natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionen havde nemlig ikke som fastlagt i forordning (EØF) nr. 2950/833), artikel 6, stk. 1, hørt den relevante medlemsstat inden vedtagelsen af beslutningerne. Domstolen vurderede, at Kommissionens praksis med at give den pågældende medlemsstat mulighed for at anfægte beslutningen, når denne var blevet meddelt medlemsstaten, ikke var i overensstemmelse med den nævnte forordning og udgjorde et brud på væsentlige formforskrifter, hvilket førte til annullering af beslutningen under hensyntagen »til medlemsstatens cen trale rolle og vigtigheden af det ansvar, den varetager ved forelæggelsen af og
The Commission had failed to give the Member State concerned the opportunity to comment in advance on the contested decisions as required by Article 6(1) of Regulation No 2950/83.2 The Court held that the Commission's practice (which gave a Member State the opportunity to object once a decision had been notified to it) was incompatible with the Regulation and constituted an infringement of formal requirements, non-compliance with which meant that the contested decisions had to be declared void, bearing in mind the Member State's central role and the extent of its responsibilities regarding the presen­tation and supervision of training courses.
I tre næsten enslydende domme af 1. oktober1) afgav Domstolen nogle interessante udtalelser om den forpligtelse, medlemsstaterne har til at gennemføre direktiverne.
Three judgments given in October in virtually identical terms gave valuable clarification of the Member States' obligations regarding the transposai of directives.3
For det første udgør et cirkulære ikke en fyldestgørende foran staltning til gennemførelse af et direktiv, fordi det ikke er juridisk bindende for myndighederne eller har direkte retskraft over for personer, hvis gøremål kan resultere i skader.
First, circulars are not a proper way of implementing directives where they are not legally binding on government departments or directly applicable to persons whose activities are such as to generate environmental nuisances.
Sådanne personer har således ikke mulighed for helt nøjagtigt at vide, hvilke regler de er underlagt.
Such persons are not given precise information as to their obligations.
Tilsvarende har de personer, direktivet be skytter, ikke mulighed for at kende omfanget af deres rettigheder og i påkommende tilfælde påberåbe sig disse for de nationale domstole.
Likewise, those for whose benefit the directive is issued are not in a position to ascertain the full range of their rights and to plead them, if the case arises, in the national courts.
I øvrigt ville den omstændighed, at der ikke var noget konkret tilfælde af ikke-overholdelse af di rektivet, ikke for Domstolen være grund til at undlade at gennemføre dette i den interne retsorden ved hjælp af bestemmelser, som kunne gøre situationen så til pas utvetydig, klar og overskuelig, at den enkelte ville være i stand til at kende sine rettigheder og forpligtelser.
Moreover, the Court does not regard the fact that there are no known practical cases of failure to comply with the directive as removing the obligation to transpose it into the national legal order by means of provisions laying the law down clearly and precisely enough for citizens to be acquainted with their rights and obligations.
I sag C-367/892
The judgment in Case C-367/89 was the first to consider the compatibility of
Domstolen fastslog i dommen, at reglerne om fællesskabsforsendelse [forordning (EØF) nr. 222/773)] omfatter alle varer, der forsendes inden for Fællesskabet uanset deres eventuelle strategi ske karakter.
Cocom with Community law.4The Court pointed out that the Community transit scheme under Regulation No 222/775 covers all goods, whether or not strategic, moving
') Sagerne C-13/90, C-14/90 og C-64/90, Kommissionen mod Frankrig.
Cases C-13/90, C-14/90 and C-64/90 Commission ν France.
2) Dom af 4.10.1991, Storhertugdømmet Luxembourgs Finansministerium mod A. Richardt.
Criminal proceedings against Richardt. OJ L 38. 9.2.1977.
VI-1 ifølge Domstolen ud over det, der var fastsat i forordningen, og pålagde således medlemsstaterne nye forpligtelser.
It held that the code of conduct, informally established by the Commission, regulated the type of information to be provided and the frequency and procedures for notification in detail.
Kommissionen havde ikke kompetence til at indføre den.
Accordingly the code went beyond what was provided for in the Regulation and imposed new obligations on the Member States ; the Commission had no power to do this.
I sag C-312/89') bekræftede Domstolen sin tidligere dom (af 23. november 1989, Torfaen Borough Council), hvorefter detailhandelens åbningstider er et politisk og økonomisk anliggende, som medlemsstaterne selv må træffe afgørelse om. Den tog stilling til forholdet mellem de trufne foranstaltninger og det tilstræbte lovlige mål og konstaterede, at de begrænsninger for samhandelen, der eventuelt følger af et forbud mod beskæftigelse af arbejdstagere i detailhandelen om søndagen ikke er mere vidtgående end nødvendigt for at nå det tilsigtede mål.
In Case C­312/89 the Court, while confirming its earlier judgment in Torfaen Borough Council, where it held that rules governing opening times for retail sales reflected political and economic options which were a matter for the Member States, assessed itself whether the measures at issue were in proportion to the legitimate objective in view and found that the restrictive effects which a prohibition on employ­ment in retail shops on Sunday could have on trade did not seem disproportionate to the aim in view. '
Domstolen videreførte hermed sin ensartede fortolkning af fællesskabsret ten.
The Court has thereby ensured uniform interpretation of Community law.
Domstolen synes at sætte visse begrænsninger for Kommissionens beføjelser, idet EØF-Traktaten artikel 90, stk. 3, ikke kan benyttes til at fastslå en bestemt medlemsstats kon krete overtrædelse, Domstolen annullerede artikel 2 i direktivet, da de særlige rettigheders indhold ikke var præciseret tilstrækkeligt deri, ligesom direktivets artikel 7, der pålægger medlemsstaterne at gøre det muligt at opsige langfristede kontrakter om leje og vedligeholdelse indgået af virksomhederne.
The Court appeared to set certain limits on the Commission's powers in that it held that Article 90(3) could not be used to establish a specific infringement by a particular Member State and declared Article 2 of the Directive void in that it did not provide
VI-2 herfor er, at det ikke var fuldstændigt påvist, at medlemsstaten havde skylden for virksomhedernes ulovlige adfærd.
421 details of the precise rights referred to, as also Article 7, which required the cancellation of long­term leasing and maintenance contracts entered into by undertakings, in that it did not show that national rules had brought about the conduct on the part of undertakings to which the charge related.
Imidlertid fandt Domstolen, at de eksklusive rettigheder til import, markedsføring, tilslutning, ibrugtagning og vedligeholdelse begrænser samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, og den bekræftede udtryk keligt, at det følger af EØF-Traktatens artikel 30, at det konkurrencemål, der omhandles i EØF-Traktatens artikel 3, litra f), skal tages i betragtning.
The Court ruled, however, that exclusive rights for the importation, marketing, connection, bringing into service and maintenance of terminal equipment were such as to restrict trade within the Community, while at the same time confirming the fact that assessment under Article 30 involved taking the point of Article 3(f), which was to promote competition, into account.
I fortsættelse heraf fandt Domstolen, at såfremt man overlader det til den virksomhed, der markedsfører terminalerne, at formalisere de tekniske specifikationer og kontrollen og at godkende apparaterne, svarer det til at give virksomheden en klar konkurrencefordel over for konkurrenterne.
Following the same line of argument, the Court held that to permit an undertaking which markets terminal equipment to draw up specifications for such equipment, supervise their implementation and approve the equipment would be to give it an obvious advantage over its competitors.
Domstolen tiltrådte således Kommissionens afgørelse på dette punkt.
In other words, it confirmed the Commission's decision on this point.
Domstolen bekræftede i sin dom af 23. april som svar på en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 90, fore lagt af Oberlandesgericht München, at Bundesanstalt für Arbeit1), der har ene ret på at bringe arbejdssøgende i kontakt med arbejdsløsgivere og at forvalte arbejdsløshedsunderstøttelsen, er en virksomhed med henblik på anvendelsen af Traktatens artikel 85 og 86, når den udøver arbejdsformidlingsvirksomhed.
In response to a request from a Munich court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 90 the Court held that the Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Employment Office), which has the exclusive right to put job­seekers in touch with prospective employers and to administer unemployment benefits, was an 'undertaking' for the purposes of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty when it engaged in placement activities. '
En sådan offentlig virksomhed er dermed underkastet Traktatens konkurrenceregler, så længe det ikke er påvist, at disse reglers anvendelse er uforenelig med virksomhedens opgaver i henhold til artikel 90, stk. 2. Dette var ikke tilfældet i den foreliggende sag, idet Bundesanstalt klart ikke kunne imødekomme efter spørgslen på markedet og derfor tolererede, at private anvisningskontorer brød dens eneret.
A public agency of this kind is therefore subject to the Community rules on competition until such time as it is shown that their application would obstruct the performance of its duties, in accordance with Article 90(2).
Domstolen konkluderede, at en dominans, der er opnået ved ind rømmelse af en enerettighed, ikke som sådan er uforenelig med artikel 86. Der imod er det i modstrid med artikel 90, i forbindelse med artikel 86, at indrømme en bestemt offentlig virksomhed eneret, såfremt det fører til, at private virksomheders ydelser bliver ulovlige og dette sker til skade for efterspørgerne af deres ydelser, på grund af at den virksomhed, der har dette monopol, ikke kan efter komme efterspørgslen på markedet, for så vidt det påvises, at denne virksomheds misbrug af sin dominans påvirker samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet.
The Court concluded that the creation of a dominant position by the grant of an exclusive right was not in itself incompatible with Article 86 of the Treaty; but the grant of an exclusive right to a particular State agency was contrary to Article 90 in conjunction with Article 86 if it led to a situation where the provision of such services by private­sector companies was rendered illegal to the detriment of those seeking such services since the agency holding the exclusive right was unable to satisfy the market demand, provided it could be shown that the agency's abuse of its position was likely to affect intra­Community trade.
') Sag C-41/90, K. Hoefner mod Macrotron GmbH. 2) Sag C-260/89, Eliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi mod Dimotiki Etairia Pliroforissis og Kouvclas.
Case C­41/90 Höfner and Eiser ν Macrotron.
449 frie bevægelighed«.
VJ-2 contrary to the principle of free movement of goods.
Dette gælder dog ikke, såfremt monopolet fører til forskelsbehandling mellem nationale og importerede produkter i henseende til den frie omsætning af produkter og tjenesteydelser.
Where the free movement of goods and services was concerned, however, the arrangements would have to be changed if the exclusive rights thus conferred led to any discrimination between national and imported products.
I denne forbindelse har en virksomhed, der både har monopol på spredning og retransmission mulighed for at fremme sine egne programmer og begrænse retransmission af andre medlemsstaters programmer, hvilket risikerer at føre til begrænsninger for den frie ud veksling af tjenesteydelser.
Where a company was granted a monopoly for both the transmission and the retransmission of broadcasts, the company was in a position to favour its own programmes by limiting the retransmission of programmes from other Member States, thus jeopardizing the freedom to provide services.
Bestemmelser, der indebærer forskelsbehandling, kan kun begrundes i hensynet til den offentlige orden, den offentlige sikkerhed og folkesundheden som omhandlet i artikel 56, der skal fortolkes snævert.
Discriminatory rules could be justified only on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, as provided in Article 56, which was to be strictly construed.
Eventuelle forstyrrelser på grund af, at der kun er et begrænset antal kanaler disponible, kan ikke være en begrundelse, når den ikke monopolhavende virksomhed kun anvender et begrænset antal af de disponible kanaler.
Any disturbances arising from the restricted number of channels available could not serve as a justification, where the company not holding the monopoly used only a restricted number of the channels available.
Som følge af en tvist vedrørende italienske havnevirksomheder, der ifølge lov har monopol på lastning såvel som losning og oplagring af varer i havnene, og hvis arbejdstagere, der er deltagere i disse selskaber, skal have italiensk statsborgerskab, præciserede Domstolen i sin dom af 10. december 1991 ') de principper, som den tidligere havde fastslået i dommene vedrørende monopoler af sagt i løbet af året, jf. foregående afsnit.
In a case concerning the situation of Italian docks companies enjoying a legal monopoly for the loading, unloading and storage of goods in ports, whose workers, also being members of the companies, are required to be of Italian nationality, the Court spelled out and applied principles already laid down in judgments in monopoly cases given in the course of the year (see foregoing paragraphs). '
Domstolen gør opmærksom på, at det ikke som sådan er uforeneligt med EØF-Traktatens artikel 86 at få en dominerende stilling på markedet ved indrømmelse af eksklusive rettigheder, men at en medlemsstat overtræder forbuddet i samme Traktats artikel 90, når den pågældende virksomhed blot ved udøvelsen af disse eksklusive rettigheder misbruger sin dominerende stilling, eller når disse rettigheder vil kunne skabe en situation, der medfører at virksomheden begår et sådant misbrug.
The Court declared that, although the mere fact of creating a dominant position through the grant of exclusive rights was not as such incompatible with Article 86 of the EEC Treaty, a Member State would infringe the prohibition in Article 90 if, merely by exercising its exclusive rights, the firm concerned abused its dominance or where those rights were of such a nature as to create a situation in which the firm could so act.
Et sådant forhold gør sig gældende for de italienske havnevirksomheder, idet disse påbyder priser og andre handelsvilkår, der ikke er rimelige.
This was precisely the situation of the Italian docks companies, which were imposing unfair prices and terms.
Dommen af 3. juli2) i sagen Akzo Chemie mod Kommissionen er den første, hvori Domstolen udtaler, at de stærkt nedsatte priser, der praktiseres af en virksomhed i dominerende stilling, er uforenelige med artikel 86 i EØF-Traktaten. Domstolen tiltrådte dermed Kommissionens opfattelse i sagen, nem lig at Akzo har misbrugt sin dominerende stilling ved at søge at fjerne virksomheden ECS fra markedet ved voldsomme og lange prisnedsættelser. Priser, der ligger under gennemsnittet af de variable omkostninger og faste omkostninger, betragtes som misbrug, når de indgår som led i en plan om at eliminere en kon kurrent.
In AKZO Chemie ν Commission the Court for the first time ruled on the compatibility of predatory pricing practices of a dominant firm with Article 86.2It upheld the Commission's conclusion that AKZO had abused its dominant position by using massive, prolonged price cuts as a means of driving a competing company, ECS, off the market.
Ifølge Domstolen er der tale om en dominerende stilling, når en virksomhed tegner sig for en markedsandel på 50%.
The Court accepted a 50% market share as adequate evidence of dominance and agreed that dominance could be defined by reference to a market other than that on which the abuse occurred.
2) Sag C-62/86, Akzo Chemie mod Kommissionen.
Case C-62/86.
Således blev Kommissionens afgørelse kun annulleret på en række tekniske punkter af mindre betydning.
INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SUBSTANTIVE RULES
Domstolen mener i denne forbindelse, at udsigten til rentabilitet på lang sigt er tilstrækkeligt.
The Court considers a favourable long­term profita­bility outlook to be sufficient evidence here.
Den dom, der afsagdes den 3. oktober1), bekræfter denne retspraksis, idet det dog præciseres, at selv om et finansielt indskud er bestemt som en produktiv investering, kan dette ikke alene udelukke, at der er tale om støtte, såfremt det under hensyn til virksomhedens situation forekommer usandsynligt, at en privat investor ville have foretaget et sådant indskud af finansielle midler.
In Case C­261/89 the Court confirmed this approach but added that the fact that a financial injection is to cover productive investment does not of itself disqualify the injection as State aid if, given the general state of the firm, it would seem unlikely that a private­sector firm would have made the same investment. '
Ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 93, stk. 3 skal medlemsstaterne give Kom missionen meddelelse om deres støtteprojekter.
Article 93(3) of the EEC Treaty requires Member States to notify the Com­mission of their plans to grant aid.
I henhold til sidste punktum i dette stykke kan medlemsstaten ikke gennemføre projekterne, før Kommissionen har truffet endelig afgørelse om, hvorvidt de er forenelige med Traktaten.
By the last sentence of that paragraph, the Member State may not put its proposed measures into effect until the Commission has given a final decision on their compatibility with the Treaty.
Ifølge bestående lovgivning kan Kommissionen ikke erklære, at støtte, der ikke er givet meddelelse om, er ulovlig blot med den begrundelse, at meddelelse ikke har fundet sted, idet den skal under alle omstændigheder undersøge, hvorvidt projektet er foreneligt med Traktaten.
Past cases establish that the Commission may not declare unnotified aid schemes unlawful simply because they have not been notified; it must in all cases consider the question of compatibility.
Domstolen har med sin dom af 21. november2) derimod præciseret, at enkeltpersoner kan anmode de nationale dom stole om at erklære støtte, der ikke på forhånd er blevet meddelt i modstrid med procedurereglerne i EØF-Traktatens artikel 93, ulovlig, også selv om Kommissionen senere erklærer, at den påtænkte støtte er forenelig med Traktaten.
In Case C­354/902the Court held that individuals may apply to the national courts for a declaration that an aid scheme is unlawful where it has not been notified or violates the procedural rules of Article 93, even if the Commission subsequently declares that the planned aid is compatible with the Treaty.
Fri bevægelighed for personer, sociale bestemmelser
Free movement of persons and social provisions
I en dom af 26. februar3) understreger Domstolen, at en erklæring optaget i Rådets mødeprotokol i forbindelse med vedtagelsen af en forordning ikke har nogen retsvirkning, når indholdet af erklæringen ikke på nogen måde kom mer til udtryk i udformningen af den pågældende bestemmelse.
But it put a broad construction on Article 48(3), taking the view that, since no maximum period had been prescribed by Community law, the period of six months prescribed by national law did not appear to be insufficient ; even after the expiry of the six­month period, persons seeking employment could not be required to leave the host country if they provided evidence that they had a real chance of finding work, notwithstanding that their entitlement to unemployment benefits in the Mem­ber State of origin would expire after three months under Community law.
Efter Domstolens opfattelse er medlemsstaterne forpligtet til at anerkende opholdsretten for arbejdstagere omfattet af direktiv 68/360/EØF2), der kan fremvise enten et gyldigt identitetskort eller et gyldigt pas, uanset hvilket dokument der har givet dem adgang til medlemsstaternes territorium, og uanset om identitetsdokumentet er udstedt, før den udstedende stat tiltrådte Fællesskabet. bet.
The Court held that Member States were obliged to recognize the right of residence in their territory of workers referred to in Direc­tive 68/360/EEC2if they could produce either an identity card or a valid passport, irrespective of the type of document on the basis of which they had entered the Member State concerned and irrespective of the fact that the identity card had been issued before the issuing Member State's accession to the Communities.
I overensstemmelse med den hidtidige retspraksis vedrørende fri bevæge lighed for personer præciserede Domstolen i sin dom af 30. maj3), at »statsbor gere fra en medlemsstat - inden de indrejser til den pågældende medlemsstats område - af de tjenestemænd, der er ansvarlige for kontrollen ved grænseovergangen, ikke kan afkræves oplysninger om formålet med og varigheden af op holdet samt om de økonomiske midler, de er i besiddelse af til dækning af op holdet«.
In line with its earlier rulings on freedom of movement for persons, the Court held that nationals of one Member State were not required to answer questions put by border officials regarding the purpose and duration of their journey and the financial means at their disposal for it before they were permitted to enter another Mem­ber State.3
I en dom af 10. december4) indskærper Domstolen endvidere, at forbud det i EØF-Traktatens artikel 90 indebærer, at stillinger i en virksomhed, der er indrømmet eksklusive rettigheder, ikke af en medlemsstat kan forbeholdes landets egne statsborgere, da det er i modstrid med det generelle princip om forbud mod forskelsbehandling begrundet i nationalitet, der for arbejdstagernes vedkommende konkretiseres i EØF-Traktatens artikel 48. Hvad det konkrete tilfælde angår, bemærker Domstolen, at begrebet arbejdstager som omhandlet i EØF-
In Case C­179/904the Court further held that the prohibition in Article 90 of the EEC Treaty has the effect that a Member State may not reserve jobs in a firm that has been given exclusive rights for its nationals, since this would be contrary to the general prohibition on nationality discrimination against workers under Article 48.
Traktatens artikel 48 ikke påvirkes af, at arbejdstageren, samtidig med at han befinder sig i et underordningsforhold set i relation til virksomheden, er knyttet til de andre arbejdstagere i et associeringsforhold.
In the present case the Court observed that the concept of 'worker' for the purposes of Article 48 was not affected by the fact that the worker, although in a subordinate status within the firm concerned, also had a partnership relation with other workers.
I en dom af 7. februar1) mener Domstolen implicit, at artikel 6 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/712) i visse tilfælde er ugyldig, idet den er uforenelig med målene i EØF-Traktatens artikel 51, nemlig hvis den medfører en forringelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i henhold til gældende overenskomster mellem to el ler flere medlemsstater; rettigheder, som er indarbejdet i den nationale lovgivning.
The Court's judgment in Case C­227/895implies that Article 6 of Regulation No 1408/716is incompatible with the objectives of Article 51 of the EEC Treaty and therefore invalid in cases where it has the effect of reducing workers' rights as compared with those held under conventions in force between two or more Member States which are embodied in their national law.
Dommen har stor betydning på baggrund af de igangværende forhandlin ger med henblik på indgåelse af aftaler med EFTA-landene.
The importance of this judgment is obvious, in view of the negotiations for agreements with EFTA countries.