natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2) a) Skal artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 fortolkes så ledes, at bestemmelsen er til hinder for anven delsen af den i spørgsmål 1 beskrevne lovgiv ning, som har til formål at sikre pensionister med en yngre ægtefælle en mindsteind komst, men som tillige fører til, at den yngre ægtefælle, som ikke har nogen, eller kun en meget lille, indtægt fra erhvervsarbejde, modta ger en ydelse, selv om pensionisten ud over pensionen har egne indtægter eller indtægter fra erhvervsarbejde, som f.eks. en erhvervstil knyttet tillægspension eller investeringsudbytte, i hvilket tilfælde det i princippet ikke er rele vant at sikre en mindsteindkomst?
(2) (a) Is Article 4(1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as precluding application of the legislation de­scribed in question 1, the purpose of which is to guarantee a minimum income for pen­sioners with a younger partner, but which also results in an allowance being granted for the younger partner who has no income from work, or very little, even if in addition to a pension the pensioner receives income of his own from or in connection with work, such as a supplementary occupational pension or investment income, in which case guarantee­ing a minimum income is in principle not relevant?
Da hr. Molenbroek fyldte 65 år, fik han tildelt fuld pension for gifte, dvs. 70% af mindstelønnens netto beløb.
Mr Molenbroek was granted, upon reaching the age of 65, a full married man's pension, i.e., 70% of the net minimum wage.
Sociale Verzekeringsbank (i det følgende benævnt »SVB«) tog hensyn til, at hr. Molenbroeks hu stru, som var yngre, fortsat oppebar en ydelse på grund af uarbejdsdygtighed, og fratrak denne ind komst i det maksimale tillæg, hr. Molenbroek var berettiget til.
The Sociale Verzekerings­bank ('SVB'), taking account of the fact that Mr Molenbroek's wife, who was younger, continued to receive an incapacity allowance, deducted that income from the maximum supplement to which Mr Molen­broek was entitled.
Som følge heraf modtog hr. Molenbroek kun 27,70% af det maksimumtillæg, han var beret tiget til.
As result, Mr Molenbroek received only 27.70% of the maximum supplement to which he was entitled.
Håndbog om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder i Det Europæiske Fællesskab set at ydelsen også kan udbetales, selv om den ikke er afgørende til sikring af et til strækkeligt eksistensgrundlag for pensionisten og den yngre ægtefælle?
Case-law of the European Court of Justice fact that the allowance may also be paid when it is not essential in order to guaran­tee an adequate means of existence for the pensioner and the younger partner?
3) Har uforenelighed med artikel 4, stk. 1, i et tilfælde som det foreliggende til følge, at pen sionister med ægtefæller under 65 år altid, uanset eventuelle indtægter, som oppebæres af den yngre ægtefælle fra eller i forbindelse med erhvervsarbejde, kan kræve (den fulde) ydelse udbetalt?
(3) In a case such as this does incompatibility with Article 4 (1 ) of Directive 79/7/EEC have the re­sult that pensioners with partners under 65 may always, regardless of any income received by the younger partner from or in connection with work, claim the allowance (in full)?
Dom stolen tilføjede, at medlemsstaterne ¡følge dens af gørelse i ovennævnte sag havde et rimeligt skøn med hensyn til arten og gennemførelsen af sociale be skyttelsesforanstaltninger.
The Court went on to mention that, according to its ruling in the abovementioned case, the Member States had a reasonable discretion as to the nature and execution of social protective measures.
Domstolen påpegede deref ter, at AOW ved ikke at tage hensyn til pensioni stens eventuelle anden indkomst sikrede en gensidig indkomst, som mindst svarede til den indkomst, parret ville blive berettiget til, når de begge havde nået pensionsalderen, og tillægget ville blive fjernet.
The Court then pointed out that by not tak­ing into account other possible income of the pen­sioner, the AOW assured a mutual income which at least equalled the income the couple would be enti­tled when both had reached the pensionable age and the supplement would be then eliminated.
I be tragtning af dette konkluderede Domstolen, at tillægget var nødvendigt for at bevare AOW's karakter af en social grundydelse og sikre et ægtepar, hvor den ene ægtefælle endnu ikke havde nået pensions alderen, en mindsteindkomst svarende til den ind komst, de ville oppebære, når de begge blev pensio nister.
In view of this, the Court concluded that the supplement was necessary to preserve the character of the AOW as a basic social benefit and to guarantee a married couple, in which one spouse had not yet reached pensiona­ble age, a minimum income corresponding to that in­come which they would receive when both were pensioners.
Domstolen tilføjede, at den omstændighed, at en pensionist, som modtog tillæg, i visse tilfælde havde yderligere indtægter, under disse omstændighe der ikke fjernede det valgte middels nødvendige ka rakter.
In these circumstances, added the Court, the fact that in some cases a pensioner who re­ceived the supplement had additional income did not remove the necessary character of the means cho­sen.
Den nationale lovgivning opfyldte derfor et le gitimt socialpolitisk formål, og det tillæg, der var fastsat i loven, var både nødvendigt for og egnet til at opnå dette formål og var samtidig begrundet i an dre faktorer end forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
The national legislation, therefore, corresponded to a legitimate purpose of social policy and the sup­plement provided therein was both necessary and sui­table to reach that aim and justified by factors other than discrimination based on grounds of sex.
I betragtning af svaret på spørgsmål 1 og 2 besvare de Domstolen ikke spørgsmål 3.
In view of its answer to questions 1 and 2, the Court did not reply to question 3.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål såle des:
The Court answered the questions submitted to it as follows:
I besvarelse af spørgsmål 1 og 2 henviste Domstolen for det første til sin afgørelse i sag 30/85 — Teuling, hvori den havde fastslået, at det var forbudt at yde en supplerende pensionsydelse i tilfælde af, at pensio nisten forsørgede en ægtefælle, når ydelsen var di rekte eller indirekte knyttet til pensionistens køn.
In reply to questions 1 and 2, the Court first referred to its ruling in Case 30/85 — Teuling, where it had held that the award of a pension supplement in case of a dependent spouse was forbidden when it was directly or indirectly connected with the sex of the pensioner.
For det andet erindrede Domstolen om, at den i samme sag havde udtalt, at et system, ¡følge hvilket der ydedes et tillæg, som, selv om den ikke direkte afhang af pensionisternes køn, tog hensyn til deres ægteskabeli ge eller familiemæssige status, hvilket medførte, at færre kvinder end mænd kunne modtage tillægget, var i strid med artikel 4, stk. 1, i direktiv 79/7. For det tredje bemærkede Domstolen, at det ikke blev bestridt, at mange flere mænd end kvinder modtog tillægget.
In the second place, the Court recalled that in the same case it had declared that a system of benefits providing for a supplement which, alth­ough not directly based on the pensioners' sex, took into account their marital or family status, the result of which was that fewer women than men could ben­efit from the supplement, was contrary to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7.
Ifølge Domstolen skyldtes dette, at i tilfælde af ægtepar er manden som regel den ældste, og selv når han ikke er ældst, oppebærer han som regel en større indtægt, hvilket forhindrer hans hustru i at være berettiget til en tillægspension.
According to the Court, this was caused by the fact that, in married cou­ples, the man is usually the older spouse and, even when he is not, he usually receives a greater income which prevents his wife from being entitled to a pension supplement.
Domstolen udtal te, at under disse omstændigheder var en sådan lov givning principielt ensbetydende med forskelsbehand ling af kvindelige ansatte, medmindre den kunne begrundes med objektive faktorer, som ikke havde no get at gøre med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
Under these conditions, said the Court, such legislation amounted, in principle, to in­direct discrimination against female employees, unless it could be justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination based on grounds of sex.
Dette var tilfældet, når de valgte midler opfyldte et legitimt socialpolitisk formål i den pågældende medlemsstat, og når midlerne var egnede til og nødvendige for at nå dette mål (sag C-229/89 —
This was the case when the chosen means corresponded to a legitimate purpose of the social policy of the Member State involved and were both suitable and necessary to reach that goal (Case C-229/89 — Commission ν Belgium).
Artikel 4, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. de cember 1978 om gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen ikke er til hinder for at anvende en national lovbe stemmelse om alderspensionsforsikring, som — uanset køn — udelukkende lader tildelingen og størrelsen af et tillæg til en pensionsberettiget, hvis ægtefælle, der forsørges, endnu ikke har nået pensionsalderen, afhænge af ægtefællens indtægter fra eller i forbindel-
Article 4(1 ) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be inter­preted as meaning that it does not preclude the appli­cation of national legislation on oldage insurance which, without distinction of sex, makes the grant and amount of an allowance payable to recipients of a pension whose dependent spouse has not yet reached retirement age dependent on the income received by such spouse from or in relation to an occupation.
juli 1962 ønskedes indført i national ret. Endvidere var der tvivl om, hvorvidt hr. Grimaldi kunne gives mu lighed for at bevise, at en sygdom, der ikke var opført på den nationale liste, måtte anses for en erhvervssygdom, således at der på dette grundlag kunne ydes erstatning efter den »blandede« erstat ningsordning i Kommissionens henstilling 66/462 af 20. juli 1966 om vilkårene for erstatning til personer, der rammes af erhvervssygdomme.
addition, the question arose whether Mr Grimaldi could be permitted to prove that a disease not includ­ed in the national list was occupational in origin in order to receive compensation under the 'mixed' sys­tem of compensation provided for by Commission Recommendation 66/462 of 20 July 1966 on the con­ditions for granting compensation to persons suffer­ing from occupational diseases.
Emne: Erhvervssygdomme — retsvirkningerne af en henstilling
Subject-matter: Occupational diseases — Effects of a
Ved dom af 28. oktober 1988 forelagde Tribunal du travail, Bruxelles, i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 177 Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål:
By judgment of 28 October 1988, the tribunal du travail, Brussels, referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: recommendation (EEC Treaty, Article 189(5) and Commission Recommendation to the Member States of 23 July 1962 concerning the adoption of a European schedule of occupational diseases).
1 ) Må det — når henses til de reale hensyn bag ar tikel 189, stk. 1, og EF-Domstolens formålsrettede praksis — på grundlag af en fortolkning af ar tikel 189, stk. 5, antages, at en afgørelse som den, »fællesskabslisten« over erhvervssygdomme er udtryk for, skaber umiddelbare retsvirkninger i en medlemsstat, for så vidt afgørelsen forekommer klar, ubetinget, tilstrækkelig præcis og utvetydig og ikke tillægger medlemsstaten noget skøn med hensyn til det tilsigtede mål, og den er knyttet som bilag til en henstilling fra Kommissionen, som endnu ikke efter mere end 25 år formelt er ble vet omsat til positiv ret i medlemsstatens nationale retsorden?
(1) Does a measure such as the 'European sche­dule' of occupational diseases not have direct effect in a Member State on the basis of an inter­pretation of the fifth paragraph of Article 189 in the light of the spirit of the first paragraph thereof and the teleological approach of the Court's case-law, in so far as the schedule is clear, uncon­ditional, sufficiently certain and unequivocal and does not confer any discretion as to the result to be achieved and in so far as it is annexed to a Commission recommendation which has not been formally implemented in a national legal system after more than 25 years?
Hr. Grimaldi, en vandrende arbejdstager med ita liensk statsborgerskab, arbejdede i Belgien fra 1953 til 1980.
Mr Grimaldi, a migrant worker of Italian nationality, worked in Belgium from 1953 to 1980.
Den 17. maj 1983 ansøgte han hos Fonds des Maladies Professionnelles (i det følgende benævnt »fonden«) om, at det blev anerkendt, at han led af en erhvervssygdom — »Dupuytrens sygdom«, som er en osteartikulær eller nauralgisk sygdom lokaliseret i hænderne, som skyldtes mekaniske rystelser ved an vendelsen af en slaggehammer.
On 17 May 1983, he requested the Fonds des Maladies Profes­sionnelles ('the Fund') to recognize that he was suffer­ing from an industrial disease — 'Dupuytren's con­tracture', which is an osteo-articular or angio-neurotic disease of the hands caused by mechanical vibra­tions from the use of a pneumatic drill.
Fonden afslog an søgningen med den begrundelse, at den pågældende sygdom ikke var opført på den belgiske liste over erhvervssygdomme, og hr. Grimaldi anlagde sag ved Tribunal du travail, Bruxelles.
The Fund re­fused his request on the ground that the disease in question did not appear in the Belgian schedule of oc­cupational diseases, and Mr Grimaldi brought an action before the tribunal du travail, Brussels.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at i modsætning til ordningen i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 173, hvorefter Domstolen ikke kunne ef terprøve lovligheden af henstillinger, tillagde artikel 177 Domstolen en kompetence til uden undtagelse at afgøre præjudicielle spørgsmål om gyldigheden og fortolkningen af retsakter fra Fællesskabets institu tioner.
Before giving its reasoning, the Court stated that unlike Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, which excluded review by it of acts in the nature of recommenda­tions, Article 177 conferred on the Court jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the validity and interpre­tation of all acts of the institutions of the Community without exception.
En sagkyndig erklæring, som retten havde krævet indhentet, konkluderede, at hr. Grimaldi led af ovennævnte sygdom, som ikke var opført på den belgiske liste over erhvervssygdomme, men som kunne sidestilles med »en sygdom, der skyldes overbelast ning... af vævet omkring senerne«.
An expert opinion ordered by the tribunal conclud­ed that Mr Grimaldi was suffering from the aforesaid disease, which was not listed in the Belgian sche­dule of occupational diseases but could be deemed to be 'a disease caused by the overstraining ... of peri­tendinous tissue'.
Sidstnævnte syg dom var nævnt i punkt F.6. b) i den europæiske liste over erhvervssygdomme, som ved henstillingen af 23.
This disease appeared in point F.6(b) of the European schedule of occupational diseases, which the Recommendation of 23 July 1962 recom­mended should be introduced into national law. In
Domstolen udtalte derefter, at selv om spørgsmålet kun henviste til henstillingen af 23. juli 1962, ønskedes
The Court then observed that although the ques­tion referred to it made only mention to the recom­mendation of 23 July 1962, it also sought to ascertain the effects under national law of Recommendation
EF-Domstolens afgørelser rammes af erhvervssygdomme, ikke i sig selv skabe rettigheder for de retsundergivne, som disse kan påbe­råbe sig ved de nationale retsinstanser.
Handbook on equal treatment for men and women in the European Community selves confer rights on individuals upon which the latter may rely before national courts.
De nationale retsinstanser er dog ved afgørelsen af tvister, der ind­bringes for dem, forpligtet til at tage hensyn til hen­stillingerne, navnlig når disse kan bidrage til fortolknin­gen af andre nationale eller fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser.
However, national courts are bound to take those recommen dations into consideration in order to decide disputes submitted to them, in particular where they are ca pable of casting light on the interpretation of other provisions of national or Community law.
I denne sag fandt EFD, at henstillinger, som ikke kan have direkte virkning, da de ikke er retligt bindende (EØF­traktaten, artikel 189, stk. 3), havde »indirekte virkninger« som omhandlet i sag 14/83 —von Colson og sag 79/83 —Harz.
In this case the EG held that recommendations, which cannot have direct effect as they are not legally binding (EEC Treaty, Article 189(3)), do have 'indirect effect' in the sense of Case 14/83 — von Colson and Case 79/83 — Harz.
Ifølge EFD er nationale retter forpligtet til at tage hensyn til henstillinger ved fortolk­ning af enten a) national lovgivning, der tilsigter at gennemføre en sådan henstilling, eller b) fællesskabs­ret, som henstillingen har til formål at udfylde.
According to the EG, na tional courts are under a duty to take recommenda tions into account when interpreting either (a) na tional legislation which seeks to implement such a recommendation or (b) Community legislation which the recommendation seeks to supplement.
Såle­des anvendte EFD begrebet »indirekte virkning«, som oprindelig blev anvendt i forbindelse med direktiver, ι forbindelse med en anden form for fællesskabslovgiv­ning, nemlig henstillinger.
Thus, the EG applied the concept of 'indirect ef fect', originally adopted with respect to directives, to another form of Community legislation, namely recommendations.
det tillige oplyst, hvilke retsvirkninger henstilling 66/462 af 20. juli 1966 havde i national ret.
66/462 of 20 July 1966.
Spørgsmålet måtte herefter forstås således, at det ønskedes afgjort, om de nævnte henstillinger, når der ikke var blevet truffet nogen nationale foranstaltnin­ger til deres gennemførelse, skabte rettigheder for de retsundergivne, som disse kunne påberåbe sig ved de nationale retsinstanser.
The question, therefore, should be understood as asking whether, in the ab sence of any national measure to implement them, those recommendations conferred on individuals rights upon which they might rely before national courts.
Med henblik herpå måtte det først undersøges, om henstillingerne kunne have bindende retsvirkninger.
To this end, it was necessary to ascertain whether they could produce binding effects.
Domstolen påpegede, at henstillinger, der i henhold til traktatens artikel 189, stk. 5, ikke var bindende, i almindelighed blev vedtaget af Fællesskabets institutioner, når disse ikke havde hjemmel i traktaten til at udstede bindende retsakter, eller når de skønnede, at der ikke burde fastsættes regler af mere bindende karakter.
The Court pointed out that recommendations, which ac cording to the fifth paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty were not binding, were generally adopted by the institutions of the Community when they did not have the power under the Treaty to adopt binding measures or when they considered that it was not appropriate to adopt more mandatory rules.
Domstolen udtalte dog, at det måtte undersøges, om indholdet af en retsakt var i overensstemmelse med den form, retsak­ten var blevet givet.
However, said the Court, it should be ascertained whether the content of a measure was wholly consistent with the form attributed to it.
Med hensyn til de i sagen om­handlede to henstillinger fastslog Domstolen efter at have undersøgt de omstændigheder, hvorunder de var vedtaget, at der utvivlsomt var tale om henstillin­ger, dvs. foranstaltninger, der end ikke for adressa­terne tilsigtede at være bindende.
As regards the two recommen dations at issue in the present case, after having examined the circumstances in which they were adopt ed, the Court took the opinion that they were true recommendations, i.e., measures which, even as re gards the persons to whom they were addressed, were not intended to produce binding effects.
Henstillingerne kun­ne derfor ikke skabe nogen rettigheder, som private kunne påberåbe sig ved en national retsinstans.
Conse quently, they could not create rights upon which indi viduals might rely before a national court.
Dom­stolen understregede dog, at de omhandlede hen­stillinger Me kunne anses for at være ganske uden retsvirkninger.
However, the Court stressed that the measures in questions could not be regarded as having no legal effect.
De nationale retsinstanser skulle ved afgørelsen af tvister, der indbragtes for dem, tage hen­syn til henstillinger, navnlig når disse kunne bidrage til fortolkningen af nationale bestemmelser udstedt til gennemførelse heraf, eller når der var tale om hen­stillinger, som havde til formål at udfylde bindende fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser.
The national courts were bound to take recommendations into consideration in order to decide disputes sub mitted to them, in particular where they cast light on the interpretation of national measures adopted in order to implement them or where they were designed to supplement binding Community provisions.
På denne baggrund besvarede Domstolen det fore­lagte spørgsmål således:
On those grounds, the Court replied to the question referred to it as follows:
Når henses til EØF­traktatens artikel 189, stk. 5, kan Kommissionens henstilling af 23. juli 1962 om ind­førelse af en fællesskabsliste over erhvervssygdom­me og Kommissionens henstilling 66/462 af 20. juli 1966 om vilkårene for erstatning til personer, der
In the light of the fifth paragraph of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, the Commission Recommendation of 23 July 1962 concerning the adoption of the European schedule of industrial diseases and Commission Recommendation 66/462 of 20 July 1966 on the conditions for granting compensation to persons suf fering from occupational diseases cannot in them-
Emne: Konsekvent fortolkning af national lovgivning (Artikel 11 i Rådets direktiv 68/151/EØF af 9. marts 1968).
Subject-matter: Consistent interpretation of national law (Article 11 of EEC Council Directive 68/151 of 9 March 1 968).
Marleasing nedlagde under henvisning til artiklerne 1261 og 1275 i den spanske Código civil, hvorefter aftaler uden retsgrund eller med ulovlig retsgrund var uden retsvirkning, principalt påstand om, at stiftelsesoverenskomsten for Comercial erklæredes ugyldig, ¡det selskabet var stiftet uden gyl dig retsgrund som proforma-retshandel med hen blik på besvigelse af medstifteren af Comercial, selska bet Barviesas kreditorer.
Marleas­ing's primary claim, based on Articles 1261 and 1275 of the Spanish Civil Code, according to which contracts without a cause or whose cause was un­lawful had no legal effect, was for a declaration that the founders' contract establishing La Comercial was void on the ground that the establishment of the company lacked cause, was a sham transaction and was carried out in order to defraud the creditors of Barviesa SA, a co­founder of La Comercial.
Comercial påstod frifindelse, bl.a. under påberåbelse af, at artikel 11 i di rektiv 68/151, der indeholdt en udtømmende liste over de tilfælde, hvor selskaber er ugyldige, ikke om fattede manglende retsgrund.
La Co­mercial contended that the action should be dismissed in its entirety on the ground, in particular, that Arti­cle 11 of Directive 68/151, which listed exhaustively the cases in which the nullity of a company might be ordered, did not include lack of cause amongst them.