natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Appellantens anbringende om, at Renen ikke foretog en vurdering af, i hvilket omfang produktet var substituerbart, er således ikke i overensstemmelse med, hvad der fremgår af den appellerede dom.
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to apply correctly, as it ought to have done, the legal principle established in United Brands ν Commission, according to which, for the purposes of the application of Article 85 of the Treaty, reference must be made to the particular features of the product in question and to a clearly defined geographical area in which it is marketed and where the conditions of competition are sufficiently homogenous.
For så vidt angår påstanden
The appellant alleges that the Court of First Instance
om, at Renen ikke tog hensyn til de beviser, som sagsøgerne havde fremlagt i så henseende, bemærkes, at appellanten hermed reelt anfægter Rettens bedømmelse af de faktiske omstændigheder, som imidlertid ikke kan gøres til genstand for prøvelse af Domstolen, da appellanten intet har fremført til påvisning af, at beviserne er urigtigt gengivet
As regards the definition of the structure of the market, it suffices to point out that the appellant does no more than challenge the assessment of facts made by the Court of First Instance, without putting forward any legal arguments for consideration by the Court. Nor does the appellant specify all the paragraphs of the contested judgment to which it objects in its contentions.
Efter artikel 85, stk. 1, er en sådan bedømmelse imidlertid ikke begrænset til de faktiske virkninger, men der skal ved bedømmelsen også tages hensyn til aftalens potentielle virkninger for konkurrencen inden for fællesmarkedet Som det med rette blev anført af Retten, falder en aftale imidlertid ikke ind under forbuddet i artikel 85, når den kun i ringe omfang påvirker markedet
The arguments adduced in support of that allegation relate to the assessments made by the Court of First Instance concerning, first, the definition of the product market, second, the determination of the geographical market and, third, the definition of the structure of the market from several other points of view.
Det er således med føje, at Retten fandt, at den omstændighed, at Kommissionen ikke havde været i stand til at bevise, at der forelå en faktisk konkurrencebegrænsende virkning, var uden betydning for sagens afgørelse.
As regards the definition of the product market, it is clear from the contested judgment that the Court of First Instance did assess the degree of substitutability of the product and observed that participation in the information exchange system was subject only to the participant's being a manufacturer or importer of agricultural tractors in the United Kingdom, and not of a particular category of tractors.
Det andet led i det her omhandlede anbringende er følgelig uden grundlag.
The Court of First Instance concluded from that fact that the undertakings themselves defined their competitive position, in the context of the agreement, by reference to the general concept of agricultural tractor.
Som Domstolen allerede har fastslået i andre sager, skal der ved bedømmelsen af det relevante markeds geografiske udstrækning tages hensyn til det område, inden for hvilket den samordnede praksis har sine virkninger.
According to the appellant, the Court of First Instance erred in law in stating that Article 85(1) prohibits both actual and potential anticompetitive effects provided they are sufficiently appreciable.
Idet aftalen indfører en informationsudvekslingsordning, på grundlag af hvilken deltagerne i denne ordning, som er leverandører på det britiske marked, modtager oplysninger om salgene, der gennemføres på dette marked, begrænser aftalen selv sine virkninger til det britiske marked, hvorfor kun dette frembyder konkurrencebetingelser, der har tilstrækkeligt homogene træk med henblik på bedømmelsen af de konkurrencebegrænsende virkninger.
It submits that the case-law of the Court of Justice allows the potential effects of an agreement to be taken into account only in order to establish whether the agreement affects trade between Member States, and not in order to determine whether it has a restrictive effect on competition.
Renen har herefter ikke begået en retlig fejl ved sin bedømmelse af rigtigheden af definitionen af det geografiske marked.
In this regard, the appellant points out that the agreement has been in force for thirteen years, which should have been long enough to determine whether or not it had actual deleterious effects.
Det fjerde anbringende vedrører præmis 38 i den appellerede dom, hvori Retten undersøgte sagsøgernes argumentation om, at rækkevidden af den omtvistede beslutnings konklusion ikke fremgik af dens betragtninger, hvilket er i strid med de af Domstolen fastlagte krav i dom af 13. juli 1966 i sagen Consten og Grundig mod Kommissionen.
According to the settled case-law of the Court, in order to determine whether an agreement is to be considered to be prohibited by reason of the distortion of competition which is its effect, the competition in question should be assessed within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute.
For så vidt angår beskrivelsen af markedets struktur er det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at appellanten blot bestrider Rettens bedømmelse af de faktiske omstændigheder uden at gøre reuige argumenter gældende, som kan undersøges af Domstolen.
The appellant's submission that the Court of First Instance did not evaluate the degree of substitutability does not, therefore, withstand a reading of paragraph 51 of the contested judgment.
Hertil kommer, at appellanten ikke har præciseret alle de præmisser i den appellerede dom, som selskabet anfægter med sine anbringender.
The allegation that the Court of First Instance failed to take into account the evidence submitted by the applicants in this regard is in fact an attempt to challenge the findings of facts made by the Court of First Instance, which are not, however, open to review by the Court of Justice, since the appellant has not adduced any matters to show that evidence was fundamentally misconstrued.
Appellanten har gjort gældende, at Retten i nærværende sag ikke anvendte det i den nævnte dom fastslåede princip, hvorefter ugyldighedsreglen i artikel 85, stk. 2, kun finder anvendelse på de dele af aftalen, der rammes af forbuddet eller på hele aftalen, hvis disse dele ikke findes at kunne adskilles fra aftalen selv.
Article 85(1) does not restrict such an assessment to actual effects alone; it must also take account of the agreement's potential effects on competition within the common market. As the Court of First Instance correctly reiterated, an agreement will, however, fall outside the prohibition in Article 85 if it has only an insignificant effect on the market.
Det fremgår klart af præmis 38 i den appellerede dom, at Retten ikke som hævdet af appellanten undlod at anvende princippet i dommen Consten og Grundig mod Kommissionen.
The Court of First Instance was therefore right to hold that the fact that the Commission was unable to establish the existence of an actual anticompetitive effect was irrelevant to the outcome of the dispute.
Appellanten gør gældende, at Retten har begået en retlig fejl ved udtalelsen om, at artikel 85, stk. 1, forbyder såvel faktiske konkurrencebegrænsende virkninger som potentielle virkninger, forudsat at disse er tilstrækkeligt mærkbare.
As the Court of Justice has already held in other cases, in assessing the geographical area of the relevant market, the region in which the concerted practice produces its effects is one of the factors to be taken into consideration.
Ifølge appellanten kan der alene tages hensyn til de potentielle virkninger af en aftale med henblik på at fastslå, om den påvirker samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, men ikke med henblik på at fastslå, om den har en konkurrencebegrænsende virkning.
By setting up an information exchange system to disseminate to members of that system who are suppliers of the United Kingdom market data concerning sales on that market, the agreement itself confines its effect to the United Kingdom market so that it alone presents features which are sufficiently homogeneous to be analysed for anticompetitive effects.
Appellanten har herved understreget, at aftalen var gældende i tretten år, hvilket burde have været tilstrækkeligt til at konstatere, om den havde faktiske skadelige virkninger.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance did not err in law in reviewing the definition of the geographical market
For det første har appellanten anfægtet Rettens bedømmelse, hvorefter Kommissionens argumentation vedrørende den første anmeldelse gælder på tilsvarende vis for den anden anmeldelse.
Commission's observations concerning the first notification apply mutatis mutandis to the second.
Appellanten har herved anført, at der vedrørende hyppigheden og mængden af de meddelte oplysninger var foretaget ændringer, som Retten ikke tog hensyn til.
Here the appellant points out the changes made to the timing and quality of the information disseminated, which, in its view, the Court of First Instance failed to take into account.
Det er tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at appellanten med dette argument anfægter Rettens bedømmelse af de faktiske omstændigheder, og at denne bedømmelse ikke kan efterprøves af Domstolen under en appelsag.
Here it is sufficient to state that by this argument the appellant is challenging the Court of First Instance's assessment of facts, which cannot be subject to review by the Court of Justice upon an appeal.
Det er i så henseende tilstrækkeligt at fastslå, at eftersom appellantens argumentation til påvisning af, at artikel 85, stk. 1, er anvendt forkert, er forkastet ved nærværende dom, er det pågældende argument ikke relevant.
The appellant claims that in this case the Court of First Instance did not apply the principle, formulated in Consten and Grundig ν Commission, that the provision in Article 85(2) rendering agreements prohibited pursuant to Article 85 automatically void applies only to those parts of the agreement caught by the prohibition, or to the agreement as a whole if those parts do not appear to be severable from the agreement itself.
For det andet har appellanten understreget at selskabets ansøgning om individuel fritagelse
In its view, that finding was made on the basis of presumptions about purely hypothetical effects of the information exchange system on competition.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fFemte Afdeling) den 16. september 1997.
The fifth ground of appeal, alleging misapplication of Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
In the first place, the appellant contests the Court of First Instance's finding that the
Sag C-298/97 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Kongeriget Spanien Tilnærmelse af lovgrvmngerne
Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 16 September 1997.
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 91/157/EØF — medlemsstatens manglende gennemførelse programmerne i henhold til direktivets artikel 6* (Femte Afdeling) ikke overholdes.
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 91/157/EEC — Failure by a Member State to adopt programmes provided for in Article 6 of the directive) (Fifth Chamber) directive.
Endvidere må det fastslås, som Kongeriget Spanien har erkendt i svarskriftet, at det på tidspunktet for den i direktivet foreskrevne dato, nemlig den 17. september 1992, hverken havde forberedt eller offentliggjort noget program til opfyldelse af de særlige mål, som er nævnt i direktivets artikel 6, stk. 1.
It should be noted, moreover, as the Kingdom of Spain concedes in its defence, that the latter had not, by the date laid down in the Directive, namely 17 September 1992, either prepared or published a programme with a view to attaining the specific objectives laid down in the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Directive.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 13. august 1997 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter artikel 6 i Rådets direktiv 91/157/EØF af 18. marts 1991 (herefter »direktivet«), da det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget og meddelt Kommissionen de programmer, der er foreskrevet i artikel 6.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 13 August 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt or communicate to the Commission within the prescribed period the programmes provided for in Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 (hereinafter 'the Directive'), the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article.
Herved bemærkes, at en medlemsstat ikke kan opfylde sin forpligtelse til at udarbejde et helhedsprogram med henblik på at nå visse mål, således som det er foreskrevet i direktivets artikel 6, ved iværksættelse af punktvise konkrete foranstaltninger eller ordninger på delområder.
In that regard, incomplete practical measures and fragmentary legislation cannot discharge the obligation of a Member State to draw up a comprehensive programme with a view to attaining certain objectives, as required by Article 6 of the Directive.
Det bemærkes for det første, at det fremgår af fast retspraksis, at en medlemsstat ikke kan påberåbe sig bestemmelser, fremgangsmåder eller forhold i sin nationale retsorden til støtte for, at forpligtelser og frister, der følger af et direktiv,
According to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay ine costs'
Sag C-213/97 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Portugisiske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-213/97 Commission of the European Communities ν Portuguese Republic Environment and consumers
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 86/280/EØF og 88/347/EØF — manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist* (Sjette Afdeling)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Directives 86/280/EEC and 881347I EEC — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed) (Sixth Chamber)
I svarskriftet har Den Portugisiske Republik ikke konkret taget stilling til disse klagepunkter og har ikke bestridt det påståede traktatbrud.
In its defence, the Portuguese Republic does not specifically comment on those allegations and does not dispute the alleged failure to fulfil its obligations.
Den har imidlertid anført, at den fuldstændige gennemførelse af direktiv 86/280 og 88/347 vil ske ved en ændring til lovdekret nr. 74/90.
It states however that Directives 86/280 and 88/347 will be fully transposed by means of an amendment to Decree-Law No 74/90.
Dette ændring, som er under udarbejdelse, vil korrigere og fuldende gennemførelsen af de to direktiver.
That revision, which is currently taking place, rectifies and supplements the transposition of those two directives.
Gennemførelsen af direktiv 86/280 og 88/347 er ikke sket inden for den i hvert af direktiverne fastsatte frist.
Directives 86/280 and 88/347 were not transposed within the periods prescribed therein.
På grundlag heraf må der gives Kommissionen medhold i dens påstand.
The action brought by the Commission must therefore be considered well founded.
»A. Den Portugisiske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til traktatens artikel 189, henholdsvis artikel 7, stk 1, i Rådets direktiv 86/280/EØF af 12. juni 1986 om grænseværdier og kvalitetsmålsætninger for udledninger af visse farlige stoffer, der er opført på liste li bilaget til direktiv 76/464/EØF, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 88/347 af16. juni 1988, og artikel 2, stk 1, i direktiv 88/347, idet den ikke har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at gennemføre direktiverne fuldstændigt og korrekt
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 June 1997, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration, first, that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully and properly to implement Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986, as amended by Council Directive 88/347/EEC of 16 June 1988 (OJ 1988 L 158, p.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 12. marts 1998.
35) and, in the alternative, that by failing immediately to inform the Commission of those measures, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and under Article 7(1) of Directive 86/280 and the first paragraph of Article 2 of Directive 88/347 respectively.
Sag T-177/96 Mario Costacurta / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 12 March 1998.
»Tjenestemænd — vederlag — justeringskoefficient — særlige undtagelsesbestemmelser for tjenestemænd, der gør tjeneste i et tredjeland — tilsidesættelse af principperne om købekraftsækvivalens og ligebehandling* (Femte Afdeling)
'(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to implement Council Directive 86/280/EEC of 12 June 1986 on limit values and quality objectives for discharges of certain dangerous substances included in List I of the Annex to Directive 76/464/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 88/347/EEC of 16 June 1988 amending Annex II to Directive 86/280, Portugal has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
Sag T-205/96 Roland Bieber / Europa-Parlamentet Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Case T-177/96 Mario Costacurta ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
Forenede sager T-78/96 og T-170/96 W / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Tjenestemandsvedtægten
Joined Cases T-78/96 et T-170/96 W ν Commission of the European Communities Staff Regulations of Officials
»Tjenestemænd — annihilations- og erstatningssøgsmål — formaliteten — omplacering — tjenestens interesse — omsorgspligt - magtfordrejning — ansvar — tjenstligfejl* (Femte Afdeling)
Officials —Actions for annulment and for compensation -Admissibility — Reassignment — Interests of the service — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Misuse of power — Statement of reasons — Liability — Administrative fault (Fifth Chamber)
Sag C-416/96 Nour Eddline El Yassini / Secretary of State for the Home Department undertegnet i Rabat den 27. april 1976 og godkendt på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2211/78 af 26. september 1978, skal fortolkes således, at det ikke giver en marokkansk arbejdstager ret til at opnå en forlængelse af sin arbejdstilladelse, selv om arbejdstageren faktisk har beskæftigelse.
Case C-416/96 Nour Eddline El Yassini ν Secretary of State for the Home Department
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 19. mai 1998.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 19 May 1998.
»Princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet af en marokkansk arbejdstager i forhold til en indenlandsk arbejdstager for så vidt angår arbejdsvilkår og aflønning, som er fastsat i artikel 40, stk. 1, i samarbejdsaftalen mellem Det Europæiske Fællesskab og Kongeriget Marokko, som er
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Immigration AppealsAuthority — Interpretation of Art 40 of the EEC/Morocco CooperationAgreement—Moroccan worker employed in a Member State — Equal treatment as regards working conditions and pay — Situation where the employment relationship is
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 93/659/EØF af 25. november 1993 om afslutning af medlemsstaternes regnskaber over de udgifter for regnskabsåret 1990, der er finansieret af Den Europæiske Udviklings- og Garantifond for Landbruget (EUGFL), Garantisektionen (EFT L 301, s. 13) — eksportrestitution for korn — bevis for opfyldelse af toldformaliteterne begyndebestidspunktet for forældelsesfristen — tidspunktet hvor kvartalsangivelsen vedrørende de omtvistede transaktioner skal indgives —fortolkning af traktatens artikel 95 og af Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF—beskatning afnaturahndkomster ved privat benyttelse af en firmabil—beregningsgrundlag — momsen anset for inkluderet i naturalindkomstens beløb for så vidt angår biler, for hvilke der svares belgisk moms, men ikke for biler, for hvilke der svares luxembourgsk moms
basis of assessment, and in particular Articles 4, 10(1) and 22 thereof, do not preclude national rules under which the limitation period for recovery of tax starts to run from the 20th day of the month following the quarter during which registration takes place for VAT in respect of transactions subject to VAT and carried out before registration;' and to the second, that: remuneration between Moroccan workers and national workers, laid down by the first paragraph of Article 40 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978, must be interpreted as not conferring on Moroccan workers the right to obtain an extension of their right of residence even if they are actually employed.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling') den 19. maj 1998.
In order for that prohibition to apply, the law of the host Member State on the entry and residence of aliens must first be observed.'
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling') den 19. maj 1998.
'In the case of taxation as referred to in Article 6(2) of the Sixth Directive 77/388, the taxable amount to be taken into account must not include the VAT borne by the undertaking on the purchase of the goods or pauyment for the service it provides for the private use of its staff.'
Europæiske
Netherlands / the European
Kommissionen for Fællesskaber frifindes.
Case C-27/94 Kingdom of Commission Communities
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det første spørgsmål således:
13) - Export refundfor cereals - Proof of customs clearance in a specific case
Kongeriget Nederlandene betaler sagens omkostninger.«
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 19 May 1998.
»Bestemmelserne i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter — Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, og især direktivets artikel 4, artikel 10, stk. 1, og artikel 22, er ikke til hinder for nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter forældelsesfristen for afgiftskrav begynder at løbe den 20. i den måned, der følger efter det kvartal, hvor momsregistrering har fundet sted, for så vidt angår afgiftspligtige transaktioner, der har fundet sted inden registreringen.«
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Premiere Instance, Liège — Interpretation ofArts 4 and 10 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ1977L 145, p. 1) - Startingpoint of limitation period — Date on which the quarterly return relating to the transactions in dispute must be submitted — Interpretation of Art. 95 of the EC Treaty and of the Sixth Council Directive on VAT (77/388/EEC) -Tax treatment of benefits in kind (private use of a company car) — VAT regarded as included in the amount of the benefit in kind for vehicles subject to Belgian VAT, but not for vehicles subject to Luxembourg VAT
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 26. maj 1998.
Order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålet som følger:
He suggested that the Court reply: to the first question that: