natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Der gøres opmærksom på, at dommen betegner en ændring af Domstolens hidtidige retspraksis3), hvorefter forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 altid trådte i stedet for eksisterende in ternationale konventioner, også selv om det havde negative konsekvenser for ar bejdstagerne.
The judgment amounts to a reversal of a ruling of 1973,7 whereby Regulation No 1408/71 had to take the place of existing conventions even if this proved less advantageous to the workers concerned.
ASTI (Association de soutien aux travailleurs immigrés employés privés) var blevet dømt til at betale bidrag til interesseorganisationen chambre des em ployés privés, idet sådanne bidrag var obligatoriske i henhold til den luxembourgske lovgivning; bidragene vedrørte lønmodtagere, der var statsborgere i andre medlemsstater, og som i henhold til samme lovgivning ikke havde stem meret ved valg til den pågældende organisation, idet denne ret var forbeholdt landets egne statsborgere.
The Association de soutien aux travailleurs immigrés, Luxembourg, was ordered to pay contributions to the Chambre des employés privés under Luxembourg law on behalf of employed persons who, being nationals of other Member States, were not entitled to take part in elections to it.
3) Se dom af 7.6.1973, sag 32/72, Walder (Sml. s. 599). 4) Dom af 4.7.1991, sag C-213/90, Association de soutien aux travailleurs immigrés (ASTI) mod chambre des employés privés.
Case 32/72 Walder v Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1973] ECR 599.
I sin dom af 7. majl) videreudvikler Domstolen sin tidligere retspraksis vedrørende etableringsret2).
In Case C-340/892the Court added to the body of case-law on freedom of establishment.3It defined the scope and content of the obligation which the host
Den præciserer nærmere de forpligtelser, der påhvi ler medlemsstaterne i forbindelse med vurderingen af, om en EF-borger, der ønsker at etablere sig i en anden medlemsstat, har de nødvendige faglige kvalifikationer.
Member State has to assess the professional qualifications of nationals of another Member State who wish to carry on their profession in its territory.
Den gør i den sammenhæng opmærksom på, at nationale betingelser vedrørende kvalifikationer, selv om de anvendes uden forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet, kan medføre, at andre medlemsstaters statsborgere hindres i at udøve den etableringsret, som er garanteret dem ved Traktatens artikel 52.
The Court noted that national conditions governing qualifications, even if applied without discrimination based on nationality, could have the effect of impeding the exercise by nationals of other Member States of the right of establishment guaranteed to them by Article 52 of the Treaty.
Dette kan være tilfældet, såfremt der i de pågældende nationale bestemmelser ikke tages hensyn til kundskaber og kvalifikationer, som den pågældende al lerede har erhvervet i en anden medlemsstat.
This could be the case if the national rules in question disregarded knowledge and qualifications which had already been acquired by the person concerned in another Member State.
Derfor sluttede Domstolen, at hvis der ikke er tale om gensidig anerkendelse på EF-plan, så må medlemsstaterne fastlægge en procedure for vurdering af kvalifikationer erhvervet i en anden medlemsstat, samtidig med, at de naturligvis har ret til at tage hensyn til objektive forskelle, for så vidt angår både de juridiske rammer for den pågældende profession og arbejdsområdet.
It followed that, where qualifications were not mutually recognized at Community level. Member States were under an obligation to establish a procedure for the examination of qualifications acquired in another Member State, although they were authorized to take into consideration any objective differences in the legal framework of the profession concerned and in the field of activities covered.
Hvis sammenligningen viser, at der kun er delvis overensstemmelse, påhviler det den pågældende at godtgøre, at han besidder de krævede kundskaber og kvalifikationer.
If comparative examination revealed only partial equivalence, the person concerned could be required to prove that he had acquired the knowledge and qualifications lacking.
Ved at insistere på begrebet ækvivalens mellem kundskaber og kvalifikationer og samtidig i sin retspraksis holde fast ved, at det er legitimt at kræve de nationale regler overholdt, har Domstolen begrænset mulighederne for skjult forskelsbehandling i forbindelse med anvendelse af artikel 52.
Stressing the concept of equivalence of knowledge and qualifications, and upholding its earlier rulings to the effect that compliance with national rules was a legitimate requirement, the Court thus narrowed the scope for concealed discrimination in the application of Article 52.
I dommen af 25. juli3) i sagen Factortame erklærede Domstolen, at kravene om nationalitet og bopæl i den britiske lovgivning om indregistrering af fi skerfartøjer i Det Forenede Kongerige er i modstrid med princippet om fri etableringsret. Domstolen fastslår, at det er op til medlemsstaterne at fastsætte de pågældende betingelser i overensstemmelse med de internationale retsregler, men at udøvelsen af disse beføjelser skal ske under overholdelse af EF-lovgivningen.
In Factortame the Court held that the nationality and domicile requirements of British legislation governing the registration of fishing vessels were contrary to the principle of freedom of establishment.4 While it was for the Member States to lay down those requirements in accordance with international law, they had to do so in a manner consistent with Community law.
Specielt anfører Domstolen, at princippet om fri etableringsret, der er garanteret borgerne ved EØF-Traktatens artikel 52, ikke er overholdt i den britiske lovgivnings bestemmelser om, at ejere (»legal owners og beneficial owners«), befragtere og førere af et fartøj skal være statsborgere i den pågældende medlemsstat eller selskaber etableret i samme stat, og at i sidstnævnte tilfælde mindst 75% af aktiekapitalen i et sådant selskab skal ejes af statsborgere i medlemsstaten eller af selskaber, der opfylder tilsvarende betingelser, og at 75% af bestyrelsesmed-
The principle of freedom of establishment guaranteed by Article 52 of the EEC Treaty was infringed by, notably, the requirement that legal and beneficial owners, charterers and operators of a vessel be UK nationals or com-
2) Navnlig dom af 15.10.1987, sag 222/86, »Heylens« (Sml. s. 4097). 3) Sag C-221/89, The Queen mod Secretary of State for Transport ex parte: Factortame Ltd m.fl.
See Case 222/86 Uneclef \ Heylens [1987] ECR 4097.
VI-2 lemmerne i selskabet skal være statsborgere i medlemsstaten; det samme gælder bestemmelsen om, at ejere (legal owners og beneficial owners), befragtere, førere, aktionærer og bestyrelsesmedlemmer skal have bopæl i medlemsstaten.
VL2 panies registered in the UK, and that, in the latter case, at least 75% of the company's shares be owned by UK nationals or by companies fulfilling the same requirements, and that 75% of the company's directors be UK nationals, and that legal owners, beneficial owners, charterers, managers, operators, shareholders and directors be resident and domiciled in the UK.
Til gen gæld finder Domstolen det fortsat foreneligt med EF-lovgivningen at kræve, at et fartøj drives og driften af det styres og kontrolleres fra britisk område, såfremt det skal sejle under britisk flag.
But there was no infringement in the requirement that a vessel be operated and its use controlled or directed from UK territory as a condition of registration.
Dommen gør det muligt for fartøjer med kapital og besætning fra andre medlemsstater at blive indregistreret i Det Forenede Kongerige og sejle under britisk flag, såfremt de har tilknytning til britisk område. de.
As a result of this judgment it will be possible for vessels with capital and crews from other Member States to be registered in the UK and fly its flag, provided there is a link with British territory.
I sine domme af 26. februar ') understreger Domstolen, at »det kan være en grund til at begrænse den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, at der er vægtige almene hensyn knyttet til anerkendelsen og beskyttelsen af kunstneriske, historiske og arkæologiske værdier«.
In three similar judgments the Court held that, since the optimum use of historical treasures and the optimum dissemination of knowledge concerning a country's artistic and cultural heritage were in the public interest, this could constitute an imperative reason justifying a restriction on freedom to provide services. '
Domstolen udtaler imidlertid, at dette »hensyn« ikke kan begrunde kravet om, at selvstændige eller ansatte turistguider skal være i besiddelse af en tilladelse udstedt efter en afprøvning af vedkommendes kvalifikationer, for at have lov til at rejse med turister, som de ledsager fra en anden medlemsstat.
In this particular case, however, the Court declared that the imperative reason did not justify the requirement that employed or self-employed guides accompanying groups of tourists over a fixed itinerary must hold a licence issued only to those who have obtained a specific qualification.
I to delvis identiske domme af 25. juli2), den ene afsagt efter at Kommissionen havde indledt en overtrædelsesprocedure mod Nederlandene, den anden efter et præjudicielt spørgsmål, fremførte Domstolen, at de betingelser, der ifølge den nederlandske lovgivning gælder for videreudsendelse af fjernsynsprogrammer indeholdende reklamer (varighed, sendetidspunkt), indebærer en dobbelt begrænsning af den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
In two broadly identical judgments, one giving a preliminary ruling and one in infringement proceedings against the Netherlands, the Court held that the conditions imposed by Dutch law on the retransmission of television programmes containing advertisements (duration, scheduling) placed a dual restriction on freedom to provide services.2For one thing, they prevented the managers of cable-distribution operators established in other Member States from retransmitting radio or TV programmes not meeting the conditions.
For det første forhindres kabelselskaber i andre medlemsstater i at videreudsende radio- og tv-program-mer, der ikke opfylder betingelserne.
For another, they restricted the possibility for broadcasting stations in other Member States to schedule advertisements for the public in the Member State of reception ordered by advertisers there.
For det andet begrænser sådanne betingelser de muligheder, som sendere i andre medlemsstater har for at programmere reklameindslag specielt beregnet for publikum i en anden medlemsstat og bestilt af reklameorganisationer i modtagerlandet.
The Court did not accept the Dutch Government's argument based on the need to preserve pluralism in broadcasting.
Domstolen accepterede ikke de af Nederlandene fremførte begrundelser, der gik ud på, at man ville opretholde pluralismen inden for den audiovisuelle sektor.
While conceding that cultural policy might afford an imperative reason of public interest justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services, the Court none the less held that it was by no means essential for Dutch law to require broadcasters in other Member States to conform to the Dutch model when transmitting advertising material addressed to the Dutch public.
Dom stolen lader således implicit forstå, at beskyttelsen af STER's indtægter (organisation, der finansierer programmer ved hjælp af reklameindtægter) ikke er den eneste mulighed for at opfylde den kulturelle målsætning.
STER (a body which finances TV production from advertising charges) was not the only way in which the cultural policy objective could be attained.
Domstolen fastslog endvidere på samme grundlag, at Nederlandene havde overtrådt EF-lovgivningen ved at pålægge de nederlandske tv-stationer i vid udstrækning at lade deres programmer producere af et nederlandsk selskab.
The Court also declared that the Netherlands had infringed Community law by requiring Dutch TV stations to use the services of a Dutch company for their production activities.
Da svangerskabsafbrydelse er forbudt i Irland, var det et spørgsmål, om EF-lovgivningen var til hinder for, at denne medlemsstat forbyder studenterorganisationer at udbrede oplysninger om klinikker i andre medlemsstater, hvor svangerskabsafbrydelse kan foretages legalt.
Abortion is illegal in Ireland. The question consequently arose whether it was permissible under Community law for Ireland to ban student associations from distribut­ing information about clinics in another Member State where abortions are performed lawfully.
Efter at have fastslået, at lægelig afbrydelse af svangerskab, udført i henhold til gældende ret i den stat, hvor den foretages, er en tjenesteydelse som omhandlet i EØF-Traktatens artikel 60, ud taler Domstolen i en dom af 4. oktober1), at forbud i Irland mod udbredelse af ovennævnte oplysninger, ikke kan betragtes som en restriktion som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 59, med den begrundelse, at oplysningerne ikke udbredes for en økonomisk beslutningstager i en anden medlemsstat.
After acknowledging that the medical termination of pregnancy, performed in accordance with the law of the Member State in which it takes place, is a service for the purposes of Article 60 of the EEC Treaty, the Court held that the distribution of the information in question was not a trade restriction within the meaning of Article 59 of the Treaty since the information was not distributed on behalf of a firm in another Member State. '
Oplysningerne er deri mod udbredt i kraft af ytringsfriheden og informationsfriheden, og uafhængigt af den virksomhed, der udøves af de pågældende klinikker.
It belonged to the general freedom of information and expression, independent of the business activity of the clinics concerned.
I den sammenhæng afslog Domstolen at undersøge, om den omstridte lovgivning er i overensstemmelse med de grundlæggende rettigheder, således som de kommer til udtryk i den europæiske konvention om menneskerettigheder, eftersom denne lovgivning ikke omfattes af fællesskabsretten. Sagen skabte et voldsomt røre i dele af den irske befolkning og er utvivlsomt baggrunden for, at Irland som led i regerings konferencen har anmodet om en særlig protokol om retten til livet.
The Court declined to verify the conformity of the rules with the fundamental rights conferred by, for instance, the European Convention on Human Rights so long as the rules were not a matter of direct Community concern.
I sin dom af 13. marts2) redegjorde Domstolen for konsekvenserne af sin tidligere dom af 24. marts 19873), hvorefter kvinder i mangel af foranstalt ninger til gennemførelse af direktiv 79/7/EØF4), der indeholder et forbud mod enhver form for forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn med hensyn til social sikring, har krav på at blive behandlet efter samme vilkår som mænd, der opfylder de samme betingelser.
In Case C-377/892 the Court clarified the consequences of its 1987 judgment3 in which it had ruled that where no measures implementing Directive 79/7/EEC prohibit­ing all forms of discrimination based on sex in matters of social security4had been adopted, women were entitled to the same treatment as men in the same circumstances.
Domstolen præciserede, at det måtte sikres, at direktivet
The Court now held that the Directive must be fully effective from the date on which the Member States were required to comply with it, even if in some circumstances that would result in double payment of increases in social security benefits and even if it thereby infringed the prohibition on unjust enrichment laid down by national law.
Betydningen af dommen af 30. maj') består i, at Domstolen for første gang har udtalt sig om den direkte virkning af andet direktiv 77/91/EØF2) om beskyttelse af både interessenters og tredjemands interesser i forbindelse med oprettelse af et aktieselskab samt fastholdelse af og ændringer i dettes kapital.
The importance of the judgment given in Joined Cases C-19/90 and C-20/90 ' lies in the fact that the Court ruled for the first time on the direct effect of the second company law directive (77/91/EEC2).
Domstolen har fastslået, at direktivet i mangel af en undtagelse i EF-retten fin der anvendelse lige så længe, aktionærerne og selskabets normale organer ikke er frataget deres beføjelser. Dette gælder klart, når der blot er tale om en om struktureringsordning, som offentlige organer eller privatretlige selskaber delta ger i, når de associeredes ret til kapital og beslutningsbeføjelser i selskabet er på spil.
It held that, in the absence of a derogation under Community law, the Directive applied as long as matters had not been taken out of the hands of the shareholders or usual management bodies of the company; this would certainly be the case with straightforward restructuring operations involving public authorities or private-sector companies where the members' right to company capital or decisionmaking powers within the company was at stake.
Domstolen fastslog det princip, at »hvis man anerkendte et generelt forbehold i forbindelse med ekstraordinære situationer, der ikke har direkte tilknytning til de specifikke betingelser i Traktatens bestemmelser og (andet) direktiv, ville dette ... være ... et brud på EF-rettens bindende virkning og ensartede an vendelse«.
The Court further declared as a matter of principle that a general derogation for exceptional situations which were not covered by the specific terms of the Treaty or the second Directive was liable to detract from the binding nature and uniform application of Community law.
I sine domme af 26. februar3) præciserede Domstolen sin retspraksis »Gaston Schul I og II« ved at bekræfte, at medlemsstaterne til trods for den direkte virkning af EØF-Traktatens artikel 95 har pligt til i henhold til denne bestemmelse at underrette borgerne og myndighederne klart gennem cirkulærer om mulighederne for at opnå fradragsret, når momsen allerede er betalt i en an den medlemsstat.
In February the Court gave judgment clarifying its two Gaston Schul judgments by pointing out that, notwithstanding the direct effect of Article 95, the Member States were obliged by that Article to make clear to their citizens and administrations, by means of circulars, the ways in which deduction of VAT could be claimed if VAT had already been paid in another Member State.3
Domstolen, der for første gang i sin dom af 7. maj4) havde anledning til at undersøge spørgsmålet om foreneligheden af EF's grundforordning om anti-
In Case C-69/89 the Court for the first time had to consider whether the Community's basic anti-dumping Regulation was compatible with the GATT Anti­dumping Code.4It recalled an earlier judgment"' to the effect that the provisions of the General Agreement were binding on the Community and that this was also true of the Anti-dumping Code, and found that the Community's new Regulation was compatible with the Code.
Institutionelle spørgsmål og budgetspørgsmål
Institutional and budgetary questions
I sin dom af 11. juni2) bekræftede Domstolen, der traf en afgørelse, som gav både Kommissionen og Europa-Parlamentet medhold, at Rådets direktiv om titandioxid burde være baseret på artikel 100A og ikke på artikel 130S, som Rådet i sidste ende bestemte. Domstolen annullerede derfor dette direktiv.
In Case C-300/89 the Court, ruling in favour of the Commission and Parliament, held that the Council should have based its titanium dioxide waste Directive on Article 100a and not on Article 130s.1 The Directive was therefore void.
Dens ræsonnement bygger på følgende be tragtninger: Domstolen bekræftede igen for det første, at det i artikel 8A om handlede »marked« forudsætter, at der ikke foreligger en fordrejning af konkurrencevilkårene.
Its reasoning was based on the following considerations: the Court confirmed that the market envisaged in Article 8a presupposed fair conditions of competition.
Den uddrog heraf, at artikel 100A i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af de i artikel 8A omhandlede grundlæggende friheder bemyndiger Fællesskabet til at vedtage harmoniseringsforanstaltninger - ikke blot for at fjerne hindringer for samhandelen - men også når der er risiko for, at forskelle i de nationale bestemmelser skaber eller opretholder en fordrejning af konkurrence vilkårene.
It followed that, to implement the fundamental freedoms referred to in Article 8a, Article 100a empowered the Com­munity to adopt harmonization measures, not only to remove barriers to trade but also where there was a risk that disparities in national legislation would create or maintain distortions of competition.
Selv om Kommissionen altid har støttet dette synspunkt, er det første gang, at det bekræftes af Domstolen.
Although the Commission had held this view from the outset, this was the first time that it had been confirmed by the Court.
Domstolen understregede i øvrigt, at Europa-Parlamentets deltagelse i lovgivningsprocessen afspejlede et grundlæggende demokratisk princip inden for Fællesskabet, hvorefter befolkningerne delta ger i magtudøvelsen gennem en repræsentativ forsamling.
The Court also stressed that Parliament's involvement in the legislative process was the reflection at Community level of a fundamental democratic principle whereby the people participate in the exercise of power through a representative assembly.
Domstolen var i øvrigt af den opfattelse, at det var et væsentligt element i samarbejdsproceduren, at Rådet træffer afgørelse med kvalificeret flertal, når det godkender Parlamentets ændringsforslag, som Kommissionen har optaget i sit genbehandlede forslag, og til gengæld træffer enstemmig afgørelse, når det ønsker at ændre ved det genbehandlede forslag eller i tilfælde af Parlamentets forkastelse af den fælles hold ning.
It was an essential part of the cooperation procedure that the Council should act by a qualified majority when accepting Parliamentary amendments which the Commission had incorporated into its re-examined proposal but should, on the other hand, act unanimously if it was amending a re-examined proposal or if Parliament had rejected the common position. The Court consequently ruled out recourse to a dual legal basis where the one Article referred to the cooperation procedure and the other required unanimity, since this would call in question the very purpose of the cooperation procedure and render it devoid of any substance.
Dette fik Domstolen til at udelukke muligheden af at lade en retsakt have hjemmel i et dobbelt grundlag, når det ene er i overensstemmelse med samar-
It followed that a measure could not be covered by Article 130s simply because it also pursued environmental objectives.
FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN
COMMUNITY LAW to safeguard Parliament's prerogatives and was founded only on submissions alleging their infringement. '
VI-2 bejdsproceduren og det andet med den enstemmige afgørelse, for så vidt som dette ville betyde, at der blev rokket ved selve hensigten med samarbejdsproceduren, som således ville blive indholdsløs.
It therefore dismissed without consideration arguments based on the allegedly incorrect form of the act and on the failure to delegate implementing powers to the Commission: Parliament had adduced no evidence of infringement of its prerogatives.
Domstolen mindede endelig om selve bestemmelserne i artikel 130R, stk. 2, hvori det hedder, at »kravene med hensyn til miljøbeskyttelse er en vigtig bestanddel af Fællesskabets politik på andre om råder«.
On the substance, Parliament argued that Regulation (Euratom) No 3954/872 was incorrectly based on Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty, which provided only for consultation of Parliament, whereas the proper base would have been Ar­ticle 100a of the EEC Treaty, which involves the cooperation procedure.
Den udledte deraf, at alene det forhold, at en foranstaltning forfølger f.eks. et miljømæssigt mål ikke i sig selv er tilstrækkeligt til at begrunde anvendelsen af artikel 130S.
The Court confirmed its constant doctrine that the legal basis for an act must be selected on objective criteria capable of being reviewed, including the act's purpose and content.