natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Retten fremhævede særligt, at en gennemlæsning af beslutningen viser, at Kommissionen ikke havde tilstrækkelige oplysninger til at konkludere, at de konkurrencebegrænsninger, der følger af EBU's vedtægter, er nødvendige i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, litra a)'s forstand.
In particular, a reading of the decision showed that the Commission did not have sufficient evidence to con­clude that the restrictions on competition in the EBU's statutes were indispensable within the meaning of Article 85(3)(a).
Dommen berører ligeledes spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt det i beslutningen anvendte begreb »en bestemt offentlig opgave« er en relevant faktor, som der kan tages hensyn til, når der skal træffes beslutning om at meddele en in dividuel fritagelse. Retten udtalte, at Kommissionen inden for rammerne af en samlet vurdering kan lægge vægt på hensyn, der er forbundet med varetagelsen af almenhedens interesser, med henblik på at meddele en fritagelse i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 3. Retten fremhævede imidlertid, at Kommissionen ikke har på vist, at sådanne hensyn krævede den eksklusivitet med hensyn til rettighederne til at transmittere sportsarrangementer, som tillades i henhold til beslutningen til fordel for EBU's medlemmer, og at denne eksklusivitet var nødvendig for at sikre disse et rimeligt afkast af deres investeringer.
Turning to the question of whether the public interest, as referred to in the decision, was a pertinent consideration which might be taken into account for granting an individual exemption, the Court held that, for the purposes of an overall assessment, the Commission could base its decisions to grant an exemption under Article 85(3) on considerations relating to the pursuit of the public interest.
Ifølge Retten burde Kommissionen have underbygget de anbringender, beslutningen indeholder, med en konkret økonomisk analyse, så begrundelsen kunne kontrolleres af Fællesskabets retsinstanser. stanser.
In the Court's opinion the Commission should have substantiated the assertions contained in its decision by a specific economic analysis so that the rea­sons given could be verified by the Community courts.
I en dom af 22. maj ) konstaterede Retten, at borgerne ikke kan kræve, at Kommissionen i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, indleder en traktatbrudsprocedure over for en medlemsstat, som ikke har rettet sig efter en beslutning truffet af Kommissionen vedrørende statsstøtte.
On 22 May the Court of First Instance found that an individual could not require the Commission to bring infringement proceedings before the Court under Article 93(2) of the Treaty if a Member State had failed to comply with a Commission decision on State aid.2The Court of First Instance declared inadmissible both an application for the annulment of the Commission's refusal to refer matters to the Court of Justice and an application for a declaration of failure to act, lodged in respect of that same refusal.
' ) Forenede sager T-528/93, T-542/93, T-543/93 og T-546/93, Métropole Television SA, Reti televisive italiane SpA, Gestevisión Telecinco SA og Antena 3 de Televisión mod Kommissionen (Bull. 101996, punkt 1.8.16). " ) Sag T-227/94, Associazione italiana economica del cemento (AITEC) mod Kommissionen (Bull. 7/8-1996, punkt 1.8.59).
Joined Clases T­528/93, T­542/93, T­543/93 and T­546/93 Métropole Télévision and Others ν Commission: Bull.
Retten understregede, at det eneste positive resultat, sag søgeren ville have kunnet opnå med klagen, ville have været, at Kommissionen havde indledt en traktatbrudsprocedure mod en medlemsstat.
( OMMUNITY LAW would have been to commence proceedings against the Member State for its failure to fulfil its obligations.
I en vigtig dom af 11. juli ) fremsatte Domstolen en række præciseringer af både begrebet statsstøtte i EF-traktatens artikel 92's forstand og af en række procedurespørgsmål vedrørende de nationale retsinstansers kompetence, når de skal behandle sager om statsstøtte, selv om Kommissionen endnu ikke har af sluttet sin gennemgang af de pågældende statslige foranstaltninger.
On 11 July the Court handed down an important judgment clarifying both the concept of State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty and certain procedural questions relating to the pow­ers of national courts which have been asked to rule on State aid cases before the Commission has completed its examination of the government measures concerned. '
I spørgsmålet om begrebet statsstøtte bekræftede Domstolen, at det forhold, at en offentlig virksomhed, i dette tilfælde det franske postvæsen, har ydet logistisk og forretningsmæssig bistand til privatretlige datterselskaber, som driver virksomhed underlagt den frie konkurrence, kan anses for statsstøtte som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 92, hvis det modtagne vederlag er lavere end det, der ville være opnået under sædvanlige markedsbetingelser.
As regards State aid, the Court found that the provision of logistical and commercial assistance by a public undertaking (in this case, the French Post Office) to its private-sector subsidiaries engaged in activities open to free competition could be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty if the remuneration received in return was less than that which would have been demanded under normal market conditions.
Domstolen udtalte, at det i sager, der er indbragt for en national ret, er denne, der skal fastlægge, hvad der er sædvanligt vederlag for de omhandlede ydelser, og at en sådan vurdering forudsætter en økonomisk analyse, som tager hensyn til alle de faktorer, som en virksomhed under normale markedsbetingelser skulle have taget i betragtning ved fastsættelsen af vederlaget for ydelserne.
It found that, where a dispute had been referred to the national courts, the latter should determine the cus­tomary level of remuneration for the services in question and that their assessment should be based on an economic analysis taking account of all the factors which an undertaking operating under normal market conditions would have had to take into consideration when charging for the services provided.
Domstolen kom også ind på spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en national retsinstans er forpligtet til at erklære sig inkompetent eller til at udsætte sagen, når Kommissionen samtidig har fået sagen forelagt og endnu ikke har truffet beslutning om, hvorvidt de omhandlede statslige for anstaltninger skal anses for at være statsstøtte.
The Court also ruled that a national court was not required to declare that it lacked jurisdiction or to stay proceedings in cases where a matter had also been referred to the Commission but the latter had not yet decided whether the government measures in ques­tion constituted State aid.
Den svarede benægtende og frem hævede særligt, at en national retsinstans i tilfælde af, at en statslig foranstaltning ikke er meddelt Kommissionen, kan være nødt til at fortolke støttebegrebet i traktatens artikel 92 med henblik på at afgøre, hvorvidt foranstaltningen skulle have været anmeldt til Kommissionen.
It pointed out that in cases where a govern­ment measure had not been notified to the Commission, the national courts might have cause to interpret the concept of aid as referred to in Article 92 of the Treaty if they were to determine whether the measure in question should have been notified.
Hvis den nationale retsinstans er i tvivl, kan den anmode Kommissionen om nærmere oplysninger, og under alle omstændigheder kan eller skal den forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål om fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 92, jf. EF-traktatens artikel 177, stk. 2 og 3.
Should there be any doubt, the national court could ask the Commission for clarification. Furthermore, Article 177 of the Treaty enabled, and in certain circumstances required, the national courts to request the Court of Justice for a preliminary rul­ing on the interpretation of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty.
Domstolen benyttede lejligheden til at præcisere Kommissionens beføjelser på dette område.
453 stances. The Court took the opportunity to redefine the Commission's powers in this area.
I modsætning til de nationale retsinstanser kan den ikke foreskrive tilbagebetaling af statsstøtte alene med den begrundelse, at underretningspligten er tilsidesat, jf. traktatens artikel 93.
Unlike the national courts, the Commission could not order the repayment of aid on the sole grounds that it had not been notified in accordance with Article 93.
Indtil Kommissionen har truffet en beslutning om støttens forenelighed eller manglende forenelighed med fællesmarkedet, kan den kun pålægge den pågældende medlemsstat straks at suspendere udbetalingen af støtten og give Kommissionen adgang til alle de op lysninger, der er nødvendige for at afgøre, om støtten er forenelig med fælles markedet.
Before adopting a decision find­ing aid compatible or incompatible with the common market, the Com­mission could only enjoin the Member State concerned to suspend forth­with the payment of aid and to provide the Commission with all the information needed for an assessment of the aid's compatibility.
Kun i det tilfælde, hvor medlemsstaten trods Kommissionens pålæg undlader at give de ønskede oplysninger, er Kommissionen beføjet til at afslutte proceduren og vedtage en beslutning, hvori det konstateres, at støtteforanstaltningen på grundlag af de oplysninger, den råder over, er forenelig eller uforenelig med fællesmarkedet, og i givet fald om, at et allerede udbetalt støttebeløb skal tilbagesøges.
It was only if a Member State failed, despite the Commission's injunction, to provide the information requested that the latter had the power to ter­minate the procedure, take a decision finding the aid compatible or incompatible with the common market on the basis of the facts at its disposal and, where appropriate, order the aid to be recovered.
Ved kendelser af henholdsvis 12. juli ) og 13. juli ) afviste både Dom stolen og Retten den britiske regerings og de britiske landmænds begæring om straks at få hævet det forbud mod eksport af oksekød og deraf afledte produkter uden for Det Forenede Kongerige, som var fastlagt i Kommissionens beslutning 96/239/EF af 27. marts (—* nr. 502). De to retsinstanser anførte, at Kommissionen har fremsat seriøse argumenter for, at den har handlet for at beskytte folkesundheden og ikke kun af økonomiske årsager, som Det Forenede Kongerige hævder.
On 12 July' and 13 July2respectively, the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance made orders dismissing the applications of the United Kingdom government and The National Farmers Union for the immediate suspension of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March (— > point 502), which prohibits the exportation of beef and derived products from the territory of the United Kingdom. Both Courts held that the Commission had put forward serious arguments to show that it had acted to protect public health and not simply for economic reasons as the United Kingdom claimed. They found that a serious dan­ger to animal and human health could not he ruled out, given the uncer­tainty of the scientific community regarding the transmissibility of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or mad cow disease) and Creutzfeld-Jakob disease. They also took the view that the measures taken by the Commission were not prima facie discriminatory since 97.9% of European cases of BSE had been found in the United King­dom. They noted in particular that since cattle were not marked and their movements were not monitored within the United Kingdom, the total export ban adopted on 27 March could not be replaced by a more selective system for effectively halting the progression of the disease. Lastly, hoth Courts found that on balance the Commission decision should be upheld inasmuch as the interest in having the contested deci­sion maintained was not readily comparable to the applicants' interest in having it suspended. _BAR_
) Sag C-180/96, Det Forenede Kongerige mod Kommissionen, Domstolens kendelse af 12. juli (Bull. 101996, punkt 1.8.14). " ) Sag T-76/96, The Nationael Farmers" Linion mfl. mod Kommissionen (Bull. 101996, punkt 1.8.14).
Case C-180/96R, United Kingdom ν Commission: Bull.
Den 19. marts ) annullerede Domstolen Rådets beslutning, hvorved kun medlemsstaterne tillægges stemmeret i FN's Levnedsmiddel- og Landbrugsorganisation (FAO) med henblik på vedtagelse af en aftale til sikring af, at internationale bevarings- og forvaltningsforanstaltninger respekteres af fiskerfartøjer på det åbne hav.
On 19 March the Court annulled a Council decision giving only Member States the right to vote within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) for the adoption of an agree­ment to encourage sea-fishing vessels to comply with international con­servation and management measures. '
Fællesskabet er medlem af FAO og er som sådan sidestillet med medlemsstaterne.
Both the individual Member States and the Community itself are members of the FAO.
For at afklare problemerne med hensyn til kompetencefordelingen mellem Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne i FAO indgik Rådet og Kommissionen i 1991 en »ordning«, der indeholder en koordineringsprocedure mellem institutionerne og bestemmer, at, alt efter om hovedindholdet i det behandlede punkt hører under Fællesskabets enekompetence eller ej, ligger stemmeretten henholdsvis hos Kommissionen og medlemsstaterne.
In 1991, to resolve problems relating to the allocation of competence between the Community and the Member States within the FAO, the Council and the Commission concluded an arrangement introducing a procedure for coordination between the institutions and providing that the right to vote could be exercised either by the Commission or by the Member States, depending on whether or not most of the questions raised fell within the exclusive competence of the Community.
I modsætning til Kommissionen, som mente, at vedtagelsen af udkastet til aftalen hovedsagelig henhørte under Fællesskabets kompetence og derfor krævede afstemning i Fællesskabet, besluttede De Faste Repræsentanters Komité (Coreper), at det var medlemsstaterne alene, der havde stemmeretten, og Rådet tilsluttede sig denne beslutning.
Whereas the Com­mission felt that adoption of the draft agreement fell primarily within the Community's competence, the Permanent Representatives Committee maintained that it was for the Member States and only the Member States to vote and the Council adopted a decision endorsing this approach.
Kommissionen anlagde derefter sag med påstand om annullation af Rådes beslutning.
The Commission then applied for the annulment of the Coun­cil decision.
Rådet gjorde over for Domstolen gældende, at dets beslutning om stemmeretten blot var en bekræftelse af Corepers beslutning, og at Kommissionen derfor burde have anfægtet Corepers beslutning. Domstolen afviste dette argument.
The Council argued that its decision on the vote had simply confirmed the decision reached by the Permanent Representatives Com­mittee and that consequently the Commission should have contested the Committee's decision.
Coreper er således ikke en institution med egne beføjelser.
It was not an institution invested with its own powers.
Domstolen fandt desuden, at Rådets beslutning om stemmeretten havde haft klare retsvirkninger, fordi den kun anerkendte med lemsstaternes ret til at deltage i den endelige vedtagelse af aftalen, med undtagelse af Fællesskabet.
The Court held that the Council decision on the vote had undeniable legal effects in that it gave only the Member States (and not the Community) the right to participate in the final adoption of the agreement.
Domstolen fandt ligeledes, at Rådets beslutning over for tredjelande og FAO havde givet det udseende af, at hovedindholdet i aftalen ikke var omfattet af Fællesskabets enekompetence.
It also held that the decision gave non-member countries and the FAO the impres­sion that, for the most part, the agreement did not fall within the exclu­sive competence of the Community.
Endelig erindrede Domstolen om Fællesskabets kompetence på området og understregede, at de bestemmelser, der henhører under medlemsstaternes kompetence, ikke indtager en fremtrædende plads i aftalen.
Lastly, the Court stressed the Com­munity's competence in this area and pointed out that provisions involving the competence of the Member States did not figure promi­nently in the agreement.
Under henvisning til forpligtelsen til samarbejde mellem Fælles skabet og medlemsstaterne under forhandling, tiltrædelse og gennemførelse af internationale aftaler, en forpligtelse, der følger af kravet om enhed i Fælles skabets optræden udadtil, fastslog Domstolen, at Rådet ved at tildele medlemsstaterne stemmeretten i forbindelse med en sådan aftale overtrådte bestemmel-
Since the Community and the Member States were obliged to cooperate on the negotiation, conclusion and implemen­tation of international agreements and since, therefore, there was a need for single representation of the Community, the Court found that by giving Member States the right to vote the Council had breached the
Sag C-25/94, Kommissionen mod Rådet (Bull. 4-1996, punkt 1.8.24).
Case C-25/94 Commission ν Council: Bull.
Domstolen annullerede derfor Rådets beslutning. ning.
Council decision was therefore abovementioned annulled.
Den konstaterede, at så længe fællesskabslovgiver ikke har vedtaget almindelige bestemmel ser om offentlighedens ret til aktindsigt i institutionernes dokumenter, skal in stitutionerne træffe foranstaltninger om behandlingen af sådanne begæringer i medfør af deres beføjelse til at tilrettelægge den interne organisation.
Until such time as the Community adopted general rules governing the public's right of access to documents held by its institutions, those institutions had to take measures to process requests for information on the strength of their own powers of internal organization.
Ved en kendelse af 19. juni ) krævede Retten, at Kommissionen detaljeret og konkret specificerede, af hvilke grunde den mente, at visse interne dokumenter ikke kunne udleveres til parterne i sagen. Sagen vedrører den særlige procedure, der gælder for klager over en beslutning, der er truffet af institutionerne på EKSF-området.
On 19 June the Court of First Instance issued an Order calling on the Commission to provide a detailed and specific statement of the reasons why it considers that certain internal documents cannot be made available to the parties to proceedings.3The case in question related to the special procedure governing applications lodged against acts adopted by the institutions in the areas covered by the ECSC Treaty.
Ifølge denne procedure, som er fastsat i artikel 23 i statutten for Det Europæiske Kul- og Stålfællesskabs Domstol, har den institution, hvis beslutning anfægtes, pligt til at oversende Domstolen alle akter vedrørende den sag, som forelægges den.
Under this procedure, which is laid down in Article 23 of the (ECSC) Statute of the Court, the institution whose act is contested must forward to the Court all the evidence relating to the case before it.
For at vurdere risikoen for en sådan skade må Retten afgøre en konflikt mellem på den ene side
The Court acknowledged, however, that the communication of internal documents could be damaging to the
) Sag C-58/94, Kongeriget Nederlandene mod Rådet (Bull. 7/8-1996, punkt 1.8.55). ) EFT L 304 af 10.12.1993, FFT L 340 af 31.12.1993 og FFT L 45 af 18.2.1994. ) Sag T-134/94, NMH Stahlwerke GmbH mod Kommissionen (Bull. 7/8-1996, punkt 1.8.63).
Case C-58/94 Netherlands ν Council: Bull.
X-2 princippet om de administrative handlingers effektivitet og på den anden side princippet om domstolskontrol med administrationens handlinger under over holdelse af forsvarets rettigheder og procedurens kontradiktoriske karakter.
To assess the risk of such damage the Court had to resolve a conflict between the principle of effective admin­istrative action, on the one hand, and that of judicial supervision of administrative acts, on the other, subject to the rights of the defence and the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
Af denne grund bad Retten Kom missionen om præcist at begrunde sit afslag på at udlevere de interne dokumenter, som indgår i sagens akter.
The Court therefore asked the Commission to give the precise reasons for its refusal to release the documents.
Den 18. juni ') annullerede Domstolen Rådets direktiv 94/43/EF2) af 27. juli 1994 om affattelsen af bilag VI til direktiv 91/414/EØF om markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler. Den annullerede således et gennemførelsesdirektiv, som, uden at det overskrider de fastsatte rammer for gennemførelsen, er ufuldstændigt med hensyn til et af punkterne om de principper, der er defineret i grunddirektivet.
On 18 June the Court annulled' Council Directive 94/43/EC of 27 July 1994 establishing Annex VI to Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.2The Directive annulled laid down implementing provisions which, without going beyond the prescribed framework, were incomplete in one respect as regards observance of the principles defined by the basic Directive.
Domstolen bekræftede sin traditionelle retspraksis, ifølge hvilken Rådet kan vedtage et generelt direktiv efter den procedure, der er fastlagt i traktaten, og medtage bestemmelser om vedtagelse af gennemførelsesbestemmelser ifølge en forkortet procedure uden høring af Parlamentet.
The Court reaffirmed its earlier rulings whereby it had consistently held that the Council could adopt a general directive in accordance with the pro­cedure laid down by the Treaty whilst adopting implementing measures under a shorter procedure, without consulting Parliament.
Domstolen mindede dog om, at gennemførelsesdirektivet skal overholde kravene i grunddirektivet.
But imple­menting directives must respect the provisions enacted in the basic Direc­tive.
I den pågældende sag fremførte Domstolen, at grunddirektivet, direktiv 91/414/EØF, ikke blot har til formål at forbedre landbrugsproduktionen gennem anvendelsen af plantebeskyttelsesmidler, men også at beskytte miljøet i almindelighed og grundvandet i særdeleshed. Ifølge grunddirektivet kan de pågældende produkter derfor kun tillades, hvis kravene om beskyttelse af grundvandet over holdes.
In this particular case the basic Directive (Directive 91/414/EEC) was intended not only to improve agricultural production by the use of plant protection products but also to protect the environment in general and groundwater in particular.
Domstolen påpegede, at gennemførelsesdirektivet kun indeholder bestemmelser om hensyntagen til plantebeskyttelsesmidlernes indvirkning på grundvand, der er beregnet til drikkevandsproduktion, og ikke til alt grundvand.
The Court also noted that the implementing Directive did not take account of the effect of plant protection products on all groundwater but only their effect on groundwater intended for the production of drinking water.
Domstolen udtalte imidlertid, at hvis man i gennemførelsesdirektivet giver med lemsstaterne mulighed for at tillade markedsføring af plantebeskyttelsesmidler uden at måle virkningen på alt grundvand, hvad enten det er beregnet til drikkevandsproduktion eller ej, ændrer man omfanget af de forpligtelser, der pålægges dem i grunddirektivet.
The Court found that enabling Member States under the implementing Directive to authorize the placing of plant protection products on the market without taking account of the effect on all groundwater, whether intended for the production of drinking water or not, was tantamount to altering the scope of the obligations imposed on the Member States by the basic Directive.
Vedtagelsen af en sådan ændring kræver, at man benytter den lovgivningsprocedure, der er fastsat i traktaten, og en vedtagelse af ændringen gennem en forkortet procedure uden høring af Parlamentet er en krænkelse af Parlamentets rettigheder.
Adoption of such a change called for recourse to the legisla­tive procedure laid down by the Treaty; adoption by the shorter proce-
) Sag C-30394, Parlamentet mod Rådet (Bull. 7/8-1996, punkt 1.8.62). 1 ) EFT L 227 af 1.9.1994 og Bull. 7'8-1996, punkt 1.2.14.
Case C-303/94 Parliament ν Council: Bull.
Talmæssige oplysninger om Domstolens og Førsteinstansrettens virksomhed
457 dure, without consulting Parliament, encroached on Parliament's pre­rogatives.