natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Såfremt den forpligtede institution er indtrådt i et krav i overensstemmelse med artikel 93, stk. 1, litra a), i forordning nr. 1408/71, giver denne bestemmelse institutionen ret til at gennemføre kravet i enhver medlemsstat under samme betingelser som dem, der ville have været gældende for ydelsesmodtageren, hvis der ikke var sket indtræden. Nationale regler, der begrænser eller afskærer denne ret, finder ikke anvendelse i et sådant tilfælde.«
To that end, Article 93(1) of the regulation provides that each Member State is to recognize the subrogation of the institution responsible for benefits to the rights which the recipient of the benefits has against the third party bound to compensate for the injury, or the direct rights of the institution responsible against the third party, where that institution is so subrogated or has such rights under the legislation of the Member State to which it is subject.
Præjudiciel »Vejtransport — bestemmelser på det sociale område: Anvendelse på transporter, hvor en del af ruten er beliggende i en stat uden for AETR-overenskomsten — 'tidsrum af 24 timer' og 'dag?« (Sjette Afdeling) og for transporter til Schweiz eller i transit gennem denne stat, artikel 11 i 1977bekendtgørelsen.
party's liability remains subject to the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which proceedings are brought by the institution responsible or by the victim, in other words, in principle the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury has occurred.
For den forelæggende ret gjorde Van Swieten gældende, at forordning nr. 3820/85 gjaldt for transporter foretaget til Schweiz eller i transit gennem dette land for den del af kørslen, som foregik i Fællesskabet For denne del af ruten var det derfor udelukket at anvende den nederlandske lov.
According to the Court, it follows that provisions which relate to the rights of recoupment of social security institutions against third parties bound to compensate for injuries as a result of which social security benefits have been paid, cannot be applied to determine whether and to what extent an institution responsible for benefits in another Member State has a right of recoupment against the party who has caused an injury in the territory of the Member State where those provisions apply.
Van Swieten anfægtede desuden den kontrolmetode, som de nederlandske myndigheder anvendte til at undersøge, om de daglige hviletider blev overholdt, idet denne kontrolmetode ifølge Van Swieten ikke var forenelig med artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 3820/85.
Such provisions therefore do not preclude a claim by an institution responsible for benefits in a Member State other than that in which they apply.
Det tørste spørgsmål
The Court ruled as follows:
Under en virksomhedsundersøgelse i oktober 1988 konstaterede de nederlandske myndigheder, at 17 chauffører, som var ansat af Van Swieten, ikke havde overholdt de foreskrevne hvile- og køretider, mens de førte køretøjer indregistreret i Nederlandene. Uregelmæssighederne vedrørte i dette tilfælde overholdelsen af den mindste hviletid, der skal holdes for hvert tidsrum af 24 timer som bestemt i artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 3820/85.
"Article 93(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of theirfamilies moving within the Community, as codified by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, must be interpreted as meaning that the conditions and extent of the right of recoupment which a social security institution within the meaning of that regulation has against the party who has caused an injury in the territory of another Member State, which has entailed the payment of social security benefits, are determined in accordance with the law of the Member State to which that institution is subject In particular, provisions such as Paragraph 17(1) and Paragraph 22(2) of the Lov om Erstatningsansvar, Law No 228 of 23 May 1984, as amended, do not exclude claims by institutions responsible for benefits in other Member States."
Schweiz, et tredjeland, er ikke deltager i Den europæiske overenskomst om arbejde, der udføres af det kørende personale i vejtransport (AETR).
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 14 April 1994
Da det ikke udtrykkeligt er bestemt i forordning nr. 3820/85, at den finder anvendelse på ruter, der begynder eller slutter i et tredjeland, som ikke er deltager i AETR-overenskomsten, når de køres af køretøjer indregistreret i en medlemsstat, følger de nederlandske myndigheder i disse situationer den praksis at anvende de nederlandske bestemmelser på kørslen i sin helhed og ikke tage hensyn til forordning nr. 3820/85.
Article 93(l)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the possible subrogation of an institution responsible for benefits is subject, as regards both its principle and its extent, to the legislation administered by that institution.
Heraf fulgte, at forordning nr. 3820/85 omfatter enhver vejtransport, som finder sted inden for Fællesskabet med køretøjer indregistreret i en medlemsstat, også når transporten delvis udføres i tredjelande.
If an institution responsible for benefits has been subrogated to rights in accordance with Article 93(l)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, that provision entitles it to enforce those rights in each Member State under the same conditions as would have applied to the recipient of the benefits had there been no subrogation.
Det andet spørgsmål
Case C-326/91 Ρ Henri de Compte Staff Case
tale om i artikel 8, stk. 1, ikke kan forstås som et tidsinterval, der skal betragtes isoleret og hver dag begynder på samme tidspunkt, uafhængigt af den forudgående daglige eller ugentlige hviletid.
(Appeal - Official - Disciplinary procedure - Sanction of downgrading) (Sixth Chamber)
Det følger af dette formål med forordning nr. 3820/85, at det tidsrum af 24 timer, som der er
Case C-313/92 Van Swieten BV Transport
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
Preliminary ruling (Road transport - Social provisions: applicability to transport operations in which part of the route passes through a State not a party to the ERTA - "Period of 24 hours" and "day") (Sixth Chamber)
Artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85 af 20. december 1985 om harmonisering af visse bestemmelser på det sociale område inden for vejtransport skal fortolkes således, at den også gælder for vejtransport inden for Fællesskabet med køretøjer indregistreret i en medlemsstat til euer fra tredjelande, som ikke er deltagere i Den europæiske overenskomst om arbejde, der udføres af det kørende personale i international Vejtransport, eller i transit gennem disse lande.
By judgment of 16 April 1992, received at the Court on 22 July 1992, the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court), Amsterdam referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 2(1) and 8(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85.
Udtrykket 'hvert tidsrum af 24 timer1, som forekommer i artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85, skal forstås således, at det sigter til ethvert interval i denne periode, som begynder på det tidspunkt, hvor føreren efter en ugentag eller daglig hvileperiode aktivererfartskriveren.
In the course of an inspection in October 1988 the Netherlands authorities discovered that 17 drivers employed by Van Swieten had failed to comply with the rules concerning rest periods and driving times while driving vehicles registered in the Netherlands.
Såfremt det daglige hvil tages i to eller tre adskilte perioder, skal beregningen begynde ved afslutningen af den periode, hvis varighed ikke er under 8 timer.«
The offences in the present case concerned compliance with the minimum period of rest to be taken during each period of 24 hours, as laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 20. januar 1994.
They had been committed for the most part in the course of journeys within the Community, but also, in some cases, during transport operations to destinations in Switzerland or in transit through that State.
I medfør af artikel 2, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85 finder forordningen anvendelse på vejtransport, der sker med køretøjer indregistreret i en medlemsstat, for en del af strækningen, der tilbagelægges inden for Fællesskabet, selv når den pågældende transport delvis er foregået uden for Fællesskabet.
Since Regulation No 3820/85 does not expressly apply to journeys made by vehicles registered in a Member State which start or finish in a third country which is not a party to the ERTA, in such situations the Netherlands authorities usually apply the Netherlands rules to the whole of the journey and do not take account of Regulation No 3820/85.
I henhold til artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85 må der ved 'hvert tidsrum af 24 timer1 forstås et tidsrum på 24 timer, som begynder, når den foregående daglige eller ugentlige hviletid slutter.
It held that certain of its drivers had not complied, in relation to transport operations carried out within the Community, with the provisions regarding the minimum dairy rest period laid down by Article 8(1) of
Ved afgørelsen af, om en fører i løbet af et 'et tidsrum af 24 timer* har overholdt den forpligtelse til daglig hviletid, der er fastsat i artikel 8, stk. 1, i forordning(EØF) nr. 3820/85, skal der også tages hensyn til kørsel i tredjelande«.
Van Swieten asserted before the appeal court that Regulation No 3820/85 was applicable to transport operations to or via Switzerland in respect of that part of the journey which takes place within the Community. As regards that part of the journey, the Netherlands legislation should not, therefore, have been applied.
Forenede sager C-40iy92 og C-402/92 Tankstation t'Heukske V.O.F. og J.B.E. Boermans Frie varebevægelser
In addition, Van Swieten contested the method of control adopted by the Netherlands authorities in monitoring compliance with the daily rest periods, maintaining that it is incompatible with Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85.
Præjudiciel »Frie varebevægelser — åbningstider for (Sjette Afdeling) foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som kvantitative restriktioner.
The Court noted that one of the main objectives of Regulation No 3820/85 is the improvement of road safety and working conditions for drivers.
Ved to domme af 12. november 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 27. november s.a., havde Gerechtshof (Afdelingen for Økonomiske Sager), Hertogenbosch, forelagt Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 30-36 og artikel 86, sammenholdt med artikel 3, litra f), og artikel 5, med henblik på at afgøre, om de nederlandske bestemmelser om åbningstid for benzinstationer er forenelige med disse traktatbestemmelser.
The Court emphasised that the effectiveness of those rules would be compromised if the application of the Community system were dependent on the journeys made by vehicles registered in different Member States and if national laws continued to apply where the journeys were made only partly within the Community.
Med disse spørgsmål ønskede den nationale ret afgjort, om traktatens artikel 30 er til hinder for en ordning vedrørende obligatorisk lukketid for butikker, og om traktatens artikel 86, sammenholdt med artikel 3, litra f), og artikel 5, er til hinder for en sådan ordning, hvorved der sondres mellem forskellige kategorier af erhvervsdrivende, når henses til sammenhængen mellem ordningen som sådan og de nationale bestemmelser vedrørende meddelelse af koncession på drift af benzinstationer.
It follows that Regulation No 3820/85 covers all road transport services operated within the Community by vehicles registered in a Member State, even where the carriage takes place partly in non-member States.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det forhold, at nationale bestemmelser, som begrænser eller forbyder bestemte former for salg, bringes i anvendelse på varer fra andre medlemsstater, derimod ikke kan antages direkte eller indirekte, aktuelt eller potentielt, at hindre samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne som nævnt i dommen i Dassonville-sagen, såfremt sådanne nationale bestemmelser finder anvendelse på alle de berørte erhvervsdrivende, der udøver virksomhed i indlandet, og såfremt bestemmelserne såvel retligt som faktisk påvirker afsætningen af indenlandsk fremstillede varer og varer fra andre medlemsstater på samme måde.
As regards the question of the commencement of the "period of 24 hours" referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85, the Court stated that it should be borne in mind that that regulation is intended in particular to ensure road safety and to improve working conditions for drivers.
Når disse betingelser er opfyldt, kan anvendelsen af sådanne bestemmelser på salg af varer fra en anden medlemsstat, som opfylder de af denne stat fastsatte regler, ikke antages at forhindre, at varerne får adgang til markedet eller medfører større ulemper i denne henseende end for indenlandsk fremstillede varer.
With that in mind, Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85 seeks, by providing that each period of 24 hours must include a minimum number of hours of rest per day, to ensure that driving times and rest periods alternate, so that drivers do not remain at the wheel of their vehicles for periods of such length as to cause tiredness and jeopardize road safety.
Sådanne bestemmelser falder derfor uden for anvendelsesområdet for traktatens artikel 30.
It followed from that objective of Regulation No 3820/85 that the period of 24 hours referred to in Article 8(1) cannot be taken to mean an isolated period of time beginning at the same time each day, regardless of the previous daily or weekly rest period.
For så vidt angår bestemmelser som de i hovedsagen anfægtede bemærkedes, at de fastsatte betingelser var opfyldt
That interpretation, known as the "fixed start" approach, would in some cases allow drivers to remain at the wheel for an excessive period before taking their daily rest, thereby jeopardizing road safety.
Domstolen understregede først, at ifølge fast retspraksis skal enhver regulering af handelen i medlemsstaterne, som direkte eller indirekte, aktuelt eller potentielt, kan hindre samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, anses for en
It follows that the term "period of 24 hours" referred to in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85 means a period whose commencement is variable, in that it begins to run at the time of the actual commencement of driving after the end of the previous daily or weekly rest period.
Traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at den ikke finder anvendelse på nationale bestemmelser om butikstid, som gælder for alle erhvervsdrivende i indlandet, og som, såvel retligt som faktisk, påvirker afsætningen af indenlandsk fremstillede varer og varer fra andre medlemsstater på samme måde.
Artide 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 of 20 December 1985 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation is abo applicable to carriage by road within the Community by vehicles registered in a Member State in the course of journeys to or from third countries which are not parties to the European Agreement concerning the Work of Crews of Vehicles Engaged in International Road Transport, or in transit through such countries.
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 16. marts 1994.
Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 20 January 1994
Generaladvokaten foreslog Domstolen af besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
EØF-traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at den ikke omfatter en national ordning om åbningstider for butikker, når denne, som det er tilfældet i denne sag, gælder uden forskel for samtlige erhvervsdrivende (herunder erhvervsdrivende fra de øvrige medlemsstater), der udøver virksomhed på nationalt område, når den har samme retlige og — vurderet som helhed — samme faktiske virkninger for handelen med indenlandske varer og varer fra de øvrige medlemsstater, og når den, vurderet som helhed, heller ikke på anden måde ændrer den indbyrdes samhandel.
(2) the expression 'period of 24 hours' in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85 must be taken to mean a period of time, comprising 24 hours, commencing at the end of the previous daily or weekly rest period; in order to verify whether, within a 'period of 24 hours', a driver has complied with the requirement of a daily rest laid down in Article 8(1) of Regulation No 3820/85, account must also be taken of time spent driving in non-Member countries."
En national ordning vedrørende åbningstider for butikker, som indeholder en undtagelse til fordel for visse grupper af handlende, begrænser ikke under de i denne sag foreliggende omstændigheder den tilsigtede virkning af EØF-traktatens artikel 85 og 86.«
By judgments of 12 November 1992, received at the Court on 27 November 1992, the Gerechtshof, 'sHertogenbosch (Chamber for Economic Affairs) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling several
Sag C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH mod Emilio Boch Konventionen om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser
questions on the interpretation of Articles 30 to 36 and Article 86, in conjunction with Articles 3(f) and 5 of the Treaty, to enable it to assess the compatibility with those provisions of the Netherlands rules relating to the closing of petrol stations.
Præjudiciel »Bruxelles-konventionen — artikel 27, nr. 3 — afgørelse truffet mellem de samme parter — begreb — retsforlig« (Sjette Afdeling)
In substance, the national court asked whether Article 30 of the Treaty precludes rules which provide for the compulsory closing of shops, and whether Article 86, in conjunction with Articles 3(f) and 5 of the Treaty, precludes such rules which distinguish between different categories of traders in connection with national provisions concerning the grant of licences for the petrol stations.
herom blev appelleret af Solo Kleinmotoren, og den 24. februar 1978 indgik parterne for O b er1 a n d e s g e ri eh t Stuttgart (Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland) et forlig af følgende indhold:
The Court pointed out that it had consistently held that all measures which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade constitute measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag, som verserede mellem Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH (herefter benævnt »Solo Kleinmotoren«), der har hjemsted i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, og Emilio Boch, der er indehaver af en italiensk virksomhed, som driver detailhandel med landbrugsmaskiner. Sagen drejede sig om, hvorvidt der i Tyskland kunne gives fuldbyrdelsespåtegning på en endelig dom, som var afsagt af en italiensk civilret
However, the application to products from other Member States of national provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements is not such as to hinder, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, trade between Member States provided that those provisions apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and provided that they affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.
Dermed er alle indbyrdes krav mellem parterne i anledning af deres forretningsforbindelse ophørt (...).
Such rules therefore fall outside the scope of Article 30 of the Treaty.
(Emilio Boch) forpligter sig til ikke at gøre de krav, der har været genstand for nærværende retssag, gældende over for Solo Italiana, Bologna.
Those conditions were fulfilled in the case of rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings.
Indtil 1966 forhandlede Emilio Boch landbrugsmaskiner i Italien under firmanavnet »Solo«.
The rules in question relate to the times and places at which the goods in question may be sold to consumers.
Maskinerne blev leveret af Solo Kleinmotoren. Derefter blev de af Solo Kleinmotoren fremstillede maskiner markedsført i Italien af Solo Italiana SpA (herefter benævnt »Solo Italiana«), og den tyske producent indstillede som følge heraf sine leverancer til Emilio Boch's virksomhed.
However, they apply to all relevant traders without distinguishing between the origin of the products in question and do not affect the marketing of products from other Member States in a manner different from that in which they affect domestic products.
Emilio Boch anlagde derpå to retssager.
Article 86 in conjunction with Articles 3(f) and 5 of the Treaty
Den anden af de to sager blev anlagt mod Solo Kleinmotoren og Solo Italiana ved Tribunale civile di Bologna (Italien), og den vedrørte en påstået krænkelse af firmanavnet »Solo« samt illoyal konkurrence fra de sagsøgtes side.
Articles 85 and 86 of the Treatyper se are concerned only with the conduct of undertakings and not with national legislation of Member States.
11979 afsagde Corte d'appello di Bologna dom om, at Solo Kleinmotoren og Solo Italiana i forening havde krænket firmanavnet »Solo« og havde gjort sig skyldige i illoyal konkurrence til skade for Emilio Boch.
The Court has consistently held, however, that Articles 85 and 86, in conjunction with Article 5 of the Treaty, require the Member States not to introduce or maintain in force measures, even of a legislative nature, which may render ineffective the competition rules applicable to undertakings.
Den ene sag, som blev anlagt mod Solo Kleinmotoren ved Tribunale civile di Milano (Italien), vedrørte misligholdelse af leveringskontrakten. I 1975 tilpligtede Corte d'appello di Milano Solo Kleinmotoren at betale et beløb på over 48 000 000 LIT med rente.
In the present case there was nothing before the Court to support the conclusion that the rules at issue seek to reinforce the effects of pre-existing agreements, decisions or concerted practices.
Afgørelsen
The Court ruled as follows:
I 1981 anlagde Emilio Boch sag ved Tribunale civile di Bologna med henblik på at få opgjort størrelsen af den erstatning, Solo Kleinmotoren og Solo Italiana skulle betale til opfyldelse af dommen fra Corte d'appello di Bologna. Den 18. februar 1986 dømte Tribunale civile de to sagsøgte selskaber til at betale Emilio Boch en erstatning på 180 000 000 LIT.
Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as not applying to national rules concerning the closing of shops which apply to all traders operating within the national territory and which affect in the same manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of products from other Member States.
En retsakt skal således — for at kunne kvalificeres som en retsafgørelse i konventionens forstand -være udstedt af et judicielt organ, der har sæde i en kontraherende stat, og som har kompetence til at træffe afgørelse i stridsspørgsmål mellem parterne.
The provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Articles 3(f) and 5 of the Treaty, do not apply to such rules."
Bundesgerichtshof forelagde spørgsmål for Domstolen. Det første spørgsmål var affattet således:
In circumstances such as those at issue, national legislation on shop closing which provides for an exemption for certain categories of shopkeepers does not detract from the effectiveness of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty."
Der er endvidere optaget udtrykkelige bestemmelser om retsforlig i konventionens artikel 51.
Case C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH ν Emilio Boch Convention on jurisdiction/enforcement of judgments
Som en undtagelse fra reglerne om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser bestemmes det i konventionens artikel 50, stk. 1, at en begæring om fuldbyrdelse af et officielt bekræftet dokument i en anden kontraherende stat end den, hvori det er udstedt og eksigibelt kun kan afslås, såfremt fuldbyrdelsen vil stride mod grundlæggende retsprincipper i den stat, som begæringen rettes til.
Preliminary ruling (Brussels Convention - Article 27(3) - Judgment given in a dispute between the same parties -Definition - Court settlement) (Sixth Chamber)