natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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-528/9.1, 'I -542 9,1, T-54.1/9.Î og T-546/9.1, Metropole Television SA, Reti televisive italiane SpA, Ceste-vision Telecinco SA og Antena .1 dc Televisión mod Kommissionen (Bull. 101996, punkt 1.8.16).
Joined Cases T­528/93, T­542/93, T­543/93 and T­546/93 Métropole Télévision and Others ν Commission: Bull.10­1996, point 1.8.16.
Retten understregede, at det eneste positive resultat, sag­søgeren ville have kunnet opnå med klagen, ville have været, at Kommissionen havde indledt en traktatbrudsprocedure mod en medlemsstat.
X-2 would have been to commence proceedings against the Member State for its failure to fulfil its obligations.
Retten sidestiller således fuldt ud Kommissionens afvisning af at indlede en procedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, vedrørende statsstøtte, med en afvisning af at indlede en traktatbrudsprocedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 169, og den fastslår, at Kommissionen har de samme skønsbeføjelser.
It thus held that the Commission's refusal to initiate proceedings under Article 93(2), which relates to State aid, should be treated in exactly the same way as a refusal to initiate proceedings for non-fulfilment of an obligation under Article 169 and that the Commission should enjoy the same discretionary powers in both cases.
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 af­sluttet sin gennemgang af de pågældende statslige foranstaltninger. 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.
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.1As 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 for­anstaltninger 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 frem­hævede 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 afgore, 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 præciserede desuden, at en national retsinstans, for hvilken der nedlægges påstand om tilbagebetaling af støtte, skal tage denne påstand til følge,
A national court requested to order the repayment of aid had to grant that appli­cation if it found that the aid had not been notified to the Commission, unless repayment was inappropriate by reason of exceptional circum-
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 op­lysninger, der er nødvendige for at afgøre, om støtten er forenelig med fælles­markedet.
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. De fastslog, at den videnskabelige tvivl om, hvorvidt bovin spongi­form encephalopati (BSE), »kogalskab« og Creutzfeldt-Jakob-sygdommen kan overføres, betyder, at det ikke kan udelukkes, at der er alvorlig fare for menne­skers og dyrs sundhed. De udtalte ligeledes, at den foranstaltning, Kommissionen har truffet, ikke umiddelbart er diskriminerende, da 97,9% af tilfældene af BSE i Europa er konstateret i Det Forenede Kongerige. De fremhævede særligt, at den manglende mærkning af dyrene og kontrol med deres bevægelser inden for Det Forenede Kongerige ikke gør det muligt at gennemføre en mere selektiv ordning, som effektivt kan stoppe udbredelsen af sygdommen, end det totale eksportfor­bud, som indgår i beslutningen af 27. marts. Endelig konstaterede de to retsin­stanser, at en afvejning af interesserne taler for at opretholde Kommissionens ) 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' Union mfl. mod Kommissionen (Bull. 101996, punkt 1.8.14).
On 12 July1and 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 be 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, both 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. 12
Den fælles handelspolitik - forbindelser udadtil
Common commercial policy — External relations
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. Fællesskabet er medlem af FAO og er som sådan sidestillet med medlemsstaterne.
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.1Both 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 med­lemsstaternes 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 nonmember 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 henhorer 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 Fælles­skabet og medlemsstaterne under forhandling, tiltrædelse og gennemforelse af internationale aftaler, en forpligtelse, der folger af kravet om enhed i Fælles­skabets 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-2.5 94, kommissionen mod Radei (Bull. 4-1996, punkt 1.S.24).
Case C-25/94 Commission ν Council: Bull.
Domstolen annullerede derfor Rådets beslut­ning.
Council decision was therefore abovementioned annulled.
Den konsta­terede, at så længe fællesskabslovgiver ikke har vedtaget almindelige bestemmel­ser om offentlighedens ret til aktindsigt i institutionernes dokumenter, skal in­stitutionerne 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.
Den afviste Europa-Parlamentets argumenter, da det ikke skal deltage i udøvelsen af de øvrige institutioners egne beføjelser.
It rejected the arguments put forward by Parliament, which had no reason to involve itself in the exercise of powers specific to the other institutions.
Endelig afviste Domstolen sagen, for så vidt som den rettede sig mod selve adfærdskodeksen, der betegnedes som »en retsakt, som er udtryk for en frivillig samordning«, og som ikke i sig selv »skal have retsvirkninger«.
The Court deemed the application inadmissible in that it was directed against the code of conduct, an act which was the expression of purely voluntary coordination and was not intended to 'have legal effects'.
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.
Retten fremhævede, at de akter, den får oversendt i medfør af denne artikel, i princippet skal være tilgængelige for alle sagens parter. Ifølge Retten kan Kommissionen således ikke uden begrundelse modsætte sig, at dens interne dokumenter udleveres til parterne.
The Court held that any evidence provided pursuant to the said Article 23 should, in principle, be made available to all parties to the proceedings and that the Commis­sion could not therefore oppose the release of its internal documents to the applicants without good reason.
Retten erkendte dog, at udlevering af interne dokumenter kan skade Kommissionens arbejde, hvis dokumenterne videregives uden tilstrækkelig hensyntagen.
The Court acknowledged, however, that the communication of internal documents could be damaging to the
) Sag C-58 94. Kongeriget Nederlandene mod Rådet (Bull. 7/81996, punkt 1.8.55). )
Case C-58/94 Netherlands ν Council: Bull.
Sag l'-I 14 94, NM11 Stahlwerke CmbH mod Kommissionen (Bull. 7/81996, punkt 1.8.6.1).
Case T-134/94, NMH Stahlwerke ν Commission: Bull.
FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN
COMMUNITY LAW proper performance of the Commission's work if there were any illconsidered release of information.
X-2 princippet om de administrative handlingers effektivitet og på den anden side princippet om domstolskontrol med administrationens handlinger under over­holdelse 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.
I dette tilfælde mente Retten ikke, at den havde oplysninger nok til at afgøre konflikten, for så vidt som Kommissionen ikke havde specificeret, hvorfor den undtagelsesvis skulle frigøres fra sine forpligtelser til at tillade udlevering af alle sagens akter, herunder interne dokumenter.
In this particular case the Court of First Instance found that it had insufficient information to resolve the conflict, as the Commission had not given reasons as to why, by way of exception, it should be freed from its obligation to make available all the evidence on the case, including internal documents.
Af denne grund bad Retten Kom­missionen 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.
Council Directive 94/43/EC of
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.
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 aí 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 over­holdes.
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.