natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen havde ved Barber-dommen4) fastslået, at pensionsydelser udbetalt i henhold til en privat erhvervstilknyttet pensionsordning henhørte under begrebet løn som defineret i artikel 119; af hensyn til retssikkerheden (risiko for med tilbagevirkende kraft at forstyrre den finansielle ligevægt i erhvervstilknyttede pensionskasser) traf Domstolen dog ved samme dom af gørelse om at begrænse den tidsmæssige retsvirkning af denne dom: EF-traktatens artikel 119 kan således ikke påberåbes med henblik på krav om pensionsrettigheder for beskæftigelsesperioder forud for datoen for dommen (bortset fra arbejdstagere, der før dette tidspunkt havde anlagt sag). Efter denne domsafsigelse opstod der en række spørgsmål, som Domstolen delvis havde besvaret ved dommene af 6. oktober 1993 5) (Ten Oever-sagen) og af
In Barber^ the Court of Justice held that pensions paid by private occupational schemes were within the definition of remuneration for the purposes of the Article; but it also decided that for the sake of certainty as to the law (risk of seriously disrupting the financial balance of occupational schemes) there should be limits on the periods to which the rule applied, and Article 119 could not be relied on for that purpose in respect of pensions relating to service prior to the judgment unless proceedings were already in hand by then.
14. december 1993 ') (Morom'-sagen), bl.a. hvad angik tidsbegrænsningen af Barber-dommens retsvirkning.
In Ten Oever2and Moroni3 the Court answered some of them, notably as regards the effects in time of the Barber judgment.
Gennem seks domme af 28. september 19942) bekræftede Domstolen de to foregående domme, som den nærmere redegjorde for, og traf afgørelse i de endnu uafklarede spørgsmål. Hvad angår de ydelser, f.eks. pensionsydelser, som der i løbet af arbejdstagerens karriere erhverves ret til, kan ligelønsprincippet kun påberåbes i forbindelse med ydelser for beskæftigelsesperioder efter den 17. maj 1990.
On 28 September it gave judgment in a further six cases confirming and clarifying its earlier rulings and settling the issues that were still outstanding.4 Where entitlement to benefits is accumulated gradually throughout working life, as is the case with pensions, equal treatment applies solely in respect of benefits due by reason of employment after 17 May 1990 (the date of the Barber judgment).
Hvad deri mod angår ydelser, som ikke afhænger af en beskæftigelsesperiode, f.eks. engangsydelser i tilfælde af dødsfald, er det datoen for den begivenhed, der udløser ydelsen, der er det afgørende: Efter den 17. maj 1990 skal sådanne ydelser i henhold til princippet om ligebehandling udbetales, uanset om be skæftigelsesperioderne ligger forud for eller efter datoen for Barber-dommen.
But where benefits are not related to the duration of employment, as is the case with lump-sum death benefits, what matters is the date of the event giving rise to the entitlement; if it is after 17 May 1990, the equal treatment principle applies without any distinction being made for periods of employment before and after the Barber judgment.
De erhvervstilknyttede socialsikringsordninger, der indebærer forskelsbehandling, skal tilpasse deres bestemmelser, så de bringes i overensstemmelse med princippet om ligebehandling.
Occupational social security schemes that applied discriminatory treatment must adjust their rules in line with the equal treatment principle.
For så vidt angår beskæftigelsesperioder mellem datoen for Barber-dommen og den dato, hvor de nye bestemmelser træder i kraft, skal de ugunstigt stillede arbejdstagere indrømmes samme fordele, som de priviligerede arbejdstagere har haft.
For all periods between Barber and the entry into operation of the new rules, persons in the category less well catered for must be given the benefits payable to the better-off category.
Efter at der er trådt bestemmelser, som skal afskaffe forskelsbehandling, i kraft, er artikel 119 ikke til hinder for, at ligebehandling tilvejebringes ved at begrænse de privilegerede arbejdstageres fordele.
After the new rules putting an end to the discrimination come into operation, it is legitimate under Article 119 for the measures establishing equal treatment to do so by levelling down rather than up.
Domstolen afviste ved dom af 5. oktober') det annullationssøgsmål, som Tyskland havde anlagt mod den importordning, som er fastsat i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 404/93 af 13. februar 1993 om den fælles markedsordning for bananer4), hvorefter de importører, der hidtil havde markedsført EF-bananer eller traditionelle AVS-bananer, tildeltes et toldkontingent på 30% og de øvrige et toldkontingent på 70%.
On 5 October the Court dismissed an application by Germany5for the annulment of the import arrangements laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organization of the market in bananas,6under which 30% of a tariff quota was allocated to traders who had
Forordningen begrænser heller ikke ejendomsretten, da ingen importør kan hævde at have ejendomsret til sin del af markedet.
Case C-262/88 [1990] ECR 1-1889; Twenty-fourth General Report, point 1056.
Heller ikke retten til fri erhvervsudøvelse berøres, fordi de begrænsninger, der indføres ved forordningen, ikke be-
Case C-109/91 [1993] ECR 1-4879; Twentv-seventh General Report, point 1145.
Dom af 14. december 1993, sag C-l 10/91. Sag C-200/91, Colorali Pension Trustees/Russell; sag C-408/92; sag C-7/93; sag C-28/93; sag C-57/93; sag C-128/93.
Case C-110/91 [1993] ECR 6591.
Sag C-280/93, Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland/Rådet.
Case C-280/93 Germany ν Council, not yet reported.
EFT L 47 af 25.2.1993 og 27. almindelige beretning, nr. 929.
OJ L 47, 25.2.1993; Twenty-seventh General Report, point 929.
477 grænser denne ret med hensyn til realiteten og desuden er i overensstemmelse med målsætningen om almindelig fællesskabsinteresse (integration af de nationale markeder og overholdelse af Lomé-konventionen).
The Court held that this difference in treatment between importers did not constitute discrimination, bearing in mind the differing situations of the various categories of traders before the common organization of the market was introduced, which entailed the striking of a balance between the two categories.
Domstolen anførte med hensyn til foranstaltningernes overholdelse af proportionalitetsprincippet, at Fællesskabets lovgivende instanser har en stor rådemargen inden for landbrugspolitikken og at kun foranstaltninger, der er klart uegnede i forhold til deres mål kan være ulovlige.
As regards the proportionality of the measures in question, the Court pointed out that, in matters relating to the common agricultural policy, the Community legislature had broad discretionary powers and that the legality of a measure could be affected only if it were manifestly inappropriate for achieving the objective pursued.
Derfor er det i det foreliggende tilfælde Rådets opgave at forene de bananproducerende og ikke-ba-nanproducerende landes modstridende interesser, og Domstolen skal ikke søge at erstatte de foranstaltninger, som Rådet har valgt, med sine egne, så længe det ikke er påvist, at førstnævnte er klart uegnede.
In the case in point, the Council had to reconcile the conflicting interests of Member States which produced bananas and others which did not and the Court could not substitute its assessment for that of the Council on the choice of measures, if those measures had not been proved to be manifestly inappropriate.
Desuden påpegede Domstolen, at den ikke kan tage GATT-bestemmelserne i betragtning ved vurderingen af en forordnings lovlighed, heller ikke i det tilfælde, hvor en medlemsstat klager, undtagen hvis der var tale om, at Fællesskabet vil imødekomme en særlig forpligtelse, som det har påtaget sig inden for rammerne af GATT, eller der udtrykkeligt i fællesskabsbestemmelserne henvises til be stemte GATT-bestemmelser.
The Court also held that it could not take into consideration provisions of GATT in assessing the lawfulness of a regulation in an action brought by a Member State, unless the Community intended to implement a particular obligation entered into within the framework of GATT or the Community act expressly referred to specific provisions of GATT.
Domstolen fastslog ved dom af 19. januar1), at der ifølge Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF af 2. april 1979 om beskyttelse af vilde fugle2) er pligt til at nå et bestemt resultat, nemlig at sikre en fuldstændig beskyttelse af ar terne ved fastsættelse af datoerne for jagtens afslutning. Således er enhver metode, der fører til, at en vis procentdel af eksemplarer af en fugleart ikke opnår en sådan beskyttelse, uforenelig med direktivet.
In Case C-435/92' the Court held that Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds2imposes an obligation as to the result to be achieved, namely full protection of species in decisions as to open and closed seasons; any decision which has the effect that a certain percentage of birds does not enjoy the benefit of that protection is incompatible with the Directive.
Den fælles handelspolitik - udenrigshandelen
Common commercial policy and external relations
Kommissionen fremsatte overfor Domstolen en begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler med sigte på, at Domstolen skulle afsige kendelse om, at Den Hellenske Republik, indtil der afsiges dom i hovedsagen, hæver han delsembargoen over for den tidligere jugoslaviske republik Makedonien.
The Commission applied to the Court of Justice for interim measures ordering Greece to suspend its trade embargo on the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On 29 June the Court declined to order such measures,3chiefly
FÆLLESSKABSRETTEN gengæld bekræftede Domstolen, at de juridiske begrundelser, Kommissionen havde fremsat, umiddelbart virkede tilstrækkeligt relevante og seriøse, hvad det principielle i sagen angik.
COMMUNITY LAW on the ground that the assessment of the facts required for the order would be of such a nature as to prejudge the main action. But the Court did state that the Commission's legal arguments were prima facie relevant and serious enough in the main action.
Den 15. april undertegnedes i Marrakechì) efter Uruguay-runden aftalerne om oprettelse af Verdenshandelsorganisationen (WTO)og de dertil hørende bilag, bl a. de multilaterale aftaler om varehandelen, den almindelige overenskomst om handel med tjenester (GATS) og aftalen om de aspekter af den intellektuelle ejendomsret, der vedrører samhandelen, herunder handelen med efterligninger (TRIPs). Kommissionen havde tidligere i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 228, stk. 6, forelagt Domstolen en anmodning om udtalelse, der væsentligst drejede sig om, hvorvidt Fællesskabet havde enekompetence til at indgå disse aftaler.
On 15 April the agreement resulting from the Uruguay Round and establishing the World Trade Organization was signed in Marrakesh, together with its annexes, which include the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), including trade in counterfeit goods.1The Commission had previously submitted to the Court a request for an Opinion under Article 228(6) of the EC Treaty, which centred mainly on the question whether the Community had exclusive powers to conclude these agreements.
Domstolen bragte ved sin udtalelse af 15. november2) betydelig klarhed på dette område især med hensyn til fortolkningen af begrebet »fælles handelspolitik« (der henhører under Fællesskabets enekompetence).
In its Opinion of 15 November2the Court shed considerable light on this question, in particular as regards the interpretation of the concept of the common commercial policy (which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Community).
Domstolen konkluderede, at Fællesskabet i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 113 (fælles handelspolitik) har enekompetence til at indgå de multilaterale aftaler om varehandelen.
The Court concluded that, under Article 113 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the common commercial policy), the Community had exclusive powers to conclude the Multilateral Agreements on Trade in Goods.
Denne kompetence dækker aftalen om tekniske handelshindringer og omfatter også landbrugsprodukter og toldaspekterne af handelen med Euratom- og EKSF-produkter.
These powers covered the Agreement on Technical Barriers and also extended to agricultural products, tariff aspects of Euratom products and ECSC products.
Medlemsstaterne kan således kun indgå internationale aftaler om disse produkter, hvis der er tale om aftaler, der specifikt vedrører EKSF-produkter.
The Court held that Member States had the power to conclude international agreements on these products only in so far as such agreements related specifically to ECSC products.
Domstolen mente endvidere, at Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne deler kompetencen til at indgå GATS-overenskomsten.
The Court then found that the power to conclude the GATS was shared between the Community and its Member States.
Den bekræftede dermed, at be grebet fælles handelspolitik skal fortolkes bredt og dynamisk og konkluderede udtrykkeligt, at tjenesteydelser kan falde under anvendelsesområdet for artikel 113.
It confirmed that the concept of the common commercial policy must be given a broad and non-restrictive interpretation and explicitly concluded that services may fall within the scope of Article 113.
Dog præciserede Domstolen, at af de fire måder for udførelsen af tjenesteydelser ifølge GATS 3) er kun grænseoverskridende leveringer analoge med samhandel med varer, der naturligvis henhører under den fælles handelspolitik i traktatens forstand.
However, the Court pointed out that, of the four modes of supplying services defined in the GATS,3only cross-border supplies were 'not unlike trade in goods, which is unquestionably covered by the common commercial policy within the meaning of the Treaty'.
Der er derfor ingen særlig grund til, at en sådan tjenesteydelse ikke omfattes af den fælles handelspolitik.
There was therefore no particular reason why such a supply of services should not fall within the concept of the common commercial policy.
De øvrige tre udførelsesmåder falder derimod ikke under artikel 113, da de indebærer,
The other three modes of service are excluded from the scope of Article 113 as they involve the movement of legal and natural
Domstolens udtalelse 1/94 af 15. november 1994 om Det Europæiske Fællesskabs kompetence til at indgå aftalerne efter Uruguay-runden.
Opinion 1/94 of the Court of Justice of 15 November 1994 on the competence of the European Community to conclude the agreements resulting from the Uruguay Round.
De fire udførelsesmåder for tjenesteydelser ifølge GATS er følgende: 1) Grænseoverskridende leveringer, der ikke indebærer bevægelse af personer; 2) Forbrug i udlandet, der indebærer, at »forbrugeren« rejser til det område i det medlemsland af WTO, hvor tjenesteyderen er etableret; 3) Han delsmæssig tilstedeværelse, dvs. at der er etableret en filial eller afdeling på det WTO-lands område, hvor tjenesten skal ydes; og 4) Tilstedeværelsen af fysiske personer fra et WTO-land på et andet medlems område.
The four modes are: cross-border supplies, which do not involve any movement of persons; consumption abroad, which entails movement of the consumer to the WTO member country where the service supplier is established; supply through commercial presence, i.e. the presence of a branch or subsidiary in the member country where the service is provided; and, lastly, the presence of natural persons from one member country in the territory of any other member country.
479 at fysiske og juridiske personer bevæger sig, hvilket er et andet mål i traktaten end målet om indførelse af en fælles handelspolitik.
449 persons and are covered by a Treaty objective distinct from that of establishing a common commercial policy.
Domstolen bekræftede, for så vidt angår de øvrige måder for udførelse af tjenesteydelser i GATS forstand, at dens EFTA-retspraksis er gældende, dvs. efterhånden som der indføres fælles regler, der kan påvirkes af internationale forpligtelser, mister medlemsstaterne deres kompetence til fordel for Fællesskabet.
With respect to the other modes of supplying services defined in the GATS, the Court confirmed its AETR judgment to the effect that Member States lose their powers to the benefit of the Community as and when common rules come into being which could be affected by international obligations.
Domstolen anerkendte, at Fællesskabet kan benytte de beføjelser, som det har fået overdraget som led i den frie etableringsret og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser til internt nærmere at angive, hvorledes statsborgere fra tredjelande skal behandles.
The Court acknowledged that the Community may use the powers conferred on it under provisions on the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services in order to lay down internal rules on the treatment of nationals of non-member countries.
Den konkluderede på grundlag deraf, at Fællesskabet erhverver en ekstern enekompetence, når det i sine in terne retsregler har indsat bestemmelser om behandlingen af statsborgere fra tredjelande, eller det udtrykkeligt har overdraget sine institutioner beføjelse til at forhandle med tredjelande, eller når Fællesskabet har gennemført fuldstændig harmonisering af ordningen for adgang for selvstændige erhvervsudøvende.
It therefore concluded that the Community acquired exclusive external powers whenever it had included in internal legislative acts provisions relating to the treatment of nationals of non-member countries or expressly conferred on its institutions powers to negotiate with non-member countries, or again where the Community had achieved complete harmonization of the rules governing access to a self-employed activity.
Da Fællesskabet endnu ikke har gennemført en sådan harmonisering i alle sektorer, konkluderede Domstolen, at Fællesskabet og medlems staterne deler kompetencen til at indgå GATS.
As harmonization was not yet complete in all these fields, the Court concluded that the power to conclude the GATS was shared between the Community and its Member States.
Domstolen fulgte samme logik med hensyn til TRIPs for at komme til den konklusion, at Fællesskabet og medlemsstaterne deler kompetencen, fordi der i dag kun gælder en delvis harmonisering af de forskellige former for intellektuel ejendomsret og at den endog mangler på visse områder.
As regards the TRIPs, the Court followed the same reasoning — and arrived at the conclusion that powers are shared between the Community and its Member States as the harmonization of different intellectual property rights is still only partial or, in some fields, completely non-existent.
Dom stolen havde forinden fastslået, at intellektuel ejendomsret ikke henhører under EF-traktatens artikel 113, undtagen EF-foranstaltningerne om forbudet mod efterligningers ekspedition til fri omsætning.
The Court had previously held that intellectual property rights did not fall within the scope of Article 113 of the EC Treaty, except as regards Community measures prohibiting the release for free circulation of counterfeit goods.
For de øvrige områder af den intellektuelle ejendomsret afhænger Fællesskabets eksterne kompetence derfor af den interne harmoniseringssituation, men Domstolen præciserede, at Fællesskabet har intern kompetence til at harmonisere nationale regler, der kan have en direkte indflydelse på fællesmarkedets indførelse eller funktion.
In other areas of intellectual property, the Community's external powers therefore depend on the extent of internal harmonization, although the Court also pointed out that the Community does have internal powers to harmonize national rules which may have a direct effect on the establishment and functioning of the common market; there is no domain reserved for the Member States in this respect.
Medlemsstaterne har ikke enekompetence med hensyn dertil.
Finally, the Court acknowledged as entirely legitimate the Commission's concern that if powers were shared between the Community and the Member States, it would undermine the Community's unity of action vis-à-vis the outside world and weaken its negotiating position in the WTO.
Endelig anerkendte Domstolen, at Kommissionens bekymringer med hensyn til risikoen for, at Fællesskabets fælles aktion drages i tvivl i udlandet, og for, at dets forhandlingsposition svækkes i WTO, såfremt kompetencen de les, er helt berettiget.
The Court referred back to its Opinion in the ¡LO case (Opinion No 2/91), which required the Member States and the Community to cooperate closely and to present a united front in the international representation of the Community.
Domstolen mindede i den forbindelse om sin dom i ILO-sagen (udtalelse 2/91), hvori den pålagde medlemsstaterne og Fælles skabet at oprette en fælles international repræsentation og pligt til at arbejde snævert sammen, og den fremhævede, at denne samarbejdspligt er endnu mere nødvendig på WTO-området, hvor der er en uløselig forbindelse mellem de forskellige aftaler, hvilket ses af de gensidige gengældelsesordninger.
The Court stressed that the obligation to cooperate was all the more imperative in the case of the WTO as the agreements were inextricably interlinked, as demonstrated by the 'cross-retaliation' mechanism.
Ved beslutning af 21. december 1988 ') havde Kommissionen på lagt en række virksomheder i den kemiske sektor (PVC) bøder for overtrædelse af artikel 85.
By decision of 21 December 19881the Commission fined a number of PVC firms for violations of Article 85.
Sagen var blevet indbragt for Retten i Første Instans, der den 27. februar 1992 havde erklæret denne beslutning for en nullitet på grund af formelle mangler.
The decision was contested in the Court of First Instance, which, on 27 January 1992, declared it non-existent on grounds of its procedural defects.
Kommissionen havde appelleret sagen til Dom stolen, der ved dom af 15. juni2) delvis gav Kommissionen medhold, idet den ikke anså, at manglerne ved proceduren for vedtagelse af beslutningen var tilstrækkeligt alvorlige til at begrunde annullering af denne beslutning. Hvad dette spørgsmål angik, ophævede Domstolen den dom, Retten i Før ste Instans havde afsagt.
The Commission appealed to the Court of Justice, which on 15 June gave judgment2partly upholding its claim: it declared that the irregularities in the adoption procedure were not so serious as to warrant a finding that the decision never existed and set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance on that point.
Imidlertid annullerede Domstolen ligeledes Kommissionens beslutning, fordi der forelå tilsidesættelse af væsentlige forskrifter af formel art på grund af overtrædelse af den dengang gældende forretningsordens artikel 12 (proceduren for stadfæstelse af beslutninger).
But it went on to annul the decision thus resurrected on grounds of serious formal defects, notably for failure to comply with Article 12 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure that were in force at the time (procedure for authenticating decisions).
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde Kommissionen kun stadfæstet referatet af det møde, hvor den havde vedtaget beslutningen.
The problem was that the Commission had authenticated only the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was adopted.
I øvrigt udtalte Domstolen sig også om anvendelsen af bemyndigelsesproceduren, og den bekræftede bl.a., at kun almindelige forvaltningsforanstaltninger kan gøres til genstand for en bemyndigelse, hvilket udelukker beslutninger, hvorved det konstateres, at artikel 85 er blevet overtrådt.
The Court reviewed the use made by the Commission of the delegation of powers procedure and confirmed that it may be used exclusively for routine management measures, which do not include decisions finding infringements of Article 85.
I forbindelse med udtalelsen fremhævede Domstolen, at det er af afgørende betydning for Kommissionens anvendelse af dens beføjelser, at kollegialitetsprincippet respekteres.
It thus underlined the fundamental importance of the principle of collective responsibility in the exercise of the Commission's functions.