natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Flere fiskeri virksomheder anfægtede foreneligheden med del II i loven af 1988 med fællesskabs retten for de britiske domstole, idet de mente, at deres skibe ville miste retten til
Since their vessels failed to meet one or more of the new conditions of registration and therefore faced the prospect of being no longer allowed to engage in fishing from 1 April 1989, a number of fishing companies challenged the compatibility of Part II of the 1988 Act with Community law in the British courts ; they also applied for interim relief to be granted until such time as judgment was given on their application for judicial review.
') Dom af 22. marts 1990, sag C-347/87, Triveneta Zuccheri SpA m.fl. mod Kommissionen (EFT C 105 af 27.4.1990).
Case C-347/87 Triveneta Zuccheri and Others ν Commission (OJ C 105, 27.4.1990).
) Dom af 22. februar 1990, sag C-221/88, EKSF mod Bussseni SpA (EFT C 92 af 11.4.1990), nr. 1028 i denne beretning.
Case C-221/88 ECSC ν Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni (OJ C 92, 11.4.1990); point 1028 of this Report.
GENERELLE SPØRGSMÅL 437 fiskeri fra 1. april 1989, fordi de ikke opfyldte i hvert fald et af de nye registreringskrav.
415 that, in these circumstances, the national court must set aside the national rule preclud­ing it from granting interim relief.
Den fulde nyttevirkning af fællesskabsretten ville også blive svækket tilsvarende, såfremt en national retsregel kunne afskære den retsinstans, der behandler en sag vedrørende fællesskabsretten, fra at anordne foreløbige forholdsregler med henblik på at sikre den fulde virkning af den afgørelse, den skal træffe med hensyn til, om der består rettigheder, der kan gøres gældende i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
The full effectiveness of Community law could be just as much impaired if a rule of national law could prevent a court seized of a dispute governed by Community law from granting interim relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment to be given on the existence of the rights claimed under Community law.l
Der skal nu, hvor talen er om retsbevarende foranstaltninger, gøres opmærksom på sag C-217/88 '), hvori problemet rejses om den eventuelle suspensive virkning af et søgsmål, som privatpersoner anlægger for nationale domstole mod en administrativ bestemmelse fastsat på grundlag af fællesskabsretten.
Again in the matter of interim measures, note should be taken of Case C-217/88, which raised the question of the suspensory effect of actions brought by individuals in the national courts against administrative acts based on Community law.
Retten fandt, at Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands afvisning af at gennemføre foranstaltningerne til obligatorisk destillation af bordvin ved ikke at bringe nationale tvangsmidler i anvendelse (udlæg) i tilfælde af, at de pågældende nægter at levere bordvinen, er i modstrid med artikel 5 i EØF-Traktaten og med artikel 64, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 337/792).
The Court held that the failure of the Federal Republic of Germany to use the coercive measures available under German law (immediate enforcement) against producers who had refused to deliver table wine for compulsory distillation was contrary to Article 5 of the EEC Treaty and Article 64(1) of regulation No 337/79 on the common organization of the market in wine.2 The objective of the compulsory distillation measures could only be attained if they were implemented within a specific timescale (which, in the case in point, had been determined by the Commission) and it was therefore incumbent on Member States to take whatever measures were necessary to ensure that producers delivered their wine for distillation within the period prescribed, even where the producers concerned had successfully brought an action in the national courts to suspend the enforcement of notices of liability for compulsory distillation.3
Artikel 1 i protokollen om privilegier og immuniteter indeholder netop bestemmelser, der skal hindre dette.
VII­1 application was directly at issue.
) besluttede Domstolen, at en national domstol, der behandler en sag, der henhører under anvendelsesområdet for Rådets direktiv 68/151/EØF4), skal fortolke de nationale retsforskrifter i lyset af direktivets ordlyd og formål, hvis den vil forhindre, at et aktieselskab erklæres ugyldigt stiftet på grund af et andet forhold end de i direktivets artikel 11 nævnte.
In Marleasing the Court ruled that a national court called on to determine a dispute in a matter falling within the sphere of application of Council Directive 68/151/EEC2is obliged to interpret its national law in the light of the wording and purpose of that Directive in order to prevent the nullity of a limited liability company from being declared on a ground other than those listed in Article 11 thereof.
Domstolen gjorde derved opmærksom på, at »medlemsstaterne ifølge et direktiv har pligt til at opnå det i direktivet fastsatte resultat og i henhold til Traktatens artikel 5 til at træffe alle almindelige eller særlige foranstaltninger, som er egnede til at sikre dette.
The Court pointed out that Member States are under an obligation to achieve the results provided for in directives and are required by Article 5 of the Treaty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the performance of this obligation.
Denne pligt gælder for alle medlemsstaternes myndigheder, herunder domstolene inden for rammerne af deres kompetence«.
The obligation was incumbent on all the authorities of the Member States, including — within the bounds of their jurisdiction — the courts.3
(EFT C 199 af 8.8.1990). :) Dom af 8. november 1990, sag C-231/89, Krystyna Gmurzynska-Bscher mod Oberfinanzdirektion
Infringements of Articles 9, 30 or 95 of the EEC Treaty, the basic provisions relating to free movement of goods, an essential element in the completion of the internal market, gave rise to 103 letters of formal notice and 42 reasoned opinions.
GENERELLE SPØRGSMÅL 439
GENERAL MATTERS
I løbet af året blev der slettet 25 sager af Domstolens retsregister, fordi medlemsstaterne rettede sig efter EF-retten under sagsbehandlingen.
417 course of the year 25 cases were removed from the Court Register because the Member States concerned had conformed to Community legislation in the mean time.
Yderligere oplysninger om medlemsstaternes anvendelse af traktatbestemmelserne findes i Ottende Årsberetning til Parlamentet om Kommissionens Kontrol med Fællesskabsrettens Anvendelse (udkommer i 1991).
Fuller information is given in the eighth annual report to Parliament on Commission monitoring of the application of Community law (to be published in 1991).
440 FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN
COMMUNITY LAW
Frie varebevægelser og toldunionen
Free movement of goods and Customs Union
Domstolen tog i sin dom af 20 marts1) afstand fra den italienske ordning med regionale præferencer, hvorved 30 % af offentlige leveringskontrakter i Italien ifølge italiensk lovgivning forbeholdes virksomheder med hjemsted i Mezzogiornoområdet.
In Du Pont de Nemours Italiana ν Unità Sanitaria Locale No 2 di Carraca ' the Court found against the Italian system of regional preferences, which reserves 30% of public supply contracts to firms in the Mezzogiorno.
Domstolen, der fik forelagt spørgsmålet til præjudiciel afgørelse, statuerede, at produkter med oprindelse i andre medlemsstater diskrimineres i forhold til produkter fabrikeret i den pågældende medlemsstat, og at den normale samhandel mellem medlemsstaterne på den måde hindres i modstrid med EØF-Traktatens artikel 30.
Asked for a preliminary ruling, the Court held that products originating in other Member States were discriminated against in relation to products manufactured in Italy and there was thus an obstacle to the normal pattern of intra­Community trade, contrary to Article 30 of the EEC Treaty.
Det fremhæves, at »denne konklusion ikke afsvækkedes ved, at en sådan præferenceordning i samme omfang virker begrænsende såvel for varer, der er fremstillet i virksomheder i vedkommende medlemsstat, der ikke er beliggende i det af præferenceordningen omfattede område, som for varer, der er produceret i virksomheder, der er beliggende i de øvrige medlemsstater«.
This conclusion was not invalidated by the fact that the restrictive effects of the system affected to the same extent products manufactured by Italian firms which were not situated in the Mezzogiorno and products manufactured by firms established in other Member States.
Retten har under streget, at »selv om ikke alle produkter fra den omhandlede medlemsstat får en fortrinsstilling i forhold til udenlandske varer, er dog samtlige de af præferenceordningen omfattede varer indenlandske varer, og at den omstændighed, at den statslige foranstaltnings restriktive virkning for indførslen ikke virker til gunst for samtlige, men kun for en del af de indenlandske varer, ikke kan bevirke, at den omhandlede foranstaltning ikke bliver omfattet af forbuddet ifølge artikel 30«.
Although all Italian products were not favoured in relation to foreign products, nevertheless the products enjoying preferential treatment were national products, and the fact that the restrictive effect of a government measure on imports did not favour all national products but only some of them did not exempt the measure from the prohibition of Article 30.
Domstolen statuerede for første gang i sin dom af 7. marts2), at nationale bestemmelser, der indeholder et forbud mod, at der reklameres på samme måde for importerede produkter og indenlandske produkter, er i modstrid med artikel 30.
In GB Inno Β M ν Confédération du Commerce Luxembourgeois2the Court held, for the first time, that legislation prohibiting a method of advertising that applied without distinction to domestic and imported products was incompatible with Article 30.
Retten fastlagde allerede i Oosthoek-dommen3) det princip, at en lovgivning, der forbyder visse reklameformer, kan være en hindring for importen, idet den tvinger
In the Oosthoek case3 the Court had already established the principle that legislation prohibit­ ing certain forms of advertising could constitute an obstacle to imports by obliging a producer to alter or abandon a particular sales promotion scheme but had finally decided that in that specific case the legislation was justified by the imperative need to protect the consumer.
Retten bekræftede ved sin dom af 23. maj ') sin retspraksis, hvorefter det ifølge et direktiv om fuldstændig harmonisering af nationale bestemmelser — f.eks. direktiv 79/409/EØF2) om beskyttelse af vilde fugle — udelukkes, at en medlemsstat kan lægge EØF-Traktatens artikel 36 til grund til støtte for restriktioner for den frie omsætning af varer under henvisning til beskyttelsen af dyrs sundhed og liv.
In Gourmetterie Van den Burgl the Court reaffirmed its view that if a directive provides for the full harmonization of national provisions (as does Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds2), a Member State cannot rely on Article 36 of the
Det er kun det pågældende direktiv, i det foreliggende tilfælde artikel 14 i direktiv 79/409/EØF, der kan danne grundlag for de beføjelser, der overdrages medlemsstaterne. staterne.
Reference should be made solely to the powers conferred on Member States by the provisions of the directive in question, in this case by Article 14 of Directive 79/409/EEC.
I forbindelse med sag C-128/893) har Domstolen overvejet sin retspraksis vedrørende forholdet mellem artikel 30 og 36 i EØF-Traktaten på den ene side og harmoniseringsdirektiverne på den anden.
In Case C-128/89 Commission ν Italy3the Court reviewed its past rulings on the relationship between Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty, on the one hand, and harmonization directives, on the other.
Domstolen har, efter at have fastslået, at den italienske lovgivning om forbud mod import af grapefrugt ad landevej fører til, at import at grapefrugt med oprindelse i andre medlemsstater vanskeliggøres eller endog bliver umulig, hvilket er i strid med EØF-Traktatens artikel 30, undersøgt, om den anfægtede ordning alligevel falder ind under de beføjelser, som medlemsstaterne har vedrørende plantesundhed.
Having found that Italy's prohibition on imports of grapefruit through its inland borders had the effect of making imports from other Member States difficult if not impossible, in contravention of Article 30, the Court went on to consider whether the measures at issue nevertheless fell within the Member States' powers to regulate trade on grounds of plant health protection.
Den har således erindret om, at medlemsstaterne kun kan træffe beskyttelsesforanstaltninger inden for de begrænsninger, som harmoniseringsdirektivet sætter, når harmoniseringen af sundhedsbeskyttelsesforanstaltningerne og tilpasningen af fællesskabskontrolprocedurerne til overholdelse heraf fastsættes i et fællesskabsdirektiv vedtaget i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 100.
Where a Community directive provides, pursuant to Article 100, for the harmonization of health protection measures and lays down Community procedures for its enforcement, Member States are entitled to adopt protective measures only within the limits specified in the directive.
Formålet med et sådant direktiv er nemlig at fremme den frie bevægelighed for varer ved at fjerne eller i det mindste reducere de hindringer, der kan følge af nationale sundhedskontrolforanstaltninger truffet i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 36 4).
The purpose of such directives is to promote the free movement of goods by eliminating or at least reducing any obstacles resulting from national health protection measures taken under Article 36.4 Any national rules or practices adopted for a purpose specified in Article 36 are therefore incompatible with the Treaty if they go beyond the limits of what is appropriate and necessary to achieve the desired result.5In this particular case the Court held that the legislation in question went beyond the permissible limits since the Italian authorities had been unable to show that it was impossible to carry out health checks on the grapefruit at inland borders.
I den foreliggende sag fandt Dom stolen, at de omstridte bestemmelser gik ud over de tilladte grænser, idet de
The central issue was whether Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty precluded national legislation from allowing a firm which held a trade mark in one Member States (in this case Hag GF) from opposing the importation from another Member State of similar products lawfully bearing an identical trade mark in the latter
') Dom af 23. maj 1990, sag C-169/89, Gourmetterie Van den Burg, Haag (EFT C 151 af 20.6.1990).
Case C-169/89 (OJ C 151, 20.6.1990).
2) EFT L 103 af 25.4.1979 og Trettende Almindelige Beretning, nr. 281. ')
OJ L 103, 25.4.1979; Thirteenth General Report, point 281. OJ C 198, 7.8.1990.
) Dom af 25. januar 1977, sag 46/76, Bauhuis (Sml. 1977, s. 5). )
Case 45/76 Bauhuis ν Netherlands State [1977] ECR 5.
442 FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN
COMMUNITY LAW
Det centrale spørgsmål var, om EØF-Traktatens artikel 30 og 36 er til hinder for, at en virksomhed, der ejer et varemærke i en medlemsstat (i dette tilfælde HAG GF AG), ifølge national lovgivning kan mod sætte sig import fra en anden medlemsstat af lignende produkter, der i sidstnævnte stat lovligt omfattes af et identisk varemærke, selv om dette oprindeligt tilhørte en filial af den virksomhed, der modsætter sig importen (Café HAG SA), men er blevet erhvervet af en tredje virksomhed (i øjeblikket CNL-Sucal NV), efter at de belgiske myndigheder i 1944 beslaglagde denne filial som fjendtlig ejendom.
State even though the trade mark had originally belonged to a subsidiary (Café Hag) of the firm opposing the imports in question and had been acquired by a third firm (now CNL-Sucal), the subsidiary having been sequestrated as enemy property by the Belgian authorities in 1944.
Dom stolen konkluderede, at »varemærkets væsentligste funktion ville blive undergravet, såfremt varemærkets indehaver ikke kan udøve sin ret efter national lovgivning til at modsætte sig indførsel af et lignende produkt under en betegnelse, der kan forveksles med vedkommendes eget varemærke, idet forbrugerne da ikke længere med sikkerhed kan fastslå varemærkets oprindelse, og varemærkets indehaver risikerer at blive sat i forbindelse med et produkt af dårlig kvalitet, som han ikke har noget ansvar for«.
The Court concluded that the essential function of the trade mark would be compromised if the holder could not avail himself of the possibility offered to him under national law of opposing the importation of a similar product under a name that could be confused with its own trade mark, because consumers would no longer be able to identify with any certainty the origin of the product bearing the trade mark and the holder could find that a poor-quality product for which he was in no way responsible was attributed to him.
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en national lovgivning, hvorefter betegnelsen »kødvarer« er forbeholdt produkter, der overholder herfor relevante betingelser, og som hindrer import af produkter, der lovligt markedsføres i oprindelseslandet som kødvarer, kan begrundes med absolutte krav i forbindelse med forbrugerbeskyttelse eller beskyttelsen af personers sundhed eller krav, der vedrører loyal forretningspraksis afviste Domstolen i sin dom af 13. november3) disse begrundelser, idet opfyldelsen af disse krav kan sikres bl.a. ved påsætning af en etiket vedrørende arten af det solgte produkt og gensidig respekt for lovligt og traditionelt praktiserede handelssædvaner i de forskellige medlemsstater.
In Bonfait1the Court was asked for a preliminary ruling on whether national rules which reserved the appellation 'prepared meat products' to products conforming to the conditions prescribed by such rules and which represented an obstacle to the importation of products lawfully marketed under that appellation in their country of origin could be justified by the need to protect the consumer, public health or fair trading. The Court held that national rules could not be justified on these grounds since the necessary protection could be afforded if the nature of the products for sale was indicated by appropriate labelling and if mutual respect was shown for the practices lawfully and traditionally followed in the various Member States.
FORTOLKNING OG ANVENDELSE AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS MATERIELLE REGLER 443
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION PF THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES OF COMMUNITY LAW
Domstolen fandt ved sin vurdering af, om de offentlige myndigheders kapitaltilskud til Tubemeuse skulle betragtes som statsstøtte, at det var relevant at anvende det kriterium, om virksomheden kunne opnå det pågældende beløb på kapitalmarkedet, hvilket i det foreliggende tilfælde var lidet sandsynligt i betragtning af virksomhedens rentabilitetsvanskeligheder.
To determine whether the Government's measures to boost the capital of Tubemeuse constituted State aid, the Court considered that it was appropriate to apply the test of the firm's ability to obtain the sums in question on the market. Of this there was 'little likelihood', given Tubemeuse's lack of profit-making capacity.
Domstolen mente, at den pågældende støtte kunne have virkning på konkurrence­situationen i virksomhederne i EF inden for den pågældende sektor, selv om den støttemodtagende virksomhed eksporterede næsten hele sin produktion uden for Fællesskabet, på grund af den gensidige afhængighed mellem de markeder, på hvilke EF­virksomhederne opererer og den krise og tilbagegang — og dermed øgede konkurrence — der dengang gjorde sig gældende på verdensmarkedet for helsvejsede rør.
The aid in question could affect competition between Community businesses in the relevant market even if Tubemeuse did export almost its entire output to non-member countries, given the interdependence of the markets on which Community businesses operated and the general context of crisis and recession (and, therefore, keener competition) on the world market for seamless tubes at the material time.
Domstolen mindede i denne forbindelse om, at det forhold, at en støtte er relativ beskeden eller en virksomhed af forholdsvis ringe størrelse ikke på forhånd udelukker, at samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne berøres.
In the Court's opinion, the fact that the aid was relatively insignificant or that the recipient was a relatively small firm did not necessarily preclude the possibility that trade between Member States might be affected.
I sag T-51/89 ') var spørgsmålet, om Kommissionen altid kan konstatere, at der foreligger misbrug af dominerende stilling efter EØF-Traktatens artikel 86, når det påståede misbrug vedrører udnyttelsen af eneret til licens, der omfattes af en af Kommissionen indrømmet gruppefritagelse.
In Tetra Pak Rausing ν Commission3the Court of First Instance was asked to rule on whether the Commission could still decide that there had been abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty when the conduct in question involved the use of an exclusive patent licence for which the Commission had already granted block exemption.
Sagsøger fandt, at det var modstridende, at Kommissionen i henhold til artikel 86 forbød en adfærd, som den havde erklæret forenelig med artikel 85, og at der var tale om en retsvildfarelse i henseende til forholdet mellem artikel 85 og 86.
Tetra Pak's main argument was that it was a manifest contradiction for the Commission to prohibit under Article 86 conduct which it had declared compatible with Article 85 and that this constituted an improper assessment of the relationship between Articles 85 and 86.
Retten i Første Instans fandt derimod, at sagsøgers indstilling svarede til, at han krævede fordelen af en fritagelse i henhold til artikel 86, samtidig med at det ifølge denne artikels ordlyd klart fremgår, at forbuddet mod misbrug af dominerende stilling er ubetinget. Artikel 85 og 86 er autonome og indbyrdes supplerende bestemmelser, der i princippet hver især skal regulere bestemte situationer under forskellige ordninger.
The Court of First Instance held, however, that the applicant's position was tantamount to claiming exemption under Article 86 whereas the wording of Article 86 made it clear that the prohibition on the abuse of dominance was unconditional; Articles 85 and 86 were independent and complementary provisions designed, in general, to regulate distinct situations by differ­ent rules.
Den kan ikke over for en beslutning om tilbagebetaling påberåbe sig god tro med hensyn til, at støtten er ydet korrekt, fordi det normalt er muligt for den at sikre sig, at proceduren efter EØF-Traktatens artikel 93 er blevet overholdt.
The judgment given by the Court in Case C-5/89 Commission ν Germany4sets out the conditions under which a firm may rely on the argument of legitimate expec­ tations to contest a Commission decision ordering the recovery of illegal State aid.
Kun i undtagelsesvise tilfælde kan virksomheder påberåbe sig god tro med hensyn til, at en støtte er ydet korrekt, og således anfægte tilbagebetalingen deraf.
According to the Court, firms should assume that, as a rule, any aid which has not been notified to the Commission will have to be repaid.
') Dom af 10. juli 1990, sag T-51/89, Tetra Pak Rausing SA mod Kommissionen (EFT C 193 af 2.8.1990).
OJ L 227, 14.8.1987; Twenty-first General Report, point 483. Case T-51/89 (OJ C 193, 2.8.1990). OJ C 261, 16.10.1990.
FORTOLKNING OG ANVENDELSE AF FÆLLESSKABSRETTENS MATERIELLE REGLER 445 af deres opgaver, at de bestemmelser i traktaten om Portugals (og Spaniens)1) tiltrædelse, der vedrører andre medlemsstaters mulighed for at gøre adgangen til beskæftigelse og immigration afhængig af forhåndstilladelse, ikke kan anvendes.
VII­2 against a decision ordering repayment, that they were entitled to presume that aid granted was lawful since they are usually in a position to ascertain whether the Article 93 procedure has been duly observed.
I forbindelse med en midlertidig flytning betalt af en tjenesteydende virksomhed er det reglerne om fri udveksling at tjenesteydelser, der skal anvendes.
Only in exceptional cases may firms contest the repayment order on grounds of legitimate expectations.