natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den omstændighed, at ACC kun har givet AMS udførelsen af visse anlægsarbejder i underentreprise, er således ikke tilstrækkelig til, at direktivet ikke kan finde anvendelse, såfremt det godtgøres, at AMS i forbindelse med den pågældende disposition havde erhvervet en sådan organiseret helhed af elementer fra ACC, at AMS varigt kunne udføre sine anlægsarbejder i Prince of Wales-kulminen.
So, the fact that ACC only subcontracted to AMS the performance of certain driveage work would not be sufficient to preclude application of the Directive if it were established that in that transaction AMS had acquired from ACC a body of assets which would enable it to carry out driveage work on a permanent basis at the Prince of Wales Collieries.
I lyset af ovennævnte fortolkningselementer som helhed tilkommer det den forelæggende ret at afgøre, om der i hovedsagen er sket en overførsel.
It is for the referring court to establish, in the light of all the interpretative criteria, whether in the case of which it is seised a transfer has taken place.
Anden del af det første spørgsmål samt det andet spørgsmål må herefter besvares med, at direktivet finder anvendelse i en situation, hvor et selskab i en koncern beslutter at give et andet selskab i samme koncern kontrakter om anlæg af minegange i underentreprise, såfremt der samtidig overføres en økonomisk enhed mellem de to selskaber.
The answer to the second part of the first question and the second question must therefore be that the Directive applies to a situation in which a company belonging to a group decides to subcontract to another company in the same group contracts for driveage work in mines in so far as the transaction involves the transfer of an economic entity between the two companies.
DOM AF 2.12.1999 — SAG C-234/98 helhed af personer og aktiver, der gør det muligt at udøve en økonomisk virksomhed med et selvstændigt formål.
'economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective.
40 De udgifter, der er afholdt af den franske regering, af Det Forenede Kongeriges regering og af Kommissionen, som har afgivet indlæg for Domstolen, kan ikke erstattes.
40 The costs incurred by the United Kingdom and French Governments and by the Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
Da sagens behandling i forhold til hovedsagens parter udgør et led i den sag, der verserer for den nationale ret, tilkommer det denne at træffe afgørelse om sagens omkostninger.
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the actions pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
DOMSTOLEN (Femte Afdeling) vedrørende de spørgsmål, der er forelagt af Industrial Tribunal, Leeds, ved afgørelse af 5. maj 1998, for ret:
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber), in answer to the questions referred to it by the Leeds Industrial Tribunal by decision of 5 May 1998, hereby rules:
forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder, bedrifter eller dele af bedrifter finder anvendelse på en overførsel mellem to selskaber i samme koncern, som har ejere, ledelse, lokaler og arbejde til fælles.
ALLEN AND OTHERS rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses can apply to a transfer between two companies in the same group which have the same ownership, management and premises and which are engaged in the same works.
Begrebet økonomisk enhed omfatter en organiseret helhed af personer og aktiver, der gør det muligt at udøve en økonomisk virksomhed med et selvstændigt formål.
The term 'economic entity' refers to an organised grouping of persons and assets facilitating the exercise of an economic activity which pursues a specific objective.
Sag C­299/98 Ρ
Case C-299/98 Ρ
CPL Imperial 2 SpA og Unifrigo Gadus Srl mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
CPL Imperial 2 SpA and Unifrigo Gadus Srl ν Commission of the European Communities
»Appel — efteropkrævning af told — forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 — forordning (EØF) nr. 2454/93 — åbenbart, at appellen skal afvises og forkastes«
(Appeal — Post-clearance recovery of customs duties — Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 — Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 — Appeal manifestly inadmissible and manifestly unfounded)
Domstolens kendelse (Fjerde Afdeling) af 9. december 1999
Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 December 1999
Appel — anbringender — fejlagtig bedømmelse af faktiske omstændigheder — for­malitetsmangel — afvisning — retlig bedømmelse af faktiske omstændigheder — formaliteten
Appeals — Pleas in law — Erroneous assessment of the facts — Not admissible — Dismissal — Legal characterisation of the facts — Admissible
De Europæiske Fællesskabers egne indtægter — efteropkrævning af import­ og eksportafgifter— betingelserne ifølge artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1697/79 for at undlade efteropkrævning — »en fejl, som de kompetente myndigheder selv har begået« — foreligger ikke — god tro hos den importør, der er forpligtet til at udrede toldskylden — ingen virkning
Own resources of the European Communities — Post­clearance recovery of import duties or export duties — Criteria for waiver of recovery laid down in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79— Error made by the competent authorities themselves — None — Good faith of the importer responsible for paying the customs debt — No effect
Appel — anbringender — anbringende, der fremsættes første gang under appellen — afvisning
Appeals — Pleas in law — Plea put forward for the first time in the appeal proceedings — Inadmissible
Retspleje — fremsættelse af nye anbringender under sagen — betingelser — betingel­sernes gyldighed under appellen — anbringende, der fremsættes første gang i replikken, og som støttes på retlige omstændigheder, der stammer fra tiden før appellen — afvisning
Procedure — Introduction of new pleas in law in the course of the proceedings — Conditions — Application to the appeal procedure — Plea raised for the first time in the reply and based on matters of law which had come to light before those proceedings — Not admissible
(Domstolens procesreglement, art. 42, stk. 2, og art. 118) traktatens artikel 168 A kompetence til at gennemføre sin kontrol med Rettens fastlæggelse af disse faktiske omstændigheders beskaffenhed og dens retslige konklusioner heraf.
(Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 42(2) and 118) has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the EC Treaty to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.
Det fremgår af traktatens artikel 168 A (nu artikel 225 EF) og artikel 51, stk. 1, i statutten for Domstolen, at appel er begrænset til retsspørgsmål og skal være støttet på, at Retten savner kompetence, at der er begået retter­gangsfejl, som krænker appellantens interesser, eller at Retten har tilsidesat fællesskabsretten.
As is apparent from Article 168a of the EC Treaty (now Article 225 EC) and the first paragraph of Article 51 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice, an appeal is to be limited to points of law and must be based on the grounds of lack of competence of the Court of First Instance, a breach of procedure before it which adversely affects the interests of the appellant or an infringe­ment of Community law by the Court of First Instance.
Appel kan kun støttes på, at Retten har tilsidesat visse retsregler, idet enhver bedømmelse af faktisk karakter er udelukket.
An appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
Alene Retten har kompe­tence til på den ene side at fastlægge de faktiske omstændigheder i sagen, når bortses fra tilfælde, hvor den indholds­mæssige urigtighed af dens konstate­ringer følger af akterne i den sag, den behandler, og på den anden side til at tage stilling til disse faktiske omstæn­digheder.
The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdic­tion, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the docu­ments submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
Når Retten har fastlagt eller vurderet de faktiske omstændigheder, har omvendt Domstolen i medfør af
Where the Court of First Instance has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice
Efter artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1697/79 om efteropkrævning af import­ og eksportafgifter skal tre kumulative betingelser være opfyldt, for at de kompetente myndigheder kan undlade at foretage efteropkrævning af importafgifter, nemlig at afgiften ikke er opkrævet som følge af en fejl, som de kompetente myndigheder har begået, at debitor har handlet i god tro, og i forbindelse med toldangivelsen har overholdt samtlige bestemmelser i de gældende forskrifter.
Under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 on the post­clearance recovery of import duties or export duties, three cumulative conditions must be satisfied for the purposes of waiver by the competent authorities of post­clearance recovery of import duties, namely that non­collection must have been due to an error by the authorities, that the person liable must have acted in good faith and that he must have complied with all the provi­sions laid down by the legislation in force so far as his customs declaration is concerned.
CPL IMPERIAL 2 OG UNIFRIGO MOD KOMMISSIONEN
CPL IMPERIAL 2 AND UNIFRIGO V COMMISSION
Hvad den førstnævnte betingelse angår kan den ikke anses for opfyldt, når de kompetente myndigheder er blevet vildledt, navnlig vedrørende varernes oprindelse, af afgiftsskyldners urigtige angivelser, som myndighederne ikke skal kontrollere eller bedømme gyldig heden af.
With regard to the first condition, this cannot be regarded as satisfied if the competent authorities were misled, in particular as to the origin of the goods, by incorrect declarations on the part of the exporter, the validity of which they did not have to check or assess.
Således giver kun fejl, som kan tilskrives de kompetente myndigheders aktive adfærd, ret til, at efter opkrævning af told undlades.
Only errors attributable to acts of the competent authorities confer entitlement to the waiver of post-clearance recovery of customs duties.
Domstolen at fremføre et anbringende, der ikke er blevet fremført for Retten er ensbetydende med en adgang til at forelægge Domstolen — der har en begrænset kompetence i appelsager — en mere omfattende tvist end den, der blev forelagt Retten.
party to be allowed to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it had not raised before the Court of First Instance, that would enable it to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a case of wider ambit than that which came before the Court of First Instance.
Under en appel har Domstolen således kun kompetence til at prøve Rettens bedømmelse af anbringender, der er blevet behandlet af Retten.
In an appeal, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is confined to review of the assessment made by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.
Endvidere kan debitor, når varen er indført i god tro, ikke gøre gældende, at princippet om respekt for den berettigede forventning er tilsidesat, da det påhviler de erhvervsdrivende selv i deres kontraktforhold at træffe de foranstaltninger, der kan afværge risikoen for en efteropkrævning.
Moreover, the person liable, a bona fide importer, cannot claim that the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations has been infringed where it is the responsibility of traders to make the necessary arrangements in their contractual relations in order to guard against the risks of an action for post-clearance recovery.
Artikel 42, stk. 2, i Domstolens procesreglement, der ifølge samme reglements artikel 118 finder anvendelse på for handlingerne for Domstolen i sager, der angår appel af en afgørelse fra Retten, bestemmer, at nye anbringender ikke må fremsættes under sagens behandling, medmindre de støttes på retlige eller faktiske omstændigheder, som er kommet frem under retsforhandlingerne.
Article 42(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, which is applicable to appeal proceedings by virtue of Article 118 of those Rules, provides that no new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.
Et anbringende, der fremføres for første gang af appellanten i replikken under appelsagen, og som vedrører en forordning, der blev vedtaget og offentliggjort før appelskriftets indgivelse, skal således afvises.
Therefore a plea raised for the first time by the appellant in its reply in the proceedings before the Court of Justice, concerning a regulation adopted and published before the date on which the appeal was lodged, must be rejected as manifestly inadmissible
DOMSTOLENS KENDELSE (Fjerde Afdeling) 9. december 1999 *
ORDER OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) 9 December 1999 *
I sag C­299/98 P,
In Case C-299/98 P,
Unifrigo Gadus Srl, Napoli (Italien), ved advokat G. Celona, Milano, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg hos advokat G. Margue, 20, rue Philippe II, appellanter, angående appel af dom afsagt den 9. juni 1998 af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans (Tredje Afdeling) i de forenede sager T­10/97 og T­11/97, Unifrigo og CPL Imperial 2 mod Kommissionen (Sml.
Unifrigo Gadus Sri, established at Naples (Italy), represented by G. Celona, of the Milan Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of G. Margue, 20 Rue Philippe II, appellants,
II, s. 2231), hvori der er nedlagt påstand om ophævelse af denne dom, den anden part i appelsagen:
APPEAL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97 Unifrigo and CPL Imperial 2 ν Commission [1998] ECR 11-2231, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being:
Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber ved P. Stancanelli, Kommissio­nens Juridiske Tjeneste, som befuldmægtiget, og med valgt adresse i Luxembourg
Commission of the European Communities, represented by P. Stancanelli, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
CPL IMPERIAL 2 OG UNIFRIGO MOD KOMMISSIONEN hos C. Gómez de la Cruz, Kommissionens Juridiske Tjeneste, Wagnercentret, Kirchberg, sagsøgt i første instans, har
CPL IMPERIAL 2 AND UNIFRIGO V COMMISSION at the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg, defendant in the proceedings at first instance,
DOMSTOLEN (Fjerde Afdeling) sammensat af afdelingsformanden, D.A.O. Edward (refererende dommer), og dommerne PJ.G. Kapteyn og H. Ragnemalm, generaladvokat: N. Fennelly justitssekretær: R. Grass, efter at have hørt generaladvokaten, afsagt følgende
THE COURT (Fourth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, RJ.G. Kapteyn and H. Ragnemalm, Judges,
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 31. juli 1998 har CPL Imperial 2 SpA (herefter »CPL Imperial 2«) og Unifrigo Gadus Srl (herefter »Unifrigo Gadus«) i medfør af artikel 49 i EF-statutten for Domstolen iværksat appel til prøvelse af dom afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 9. juni 1998 i de forenede sager T-10/97 og T-ll/97, Unifrigo og CPL Imperial 2 mod Kommis-
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 31 July 1998, CPL Imperial 2 SpA ('CPL Imperial 2') and Unifrigo Gadus Srl ('Unifrigo Gadus') brought an appeal pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 1998 in Joined Cases T-10/97 and T-11/97 Unifrigo and CPL Imperial 2 ν Commission [1998] ECR II-2231
II, s. 2231, herefter »den appellerede dom«), hvorved Retten frifandt Kommissionen for appellanternes påstand bl.a. om annullation af Kommissio­nens beslutning K(96) 2780 endelig udg. af 8. oktober 1996 (herefter »den anfægtede beslutning«).
('the contested judgment'), by which the Court of First Instance dismissed their application for, in particular, annulment of Commission Decision C(96) 2780 def of 8 October 1996 ('the contested decision').
Faktiske omstændigheder og retsforhandlinger
Facts and procedure
Det fremgår af den appellerede dom, at appellanterne, der er selskaber, der driver handel med fiskerivarer, i 1990 og 1991 fra Norge indførte nogle partier torsk og herved benyttede EUR 1­certifikater, der angav, at varerne hidrørte fra Norge, således at de kunne fortoldes efter den for denne type varer gældende toldpræferenceordning.
The contested judgment shows that, in 1990 and 1991, the appellants, which are companies trading in fishery products, imported consignments of cod from Norway pursuant to EUR.l certificates confirming that the products were of Norwegian origin, and therefore benefited from the preferential tariff arrange­ments applicable to such products.
I 1993 fik Verona Toldkontor fra det norske toldvæsen oplysninger om, at eksportøren ikke var i stand til at føre bevis for, at varerne hidrørte fra Norge, og det meddelte derfor appellanterne, at det havde besluttet efterfølgende at opkræve tolden.
Having in 1993 been informed by the Norwegian customs authorities that the exporter was unable to prove that the products were of Norwegian origin, the Verona Customs Office notified the appellants of its decision to effect a post­clearance recovery of the customs duties.
Appellanterne påberåbte sig over for toldvæsenet deres gode tro og anmodede om, at tolden ikke blev opkrævet, og om, at toldvæsenet forelagde sagen for Kommissionen.
The appellants, maintaining that they had acted in good faith, requested the Italian authorities not to effect that recovery and to refer the matter to the Commission.
Den 30. januar 1996 bekræftede appellanterne over for de italienske myndighe­der, at de havde sat sig ind i sagen, som myndighederne nu stod i begreb med at forelægge Kommissionen, og at de ikke havde bemærkninger i den forbindelse.
On 30 January 1996 the appellants confirmed to the Italian authorities that they had taken cognisance of the file which those authorities were preparing to send to the Commission and that they had no comments to make in that regard.
Ved skrivelse af 6. februar 1996 forelagde de italienske myndigheder Kommis­sionen sagen vedrørende appellanternes anmodning og anmodede den om at tage stilling til, om der i det foreliggende tilfælde var grundlag for at undlade at opkræve tolden, der i alt androg 148 890 000 ITL, i overensstemmelse med artikel 5, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 af 24. juli 1979 om
By letter of 6 February 1996 the Italian authorities sent to the Commission the file relating to the request made by the appellants and requested the Commission to determine whether, in the present case, there was any justification for the non­recovery of the import duties, totalling ITL 148 890 000, in accordance with Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
CPL IMPERIAL 2 OG UNIFRIGO MOD KOMMISSIONEN opkrævning af import- eller eksportafgifter, der ikke er opkrævet hos debitor for varer, der er angivet til en toldprocedure, som medfører en forpligtelse til at betale sådanne afgifter (EFT L 197, s. 1).
CPL IMPERIAL 2 AND UNIFRIGO V COMMISSION post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).
Den 8. oktober 1996 vedtog Kommissionen den anfægtede beslutning, hvis artikel 1 lyder således:
On 8 October 1996 the Commission adopted the contested decision, Article 1 of which is in the following terms:
»Tolden på i alt 148 890 000 ITL, der er omhandlet i Italiens henvendelse af 2. februar 1996, skal opkræves.«
'The import duties, amounting to [ITL] 148 890 000, in respect of which Italy submitted its request dated 2 February 1996 must be recovered'.
Efter denne beslutning fremsatte de italienske myndigheder over for appellanterne krav om betaling af tolden.
Following the adoption of the contested decision, the Italian authorities demanded payment of the customs duties from the appellants.
På baggrund heraf anlagde appellanterne ved stævninger registreret på Rettens Justitskontor den 17. januar 1997 sager til prøvelse af beslutningen, og gjorde herved gældende, at der forelå en tilsidesættelse af artikel 871 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2454/93 af 2. juli 1993 om visse bestemmelser til gennem førelse af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2913/92 om indførelse af en EF-toldkodeks (EFT L 253, s. 1), af artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1697/79, og af princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning.
It was in those circumstances that, by applications lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 17 January 1997, the appellants each brought an action against the contested decision, pleading infringement of Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) and violation of the general principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Retten har ved den appellerede dom frifundet Kommissionen for appellanternes påstande.
By the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance dismissed the appellants' actions as unfounded.
10 De relevante dele af den appellerede dom går ud på følgende:
10 The relevant particulars of the contested judgment are as follows:
— Retten forkastede i præmis 37­41 appellanternes argumentation om, at de sagsakter, som Kommissionen havde til rådighed ved sagens behandling, ikke var fyldestgørende, og at Kommissionen derfor i henhold til artikel 871, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 2454/93 skulle have anmodet om supplerende oplysninger, herunder navnlig Høyesterett's dom af 2. april 1993, hvori oprindelsesattesternes gyldighed blev betvivlet.
— in paragraphs 37 to 41, the Court of First Instance rejected the appellants' argument that the file submitted to the Commission was incomplete and that the Commission should therefore have requested additional information pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 871 of Regulation No 2454/93, in particular the judgment of the Høyesterett of 2 April 1993, which called in question the validity of the certificates of origin.
Retten har i præmis 39 i den appellerede dom fastslået, at appellanterne ikke bestred de norske myndig­heders oplysninger om, at eksportøren var ude af stand til at bevise, at de omhandlede varer hidrørte fra Norge, og at de ikke i den brevveksling, de havde med de italienske myndigheder, havde bestridt disse oplysninger.
The Court of First Instance observed in paragraph 39 of the contested judgment that the appellants had not challenged the Norwegian authorities' conclusion that the exporter was unable to prove the Norwegian origin of the products in question, and that they had not disputed that information in their exchange of correspondence with the Italian authorities.
Retten nævner i præmis 40 i den appellerede dom, at appellanternes repræsentant i skrivelse af 30. januar 1996 erklærede, at han intet havde at tilføje til de aktstykker, som var blevet tilstillet Kommissionen.
In paragraph 40 of the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance noted that the appellants' representative had confirmed by letter of 30 January 1996 that he had nothing to add to the file sent to the Commission.
På grundlag heraf fastslog Retten i præmis 41, at Kommissionen herefter kunne nå til det resultat, at det dossier, der var blevet forelagt den, var fuldstændigt, og at den ikke havde grund til at anmode om supplerende oplysninger.
The Court of First Instance inferred from this, in paragraph 41, that, in those circumstances, the Commission had been entitled to conclude that the file submitted to it was complete and that there was consequently no need for it to seek additional information;