natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
2) F.F-traktatens artikel 59 er til hinder for nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter der til afgiftspligtige, som ikke er etableret i en medlemsstat, og som i henhold til Rådets ottende direktiv 79/1072/EØF af 6. december 1979 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter —foranstaltninger til tilbagebetaling af merværdiafgift til afgiftspligtige personer, der ikke er etableret i indlandet, ansøger om tilbagebetating af merværdiafgift, kun svares rente efter fremsættelse af påkrav overfor medlemsstaten og efter en lavere rentesats end den, der gælder for den forrentning som uden videre opnås af afgiftspligtige, der er etableret i medlemsstaten, efter udløbet af den lovbestemte frist for tilbagebetalingen*
(2) Article 59 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that taxable persons who are not resident in Belgium but who purchase goods or services in Belgium for the purpose of providing cross-border vehicle-leasing services to clients established in Belgium, or who receive services from Belgian garages in the course of supplying services to clients estabiished in Luxembourg, and who subsequently request VAT refunds regarding those goods or services pursuant to the Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, cannot, in the event of reimbursement not occurring within the six-month period permitted by Article 7(4) of the Eighth Directive, be granted a lower rate of interest, or one which begins to accrue only from the moment when such persons serve formal notice on the Belgian State in circumstances where, in the case of late refunds of comparable sums of excess VAT paid by taxable persons resident in Belgium, such resident taxable persons are granted both a higher rate of interest and one which automatically begins to accrue as soon as the statutory timelimit prescribed for refund claims made by such! residents has expired.
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 18. december 1997.
Case C-401/96 Somaco SARL ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
De to første spørgsmål skal i overensstemmelse med begrundelsen for Domstolens dom af 17. juli 1997 i sagen ARO Lease ΒV mod Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Grote Ondernemingen d'Amsterdam (sag C-190/95) besvares således, at et leasingselskab, der er etableret i medlemsstat A, ikke leverer tjenesteydelser fra et fast forretningssted i medlemsstat B, hvis selskabet uden at have kontor, udstyr eller personale i medlemsstat Β blot i henhold til leasingkontrakter udlejer et antal biler, der er købt i medlemsstat B, til kunder, der er etableret i denne stat, og afholder vedligeholdelsesudgifter for andre kunder, der har bopæl i medlemsstat A, på grundlag af brugen af de leasede biler i medlemsstat B;
(Appeals — Competition — No anti-competitive conduct in Martinique by reason of irresistible pressure on the part of the local administration — Distortion of evidence) (Fifth Chamber) to say, between the dealers and the metropolitan importers.
Sag C-401/96 Somaco SARL / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 19 December 1996, Somaco SARL (hereinafter 'Somaco') brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 1996 in Asia Motor France ν Commission (hereinafter 'the judgment under appeal'), by which it, first, refused to annul the decision of the Commission of 13 October 1994 (hereinafter 'the contested decision') rejecting a complaint made by Somaco on 5 June 1990 and, second, dismissed as inadmissible its claim for damages.
•Appel — konkurrence - ingen tilsidesættelse af konkurrencereglerne på Martinique gennem udøvelse af et uimodståeligt pres fra de lokale myndigheders side — forkert gengivelse af bevismaterialet* (Femte Afdeling)
The Court found that the evidence described by the Commission as 'new evidence' in relation to the documents produced before it in Asia Motor France II concerned only the situation in Martinique, and it was precisely consideration of that evidence which led the Court to reach a different conclusion regarding the situation in Martinique from that which it reached as regards metropolitan France, that is to say, that the dealers in Martinique had no autonomy in the implementation of the import scheme in question.
SARL (herefter »Somaco«) iværksat appel til prøvelse af dommen afsagt af Retten i Første
In those circumstances, the fact that the dealers in Martinique were dependent on authorised importers in metropolitan France, is not such as to undermine the finding, made by the Court on the basis of the evidence put before it, that the import scheme applicable in Martinique was exclusively a State scheme.
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 19. december 1996, har Somaco
In its first plea, Somaco alleges that the Court of First Instance drew a distinction between the situation in metropolitan France and that in Martinique.
Instans den 18. september 1997 (sagen Asia Motor France m.fl. mod Kommissionen, herefter »den appellerede dom«), ved hvilken Retten dels afviste at annullere Kommissionens beslutning af 13. oktober 1994 (herefter »den anfægtede beslutning«), der afviste en klage indgivet af Somaco den 5. juni 1990, dels afviste Somaco's påstand erstatningspåstand.
In its second plea, Somaco argues that the Court of First Instance distorted the evidence which it had submitted, in particular the minutes of the meeting of 19 October 1987 and the draft agreement signed by the undertakings on the same day.
I denne sammenhæng giver det forhold, at forhandlerne på Martinique var afhængige af de i det franske hovedland godkendte importører, ikke anledning til betvivle Rettens afgørelse på grundlag af de beviser, der blev forelagt den, om, at den importordning, der gjaldt på Martinique, alene var statslig.
It maintains that those two statements are contradictory and, in any event, that it should be ascertained whether the Commission's conduct, which had been the subject of several sets of proceedings before the Court of First Instance, thus holding up progress on the case for 11 years, might constitute a wrongful act for which it is liable, requiring it to make good the damage quantified which clearly derives from the actual conduct complained of.
Med sit andet anbringende har Somaco gjort gældende, at Retten har gjort sig skyldig i en forkert gengivelse af de bevismidler, som er fremlagt for den, og i særdeleshed af referatet af mødet den 19. oktober 1987 og »aftalen« undertegnet af virksomhederne samme dag.
On that point, it should be noted that, according to consistent case-law, it is first and foremost for the party seeking to establish the Community's liability to adduce conclusive proof as to the existence or extent of the damage he alleges and to establish the causal link between that damage and the conduct complained of on the part of the Community institutions.
Med sit første anbringende bebrejder Somaco Retten, at den har sondret mellem situationen i hovedlandet og på Martinique.
It follows that the Court did not distort the meaning of the two documents relied on by Somaco and that the plea put forward in that respect must be rejected.
Hvis der var et pres, havde dette været udøvet i forholdet mellem virksomhederne, dvs. mellem forhandlerne og importørerne i hovedlandet.
Somaco has thus neither explained the allegation of wrongful conduct imputed to the Commission nor documented the damage allegedly sustained.
Heraf følger, at Retten ikke har ændret betydningen af de to dokumenter, der er påberåbt af Somaco, og at det fremsatte anbringende herom således må afvises.
As regards the claim for damages, Somaco argues that the Court of First Instance made a manifest error of law in finding that the application did not allow the conduct complained of to be identified or that such wrongful conduct could
Begrundelsen for den appellerede dom er ikke selvmodsigende eller utilstrækkelig.
' dismiss the appeal as unfounded; order Somaco SARL to pay three-quarters of the Commission's costs, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.'
godtgøre, at der er en årsagsforbindelse mellem dette tab og fællesskabsinstitutionernes påklagede adfærd.
Case C-124/96 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Spain Taxation
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 18. december 1997.
To apply such a criterion may result, first, in a non-profit-making body being excluded from the benefit of the exemption provided for by the provision and, secondly, in a profit-making body being able to benefit from it.
» forkaste appellen; pålægge Somaco SARL at betale tre fjerdedele af Kommissionens omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i forbindelse med sagen for Domstolen«.
It should be observed in that regard that the conditions which may be laid down pursuant to Article 13(A)(1) of the Sixth Directive to do not in any way affect the definition of the subject-matter of the exemptions envisaged by that provision.
Sag C-124/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Fiskale bestemmelser
Moreover, there is nothing in that provision to the effect that a Member State, when granting an exemption for a certain supply of services closely linked to sport or physical education provided by non-profit-making bodies, may make that exemption subject to any conditions other than those laid down in Article 13(A)(2).
Det står fast, at der i henhold til den spanske lovgivning kun gives fritagelse som fastsat i artikel 13, punkt A, stk. 1, litra m), i sjette direktiv til private sportsorganer af social karakter, som opkræver medlemsbidrag eller kontingent, der ikke overstiger et bestemt beløb.
Declares that, by providing that the exemption from value added tax in respect of supplies closely linked to sport or physical education applies only to private establishments whose membership fees do not exceed a certain amount, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(A)(l)(m) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: umform basis of assessment.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.
Case C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH ν Landeshauptmann von Wien Freedom of movement for persons
Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland bærer sine egne omkostninger.*
Preliminary ruling (Freedom of movement for workers — National legislation requiring legal persons to appoint as manager a person residing in the country — Indirect discrimination)
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 3. februar 1998.
Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by Fortress Immobilien Entwicklungs GesmbH, now Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH ('Clean Car'), an Austrian company established in Vienna, against the Landeshauptmann von Wien (Prime Minister of Vienna Land), concerning the rejection of an application by Clean Car to register for a trade on the ground
»at tage Kommissionens påstande til følge og pålægge Kongeriget Spanien at betale sagens omkostninger«.
that it had appointed as manager a person who did not reside in Austria.
Sag C-350/96 Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH / Landeshauptmann von Wien Fri bevægelighed for personer
On 13 June 1995, Clean Car applied to the Magistrat der Stadt Wien (Vienna City Council) to register for the trade of 'maintenance and care of motor vehicles (service station) excluding all artisanal activity'.
Præjudiciel »Arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed - national ordning, i henhold til hvilken juridiske personer skal udpege en bestyrer med bopæl i landet - indirekte forskelsbehandling* (Sjette Afdeling)
Whilst those rights are undoubtedly enjoyed by those directly referred to - namely, workers -there is nothing in the wording of Article 48 to indicate that they may be relied upon by others, in particular employers.
Ved kendelse af 8. oktober 1996 indgået til Domstolen den 24. oktober 1996 har Verwaltungsgerichtshof stillet to præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 48 og artikel 1, 2 og 3 i Rådets forordning nr. 1612/68/EØF af 15. oktober 1968.
It must further be noted that, in order to be truly effective, the right of workers to be engaged and employed without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the employer's entitlement to engage them in accordance with the rules governing freedom of movement for workers.
Af afgørelse truffet af Magistrat der Stadt Wien den 20. juli 1995 fremgår, at lovens betingelser for den pågældende næringsvirksomhed ikke var opfyldt, og der blev meddelt forbud mod at udøve denne under henvisning til, at bestyreren skal opfylde de fastsatte personlige betingelser, skal have bopæl inden for landets grænser og skal være i stand til at deltage i virksomhedens drift.
By decision of 20 July 1995, the Magistrat der Stadt Wien found that the statutory prerequisites for the exercise of that trade were not satisfied and therefore prohibited it, on the ground that the manager must satisfy the personal conditions laid down for the exercise of the trade in question, must have a residence in Austria and must be in a position to act effectively as manager in the business.
Den 21. december 1995 anlagde Clean Car sag ved Verwaltungsgerichtshof, hvorunder selskabet påberåbte sig EF-traktatens artikel 6 og 48 og gjorde gældende, at den bestyrer, som selskabet havde udpeget, var arbejdstager i sin egenskab af ansat i selskabet og derfor kunne påberåbe sig den ret til fri bevægelighed, som er fastsat i artikel 48.
Finally, the above interpretation is corroborated both by Article 2 of Regulation No 1612/68 and by the Court's case-law.
Disse to spørgsmål er blevet rejst under en retssag anlagt af det østrigske selskab Fortress Immobilien Entwicklungs GesmbH, nu Clean Car Autoservice GesmbH (herefter »Clean Car«), med hjemsted i Wien, mod Landeshauptmann von Wien vedrørende sidstnævntes afvisning af en anmeldelse indgivet af Clean Car med henblik på påbegyndelse af en næringssvirksomhed.
On 21 December 1995, Clean Car brought proceedings before the Verwaltungsgerichtshof.
Afvisningen blev begrundet med, at selskabet havde udpeget en bestyrer med bopæl uden for Østrig.
Articles 6 and 48 of the EC Treaty and submitted that the person whom it had appointed as manager was entitled, as an employee in its service and thus as a worker, to enjoy the right to freedom of movement established by Article 48.
Clean Car indgav den 13. juni 1995 anmeldelse til Magistrat der Stadt Wien om følgende næring: »Service og rengøring af motorkøretøjer (servicestation), der ikke har håndværksmæssig karakter«.
By its second question, the national court wishes to ascertain, in substance, whether Article 48 of the Treaty precludes a Member State from providing that the owner of an undertaking exercising a trade on the territory of that State may not appoint as manager a person not resident there.
Det blev samtidig oplyst, at hr. Rudolf Henssen, der var tysk statsborger med bopæl i Berlin, var udpeget som ansvarlig bestyrer.
By its first question, the national court seeks in substance to determine whether the rule of equal treatment in the context of freedom of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty and Articles 1 to 3 of Regulation No 1612/68, may also be relied upon by an employer in order to employ, in the Member State in which he is established, workers who are nationals of another Member State.
Selskabet oplyste endvidere, at Rudolf Henssen var i færd med at søge lejlighed i Østrig, hvorfor kvittering for anmeldelse af hans adresse i Østrig ville blive indgivet senere.
A requirement that nationals of the other Member States must reside in the State concerned in order to be appointed managers of undertakings exercising a trade is therefore such as to constitute indirect discrimination based on nationality, contrary to Article 48(2) of the Treaty.
Med det første spørgsmål har den nationale ret nærmere bestemt spurgt, om den ligebehandlingsregel på området for arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, som er indeholdt i traktatens artikel 48 og i artikel 1, 2 og 3 i forordning nr. 1612/68, også kan påberåbes af en arbejdsgiver med henblik på i den medlemsstat, hvor han er etableret, at ansætte arbejdstagere, som er statsborgere i en anden medlemsstat.
Next, it must be noted that Article 48(1) states, in general terms, that freedom of movement for workers is to be secured within the Community. Under Article 48(2) and (3), such freedom of movement is to entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between
1 den henseende har Domstolen i en fast praksis antaget, at ligebehandlingsprincippet ikke alene indebærer et forbud mod åbenlyse former for forskelsbehandling begrundet i nationalitet, men også mod alle skjulte former for forskelsbehandling, hvorved det samme faktisk bliver resultatet, selv om forskelsbehandlingen udøves på grundlag af andre formelle kriterier.
It would be otherwise only if the imposition of such a residence requirement were based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the employees concerned and proportionate to a legitimate aim pursued by the national law.
Selv om disse rettigheder utvivlsomt gælder for den personkreds, der udtrykkeligt er angivet, nemlig arbejdstagerne, er der intet i ordlyden af artikel 48, der udelukker, at rettighederne kan påberåbes af andre, herunder navnlig arbejdsgiverne.
The rule of equal treatment in the context of freedom of movement for workers, enshrined in Article 48 of the EC Treaty, may also be relied upon by an employer in order to employ, in the Member State in which he is established, workers who are nationals of another Member State.
Det er ligeledes vigtigt at bemærke, at for at arbejdstagernes ret til at tage ansættelse og at have beskæftigelse uden forskelsbehandling kan være effektiv og opfylde sit formål, må denne ret nødvendigvis suppleres af arbejdsgivernes ret til at ansætte arbejdstagere under hensyn til reglerne om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed.
Article 48 of the Treaty precludes a Member State from providing that the owner of an undertaking exercising a trade on the territory ofthat State may not appoint as manager a person not resident there.'
Det bemærkes, at den nævnte fortolkning bekræftes både af artikel 2 i forordning nr. 1612/68 og af Domstolens praksis.
Advocate General N. Fennellv delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 4 December 1997.
Det andet spørgsmål
He recommend that the Court reply as follows:
Med hensyn til de anerkendelsesværdige hensyn, der fremgår af traktatens artikel 48, stk. 3, og som også er blevet anført af den nationale ret, skal det bemærkes, at der ikke er noget hensyn til den offentlige sikkerhed eller den offentlige sundhed, som kan retfærdiggøre en generel ordning som den, der foreligger i hovedsagen.
( 1 ) Employers in the host State derive from Article 48 of the Treaty the directly effective right to employ workers who are nationals of another Member State without being bound by national rules which discriminate, directly or indirectly, on grounds of the nationality of the workers in question;
•1) Den tigebehandlingsregel på området for arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, som er indeholdt i traktatens artikel 48, kan også påberåbes af en arbejdsgiver med henblik på i den medlemsstat, hvor han er etableret, at ansætte arbejdstagere, som er statsborgere i en anden medlemsstat.
(3) Such a national rule may be justified by the Member States' interest in securing compliance with national rules or administrative decisions regarding the conduct of a registered trade unless the same objective can be effectively secured by the alternative of a financial guarantee or the terms of an applicable international convention.
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 4. december 1997.
(Failure to fulfil obligations 83/189/EEC) (Sixth Chamber) have been communicated to it in draft form under Article 8 of the Directive, the Commission, by letter of 23 February 1995, gave the Belgian Government formal notice that it should submit its observations within two months.
Han anbefalede Domstolen at give følgende besvarelse:
Having received no reply from the Belgian authorities, the Commission, by letter of 2 May 1996, issued a reasoned opinion pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty.
»1) Arbejdsgivere i værtsstaten har i medfør af traktatens artikel 48 en umiddelbart anvendelig ret til at ansætte arbejdstagere, der er statsborgere i en anden medlemsstat, uden at være bundet af nationale bestemmelser, der indebærer en direkte eller indirekte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af de pågældende arbejdstageres nationalitet.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 April 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action seeking a declaration that, by adopting the Decree of 9 November 1993 of the Government of the Region of Metropolitan Brussels concerning standards of quality and safety in furnished accommodation without first communicating it to the Commission in draft form, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983, as amended by Council Directive 88/182/EEC of 22 March 1988 (hereinafter 'the Directive').
•1) Kongeriget Belgien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 1, første afsnit, i Rådets direktiv 83/189/EØF af 28. marts 1983 om en informationsprocedure med hensyn til tekniske standarder og forskrifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 88/182/EØF af 22. marts 1988, idet det har udstedt hovedstadsregionen Bruxelles' regerings bekendtgørelse af 9. november 1993 om kvalitets- og sikkerhedsstandarder ved udlejning af møblerede botiger uden at have underrettet Kommissionen om udkastet hertil
(1) Declare that, by failing to communicate to the Commission the Decree of the Government of the Region of Metropolitan Brussels of 9 November 1993 concerning quality and safety standards for the letting of furnished accommodation at the draft stage, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed in its obligations under the first subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Council Directive 83/189/EEC of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations;
2) Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
(2) Order the Kingdom of Belgium to bear the costs.
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 5. maj 1998.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 5 May 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen: at frifinde Rådet for Den Europæiske Union for Europa-Parlamentets påstande om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker, hvis der er tale om en fantasibetegnelse eller en betegnelse, som er ukendt for forbrugerne i almindelighed, eller hvis der ikke er nogen direkte og nødvendig forbindelse mellem det produkt, som varemærket vedrører, og den geografiske egn, som betegnelsen sigter til, hvilken forbindelse i det væsentlige beror på, at den pågældende egn er eller kan være kendt, fordi der i forvejen fremstilles tilsvarende produkter, som værdsættes af forbrugerne for deres særlige egenskaber eller kvalitet.
Annulment of Council Decision 96/664/EC on the adoption of a multilingual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society - Insufficient legal basis (Art. 130 of the EC Treaty) - Need to have recourse to Art. 128 of the EC Treaty, with the consequent participation of the European Parliament pursuant to the rules contained in Art. 189b of the EC Treaty