natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Generaladvokaten foreslog Domstolen at give Kommissionen medhold og at dømme Kongeriget Belgien til at betale sagens omkostninger.
If the statement citing a lower ash content than that of the flour exported has not induced payment of an amount higher than was payable under the advance-financing transaction but has none the less induced payment of an amount higher than the total payable by way of export refund, then the exporter must reimburse the amount which was not payable to him in accordance with the national provisions regarding the recovery of overpayments.
Sagerne T-79/89, T-84/89, T-85/89, T-86/89, T-89/89, T-91/89, T-92/89, T-94/89, T-96/89, T-98/89, T-102/89 og T-104/89: BASF AG, NV. Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij, NV DSM og DSM Kunststoffen BV, Hüls AG, Atochem SA, Société artésienne de vinyle SA, Wacker Chemie GmbH, Enichem SpA, Hoechst AG, Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd., Montedison Spa mod Kommissionen
In the alternative, the Advocate General proposed that the second question submitted by the Bundesfinanzhof in Case C-5/90 be answered as follows:
Ved stævninger, indleveret i marts og april 1989, havde de nævnte virksomheder anlagt en række sager, hvori der var nedlagt påstand om annul!ation af Kommissionens beslutning 89/190/EØF af 21. december 1988.
Case C-377/90: Commission ν Kingdom of Belgium - 27 February 1992 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - EEC Directive - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) (Full Court)
Ifølge den anfægtede beslutning havde de nævnte virksomheder tilsidesat Traktatens konkurrenceregler ved at have deltaget i en aftale og/eller samordnet praksis bestående i, at de producenter, som forsyner EF-markedet med PVC, havde afholdt regelmæssige møder med henblik på fastsættelse af "målpriser" og "målkvoter", planlægning af samordnede initiativer til forhøjelse af prisniveauet samt kontrol med gennemførelsen af de i hemmelighed tilvejebragte ordninger.
By application lodged on 21 December the Commission brought an action for a declaration that the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of Council Directive 87/540/EEC and under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty.
Til støtte for deres påstande gjorde sagsøgerne for det første gældende, at der var uoverensstemmelse mellem de retsakter, som var meddelt sagsøgerne og bekendtgjort i EF-Tidende, og de beslutninger, som Kommissionens medlemmer havde vedtaget som kollegium.
By failing to forward within the prescribed period the texts of the provisions of national law adopted in the field governed by Council Directive 87/540/EEC of 9 November 1987 on access to the occupation of carrier of goods by waterway in national and international transport and on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifica­tions for this occupation, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 of that directive;
Herom fastslog Retten, at der i betragtningerne til de omhandlede retsakter rent faktisk var indføjet et helt nyt afsnit, og endvidere var foretaget ændringer i konklusionens artikel 1.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 28 November 1991
Der forelå dermed en uoverensstemmelse af den anførte art, som udgjorde en klar tilsidesættelse af princippet om den vedtagne retsakts uantastelighed, hvorfor hele den anfægtede beslutning måtte betragtes som en nul li tet.
He proposed that the Court should give a judgment in accordance with the form of order sought by the Commission and should order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Hvad angår kommissionsmedlemmets tidsmæssigt gyldige kompetence fastslog Retten, at det fremgik af sagen, at enhver påtegning, som kunne anses for en gyldig signatur af de omhandlede retsakter, kun kunne være foretaget efter udløbet af det pågældende kommissionsmedlems embedsperiode.
Cases T­79/89, T­84/89, T­85/89, T­86/89, T­89/89, T­91/89, T­91/89, T­92/89, T­94/89, T­96/89, T­98/89, T­102/89, and T­104/89: BASF AG, NV Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij, NV DSM and DSM Kunststoffen BV, Hüls AG, Atochem SA, Société Artésienne de Vinyl e SA, Wacker Chemie GmbH, Enichem S.p.A, Hoechst AG, Imperial Chemical Industries PLC, Shell International Chemical Company Ltd, and Montedison SpA. ν Commission ­ 27 February 1992 (Competition ­ Concepts of agreement and concerted practice ­ Procedure ­Competence ­ Commission's Rules of Procedure ­ Non­existence of the measure)
Følgelig havde den retsaktsudstedende myndighed ikke haft fornøden kompetence til at vedtage de retsakter, som var meddelt sagsøgerne og bekendtgjort i EF-Tidende.
By applications lodged in March and April 1989, the abovementioned undertakings brought a number of actions seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 89/190/EEC of 21 December 1988.
Sagsøgerne gjorde endvidere gældende, at artikel 12 i Kommissionens forretningsorden var tilsidesat, hvilket, gjorde det udelukket at foretage en prøvelse af den anfægtede retsakts ægthed.
The decision recited that the undertakings had infringed the competition rules of the EEC Treaty by participating in an agreement and/or concerted practice by which the producers supplying PVC in the Community had taken part in regular meetings in order to fix target prices and target quotas, plan concerted initiatives to raise price levels and monitor the operation of the said collusive arrangements.
Herom fastslog Retten, at den procedure for gyldig stadfæstelse af Kommissionens retsakter, som er fastsat i dennes forretningsorden, er en væsentlig forudsætning for retssikkerheden og for stabiliteten i borgernes retsstilling i henhold til gældende EF-regler.
In support of their actions the applicants asserted in the first place that the measures notified and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities showed certain discrepancies when compared with the decisions adopted by the Members of the Commission.
Det er uomgængeligt nødvendigt for opretholdelsen af en retsorden, som bygger på et indbyrdes normhieraki, at der stilles strenge formelle krav.
The Court held that the reasons given for the measures in question included an entirely new paragraph, and that Article 1 of the operative part had also been amended.
Disse krav udgør nemlig en garanti for, at både legalitets- og retssikkerhedsprincippet samt princippet om god forvaltning overholdes.
Accordingly, there was evidence of discrepancies which pointed to a clear infringement of the principle that a measure, once adopted, may not be altered and which rendered the contested decision null and void in its entirety.
Som følge heraf fastslog Retten - under hensyn til, at det fandtes godtgjort under bevisførelsen, at der ikke var foretaget nogen gyldig stadfæstelse af den omhandlede retsakt i overensstemmelse med artikel 12, stk. 1, i Kommissionens forretningsorden - at det var udelukket i denne sag at gennemføre den i Traktatens artikel 192, stk. 2, foreskrevne procedure for prøvelse af retsaktens ægthed, dvs. en prøvelse af den originale og gyldigt stadfæstede retsakt.
In the second place the applicants claimed that the person issuing the measures notified and published in the Official Journal had no powers ratione materiae or rati one temporis to do so.
Vedrørende spørgsmålet, om de til sagsøgerne meddelte og i EF-Tidende bekendtgjorte retsakter kunne betegnes som beslutninger i Traktatens forstand, fastslog Retten, at det hverken var muligt at fastslå med fornøden sikkerhed præcist fra hvilken dato, den omhandlede retsakt måtte antages at have retsvirkning og dermed være inkorporeret i EF's retsorden, eller muligt på grund af de indføjede ændringer med sikkerhed at fastslå det præcise indhold af den begrundelse, som retsakten skal indeholde ifølge Traktaten.
With regard to the powers of the Member of the Commission ratione materiae. the Court held that the decisions in some of the authentic language versions were adopted solely by the Member in charge of competition matters, and declared in that connection that a decision which establishes an infringement of Article 85 of the Treaty, issues orders to a number of undertakings, imposes large fines upon them and is directly enforceable for these purposes clearly affects the rights and obligations and the property of those undertakings.
Det var heller ikke muligt at bestemme og med sikkerhed efterprøve omfanget af de forpligtelser, retsakten pålagde dem, den var rettet til, og at afgrænse sidstnævnte nærmere, eller fastslå med sikkerhed, hvem der var ophavsmand til den endelige version.
Consequently, it could not be regarded as having been validly adopted by a single Member of the Commission, since this would be directly contrary to the principle of collegiate responsibility expressly referred to in the Commission's Rules of Procedure.
Af disse grunde fastslog Retten under henvisning til, at det var godtgjort, at Kommissionen fuldstændigt havde tilsidesat den i forretningsordenen foreskrevne procedure for retsaktens gyldige stadfæstelse, at denne ikke kunne betegnes som en beslutning i henhold til Traktatens artikel 189.
Turning to the powers of the Member of the Commission ratione temporis, the Court found that any wording which might have been treated as equivalent to a signature of the abovementioned measures must have been inserted after his mandate had expired.
Den var nemlig behæftet med så grove og åbenbare mangler, at den måtte tilsidesættes som en nullitet.
The Court concluded from the foregoing that the measures notified to the applicants and published in the Official Journal must have been issued by an authority having no powers to do so.
Traktatens artikel 189 og 190 samt artikel 12 i Kommissionens forretningsorden omhandler og omfatter nemlig alene de af Kommissionen vedtagne retsakter og ikke uformelle vil jesytringer fra Kommissionen, som måtte være kommet til udtryk i en aftale om "hovedindholdet", "det væsentlige" eller "kernen" i en retsakt, hvilke begreber er ukendte i fællesskabsretten.
The Court observed that the procedure for verifying measures pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Procedure constituted an essential factor contributing to legal certainty and stability of legal situations in the Community legal order.
Den retsakt, som er meddelt sagsøgerne og bekendtgjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende nr. L 74 af 17. marts 1989 (s. 1), og hvis titel lyder: "Kommissionens beslutning af 21. december 1988 om en procedure i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 85 (IV-31.865, PVC)" tilsidesættes som en nullitet.
Any infringement of those rules would create a system that was essentially precarious, in which the description of the persons subject to measures adopted by the institutions, the extent of their rights and obligations and the authority issuing the measures could be known only approximately, thereby jeopardizing the exercise of judicial review.
27.2.92 "Konkurrence - EØF-Traktatens artikel 85 - eksklusivt eller selektivt distributionssystem - konkurrencebegrænsende formål eller virkning -forordning nr. 17/62 - beslutning om anvendelse af artikel 15, stk. 6" (Anden Afdeling)
On those grounds, and faced with a "measure" for which the authentication procedure provided for by the Community rules had been found to have been completely disregarded and for which the procedure laid down by the Treaty could not be implemented, the Court held that such a "measure" could not be regarded as a decision for the purposes of Article 189 of the Treaty.
Den 25. marts 1991 havde Société d'hygiène dermatologique de Vichy (herefter benævnt Vichy) anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 91/153/EØF, hvori det af Vichy indførte selektive distributionssystem for EF-medlemsstaterne undtagen Frankrig - for så vidt som godkendelsen som forhandler af Vichy-produkter gøres betinget af udøvelse af apotekervirksomhed - fandtes at stride mod EØF-Traktatens artikel 85.
Dealing finally with the form in which the measures notified and published in the Official Journal were presented, the Court also rejected the Commission's contention that the Members of the Commission had adopted the "substance" or "essence" of the contested measure and that consequently the notified measures had to be presumed to be in conformity with the intention of the authority issuing the measure.
Herom fastslog Retten, at beslutningen på ingen måde kunne anses for diskriminerende, men at den med hjemmel i artikel 15, stk. 6, i forordning nr. 17 som eneste formål havde at genindsætte virksomheden i den retsstilling, den havde haft, hvis den ikke havde anmeldt sit eksklusive distributionssystem til Kommissionen.
The measure notified to the applicants, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities L 74 of 17 March 1989 (p.
Retten fastslog videre, at Kommissionens tiltag på grundlag af den nævnte bestemmelse kun kan angå en eller flere aftaler, der tidligere er blevet anmeldt for den.
1) and entitled "Commission Decision 89/190/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.865, PVC)", is non-existent.
Retten udtalte således, at det fremgår af selve opbygningen af artikel 15 i forordning nr. 17, at Det Rådgivende Udvalgs udtalelse i forbindelse med forordningens anvendelse kun er påkrævet, inden der vedtages en beslutning om at pålægge en bøde. Retten konstaterede imidlertid, at foreløbige beslutninger i henhold til artiklens stk. 6 ikke figurerer blandt dem, som omtales i stk. 1 og 2, og hverken har til formål eller til følge at pålægge den virksomhed, beslutningen er rettet til, en bøde.
Case T-19/91: Société d'Hygiène Dermatologique de Vichy ν Commission of the European Communities - 27 February 1992 (Competition - Article 85 of the EEC Treaty - Exclusive or selective distribution system - Anti-competitive purpose or effect - Regulation No 17/62 - Decision to apply Article 15(6)) (Second Chamber)
Ifølge Retten kunne den omstændighed, at Kommissionen i praksis indhenter en udtalelse fra Det Rådgivende Udvalg, inden den pålægger en bøde på grund af urigtige oplysninger, eller inden den træffer en foreløbig foranstaltning i overensstemmelse med reglerne i artikel 15, stk. 1 og 3, eller artikel 3 i forordning nr. 17, ikke give grundlag for en analogislutning om, at udvalget også skal høres forud for en beslutning, der træffes med hjemmel i artikel 15, stk. 6.
In support of its action Vichy maintained, first, that the contested decision was in breach of the principles of non-discrimination and legal certainty.
Ganske vist skal Kommissionens meddelelser ifølge artikel 15, stk. 6, i forordning nr. 17 afgives under overholdelse af kontradiktionskravet i forordningens artikel 19, stk. 1, men heraf kunne det ikke udledes, at Kommissionen inden sin afgivelse af en sådan meddelelse skal indhente en udtalelse fra Det Rådgivende Udvalg.
In that regard the Court held that, far from its being a discriminatory measure, the effect of the dec ision, adopted under Article 15(6) of Regulation No 17, had been to restore Vichy to the position in which it would have remained had it not notified its exclusive distribution system to the Commission.
Herefter kunne der ikke gives sagsøgeren medhold i, at Kommissionen havde krænket en grundlæggende ret, når dette alene begrundedes med, at medlemsstaterne sagkyndige ikke var blevet hørt.
The Court further noted that the measures adopted by the Commission under Article 1 5(6) could be assumed only to affect one or more agreements which had been notified to it in advance.
Retten kunne tiltræde, at Det Rådgivende Udvalgs udtalelse kun skulle indhentes, såfremt den pågældende virksomhed forinden var blevet opfordret til at udtale sig efter reglerne i artikel 19, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 17, men der sås ikke at foreligge nogen fællesskabsretlig grundsætning eller nogen bestemmelse i forordning nr. 17 eller forordning nr. 99/63, der omvendt kræver, at en høring af virksomheden, når en sådan skal foretages, nødvendigvis skal efterfølges af en høring af Det Rådgivende Udvalg.
Vichy went on to argue that the Commission had infringed essential procedural requirements by omitting to consult the Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions.
Dette måtte især gælde, inden Kommissionen afgiver en meddelelse ifølge artikel 15, stk. 6, i forordning nr. 17.
The Court could not uphold that plea. It was clear from the inherent structure of Article 15 of Regulation No 17 that, for the purpose of its application, the opinion of the Advisory Committee was required only prior to the adoption of a decision imposing a fine.
Vichy fremsatte et tredje anbringende, der gik ud på, at Kommissionen ikke havde været i stand til retligt fyldestgørende at godtgøre, at den anmeldte aftale faldt inden for forbuddet i Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
On the other hand, provisional decisions adopted under paragraph (6) of Article 15 were not included within the decisions to which paragraphs (1) and (2) referred and had neither the aim nor the effect of fining the undertaking to which they were addressed.
Herom fastslog Retten, at et selektivt eller eksklusivt distributionssystem ifølge Domstolens praksis kan udgøre en konkurrencefaktor, der er i overensstemmelse med Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, såfremt det godtgøres, at det omhandlede produkt har sådanne egenskaber, at det af hensyn til at bevare dets kvalitet og af hensyn til dets rette brug er nødvendigt at indføre et sådant system, og på betingelse af, at valget af videreforhandlere sker på grundlag af objektive kvalitetskriterier.
The Court held that the fact that, in practice, the Commission sought the opinion of the Advisory Committee prior to imposing a fine for incorrect information or introducing a provisional measure, pursuant to Article 15(1) and (3) and Article 3 of Regulation No 17, could not support the assertion that, by analogy, that Committee should also be consulted before a decision was adopted on the basis of Article 15(6).
Vedrørende den konkrete tvist måtte det imidlertid være tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at som følge af nationale retsforskrifter, som producenten ikke kunne være uvidende om, og som var karakteriseret af, at adgangen til apotekerhvervet var begrænset, antog kriteriet for godkendelse af forhandlere nødvendigvis kvantitativ karakter, hvilket ikke ændredes af, at antallet af potentielle salgssteder var relativt højt.
Moreover, whilst the notices issued by the Commission under Article 15(6) of Regulation No 17 were required to comply with the audi alteram partem rule laid down by Article 19(1) thereof, it did not follow that the Commission was bound, prior to issuing such a notice, to seek the opinion of the Advisory Committee. Accordingly, the applicant could not claim to have been deprived of a basic right merely because the opinion of national experts had not been sought.
Vedrørende virkningen af det omtvistede godkendelseskriterium på samhandelen i Fællesskabet bemærkede Retten, at, som det fremgik af den til Kommissionen anmeldte standardkontrakt, var mellemkommende salg - dvs. salg, der ikke berørte den endelige forbruger - forbudt, når køberen havde status som tredjemand i forhold til distributionsnettet.
Lastly, the Court, whilst admitting that the opinion of the Advisory Committee could not be sought unless the undertaking involved had first been called upon to submit its observations, subject to the conditions under Article 19(1) of Regulation No 17, held that there was no general principle of Community law or any provision under Regulation No 17 or Regulation No 99/63 which demanded, conversely, that the hearing of the undertaking's views - when required - had necessarily to be followed by consultation of the Advisory Committee.
Det pågældende forbud antoges følgelig at kunne indskrænke handelen mellem de pågældende medlemsstater ved at fjerne den "parallelimport", som andre erhvervsdrivende kunne tænkes at foretage.
That was particularly true prior to the Commission's issuance of the notice under Article 15(6) of Regulation No 17.
Tillige antog Retten, at det af Vichy anvendte kriterium om apotekervirksomhed begrænsede konkurrencen i Fællesskabet.
Vichy put forward a third plea in law, to the effect that the Commission had not adequately demonstrated that the agreement notified to it fell within the scope of the prohibition laid down by Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.
Herved lagde den vægt på, dels at det omtvistede godkendelseskriterium afskar konkurrence med de øvrige distributionskanaler, dels at kriteriet bevirkede, at kun produkter med oprindelse i Frankrig kunne konkurrere med de aftaleprodukter, som distribueredes gennem apoteker.
The Court held that, as it had previously affirmed, a selective or exclusive distribution system may constitute an element of competition in conformity with Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty if it is shown that the properties of the products necessitate the creation of such a system in order to preserve their quality or ensure their proper use, on condition
Denne begrænsning fandtes så meget mere mærkbar, som konkurrencen mellem apotekerne notorisk er ringe som følge af adgangsbegrænsningen og de erhvervsfaglige pligter, som i de fleste berørte medlemsstater påhviler den, som udøver apotekervirksomhed.
In this case the Court considered it sufficient to note that, by virtue of national legislation of which the manufacturer cannot have been unaware, taking the form of the introduction of fixed quotas for access to the profession of dispensing chemist, the criterion for the approval of distributors necessarily acquires a quantitative aspect, which is not altered by the fact that there is a relatively large number of potential sales-outlets.
For det fjerde gjorde Vichy gældende, at Kommissionen under alle omstændigheder med urette havde afvist at indrømme fritagelse i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 3.
As regards the effect on intra-Community trade of the contentious criterion for approval, the Court observed that, as was clear from the standard contract sent to the Commission, intermediate sales - that is, sales not involving the end consumer - are prohibited when the purchaser is a party extraneous to the distribution network.
Vichy hævdede herved, at den valgte distributionsmetode bidrager til den økonomiske udvikling, for så vidt som den sikrer et bredt vareudvalg, garanterer et investeringsafkast og gør det muligt at opnå apotekerens samarbejde.
That prohibition was thus liable to reduce trade between the Member States concerned by eliminating "parallel imports" which other traders could otherwise have arranged.
Herom fastslog Retten, at pligten til at føre et fuldstændigt vareudvalg ikke var en betingelse for godkendelse af forhandleren, og at pligten end ikke optrådte blandt salgsbetingelserne. Under disse omstændigheder fandtes sagsøgeren ikke at kunne hævde, at der var årsagsforbindelse mellem godkendelseskriteriet og det påståede bidrag til den økonomiske udvikling.
Furthermore, since the criterion for approval prohibited competition with the other distribution networks and yet, within the network of dispensing chemists itself, limited to French territory the origin of the products governed by the contract which were liable to compete with products distributed through that network, the Court considered that Vichy's criterion requiring dispensing chemists restricted competition within the Community.
Hvad endelig angik argumentet om samarbejdet fra apotekernes side, blev det af Retten frakendt betydning, når det ikke er godtgjort, at dette samarbejde er væsentligt anderledes end det, som vil kunne tilbydes af en farmaceut, der ikke udøver apotekervirksomhed.
In the fourth place, Vichy maintained that the Commission was in any event wrong to deny it the benefit of the exemption under Article 85(3). The method of distribution used contributed towards economic progress by ensuring a wide range of goods, guaranteeing the profitability of the investment, and securing the assistance of the chemist.