natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
den begrundelse, at alle restriktioner, som pålægges en fællesskabsborger på grund af dennes nationalitet eller bopæl, er i strid med EØFT artikel 59 og dermed ugyldige. Af de talrige andre traktatbestemmelser, hvis umiddelbare nationaleanvendelighed Dom­stolen har bekræftet, skal endvidere følgen­de fremhæves:
national, was, in May 1973, refused leave to enterthe United Kingdom inordertotakeup employment as a secretary with the 'Church of Scientology', an organization considered by the Home Office to be 'socially harmful'.
EØFT artikel 30, som sikrer de frie varebevæ­gelser, og EØFT artikel 119, som garanterer li­ge løn til mænd og kvinder.
Relying on the Community rules on freedom of movement for workers, in particular Article 48 EEC, Miss van Duyn brought an action before the High Court.
Siden 1970 har Domstolen udvidet princip­pet om den umiddelbare anvendelighed til også at omfatte bestemmelser i direktiver og i beslutninger rettet til stater.
She sought a declaration from the High Court that she was en titled to stay in the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and to be given leave to enter the United Kingdom.
Dette synes konsekvent, når også traktatbestemmelser kan gælde umiddelbart for fællesskabsbor­gerne, selv om de er rettet til medlems­staterne.
In answer to a question referred by the High Court, the Court of Justice held that Artide 48 has direct effect and hence confers on individuals rights that are enforceable before the courts of a Member State.
Alligevel kan kollisionen mellem fælles­skabsretten og national ret kun løses på den måde, at fæl lesskabsretten får forrang for na­tional retog dermed fortrænger al le nationa­le bestemmelser, som afviger fra en fælles­skabsbestemmelse, og indtager deres plads i den nationale retsorden.
Freedom of establishment (Article 52 EEC) plicable since the end of the transitional period and hence entitled Community citizens to take up and pursue gainful employment in another Member State in the same way as a national.
For hvad ville der være tilbage af fællesskabsretsordenen, hvis man lod fællesskabsretten være underordnet national ret?
As a result of this judgment Mr Reyners had to be admitted to the legal profession in Belgium.
Næsten intet! De fællesskabs­retlige bestemmelser kunne tilsidesættes ved en hvilken som helst national lov.
Despite this 'citizen-friendly' judgment, a Community citizen who wishes to set up in business still frequently encounters obstacles which he has difficulty in surmounting.
Der ville ikke længere være tale om, at fællesskabsret­ten havde fælles og ensartet gyldighed i alle medlemsstater.
This is because a foreigner is still allowed to establish himself in another Member State only if he fulfils the same conditions as are required of nationals of the host country.
Det ville også være umuligt for EF at løse deopgaver, som det er blevet på­lagt af medlemsstaterne.
For example, he must have received the required domestic professional training or have passed the necessary examinations and obtained certificates or diplomas issued by the host country, which as a rule is not the case.
Fællesskabets funk­tionsdygtighed ville blive bragt i fare, og de store forhåbninger om en opbygning af et for­enet Europa ville blive tilintetgjort.
With a view to removing these obstacles, the EEC Treaty provides for the adoption of measures to coordinate Member States' rules on the taking up and pursuit of activities as selfemployed persons (Article 57(2)) and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (Article 57(1)).
Den forbedrer den enkeltes stilling, idet den gør frihedsrettighe­derne i forbindelse med det fælles marked til rettigheder, som den enkelte kan gennem­tvinge ved domstolene.
Freedom of establishment comprises the right to take up and pursue activities as selfemployed persons in another Member State and to set up and manage undertakings, in particular companies or firms (second paragraph of Article 52 EEC).
Fællesskabsrettens umiddelbare anvendelighed bliver dermed samtidig til et af fællesskabsretsordenens bærende elementer.
All existing restrictions on freedom of establishment based on nationality were to be lifted during the transitional period, which expired on 31 December 1969 (see Article 8(7)) and foreigners were to be granted the right of establishment under the same conditions as nationals.
Igen var det EF­Domstolen, som i betragtning af disse kosekvenser for fællesskabsrets­ordenens eksistens og til trods for visse med­lemsstaters modstand gennemtvang det uomgængelige princip om fællesskabs­rettens forrang.
Mr Reyners felt obliged to bring the action after he had been denied admission to the profession of lawyer in Belgium because of his foreign nationality, despite the fact that he had passed the necessary Belgian examinations.
Foruden den umiddelbare anvendelighed skabte den dermed fælles­skabsretsordenens andet bærende element, og gjorde det derved muligt, at denne retsor­den i sidste ende kunne blive et praktisk an­vendeligt retssystem.
In its judgment of 21 July 1974, the Court held that un equal treatment of nationals and foreigners as regards establishment could no longer be maintained, as Article 52 was directly ap
En sådan konflikt mellem fællesskabsretten og national ret kan kun løses, såfremt en af de to retsordener viger.
Freedom to provide services encompasses the selfemployed activities for which only a temporary stay in another Member State is necessary.
Den skrevne fæl­lesskabsret indeholder for så vidt ingen ud­trykkelige bestemmelser herom.
The right of establishment is therefore not involved. Examples are the activities of doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers, as well as those of banks and in surance companies or of brokers, in termediaries and advertising agencies and technical, craft and artistic activities.
I fælles­skabsretterne findes der f.eks. ingen bestem­
As in the case of freedom of establishment, all restrictions on freedom to provide services should have been abolished by the end ofthe transitional period, i.e. 31 December 1969, and foreigners should have been granted the right to provide services under the same conditions as nationals.
Da afgørelsen af denne retssag afhang af for tolkningen af flere artikler i EØF-Traktaten, henvendte fredsdommeren sig til EF-Domstolen.
The Court answered this question in the negative on the ground that all restrictions to which Com­munity citizens might be subject by reason of their nationality or place of residence in­fringe Article 59 and are therefore void.
I sin afgørelse fastslog Domstolen to forhold, som har betydning for forholdet mellem fællesskabsretten og national ret: For det første: Staterne har endegyldigt over draget beføjelsertil det af dem oprettede Fæl lesskab.
Of the many other treaty provisions whose direct effect within a Member State the Court has confirmed, the following may be singled out: Article 30 EEC, which guarantees freedom of movement for goods, and Article 119 EEC, which guarantees equal pay for men and women.
Denne overdragelse kan ikke tilbagekaldes ved senere ensidige foranstaltninger, som er uforenelige med fællesskabsbegrebet.
Since 1970 the Court has extended its prin­ciples concerning direct effect to provisions in directives and in decisions addressed to States.
den oven i købet foretaget en videreudvikling.
Community legislation con­tains no express provision on the question.
Mens den i den omhandlede dom kun skulle beskæftige sig med spørgsmålet om fællesskabsrettens forrang for nationale love, har den senere også bekræftet forrangsprincippet, for så vidt angår forholdet mellem fællesskabsretten og national forfatningsret. Etteren vis indledende tøven har de nationale domstole i princippet fulgt EF-Domstolens opfattelse.
Nevertheless, the only way of settling conflicts between Com­munity law and national law is to grant Com­munity law primacy over national law and allow it to supersede all national provisions that diverge from a Community rule and take their place in the national legal orders.
I de øvrige medlemsstater har de nationale domstole ligeledes anerkendt princippet om fællesskabsrettens forrang for de almindelige nationale love.
The ability of the Com­munity to function would be jeopardized, and the construction of a united Europe on which so many hopes rest would never be achieved.
For det andet: Det er et af Traktatens principper, at ingen medlemsstat kan antaste det særl ige forhold ved fæl lesskabsretten, at den har den samme og fuldstændige gyldighed i hele Fællesskabets område.
The practical importance ofthe direct effect of Community law in the form in which it has been developed and brought to fruition by the Court of Justice can scarcely be over­emphasized.
Heraf følger: Fællesskabsret, som er fastsat i overensstemmelse med beføjelserne i Traktaterne, gårforud foren hvilken som helst modstridende national bestemmelse.
It improves the position ofthe individual by turning the freedoms of the common market into rights that may be en­forced in a court of law.
Den har ikke alene forrang for tidligere national ret, men den indebærer også begrænsninger af, hvilken ret der senere kan fastsættes.
The direct effect of Community law is therefore one of the pillars, as it were, of the Community legal order.
Resultatet af EF-Domstolens dom var ganske vistikke, at der rejstes tvivl om den italienske nationalisering af elektricitetsværkerne, men den fastslog helt kategorisk fællesskabsret tens forrang for national ret.
The direct effect of a provision of Community law leads to a second, equally fundamental question: what happens if a provision of Community law gives rise to direct rights and obligations for the Community citizen and
Det stødte derimod i forfatningsdomstolene i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og i Italien til at begynde med på modstand, at fælles skabsretten skulle gå forud for den nationale forfatningsret og i den forbindelse de nationale forfatningsretsgarantier.
Once again it fel I to the Court of Justice of the Community, in view of these consequences, to establish — despite opposition from several Member States —the principle of the primacy of Community law that is essential to the existence of the Community legal order.
Denne modstand blev først opgivet, efter at forfatningsretsbeskyttelsen i Fællesskabets retsorden nåede en standard, som i det væsentlige svarer til beskyttelsen efter de nationale forfatninger.
In so doing, it erected the second pillar of the Community legal order after direct ef­fect, which was to turn that legal order at last into a sound edifice.
Siden da er det almindeligt anerkendt, at fællesskabsretten går forud for national ret også med hensyn til forfatningsretlige spørgsmål.
Barely two years after the VanGeno' & Z­OOsjudgment, questionson the interpretation of the EEC Treaty were referred to the Court of Justice by a Milan justice of the peace which enabled it to clarify the principles underlying the conflict of laws question.
Domstolen har siden i en fast retspraksis opretholdt dette synspunkt. På ét punkt har
In 1962 Italy had na­tionalized the production and supply of elec­tricity and transferred its administration to the ENEL.
Hvilkelt samlet billede kan der nu tegnes af Det Europæiske Fællesskabs opbygning og dets retsorden?
In its judgment, the Court made two important observations regarding the relationship be tween Community law and national law:
ner mennesker. Et yderligere allerede nu historisk kendetegn ved fællesskabsretsordenenerdens fredsstiftende egenskab.
Firstly: the Member States have definitively transferred sovereign rights to a Community created by them.
Med det mål for øje at bevare fred og frihed erstatter den magten som konfliktløsende middel med retsregler, som knytter såvel de enkelte som medlemsstaterne sammen i et solidarisk fællesskab.
They cannot reverse this process by means of subsequent unilateral measures inconsistent with the Community concept.
Fællesskabsordenen bliver der med et vigtigt redskab til skabelse og sikring af fred.
Secondly: it is a principle of the Treaty that no Member State may call into question the status of Community law as a system uniformly and generally applicable throughout the Community.
De Europæiske Fællesskaber har et forholdsvis ensartet retsfastsættelsesgrundlag — de res forfatning.
It follows from this that Community law, which was enacted in accordance with the powers laid down in the Treaties, has priority over any conflicting law of the Member States.
Afgørende herfor var ¡kke alene de oprindelige medlemsstaters sammen lignelige økonomiske udviklingsstade, men også deres udbredte enighed om metoderne til og målene for Europas forening, idet ens artede værdibegreber og bevidste idealer var afgørende for den valgte forfatningsordning.
Not only is it stronger than earlier national law, but it also has a limiting effect on laws adopted subsequently.
Retsordenen er EF's egentlige fundament og giver det karakter af et retsfællesskab.
The Court has since adhered to this finding in case after case.
Kun gennem skabelsen af ny ret og bevarelsen af denne kan de mål, der tilsigtes med oprettelsen af EF, virkeliggøres.
It has, in fact, developed it further in one respect. Whereas in the judgment just mentioned it was concerned only with the question of the primacy of Com munity law over ordinary national laws, it confirmed the principle of primacy with regard also to the relationship between Com munity law and national constitutional law.
Fællesskabsretsordenen harallerede ydet en betydelig indsats i så henseende.
After initial hesitation, national courts in principle accepted the interpretation of the Court of Justice.
Det er ikke mindst takket være denne nye retsorden, at de i det store og hele åbne grænser, den omfattende udveksling af varer og tjenesteydelser, arbejdskraftens bevægelighed og det betydelige grænseoverskridende samarbejde mellem virksomheder al lerede har gjort det fæl les marked til en del af dagligdagen for henimod 340 millio
In The Netherlands no difficulties could arise in any case as the primacy of treaty law over national statute law is expressly laid down in the constitution (Articles 65 to 67).
Fællesskabsretsordenen og det herpå beroende retsfællesskab kan kun overleve, hvis retsordenens to bærende elementer, nemlig fællesskabsrettens umiddelbare anvendelig hed og fællesskabsrettens forrang for national ret, overholdes.
In the other Member States the principle of the primacy of Com munity law over national law has likewise been recognized by national courts.
Disse to principper, hvis eksistens og bevarelse EF-Domstolen forsvarer med stor beslutsomhed, garanterer fæl lesskabsrettens ensartede og overordnede gyldighed i alle medlemsstater.
However, the constitutional courts of the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy in itially refused to accept the primacy of Com munity law over national constitutional law, in particular regarding the guaranteed pro tection of fundamental rights.
Til trods for den ufuldkommenhed, som lige ledes er kendetegnende for EF's retsorden, er det bidrag, som fællesskabsretsordenen er i stand til at yde til løsningen af politiske, økonomiske og sociale problemer i EF's medlemsstater, af uvurderlig værdi.
They abandoned their objections only after the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order had reached a standard that corresponded in essence to that of thei r national constitutions. Since then the primacy of Community law even over national constitutional law has been generally recognized.
■ RETSAKTERNES VIRKNING
Another feature of the
■ FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS KARAKTER OG FORRANG
■ NATURE AND PRIMACY OF M EFFECTS OF LEGAL ACTS COMMUNITY LAW
Sag 26/62 — van Gend & Loos — Sml. 1954­1964, s. 375­394(fællesskabsrettens ka­rakter; den enkeltes rettigheder og pligter) Sag 6/64 — Costa/ENEL — Sml. 1954­1964, s. 531­553 (fællesskabsrettens karakter; um­iddelbar anvendelighed, fællesskabsrettens forrang) Sag 43/71 — Politi — Sml.
Case 43/71 Politi [1971] ECR 1039 (Regula­tions; direct effects).
1971, s. 319­322 (forordninger; direkte virkning) Sag 34/73 — Variola — Sml.
Case 34/73 Variola [1973] ECR 981 (Regula­tions; direct effects).
1973, s. 981 (forordninger; direkte virkning) Sag 65/75 — Tasca — Sml.
Case 65/75 Tasca [1976] ECR 291 (Regula­tions; direct effects).
1976, s. 291 (forordninger; direkte virkning) Sag 31/78 — Bussone — Sml.
Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos [1963] ECR 1 (Nature of Community law; rights and obligations of individuals). Case 6/64 Costa ν ENEL [1964] ECR 585 (Nature of Community law; direct ap­plicability; primary of Community law). Case 14/68 Walt Wilhelm and Others [1969] ECR 1 (Nature of Community law; primacy of Community law). Case 106/77 Simmenthal [1978] ECR 269 (Community law; direct applicability; primacy).
1978, s. 2429 (forordninger; direkte virkning) Sag 177/78 — Pigs and Bacon — Sml.
Case 31/78 Bussone [1978] ECR 2429 (Regulations; direct effects).
1979, s. 2161 (forordninger; direkte virkning) Sag 2/74 — Reyners — Sml.
Case 177/78 Pigs and Bacon Commission [1979] ECR 2161 (Regulations; direct effects).
1974, s. 631­670 (umiddelbar anvendelighed; etablerings­frihed)
Case 2/74 Reyners[1974] ECR 631 (Direct ap­plicability; freedom of establishment).
1969, s. 1 (fællesskabsrettens karakter; fæl­lesskabsrettens forrang) Sag 106/77 — Simmenthal — Sml.
Case 11/77 Patrick [1977] ECR 1199 (Direct applicability; right of establishment).
1978, s. 629­658 (fællesskabsret; umiddelbar an­vendelighed; forrang)
Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen [1974] ECR 1299 (Direct applicability; freedom to provide services).
1978, s. 2347 (fællesskabsrettens forrang) Sag 826/79 — Mireco — Sml.
Case 826/79 Mireco [1980] ECR 2559 (Primacy of Community law).
1980, s. 2559 (fællesskabsrettens forrang) Sag 157/86 — Murphy — Sml.
Case 157/86 Murphy[1988] ECR 686 (Nature of Community law; direct applicability).
1988, s. 686 (fællesskabsret; umiddelbar anvendelighed) Sag 104/86 — Kommissionen/Italien — Sml.
Case 104/86 Commission ν Italy [1988] ECR 1813 (Nature of Community law; direct ap­plicability).
1974, s. 359 (umiddelbar anvendelig­hed; fri bevægelighed) Sag 41/74 — Van Duyn — Sml.
Case41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337 (Direct applicability; freedom of movement).
1970, s. 157­176 (beslutninger; umiddelbar anvendelighed) Sag 20/70 — Transports Lesage & Cie — Sml. 1970, s. 177­178 (beslutninger, umiddelbar anvendelighed) Sag 8/55 — Fédération Charbonnière— Sml.
Case 20/70 Transports Lesage & Cie [1970] ECR 861 (Decisions; direct applicability). Case 33/70 SACE[1970] ECR 1213 (Directives; direct applicability). Case 8/55 Fédéchar [1954­56] ECR 245 (Im­plied powers; official fixing of prices).
1954­1964, s. 27­32 (underforstående beføjel­ser: autoritativ prisfastsættelse) Sag 22/70 — AETR — Sml.
Case 22/70 AETR [1971] ECR 263 (Legal per­sonality and treaty­making powers of the Community).
1977, s. 113 (direktiver, umiddelbar anvendelighed) Sag 38/77 — Enka BV — Sml.
Joined Cases 3,4 and 6/76 Kramer[1976] ECR 1279 (External relations; international com­mitments; authority of the Community).
1977, s. 2203 (direktiver; umiddelbar anvendelighed)
Opinion 1/76 [1977] ECR 741 (External rela­tions; international commitments; authority of the Community).
1977, s. 760f. (forbindel­ser udadtil; folkeretlige forpligtelser; EF's kompetence)
Case 38/77 Enka ßV[1977] ECR 2203 (Direc­tives; direct applicability).
1979, s. 1629 (direktiver; umiddelbar anvendelighed)
Case 70/83 Kloppenburg [1984] ECR 1075 (Directives; direct applicability).
Udtalelse 1/78, Sml. 1979, s. 2871 (EF's kom­pentence).
Opinion 1/78 [1979] ECR 2871 (Division of powers between the Community and the Member States).
1986, s. 723 (direktiver; umiddelbar anvendelighed) Sag 31/87 — Beentjes — Sml.
Case 152/84 /víarsna//[1986] ECR 723 (Direc­tives; direct applicability).
1988, s. 4652 (direktiver; umiddelbar anvendelighed).
Case 31/87 Beentjes [1988] ECR 4635 (Direc­tives; direct applicability).
1970, s. 235­258 (grundrettig­heder; almindelige retsgrundsætninger)
Case 12/86 Demitel [1987] ECR 3719 (Fun­damental rights; Convention on Human Rights).
■ ALMINDELIGE RETSGRUNDSÆTNINGER (EKSEMPLER)
■ GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW (SELECTION)
1974, s. 33­49 og 139­152 (de nationale dommeres bundethed af overordnede dom­stolsafgørelser)
Cases 166/73,146/73 Rheinmühlen I, //[1974] ECR 33 and 139 (Extent to which national courts are bound by rulings of superior courts).
Sagerne 18 og 35/65 — Gutmann — Sml. 1965­1968, s. 175
Joined Cases 18 and 35/65 Gutmann [1966] ECR 103.
1974, s. 917, 925 (foreningsfrihed)
Case 130/75 Pra/s[1976] ECR 1589 (Freedom of religion).
1975, s. 421 Sag 10/78 — Busouas — Sml. 1978, s. 1915 Sag 98/78 — Roche ­ Sml. 1979, s. 69 Sag 96/78 — Decker — Sml. 1978, s. 101 Sag 265/78 — Ferwerda — Sml.
Case 10/78 Belbouab [1978] ECR 1915.
1980, s. 1205 Sag 66,127 og 128/79 — Salumi — Sml. 1980, s. 1237
Joined Cases 66, 127 and 128/79 Salumi [1980] ECR 1237.
Sag 826/79 — MIRECO — Sml. 1980, s. 2559 Sag 70/83 — Kloppenburg — Sml. 1989, s. 1075
Case 826/79 Mireco [1980] ECR 2559.
1976, s. 1589, 1599 (religions­ og trosfrihed) Sag 117/76 — Quellmehl — Sml.
Joined Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Quellmehl [1977] ECR 1753 (Principle of equality).
1977, s. 1753, 1770 f. (lighedsgrundsætningen) Sag 48/75 — Royer— Sml. 1976, s. 497 (fri be­vægelighed; opholdsret; beskyttelse af den offentlige orden, sikkerhed og sundhed)
Case 48/75 Rover [1976] ECR 497 (Freedom of movement; right of residence; protection of public policy, public security and public health).
Sag 149/77— Defrenne — Sml.
Case 149/77 Deftenne[1978] ECR 1365 (Fun­damental rights; general principles of law).
1978, s. 1381 (grundrettigheder, almindelige retsgrund­sætninger)
Case 44/79 Hauer [1979] ECR 3727 (Fun­damental rights; right to property).
1979, s. 3727 (grundrettigheder; ejendomsret) Sag 85/79 — Hoffmann­La­Roche — Sml.
Joined Cases 119 and 120/76 Ölmühle Ham­burg [1977] ECR 1269. Case 8/77 Sagulo [1977] ECR 1495.
1980, s. 2103 Sag 125/83 — Corman — Sml. 1985, s. 3039
Case 125/83 Corman [1985] ECR 3039.
1980, s. 2671 Sag 108/81 — Amylum — Sml. 1982, s. 3107
Case 108/81 Amylum [1982] ECR 3107. Joined Cases 205-215/82 Deutsche Milchkontor [1983] ECR 2633.
Sag 74/74 — CNTA — Sml. 1975, s. 533 Sag 97/76 — Merkur — Sml. 1977, s. 1077
Case 120/86 Mulder [1988] ECR 2321. Case 170/86 von Deetzen [1988] ECR 2355.
Sag 120/86 — Mulders — Sml. 1983, s. 2344
Case 78/77 Lührs [1978] ECR 169.
Sag 78/77 — Mikro — Sml.
Case 68/77 IFG [1978] ECR 353. Case 90/77 Stimming [1978] ECR 995.
Tredive Års Fællesskabsret (Europæiske Perspektiver) EF, Kommissionen. Luxembourg: EF 1982, XXV, 517 s.
Thirty years of Community law European perspectives. Luxembourg, EC, Commission, 1982, XXV, 498 pp., 1982 des
ANDRE PUBLIKATIONER
■ OTHER PUBLICATIONS
Brochure, der fortrinsvis er skrevet med henblik på ikke­jurister.
Booklet intended mainly for non-lawyers.
Den er et forsøg på at beskrive den europæiske retsorden på et alment forståeligt sprog.
Tries to explain the European legal order in layman's language.
Europas Sociale Dimension (fjerde udgave) Nye Planer for Europa — Schuman-Erklæringen (1950-1990) Europa, et Socialt Trygt Fællesskab Miljøpolitik i Det Europæiske Fællesskab (fjerde udgave)
EEC competition policy in the single market (out of print) Europe without frontiers — Completing the internal market (third edition) The European Commission and the administration of the Community The European financial common market A common agricultural policy for the 1990s (fifth edition) European unification — Gestation and growth (third edition) 1992 — The social dimension (fourth edition) Europe — A fresh start.
Det Indre Marked: Skatter og Afgifter Energi i Det Europæiske Fællesskab (fjerde udgave) Det Europæiske Fællesskab og dets Naboer mod Øst
The Schuman Declaration 1950/1990 A human face for Europe Environmental policy in the European Community (fourth edition) Taxation in the single market The European Community and its Eastern neighbours