natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår hensynet til de erhvervsdrivendes berettigede forventning bemærkede Domstolen blot, at de erhvervsdrivende ikke med rimelighed kunne forvente, at EF-afgiften ville blive ophævet for varer, for hvilke der var ydet eksportrestitutioner i Grækenland, når afgiften navnlig har til formål at neutralisere virkningen af de restitutioner, der er udbetalt i et tredjeland.
As regards the legitimate expectations of traders, it was sufficient to note that traders could not legitimately expect to benefit from the abolition of the Community levy for goods in respect of which export refunds had been paid in Greece when the aim of the levy was, inter alia, to offset the effect of refunds received in non-member countries.
"Gennemgangen af de præjudicielle spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 6 i forordning (EØF) nr. 57/81 -om de overgangsforanstaltninger, der på grund af Grækenlands tiltrædelse skal træffes med hensyn til samhandelen med landbrugsprodukter - hvorved forordningen er tillagt tilbagevirkende gyldighed fra den 1. januar 1981."
"Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 57/81 on transitional measures to be taken, on account of the accession of Greece, in respect of trade in agricultural products in so far as it provides for that regulation to have retroactive effect as from 1 January 1981."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse den 9. november 1989.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 9 November 1989
Sammenfattende lød hans forslag således: "På baggrund af ovennævnte bemærkninger skal jeg foreslå, at det præjudicielle spørgsmål. Tribunale di Genovas har forelagt, besvares således, at der ved gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål ikke er fremkommet omstændigheder, som medfører, at artikel 6 i forordning (EØF) nr. 57/81, hvorved forordningen er tillagt tilbagevirkende gyldighed fra den 1. januar 1981, er ugyldig".
He concluded in the following terms: "In view of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should rule, in response to the question referred to it by the Tribunale Civile di Genova, that consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 6 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 57/81 in so far as it provides for that regulation to have retroactive effect as from 1 January 1981".
Sag C-101/88: Firma Gebr. Gausepohl mod Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
Case C-101/88: Firma Gebr.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en tvist mellem firmaet Gausepohl og Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, som vedrørte betalingen af særlige restitutioner ved eksport af udskårne, udbenede stykker oksekød, som stammede fra 125 bagfjerdinger af voksne handyr.
Those questions were raised in the action brought by Gausepohl against the Hauptzollamt [Principal Customs Office] Hamburg-Jonas concerning the grant of special refunds for the exportation of boneless cuts from 125 hindquarters of adult male cattle.
Hauptzollamt havde kun udbetalt den normale restitution for en vis del af det eksporterede oksekød med den begrundelse, at der ved udførslen manglede en filet. Det var denne beslutning, sagsøgeren anfægtede i hovedsagen.
The Hauptzollamt, claiming that one piece of fillet was missing on exportation and that consequently the conditions laid down by Regulation No. 1964/82 for entitlement to the special refunds had not been met, only paid the normal refunds for a part of the exported meat of bovine animals, which the applicant contested.
Det første spørgsmål var i det væsentlige, om artikel 6, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1964/82 skal fortolkes således, at det er en betingelse for at opnå den særlige eksportrestitution, at den samlede mængde delstykker af de bagfjerdinger, som er anbragt under kontrol, er eksporteret, eller fortolkes på den måde, at den samlede mængde af hver enkelt bagfjerding, som er anbragt under toldkontrol, skal være eksporteret.
The first question was whether the first paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No. 1964/82 had to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the special refund was subject to the exportation of the total quantity of pieces of hindquarters placed under supervision or, alternatively, on the exportation of the total quantity from each hindquarter placed under supervision.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at det klart fremgår af selve ordlyden i artikel 6, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1964/82, at der med bestemmelsen sigtes til den samlede mængde kød, som stammer fra udbeningen af samtlige de under toldkontrol anbragte bagfjerdinger.
The Court pointed out that it was manifestly evident from the very wording of the first paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No. 1964/82 that that provision referred to the exportation of all the meat from the boning of all the hindquarters placed under control.
Spørgsmålet var imidlertid, om denne fortolkning indebar, at de særlige restitutioner ikke kunne udbetales, fordi der manglede et stykke kød, selv om dette udgjorde en helt ubetydelig andel af den samlede mængde (3,1 kg ud af 8.812,52 kg).
However, the question which arose was whether that interpretation could give rise to a refusal to grant the special refunds for the total quantity of the meat if one piece was missing, representing an infinitesimal part of the total amount (3.1 Kg out of a total of 8 812.52 Kg).
Herom fastslog Domstolen, at artikel 6, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1964/82 måtte anvendes under fornøden hensyntagen til proportionalitetsprincippet, som er en almindelig retsgrundsætning i fællesskabsretten.
In that regard, the Court stated that the first paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation 1964/82 had to be applied having regard to the principle of proportionality, which constituted a general principle of Community law.
Ifølge forelæggelsen fremgik eksportforpligtelsen, som er den væsentligste forpligtelse efter forordningen, ikke at være blevet tilsidesat.
In the case at issue the documents before the Court did not show that the national court had found that there had been a failure to fulfil the principal obligation laid down by Regulation No. 1964/82, namely that of exportation.
Som anført af sagsøgeren og Kommissionen var det da også muligt - eller i hvert fald ikke udelukket - at den filet, der manglede, faktisk var blevet eksporteret, men ikke identificeret, fordi der var sket en fejl med emballagen eller fordi fileten på grund af en forkert udskæring ikke forelå som ét sammenhængende stykke. Heller ikke sagsøgerens redelighed fremgik at være blevet draget i tvivl.
On the contrary, as the applicant and the Commission had pointed out, it was possible, or in any event it could not be ruled out, that the missing fillet at issue had in fact been exported, but could not be identified as having been so because of a packaging error or because the meat had been cut incorrectly and the fillet was not in the form of a single piece.
Domskonklusionen lød således:
Similarly, the national court had not found that the applicant's good faith was in doubt in the case at issue.
- 5 - mængde, er dog ikke tilstrækkelig til at antage, at betingelsen om eksport ikke er opfyldt for det Øvrige parti, med mindre der er handlet uredeligt."
In those circumstances, and if there was no bad faith involved, a question which fell to the national court to decide, the principle of proportionality precluded a finding that the absence of a negligible proportion of the meat placed under supervision constituted sufficient grounds for considering that the condition relating to exportation had not been met with regard to the remainder of the meat .
Hans forslag til domskonklusion lød således: "Artikel 6, stk. 1, i Kommissionens forordning nr. 1964/82 af 20. juli 1982, skal fortolkes således, at det er en betingelse for at opnå den særlige restitution, at den samlede mængde af bagfjerdinger, som er anbragt under kontrol, er eksporteret.
"The first paragraph of Article 6 of Regulation No. 1964/82 is to be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the special refund is to be conditional on exportation of the total quantity of pieces from hindquarters placed under supervision.
Såfremt der imidlertid blot mangler én filet, som udgår en ubetydelig andel af før nævnte samlede mængde, bør den særlige restitution undtagelsesvis udbetales for de faktisk eksporterede bagfjerdinger, såfremt der objektivt foreligger omstændigheder, som udelukker, at eksportøren har handlet uredeligt".
However, the fact that an infinitesimal part of that total quantity is missing does not, in the absence of bad faith, constitute sufficient grounds for considering that the condition relating to exportation has not been met with regard to the remainder of the meat".
Ved mellemafgørelse, afsagt den 18. november 1987, indgået til Domstolen den 11. april 1988, havde Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 16, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager.
"The first paragraph of Article 6 of Commission Regulation No. 1954/82 of 20 July 1932 must be interpreted as meaning that the grant of the special refund is subject to the exportation of the total quantity of pieces of hindquarters placed under supervision; however, in the event that a single fillet of meat, representing an insignificant proportion of the total quantity thus defined, is missing, where there is objectively no question of bad faith on the part of the exporter, the exporter may, exceptionally, be granted the special refund for the hindquarters actually exported".
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en retssag mellem ægtefællerne Reichert, deres søn Mario Reichert, og Dresdner Bank.
Case 115/88: M. Reichert, H.-H. Reichert and I. Kockler ν Dresdener Bank -10 January 1990 (Preliminary ruling) (Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments - Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Debtor's action to set aside an agreement in defraud of creditors - Gift of legal ownership of immovable property -Article 16 (1)) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved afgørelse af 20. februar 1987 havde Tribunal de grande instance de Grasse erklæret sig kompetent på grundlag af konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, der lyder således: "enekompetente, uden hensyn til bopæl, er 1. i sager om rettighed over fast ejendom ... retterne i den kontraherende stat, hvor ejendommen er beliggende;".
By judgment of 18 November 1987, which was received at the Court on 11 April 1988, the Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Aix-en-Provence referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 16 (1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Ægtefællerne Reichert havde imidlertid kæret denne afgørelse om kompetence (ved en såkaldt contredit de compétence) til Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, idet de havde gjort gældende, at bestemmelserne i konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, ikke omfattede den sag, som Dresdner Bank havde anlagt mod dem, idet der ikke var tale om et søgsmål om "rettigheder over fast ejendom", men et søgsmål angående obligatoriske rettigheder.
Mr and Mrs Reichert, who reside in the Federal Republic of Germany, own immovable property in the local authority area of Antibes (Department of Alpes-Maritimes, France) legal ownership of which they transferred to their son, Mario Reichert, by a notarial deed executed at Creutzwald (Department of the Moselle, France). That deed was contested by the Dresdner Bank, a creditor of Mr and Mrs Reichert, before the Tribunal de Grande Instance [Regional Court], Grasse, within whose jurisdiction the property at issue is situated, by means of the so-called "action paulienne", provided for under Article 1167 of the French Civil Code.
Den forelæggende ret havde ved spørgsmålet Ønsket at få oplyst, om anvendelsesområdet for konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, omfatter det tilfælde, hvor en kreditor ved hjælp af et retsskridt i henhold til national ret - i dette til fælde en omstødelsessag i henhold til fransk ret - anfægter en gave i form af en ejendom, som efter hans opfattelse er blevet overdraget af skyldneren til skade for hans rettigheder.
By judgment of 20 February 1987, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Grasse decided that it had jurisdiction under Article 16 (1) of the Convention which confers exclusive jurisdiction "in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem [on] the courts of the Contracting State in which the property is situated".
Domstolen henviste til retspraksis, hvorefter konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1, skal fortolkes således, at retternes enekompetence i den kontraherende stat, hvor den faste ejendom er beliggende, ikke omfatter samtlige de retssager, som angår tinglige rettigheder over fast ejendom, men alene sådanne, som både falder ind under konventionens anvendelsesområde, og som angår spørgsmål, der vedrører fastlæggelsen af rækkevidden, indholdet, rettigheden eller besiddelsen af en fast ejendom eller eksistensen af andre tinglige rettigheder ved rørende en sådan ejendom, samt sikringen af, at de fortrinsrettigheder, som er knyttet til adkomsten, forbeholdes indehaverne af disse rettigheder.
However, Mr and Mrs Reichert contested the jurisdiction of the court before the Cour d'Appel, Aix-en-Provence, arguing that Article 16 (1) of the Convention did not apply to the action brought against them by the Dresdner Bank because it did not have as its object "rights in rem" but was of its very nature an action in personam.
Domstolen udtalte, at omstødelsessagen havde sit udgangspunkt i en obligatorisk ret, dvs. kreditors fordring mod skyldneren, og havde til formål at beskytte den sikkerhed, som førstnævnte kunne have over sidstnævntes formue. Såfremt sagen førte til et positivt resultat, var konsekvensen, at retshandel en, som skyldneren havde indgået til skade for kreditors rettigheder, ikke kunne gøres gældende over for denne kreditor.
In its question, the national court sought to know whether an action provided for under national law, in this case, the French "action paulienne", whereby a creditor challenged a gift of immovable property which he alleged was made by the debtor to defraud him of his rights, came within the scope of Article 16 (1) of the Convention.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen, at det ikke i sig selv var tilstrækkeligt til at begrunde enekompetence for domstolene i en kontraherende stat, hvor en ejendom er beliggende, at forskrifter vedrørende offentliggørelse af rettigheder over fast ejendom, som er gældende i visse medlemsstater, krævede offentliggørelse af retsskridt med henblik på, at retshandler vedrørende rettigheder, der var underkastet kravet om offentliggørelse, blev tilbagekaldt eller det blev fast slået, at de ikke kunne gøres gældende over for tredjemand, samt offentliggørelse af retsafgørelser som følge af sådanne retsskridt.
The Court pointed out that, according to its previous decisions, Article 16 (1) of the Convention was to be interpreted as meaning that the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the contracting State in which the property was situated did not extend to all actions concerned with rights in rem over immovable property but only to those which both came within the scope of the Convention and were among those which were intended to determine the scope, the composition, the ownership or the possession of immovable property or other rights in rem over such property and to ensure that the persons entitled to such rights enjoyed protection of the prerogatives attached thereto.
Domstolen besvarede herefter det foreliggende spørgsmål således:
However, the so-called "action paulienne" was based on the law of debt, the personal right of the creditor against his debtor, the purpose of which was to protect the security which the latter's property might represent for the former.
"En sag, der er anlagt af en kreditor med påstand om, at en retshandel vedrørende en tinglig rettighed over fast ejendom - som han hævder er blevet indgået af hans skyldner til skade for hans rettigheder - ikke kan gøres gældende overfor ham, falder ikke ind under anvendelsesområdet for konventionens artikel 16, nr. 1."
If such an action was successful, the result was to make it impossible for the debtor to rely solely as against the creditor
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 22. november vm:
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 22 November 1989.
Hans forslag til afgørelse lød som følger:
He proposed that the Court should decide as follows:
Begrebet "sager om rettigheder over fast ejendom" i artikel 16, nr. 1, i Bruxelles-konventionen af 27. september 1968 skal fortolkes i lyset af konventionens formål og opbygning.
The expression "proceedings which have as their object rights in rem" in Article 16 (1) of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted in the light of the objectives and structure of that convention;
En omstødelsessag (action paulienne), jfr. atikel 1167 i den franske Code civil, falder ikke under dette begreb".
An action such as the "action paulienne" provided for in Article 1167 of the French Civil Code is not covered by that expression".
Sag C-38/89: Anklagenyndigheden nod Guy Blanguernon
Case C-38/89: Ministère Public ν Guy Blanguernon - 11 January 1990 (Preliminary ruling) (Company law - Implementation of directives - Condition of reciprocity) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved dom afsagt den 30. juni 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 16. februar 1989, havde Tribunal de police d'Aix-les-Bains stillet et præjudielt spørgsmål ved rørende fortolkningen af Traktatens artikel 54, stk. 3, litra g), og Rådets fjerde direktiv 78/660/EØF om årsregnskaberne for visse selskabsformer.
By judgment of 30 June 1988, received at the Court on 16 February 1988, the Tribunal de Police [Local criminal court] Aix-les-Bains referred
8 - havde vedtaget tilsvarende lovgivninger, hvilket var nødvendigt for at sikre en samtidig samordning i henhold til fjerde direktiv.
8 a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty and the Fourth Council Directive (78/660/EEC) on the annual accounts of certain types of companies.
Domstolen bemærkede først, at en medlemsstat ifølge fast praksis ikke kunne begrunde den manglende opfyldelse af forpligtelser, der påhvilede den i henhold til Traktaten, med det forhold, at andre medlemsstater ligeledes havde tilsidesat deres forpligtelser.
That question was raised in criminal proceedings against Mr Blanguernon, the financial director of the limited liability company PAKEM.
Det fulgte heraf, at en medlemsstats lovgivning, som indebar faktisk gennem førelse af et fællesskabsdirektiv, skulle anvendes i fuldt omfang, uanset om det pågældende direktiv endnu ikke var gennemført og trådt i kraft i andre medlemsstaters lovgivninger.
Mr Blanguernon was charged with having failed to lodge the annual accounts of the company with the registry of the Tribunal de Commerce Chambéry within the month following their approval by the general meeting of shareholders.
Domstolen fastslog, at dette ligeledes gjaldt for den nationale lovgivning, som gennemførte fjerde direktiv, der var udstedt med hjemmel i Traktatens artikel 54, stk. 3, litra g).
The object of the legislation was to transpose into French law the provisions of the Fourth Directive, which was based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty.
Når der i direktivet og artiklen blev lagt vægt på en lige byrdefuld samordning af de garantier, som krævedes i medlemsstaterne for at beskytte selskabsdeltagernes og tredjemænds interesser, var for målet at præcisere den Ønskede harmoniseringsgrad.
Before the national court Mr Blanguernon alleged that application of the French legislation on accounting requirements adversely affected the rights of French companies in so far as they would be required to publish their accounts whereas their competitors from other Member States were not subject to such requirements.
Man kunne derfor ikke af dette formål udlede, at anvendelsen af gennemførelsesbestemmelser til fjerde direktiv i en medlemsstat afhang af vedtagelsen af tilsvarende foranstaltninger i samtlige andre medlemsstater.
Certain Member States had not adopted measures to implement the Fourth Directive.
"Traktatens artikel 54, stk. 3, litra g), og Rådets fjerde direktiv 78/660/EØF af 25. juli 1978 om årsregnskaberne for visse selskabsformer skal fortolkes således, at medlemsstaternes lovgivning, som har til formål at gennemføre direktivet, skal træde i kraft og bringes i anvendelse, selv om andre medlemsstater endnu ikke har vedtaget gennemførelsesbestemmelser til direktivet."
The Court pointed out that it had consistently held that a Member State could not justify failure to fulfil its obligations by the fact that other Member States had also failed to fulfil their obligations.
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 10. oktober iwr.
It followed that the national law of a Member State which implemented a Community directive was to be fully applied even though the directive in question had not yet been transposed and brought into force in the law of other Member States.
Hans forslag til afgørelse lød som følger: "Nationale retsforskrifter, som er udstedt i henhold til vedtagne direktiver (f.eks. med hjemmel i EØF-Traktatens artikel 54, stk. 3, litra g)), skal træde i kraft senest på den dato, som er fastsat i direktivet.
That finding also applied to the national law which implemented the Fourth Directive based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty. The reason that the directive and Article 54 referred to the equivalence of safeguards required in the Member States to protect the interests of members and others was to define the degree of harmonization to be achieved.
Dette gælder uanset, at ikke alle medlemsstater har opfyldt den gennemførelsesforpligtelse, som følger af direktivet".
It could not therefore be inferred from that objective that the applicability of implementing measures of the Fourth Directive in a Member State depended on the adoption of equivalent measures in all the other Member States.
Sag C-277/87: Sandoz Prodotti Farnaceutici SpA nod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Mr Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 10 October 1989.
"Konkurrence - begrebet 'aftale'" (Sjette Afdeling)
Case C 277/87: Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutici SpA ν Commission of the European Communities - 11 January 1990 (Competition - Definition of agreement) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 18. september 1987, havde selskabet Sandoz PF, Milano, principalt nedlagt påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 87/409, hvorved Kommissionen fastslog, at Sandoz havde overtrådt EØF-Trak-tatens artikel 85, stk. 1, ved at have fastsat et eksportforbud i de kommercielle forbindelser med sine kunder, og hvorved Kommissionen pålagde Sandoz en bøde på 800.000 ECU. Subsidiært havde sagsøgeren nedlagt påstand om bødens nedsættelse.
By application lodged on 18 September 1987 the company Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutici (hereinafter referred to as "Sandoz"), whose registered office is in Milan, requested the Court primarily to declare void Commission Decision 87/409 by which the Commission found that Sandoz had infringed Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty by providing for an export ban in commercial relations with its customers and imposed a fine of 800 000 ECU on Sandoz or, alternatively, a reduction of the fine.
Overtrædelsen havde ifølge Kommissionen grundlag i en aftale vedrørende forretningsforholdet mellem firma Sandoz og firmaets kunder, som havde fundet konkret udformning i den fremgangsmåde, Sandoz anvendte overfor kunderne. Bl.a. var de fakturaer, som Sandoz tilsendte kunderne, forsynet med påskriften "må ikke eksporteres".
The said infringement resulted from an agreement arising from continuous commercial relationships established and specified by a whole range of commercial procedures customarily followed by Sandoz in its relations with its customers, one item of which was constituted by invoices sent by Sandoz to its customers bearing the words "not to be exported".