natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det følger heraf, at omfanget af pligten til at begrunde beslutninger om kontrolundersøgelser ikke kan begrænses til betragtninger vedrørende undersøgelsens effektivitet.
'In the first place, the Court should dismiss the applicants' claim directed against the contested decision, in so far as it challenges the criterion of the effects as the basis of that decision.
Domstolen fremhævede, at Kommissionen ganske vist ikke er forpligtet til at meddele adressaten af en beslutning om en kontrolundersøgelse alle de oplysninger, som den er i besiddelse af vedrørende de formodede overtrædelser, eller til at foretage en streng retlig bestemmelse af disse overtrædelser, men den bør dog klart angive, hvilke formodninger den har til hensigt at kontrollere.
It will be for the Court at a later stage to ascertain whether the effects of the conduct alleged by the Commission were substantial, direct and foreseeable in order to determine whether the Commis­sion was right in exercising jurisdiction over the applicants.
Domstolen udtalte, at selv om begrundelsen for den omtvistede beslutning om en kontrolundersøgelse er affattet i meget generelle vendinger, som burde have været uddybet, og den derfor kan kritiseres i denne henseende, indeholder begrundelsen ikke desto mindre de nødvendige elementer, jf. artikel 14, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 17.
Secondly, the Court should reject the submission to the effect that the Free Trade Agreement between the Community and the Republic of Finland constitutes a bar to the application of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty to the Finnish applicants.'
kriterier for en overtrædelse, som kan begrunde, at der pålægges bøde i henhold til artikel 15 i forordning nr. 17, idet en sådan overtrædelse, efter beslutningen af 5. november 1980, kan bestå i, at en virksomhed nægter at underkaste sig en kontrolundersøgelse, der er påbudt af ét medlem af Kommissionen og ikke, som tidligere, af hele Kommissionen som kollegialt organ.
Hoechst AG brought two actions for declarations that three decisions of the Commission, the first concerning an investigation under Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17, the second imposing a periodic penalty payment under Article 16 of Regulation No 17 and the third fixing the definitive amount of a periodic penalty payment under the same article, were void.
Domstolen udtalte, at betingelserne for at pålægge en bøde i henhold til artikel 15 i forordning nr. 17 ganske vist ikke kan ændres ved en kommissionsbeslutning, men at ovennævnte kompetencedelegation hverken havde til formål eller til virkning at foretage en sådan ændring. Såfremt den bemyndigelsesordning, der anvendes i forbindelse med beslutninger om kontrolundersøgelse, ikke undergraver kollegialprincippet, må beslutninger om bemyndigelse betragtes som kommissionsbeslutninger, jf. artikel 15 i forordning nr. 17.
Since it had information leading it to suppose that there were agreements or concerted practices concerning the fixing of prices and delivery quotas for PVC and polyethylene between certain producers and suppliers of those substances in the Community, the Commission decided to carry out an investigation of several undertakings, including the applicant, and adopted in regard to the latter the decision ordering the investigation referred to above.
Beslutningen om fastsættelse af tvangsbøder
The Commission therefore adopted the decision imposing on the applicant a periodic penalty payment of ECU 1 000 for each day of delay.
Sagsøgte anførte, at udstedelsen af beslutningen er behæftet med væsentlige formmangler, idet Kommissionen udstedte den uden forinden at have hørt den pågældende virksomhed og Det Rådgivende Udvalg for Kartel- og Monopol spørgsmål.
Since the Bundeskartellamt, the German authority responsible for competition matters, whose assistance had been sought under Regulation No 17, had obtained a search warrant from the Amtsgericht [Local Court] Frankfurt am Main, issued in favour of the Commission, the latter immediately took steps to carry out the investigation in question.
I første omgang pålægger Kommissionen nemlig en tvangsbøde på et vist antal regningsenheder dagligt fra det i beslutningen fastsatte tidspunkt.
The Commission subsequently fixed the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment at ECU 55 000.
Tvangsbødens endelige størrelse kan kun fastsættes ved en ny beslutning.
The decision ordering the investigation
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at pligten til at høre den pågældende virksomhed og Det Rådgivende Udvalg for Kartel- og Monopolspørgsmål således er opfyldt, såfremt høringerne finder sted inden fastsættelsen af tvangsbødens endelige størrelse, således at såvel den pågældende virksomhed som Det Rådgivende Udvalg får mulighed for på formålstjenlig måde at fremsætte deres synspunkter vedrørende alle de momenter, som Kommissionen har lagt til grund for tvangsbøden og for fastsættelsen af dens endelige størrelse.
The applicant considered first that the contested decision was unlawful inasmuch as it authorized the Commission's officials to take steps which it regarded as a search, which were not provided for under Article 14 of Regulation No 17 and which infringed the fundamental rights recognized by Community law.
Domstolen tilføjede, at kravet om at iværksætte de nævnte høringer forud for udstedelsen af en beslutning om at pålægge en virksomhed tvangsbøder, fordi den har nægtet at underkaste sig en kontrolundersøgelse, i øvrigt indebærer, at udstedelsen af denne beslutning forsinkes, hvilket kan undergrave effektiviteten af beslutningen om at gennemføre en kontrolundersøgelse.
It added that if that provision was io be interpreted as meaning that it gave the Commission the power to carry out searches, it was unlawful by reason of its incompatibility with fundamental rights and, in particular, the right to a fair hearing and the right to the inviolability of the home, respect for which required that a search may only be carried out on the basis of a court order obtained in advance.
Sagsøgeren anførte først, at Kommissionen ved beregningen af tvangsbøden burde have undladt at indregne varigheden af sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler for
The Court pointed out first that Article 14 of Regulation No 17 could not be interpreted in such a way as to lead to results which were incompatible with the general principles of Community law and in particular with fundamental rights.
Domstolen, hvorunder sagsøgte havde begæret udsættelse med gennemførelsen af beslutningen om kontrolundersøgelse.
It held that according to settled case-law, fundamental rights are an integral part of the general principles of law which the Court is called upon to apply, in accordance with the constitutional traditions common to the Member States and to the international instruments in which the Member States participated or to which they have become parties.
Kommissionen handlede i strid med sit eget standpunkt, idet den havde erklæret sig indforstået med at udsætte gennemførelsen af en sådan beslutning, indtil Domstolens afgørelse forelå.
In that regard, the European Convention on Human Rights was of particular significance.
Domstolen udtalte, at Kommissionens erklæring i denne retning under retsforhandlingerne kun vedrørte det fremtidige standpunkt, den eventuelt ville indtage, såfremt sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler for Domstolen — i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens opfattelse — anerkendes som en passende forudgående retslig kontrol af de af Kommissionen påbudte kontrolforanstaltninger. En sådan erklæring kunne derfor ikke i den foreliggende sag på nogen måde påvirke fastsættelsen af tvangsbødens endelige størrelse.
With regard to the right to a fair hearing, the Court considered that it was important to point out that although certain of the rights implied therein concerned only the contentious proceedings following the statement of objections, other rights, for example the right to have the assistance of a lawyer and the privileged nature of correspondence between lawyer and client, had to be respected during the preliminary inquiry, in particular, during investigations.
Herefter anførte sagsøgeren, at bødens endelige størrelse var urimelig, da selskabet udelukkende havde ladet sig lede af overordnede interesser med det formål at sikre en lov- og forfatningsmæssig undersøgelsesprocedure.
With regard to the requirements flowing from the fundamental right to the inviolability of the home, the Court observed that although recognition of such a right in regard to the private dwelling of physical persons was required by the Community legal order inasmuch as it was a principle common to the laws of the Member States, the same was not true in regard to undertakings, because there were significant differences between the legal systems of the Member States in regard to the nature and degree of the protection against interventions on the part of the public authorities which was afforded to commercial premises. A different conclusion could not be drawn from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Domstolen fastslog, at sagsøgeren ikke blot havde modsat sig særlige foranstaltninger, som, ifølge selskabet, gik ud over de Kommissionens ansatte tildelte beføjelser, men at sagsøgeren havde nægtet enhver form for samarbejde med det formål at gennemføre den til selskabet rettede beslutning om en kontrolundersøgelse. gelse.
It was none the less true that the legal systems of the Member States provided protection, under various forms, against arbitrary or disproportionate interventions on the part of the public authorities in the sphere of activities of any person, whether physical or legal. The requirement that such protection should be granted had to be regarded as a general principle of Community law.
Domstolen fastslog, at en sådan adfærd, der er i strid med princippet om, at alle Fællesskabets retssubjekter er forpligtet til at anerkende, at institutionernes retsakter i fuldt omfang er gyldige, indtil Domstolen har fastslået deres ugyldig hed, samt til at respektere deres retskraft, så længe Domstolen ikke har truffet afgørelse om at udsætte gennemførelsen heraf, ikke kan begrundes i overordnede retlige interesser.
It was therefore in the light of the general principles set out above that the Court pointed out that, as was apparent from the seventh and eighth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 17, the powers conferred on the Commission by that regulation were intended to uphold the system of competition laid down in the Treaty, which undertakings were required to respect and that both the purpose of the regulation and the enumeration in Article 14 of the powers of the Commission's officials showed that investigations might have a very broad scope.
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 21. februar 1989.
Such a right implied, if it was not to be wholly useless, the possibility of seeking various pieces of information which were not already known or fully identified.
Generaladvokaten nåede til følgende resultat: »Jeg skal således foreslå, at Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber frifindes i den af Hoechst A.G. anlagte sag ... og at sagsøgeren tilpligtes at betale alle sagens omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i forbindelse med begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler i sag 46/87«.
Without such a possibility, the Commission could not obtain the information necessary for its investigation if the undertakings concerned refused to cooperate or obstructed its investigation.
Tribunal administrativ de Strasbourg havde i medfør af Euratom-Traktatens artikel 150 forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Euratom-Traktatens artikel 37.
The Court considered that it should be emphasized that that authority, whether judicial or otherwise, could not in such circumstances substitute its own assessment of the necessity or otherwise of the investigations ordered for that of the Commission, whose assessments of fact and law were subject only to review by the Court of Justice.
Spørgsmålet var stillet som led i en sag anlagt af Saarland, en række tyske kommuner og amter, franske og luxembourgske miljøorganisationer, der som formål bl.a. har at beskytte Mosel-dalen, samt forskellige privatpersoner, til prøvelse af de franske ministerielle bekendtgørelser af 21. februar 1986, hvorved der meddeltes tilladelse til bortskaffelse dels af flydende, dels af luftformigt radioaktivt spild fra de fire afsnit af atomanlægget Cattenom i departementet Moselle.
On the other hand, the national authorities were entitled to consider, once the authenticity of the decision ordering the investigation had been proved, whether the restrictive measures envisaged were arbitrary or excessive in relation to the purpose of the investigation and to ensure that the rules of national law were complied with in the application of those measures.
I tidsrummet 6. juli 1979 — 31. marts 1982 udstedtes der herefter de nødvendige byggetilladelser til de pågældende reaktorer, ligesom der i tidsrummet 24. juni 1982 — 29. februar 1984 udstedtes anordninger, hvorved der meddeltes tilladelse til at opføre fire reaktorer, hver med en kapacitet på 1 300 MW, i Cattenom.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court decided that the measures which the Commission's officials were entitled to take under the decision ordering the investigation at issue did not exceed the powers conferred on it by Article 14 of Regulation No 17.
Ved Tribunal administrativ de Strasbourg havde sagsøgerne i hovedsagen bl.a. gjort gældende, at den franske regering havde tilsidesat Euratom-Traktatens artikel 37, idet den først den 29. april 1986, dvs. efter udstedelsen af de anfægtede bekendtgørelser, havde forsynet Kommissionen med alle almindelige oplysninger vedrørende Cattenom-atomanlæggets bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild, mens det i henhold til den nævnte artikel kræves, at Kommissionen høres, inden medlems statens myndigheder meddeler tilladelse til bortskaffelse.
Although it was true that during the proceedings before the Court the Commission had argued that its officials were entitled, in the course of investigations, to carry out searches without the assistance of the national authorities and without complying with the procedural guarantees provided for under national law, the fact that that interpretation of Article 14 of Regulation No 17 was erroneous could not render unlawful the decisions adopted on the basis of that provision.
De sagsøgte i hovedsagen anførte heroverfor, at Euratom-Traktatens artikel 37 skal fortolkes således, at Kommissionen skal høres inden bortskaffelsen iværksættes, uanset om den er godkendt inden oplysningerne forelægges for Kommissionen. sionen.
The applicant also considered that the decision ordering the investigation infringed Article 190 of the Treaty and Article 14 (3) of Regulation No 17 on the ground that it was lacking in precision, in particular in regard to the subjectmatter and purpose of the investigation.
Herefter forelagde Tribunal administrativ de Strasbourg det spørgsmål for Domstolen, om artikel 37 i Traktaten af 25. marts 1957 om Oprettelse af Det Europæiske Atomenergifællesskab skal fortolkes således, at Kommissionen for De
In that regard, the Court pointed out that the Commission's obligation under Article 14(3) to specify the subjectmatter and purpose of the investigation constituted a fundamental guarantee of the right to a fair hearing of the undertakings concerned.
Europæiske Fællesskaber skal høres, inden medlemsstaternes myndigheder meddeler atomanlæg tilladelse til bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild, når der findes en procedure om forudgående tilladelse, eller inden atomanlæggene foretager en sådan bortskaffelse.
The Court decided that although the statement of the reasons on which the decision at issue was based was drafted in very general terms, which would have benefited from being more precise and could therefore be criticized from that point of view, it none the less contained the essential information required by Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17.
Domstolen citerede først ordlyden af Euratom-Traktatens artikel 37: »Hver medlemsstat skal forsyne Kommissionen med alle almindelige oplysninger vedrørende planer om bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild i enhver form, for at det derved kan afgøres, om iværksættelsen af denne plan kan antages at medføre en radioaktiv kontaminering af en anden medlemsstats vande, jord eller luftrum«.
It claimed that the Commission, by a mere measure of internal administration, modified the factors constituting the infringement in respect of which a fine could be imposed under Article 15 of Regulation No 17 because, with effect from the decision of 5 November 1980, which provided for that procedure, such an infringement was constituted by the refusal to submit to an investigation ordered by a single member of the Commission and not, as before, by the Commission as a collégial body.
Domstolen fastslog herefter, at udtrykket »plan om bortskaffelse« i artikel 37 tyder på, at den nævnte artikel vedrører en fase, der ligger forud for enhver tilladelse til bortskaffelse.
In that regard, the Court pointed out that although it was true that the conditions under which a fine could be imposed under Article 15 of Regulation No 17 could not be amended by a decision of the Commission, neither the purpose nor the effect of the abovementioned decision delegating authority was to introduce such an amendment.
Artikel 37 må imidlertid, fortsatte Domstolen, fortolkes i lyset af sit formål og den del af Euratom-Traktaten, hvori den indgår.
As long as the system delegating authority in regard to decisions ordering investigations did not undermine the principle of collegiality, the decisions adopted on the basis of such a delegation had to be regarded as decisions of the Commission within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation No 17.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at artikel 37 må antages at være en bestemmelse, som skal anvendes for at forhindre en mulig radioaktiv forurening, mens andre bestemmelser, som f.eks. artikel 38, bringes i anvendelse, når der er en overhængende risiko for forurening, eller når en sådan forurening måske endda er sket.
According to the applicant, the adoption of that decision was vitiated by a breach of essential procedural requirements because the Commission adopted it without first hearing the undertaking concerned and consulting the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions.
I lyset heraf er den orientering, som Kommissionen, bistået af en højt kvalificeret ekspertgruppe, kan give den berørte medlemsstat, af ganske afgørende betydning, bl.a. på grund af det overblik, som kun Kommissionen har vedrørende udviklingen på nuklearområdet inden for hele Fællesskabet.
The Court pointed out in that regard that the fixing of periodic penalty payments under Article 16 of Regulation No 17 necessarily took place in two stages.
Domstolen bemærkede videre, at når der i en medlemsstat kræves en tilladelse til bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild, vil Kommissionens udtalelse kun kunne få den nødvendige gennemslagskraft, hvis medlemsstaten bliver bekendt med udtalelsen, inden den meddeler tilladelse.
In its first decision, the Commission imposed a periodic penalty payment on the basis of a certain number of units of account per day of delay from a date which it fixed.
Domstolen bemærkede afslutningsvis, at formålet med artikel 37 kun kan nås, såfremt bestemmelsen fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat skal forsyne Kommissionen med alle almindelige oplysninger vedrørende en plan om bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild, inden den definitivt meddeler tilladelse til en sådan bortskaffelse. felse.
It has thus fulfilled the obligation to hear the interested parties and to consult the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions if the hearing and consultation took place before the periodic penalty payment was definitively fixed, so that the undertaking concerned and the Advisory Committee were in a position to make known in good time their point of view on all the
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
factors on which the Commission relied when imposing the periodic payment and fixing the definitive amount thereof.
»Artikel 37 i Traktaten af 25. marts 1957 om Oprettelse af Det Europæiske Atomenergifællesskab skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat skal forsyne Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber med alle almindelige oplysninger vedrørende en plan om bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild, inden medlemsstatens myndigheder meddeler tilladelse til bortskaffelse.«
Moreover, the requirement to carry out those hearings and consultations before the adoption of a decision imposing a periodic penalty payment on an undertak ing which had refused to submit to an investigation amounted to deferring the date of adoption of that decision and, therefore, to undermining the effectiveness of the decision ordering the investigation.
Generaladvokat Sir Gordon Slynn fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. juni 1988.
The decision fixing the definitive amount of the periodic penalty payment
Han forslog følgende domskonklusion: »I henhold til artikel 37 i Traktaten af 25. marts 1957 om Oprettelse af Det Europæiske Atomenergifællesskab kræves det, at Kommissionen underrettes, og at dens udtalelse afgives og tages i betragtning, inden medlemsstaternes myndigheder meddeler et atomanlæg tilladelse til bortskaffelse af radioaktivt spild«.
The applicant claimed first that the Commission should have excluded from its calculations the time during which the applicant was in the process of applying to the Court for suspension of the operation of the decision ordering the investigation. The Commission contradicted its own position inasmuch as it had stated that it was willing to delay implementation of such a decision until the Court had ruled.
Tribunale amministrativo regionale per la Lombardia havde forelagt Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 75/442 om affald, Rådets direktiv 76/403 om bortskaffelse af polychlordiphenyler og polychlortriphenyler og Rådets direktiv 78/319 om giftigt og farligt affald samt vedrørende fastlæggelsen af principperne for erstatning for skade, der er forvoldt ved en fællesskabsretsstridig forvaltningsakt.
In the second place, the applicant considered that the definitive amount was disproportionate because it had acted solely in the light of higher interests corresponding to the guarantee of an investigation procedure in accordance with law and the constitutional order.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en retssag, som de ovenfor nævnte selskaber, der producerer beholdere, emballage og poser af plastic, havde anlagt mod Cinisello Balsamo Kommune med påstand om annulation af en afgørelse fra denne kommunes borgmester, der med virkning fra den 1. september 1987 forbyder salg og udlevering til forbrugerne af bæreposer og andre poser, der ikke kan nedbrydes biologisk, til borttransport af indkøbte varer, samt salg og udbredelse af plasticposer undtagen poser til transport af affald.
In that regard, the Court decided that the applicant not merely opposed particular measures which it regarded as being outside the powers of the Commission's officials but totally refused to cooperate in the implementation of the decision ordering the investigation which was addressed to it.
Domstolen fastslog, at det med det første spørgsmål først og fremmest skulle afgøres, om der ved direktiv 75/442 er tillagt privatpersoner en ret til at sælge eller anvende plasticposer og andre beholdere, der ikke kan nedbrydes biologisk.
Such conduct was incompatible with the obligation on all persons subject to Community law to recognize the validity of measures adopted by the institutions until such time as they had been declared void by the Court and to accept that they might be implemented in so far as the Court had not decided that suspension of the operation of a measure was justified by higher legal interests.