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser og ikke under bestem­melserne om frie varebevægelser.
On 4 May the Court reiterated its ruling in Coditel1to the effect that film distribution fell under rules governing freedom to provide services rather than the free movement of goods.
I denne forbindelse fastslog den, at der var tale om forskelsbehandling, som var i modstrid med traktaten, og den afviste den spanske regerings argument om, at forskelsbehandlingen kunne retfærdiggøres af det kultu­relle formål, bestemmelserne hævdedes at forfølge (beskyttelse af den spanske film­produktion).
It held that the national rules in question constituted a form of discrimination contrary to the Treaty and rejected the Spanish Government's contention that the legislation was for a cultural purpose, namely to protect domestic film production.
Samtidig med, at Domstolen bekræftede sin retspraksis om, at kultur­politik ikke er blandt de i EØF­traktatens artikel 56 opregnede hensyn, fastslog den, at det pågældende dekret fremmede distributionen af indenlandsk producerede film, »uanset deres indhold og kvalitet«.
Apart from the fact that cultural policy was not one of the grounds in Article 56 of the EEC Treaty that might justify a restriction on freedom to provide services, the decree in question encouraged the distribution of domestic films whatever their content or quality.
I sin dom af 25. juli 19914) i Stoeckel­sagen fastslog Domstolen, at artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207/EØF5) betyder, at en medlemsstat ikke ved lov principielt kan for­ byde, at kvinder arbejder om natten.
In its judgment of 25 July 1991 in Stoeckel2the Court had held that Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC 3prevented national legislation from laying down, as a general rule, that night work by women was prohibited.
Det følger heraf, at de nationale domstole som udgangspunkt har pligt til at sikre, at denne regel får fuld virkning, ved at undlade at anvende enhver herimod stridende national bestemmelse6).
It followed that in principle national courts had to be consistent in ensuring the full effect of that Community rule, where necessary disregarding any national provisions to the contrary.4In Case C-158/91 Levy the Court was asked whether the national court had the same obligation if the national provisions that were incompatible with the Community rule were intended to implement an international agreement, in this case ILO Convention No 89, which the Member State concerned had concluded with other Member States and non-EEC countries prior to the entry into force of the EEC Treaty.
I sag C­158/917) var spørgsmålet, om den samme forpligtelse påhviler de nationale domstole, såfremt den nationale bestemmelse, som findes at være uforenelig med fællesskabsbestemmel­sen, er indført med henblik på gennemførelse af en international konvention, i dette tilfælde ILO­konventionen (nr. 89), der er indgået af den berørte medlemsstat med andre medlemsstater og tredjelande forud for EØF­traktatens ikrafttrædelse.
On 2 August the Court based its judgment5on Article 234 of the Treaty, which stipulates that the rights and obligations arising from agreements concluded before the entry into force of the Treaty between one or more Member States, on the one hand, and one or more third countries, on the other, are not affected by Community law. However, that Article requires Member States to take all appropriate steps (e.g. denunciation of the agreement) to eliminate any incompatibility with Community law.
I sin dom af 2. august mindede Domstolen i denne forbindelse om »reglen om konflikt
In this particular case the Court held that although equality
4) Sag C­345/89, Sml. 1991, s. 1­4047. 5) EFT L 39 af 14.2.1976.
Case 262/81 [1982] ECR 3381.
6) Jf. sag 106/77, Simmenthal, Sml. 1978, s. 629. 7) Ministère public et Direction du travail et de l'emploi mod Jean­Claude Levy.
See Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 629. OJ C 240, 4.9.1993.
I dette tilfælde udtalte Domstolen, selv om ligebehandlingen imellem mænd og kvinder er fastslået som et grundlæggende princip i Fællesskabets retsorden1), at de nationale domstoles forpligtelse til at sikre, at direktivets artikel 5 overholdes fuldt ud, kan tilsidesættes, hvis det er nødvendigt at anvende en modstridende national bestemmelse for at sikre, at den pågældende medlemsstat opfylder sine tidligere indgåede internationale forpligtelser over for tredjelande.
COMMUNITY LAW of treatment for men and women was a fundamental right recognized by the Community legal system,Jthe national court could justifiably set aside its obligation to ensure full compliance with Article 5 of the Directive if national provisions to the contrary had to be applied to ensure that the Member State concerned met its international obligations under an agreement concluded with non-member countries before the Treaty came into force.
Endelig skal det erindres, at Domstolen i sin dom i »Barber«-sagen af 17. maj 19902) fandt, at en alderspension, der udbetales af en privat pensionsordning, der fuldt ud finansieres af arbejdsgiveren, og som delvis træder i stedet for den nationale pensionsordning, falder ind under anvendelsesområdet for EF-traktatens artikel 119, idet en sådan ordning indebærer mange fordele, som betales af arbejdsgiveren til arbejdstageren som følge af udøvelsen af sidstnævntes hverv.
In its judgment of 17 May 1990 in Barber2the Court had held that a retirement pension paid under a private scheme wholly financed by the employer and partially replacing the State scheme fell within the scope of Article 119 of the Treaty since such a pension constituted 'consideration paid by the employer to the worker in respect of his employment'.
Enhver kønsbegrundet forskelsbehandling i forbindelse med ydelsen af eller beregningsmåden for den erhvervstilknyttede pension er derfor forbudt i medfør af artikel 119.
Consequently, any sex discrimi­nation in the granting or calculation of an occupational pension is prohibited by Article 119.
I dommen i »Barber«-sagen begrænsede Domstolen imidlertid dens tidsmæssige retsvirkning af hensyn til retssikkerheden, idet der ellers ville være risiko for, at den finansielle lige vægt i en række pensionsordninger forstyrres med tilbagevirkende kraft (præmis 44).
For reasons of legal certainty, however, the Court placed a time-limit on claims arising from the Barber ruling, since they 'might upset retroactively the financial balance of many contracted-out pension schemes' (paragraph 44).
I sin dom af 6. oktober i sag C-109/913) bekræftede Domstolen, at lige løn i forbindelse med erhvervstilknyttede pensioner kun kan påberåbes for ydelser, de pågældende har til gode for tidsrum, de har været beskæftiget efter den 17. maj 1990, tidspunktet for Barber-dommen, med forbehold af den klassiske undtagelse for arbejdstagere, der før dette tidspunkt havde anlagt sag eller indgivet en tilsvarende klage.
On 6 October the Court reaffirmed that equality of treatment in the matter of occupational pensions could be claimed only in the case of benefits payable for periods of employment subsequent to 17 May 1990 (the date of the Barber judgment), except where workers had initiated legal proceedings or raised an equivalent claim before that date.3
Dommen af 20. januar i de forenede sager C-106, 317 og 129/914) er af interesse, hvad angår spørgsmålet om omfanget af Kommissionens forpligtelser i
The Court's Emerald Meats judgment of 20 January4is interesting in that it defines the extent of the Commission's responsibilities in areas where Community management is decentralized (e.g. tariff quotas) and where duties and powers are shared between the Commission and the Member States.
') Domstolen fastslog i denne forbindelse, at gennemførelsen af ligebehandlingen er sket gradvist og har for udsat, at Rådet har udstedt direktiver, som indeholder visse undtagelser fra ligebehandlingsprincippet. 2) Dom af 17. maj 1990, sag C-262/89, Barber mod Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group, Sml. 1990, s. 1889.
In this connection the Court noted that the implementation of equal treatment had been a gradual process and had required Council intervention in the form of directives from which certain derogations were allowed.
407 forbindelse med en decentral fællesskabsforvaltning, i dette tilfælde toldkontingenter, som indebærer en fordeling af opgaverne og beføjelserne mellem medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen.
411 rules and their uniform application in all Member States could be enforced by means of the Article 169 procedure or by an action in the national courts, where the procedure of Article 177 was also available.
Dommen af 27. maj i sag C-290/91 ') er interessant hvad angår den forpligtelse til at samarbejde, som påhviler medlemsstaterne efter EØF-traktatens artikel 5, idet de skal sikre gennemførelsen af fællesskabsbestemmelserne på deres område, i dette tilfælde opkrævningen af tillægsafgiften på mælk.
The judgment of 27 May in Case C-290/91 * is interesting from the point of view of the Member States' obligation under Article 5 of the EEC Treaty to help ensure that Community rules (in this case the collection of the additional milk levy) are implemented on their territory.
For så vidt som der ikke findes fælles forskrifter herom, følger de nationale myndigheder i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af fællesskabsbestemmelserne de formelle og materielle bestemmelser i deres nationale ret.
Where no common rules apply, national authorities act in accordance with the procedural rules and substantive provisions of their own domestic law.
Denne henvisning til national ret medfører uundgåeligt, at der fra den ene medlemsstat til den anden er forskelle i betingelserne for opkrævning af afgiften.
This reliance on domestic law inevitably leads to differences in the ways the levy is collected from one Member State to another.
Men, udtaler Domstolen, de nationale regler skal »være forenelige med kravet om en ensartet anvendelse af fællesskabsretten, hvilket er nødvendigt for at undgå forskelsbehandling af de erhvervsdrivende«, og »må ikke i praksis umuliggøre gennemførelsen af fællesskabsbestemmelserne«2).
The Court observed, however, that domestic laws must be reconcilable with the need to apply Community law uniformly so as to avoid unequal treatment of traders, and must not have the effect of making it virtually impossible to implement Community regulations.2A Member State could not, therefore, decide to refrain from collecting a levy on grounds of fairness.
Domstolen drager konsekvenserne af det foregående, hvad angår muligheden for at lade en afgift bortfalde af personlige billighedsgrunde, idet den vurderer, at en producent ikke kan fritages for betalingen af en mælkeafgift med den begrundelse, at han har økonomiske problemer.
A producer could not be exempted from payment of the milk levy because he was encountering financial difficulties.
At anvende reglen om personlig billighed ville nemlig være i modstrid med hovedformålet med tillægsafgiften, som er at begrænse mælkeproduktionen ved at forsøge at hindre landbrugsproducenterne i at lade deres mælkeproduktion overstige den kvote, de har fået tildelt.
To apply a criterion of individual fairness would be incompatible with the main objective of the additional levy, which was to limit milk production by discouraging farmers from producing milk in excess of their personal quota.
Sagen er en anden, hvis de nationale myndigheder nøjes med at udsætte opkrævningen af det skyldige beløb eller tillade, at beløbet betales i rater, hvis den pågældende virkelig er i økonomiske vanskeligheder.
This did not hold true, however, where national authorities simply deferred collection of the amount due or authorized payment by instalments in cases of genuine hardship.
2) Jf. dommen af 21. september 1983 i de forenede sager 205 og 215/82, Deutsche Milchkontor, Sml.
See Joined Cases 205 to 215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor [1983] ECR 2633, at paragraphs 17 and 19.
1983, s. 2633, punkt 17 og 19.
Opinion 2/91 of 19 March [1993] ECR 1-1064.
Den fælles handelspolitik — Forbindelser med tredjelande
COMMUNITY LAW restricted to instances where the Community had adopted Community rules within the framework of a common policy but was applicable in all areas corresponding to Treaty objectives.
Domstolens stillingtagen kan sammenfattes som følger: Hvad angår rækkevidden af dens retspraksis i »AETR-sagen«2), mener Domstolen, at den »ikke begrænses til tilfælde, hvor Fællesskabet har udstedt fælles regler som led i en fælles politik«, men finder anvendelse »på alle de områder, som svarer til traktatens mål«.
Thus, joint competence in external matters flows from the setting of minimum requirements within the Community.
Til gengæld fastsætter Domstolen visse begrænsninger med hensyn til medlemsstaternes optræden på de områder, hvor kompetencen deles med Fællesskabet: Medlemsstaterne og Fællesskabet må optræde samlet, og der må etableres et snævert samarbejde »såvel under forhandlings- og tiltrædelsesfasen som i forbindelse med opfølgeisen af de påtagne forpligtelser«, og »enheden i Fællesskabets optræden udadtil« må sikres.
On the other hand, a number of barriers are erected by the Court against national measures in areas where powers are shared with the Community: measures must be 'common', must involve close cooperation 'both in the process of negotiation and conclusion and in the fulfilment of the obligations entered into', and must ensure 'unity in the international representation of the Community'.
I sag C-182/913) klagede sagsøgeren især over, at Kommissionen ikke blot havde undladt at efterkomme en arrest i fordringer hos Kommissionen mod Burkina Faso, men også fortsatte med at foretage udbetalinger fra Den Europæiske Udviklingsfond til Burkina Faso uden at tage hensyn til, at de pågældende beløb blev misbrugt, selv om den var blevet gjort bekendt med, at sagsøgeren ikke havde fået betaling for det arbejde, selskabet havde udført som led i et projekt, på grund af, at Burkina Faso havde anvendt midlerne til uvedkommende formål.
In Case C-182/91 Forafrique Burkinabé ν Commissionxit was claimed by the applicant that the Commission had not only failed to comply with a garnishee order served against Burkina Faso but had also continued to make payments from the EDF to that State without regard to the wrongful use made of the sums in question and after being informed that the applicant had not been paid for work carried out on a project because Burkina Faso had embezzled the funds.
Domstolen fastslog i sin dom af 29. april, at man ikke kunne foreholde Kommissionen nogen form for fejlagtig adfærd.
On 29 April the Court held that no misconduct could be attributed to the Commission.