natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det er desuden ikke alene en betingelse for, at nægtelsen af at levere den tjenesteydelse, udbringningen udgør, medfører, at enhver konkurrence på dagbladsmarkedet fra den virksomheds side, som efterspørger tjenesteydelsen, udelukkes og ikke kan begrundes ud fra objektive forhold, men også, at tjenesteydelsen i sig selv er absolut nødvendig for udøvelsen af den pågældendes virksomhed i den forstand, at der ikke findes noget reelt eller potentielt alternativ til den pågældende udbringningsordning.
It would still be necessary not only that the refusal of the service comprised in home delivery be likely to eliminate all competition in the daily newspaper market on the part of the person requesting the service and that such refusal be incapable of being objectively justified, but also that the service in itself be indispensable to carrying on that person's business, inasmuch as there is no actual or potential substitute in existence for that homedelivery scheme.
Dette er med sikkerhed ikke tilfældet.
That is certainly not the case.
Den nationale ret ønsker nærmere bestemt oplyst, om den omstændighed, at et bladhus, der har en meget væsentlig andel af dagbladsmarkedet i en medlemsstat, og som driver den eneste landsdækkende udbringningsordning for aviser i den pågældende medlemsstat, nægter, mod et rimeligt vederlag, at give adgang til ordningen for udgiveren af et konkurrerende dagblad, som på grund af dette blads beskedne oplag hverken alene eller i samarbejde med andre udgivere kan opbygge og drive sin egen udbringningsordning på økonomisk rimelige vilkår, udgør et misbrug af dominerende stilling som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 86.
The national court effectively asks whether the refusal by a press undertaking which holds a very large share of the daily newspaper market in a Member State and operates the only nationwide newspaper homedelivery scheme in that Member State to allow the publisher of a rival newspaper, which by reason of its small circulation is unable either alone or in cooperation with other publishers to set up and operate its own homedelivery scheme in economically reasonable conditions, to have access to that scheme for appropriate remuneration constitutes the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
For det første er det ubestridt, at der findes andre former for distribution af dagblade, som f.eks. udbringning via postvæsenet og salg i forretninger og kiosker. Selv om de nævnte former måtte være mindre fordelagtige i relation til distributionen af visse dagblade, anvendes de af dagbladsudgivere.
In the first place, it is undisputed that other methods of distributing dairy newspapers, such as by post and through sale in shops and at kiosks, even though they may be less advantageous for the distribution of certain newspapers, exist and are used by the publishers of those daily newspapers.
Ved bedømmelsen af, om en virksomhed indtager en dominerende stilling i traktatens artikel 86's forstand, er det, som Domstolen gentagne gange har understreget, af afgørende betydning at fastlægge det relevante marked og at afgrænse den væsentlige del af fællesmarkedet, hvor virksomheden er i stand til eventuelt at begå misbrug, der kan hindre en effektiv konkurrence.
In examining whether an undertaking holds a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty, it is of fundamental importance, as the Court has emphasised many times, to define the market in question and to define the substantial part of the common market in which the undertaking may be able to engage in abuses which hinder effective competition.
Endvidere er der ifølge det oplyste hverken tekniske, retlige eller endog økonomiske forhold, der kan medføre, at det for enhver anden udgiver af dagblade vil være umuligt eller uforholdsmæssigt vanskeligt, alene eller i samarbejde med andre udgivere, at opbygge sin egen landsdækkende udbringningsordning og anvende den ved distributionen af sine egne dagblade.
Moreover, it does not appear that there are any technical, legal or even economic obstacles capable of making it impossible, or even unreasonably difficult, for any other publisher of daily newspapers to establish, alone or in cooperation with other publishers, its own nationwide homedelivery scheme and use it to distribute its own daily newspapers.
For så vidt angår fastlæggelsen af det relevante marked i hovedsagen tilkommer det derfor den forelæggende ret at fastslå bl.a., om udbringningsordninger udgør et særskilt marked, eller om andre former for distribution af dagblade, som f.eks. salg i forretninger og kiosker eller udbringning via postvæsenet, er tilstrækkeligt substituerbare med de nævnte ordninger til, at de også skal tages i betragtning.
As regards the definition of the market at issue in the main proceedings, it is therefore for the national court to determine, inter alia, whether homedelivery schemes constitute a separate market, or whether other methods of distributing daily newspapers, such as sale in shops or at kiosks or delivery by post, are sufficiently interchangeable with them to have to be taken into account also.
Det fremgår af Domstolens praksis, at en medlemsstats område, som en dominerende stilling omfatter, udgør en væsentlig del af fællesmarkedet.
It should be emphasised in that respect that, in order to demonstrate that the creation of such a system is not a realistic potential alternative and that access to the existing system is therefore indispensable, it is not enough to argue that it is not economically viable by reason of the small circulation of the daily newspaper or newspapers to be distributed.
Det må herved understreges, at til støtte for, at opbygningen af en sådan ordning ikke er en realistisk alternativ mulighed, og at det derfor er absolut nødvendigt at blive optaget i den eksisterende ordning, er det ikke tilstrækkeligt at anføre, at en sådan opbygning ikke er økonomisk rentabel som følge af det beskedne oplag for det eller de dagblade, der skal distribueres.
The case-law indicates that the territory of a Member State over which a dominant position extends is capable of constituting a substantial part of the common market.
Retten måtte endelig tage stilling til, om den omstændighed, at den, der ejer den eneste landsdækkende udbringningsordning på en medlemsstats område, og som anvender ordningen med henblik på udbringning af sine egne dagblade, nægter at optage udgiveren af et konkurrerende dagblad i ordningen, udgør et misbrug af dominerende stilling som omhandlet
Finally, it would need to be determined whether the refusal by the owner of the only nationwide homedelivery scheme in the territory of a Member State, which uses that scheme to distribute its own daily newspapers, to allow the
»Den omstændighed, at et bladhus, der har en meget væsentlig andel af dagbladsmarkedet i en medlemsstat, og som driver den eneste landsdækkende udbringningsordning for aviser i den pågældende medlemsstat, nægter, mod et rimeligt vederlag at give adgang til ordningen for udgiveren af et konkurrerende dagblad, som på grund af dette blads beskedne oplag hverken alene eller i samarbejde med andre udgivere kan opbygge og drive sin egen udbringningsordning på økonomisk rimelige vilkår, udgør ikke et misbrug af dominerende stilling som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 86«
'The refusal by a press undertaking which holds a very large share of the daily newspaper market in a Member State and operates the only nationwide newspaper homedelivery scheme in that Member State to allow the publisher of a rival newspaper, which by reason of its small circulation is unable either alone or in cooperation with other publishers to set up and operate its own homedelivery scheme in economically reasonable conditions, to have access to that scheme for appropriate remuneration does not constitute the abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EC Treaty.'
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 28. maj 1998.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 28 May 1998.
Han fandt, at der måtte gives følgende besvarelse:
He proposed the Court answer as follows:
»Det udgør ikke et misbrug af en dominerende stilling i EF-traktatens artikel 86's forstand, at en virksomhed, som har en meget stor del af dagbladsmarkedet i en medlemsstat, og som driver den eneste udbringningsordning for abonnenter, afslår at give udgiveren af et konkurrerende dagblad adgang til denne ordning.«
It is not an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EC Treaty for an undertaking which has a very substantial share of the market for daily newspapers in a Member State, and which operates the only nationwide homedelivery distribution service for subscribers, to refuse to allow the publisher of a competing newspaper access to that homedelivery distribution service.
»Erstatningssøgsmål — ansvar uden for kontraktforhold — mælk — tillægsafgift referencemængde — producenter, der har påtaget sig en ikke-markedsførings- eller omstillingsforpligtelse — erstatning — forordning (EØF) nr. 2187/93 — forældelse« (Første Afdeling)
(Action f or damages—Non-contractual liability —Milk —Additional levy—Reference quantity — Producers having entered into non-marketing or conversion undertakings — Compensation - Regulation (EEC) No 2187/93 - Limitation period) (First Chamber)
1984 om almindelige regler for anvendelsen af den i artikel 5c i forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 omhandlede afgift på mælk og mejeriprodukter, som suppleret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1371/84 af 16. maj 1984.
No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation (EEC) No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as supplemented by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1371/84 of 16 May 1984.
Ved stævning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 30. juli 1997 har sagsøgeren anlagt sag med påstand om erstatning af det tab, som sagsøgeren hævder at have lidt, fordi han er blevet forhindret i at markedsføre mælk i medfør af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 af 31. marts
By application lodged at the Court of First Instance on 30 July 1997, the applicant brought an action for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of his having been prevented from marketing milk pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
bekræftes i øvrigt af, at de kompetente tyske myndigheder den 25. januar 1994 på Rådets og Kommissionens vegne og for disses regning i medfør af forordning nr. 2187/93 tilsendte ham et tilbud om erstatning, som han ikke accepterede.
Regulation No 1078/77, he was prevented from resuming the marketing of milk when that undertaking expired, as a result of the application of Regulation No 857/84.
Sagsøgeren havde derfor principielt krav på erstatning for sit tab.
That is confirmed, moreover, by the fact that, on 25 January 1994, the competent German authorities, acting pursuant to Regulation No 2187/93, made him an offer of compensation for and on behalf of the Council and the Commission which he did not
Sagsøgeren er mælkeproducent i Tyskland.
The applicant is a milk producer in Germany.
Da sagsøgeren havde påtaget sig en forpligtelse i henhold til forordning nr. 1078/77, som ophørte den 12. oktober 1983, fremstillede han ikke mælk inden for det referenceår, som var blevet valgt i henhold til forordning nr. 857/84.
Having entered, pursuant to Regulation No 1078/77, into an undertaking which came to an end on 12 October 1983, he produced no milk during the reference year fixed under Regulation No 857/84.
Han kunne derfor ikke efter ikrafttrædelsen af forordning nr. 857/84 tildeles nogen referencemængde og dermed heller ikke markedsføre nogen mælkemængde, som var fritaget for tillægsafgiften.
Consequently, he was ineligible for a reference quantity and, as a result, unable to market any quantity of milk exempt from the additional levy following the entry into force of Regulation No 857/84.
Ved skrivelse af 14. januar 1993 rejste sagsøgeren krav over for Kommissionen om erstatning for det af ham lidte tab.
By letter of 14 January 1993, he applied to the Commission for compensation for the losses suffered by him.
I sin svarskrivelse foreslog Kommissionen ham at afvente vedtagelsen af den forordning om tildeling af erstatning, som var bebudet ved en meddelelse af 5. august 1992.
In its reply the Commission suggested to the applicant that he should await the adoption of the regulation providing for the payment of compensation, as envisaged by the Communication of 5 August 1992.
Kommissionen erindrede om, at institutionerne havde forpligtet sig til at give afkald på at påberåbe sig forældelsen indtil udløbet af den frist, som ville blive fastsat ved nævnte forordning.
It pointed out that the institutions had undertaken to waive their right to plead limitation until the period to be fixed by that regulation expired.
Ved skrivelse, modtaget den 7. juni 1994, meddelte sagsøgeren Kommissionen, at han ikke kunne acceptere tilbuddet, da han ikke var enig i beregningen af den foreslåede erstatning.
By letter received on 7 June 1994, the applicant informed the Commission that he was unable to accept the offer made to him, since he did not agree with the way in which the proposed compensation was calculated.
I sin svarskrivelse af 5. august 1994 indrømmede Kommissionen sagsøgeren en yderligere frist på ti dage til at afgive en eventuel accept efter at have erindret ham om, at tilbuddet måtte accepteres ubetinget, og at sagsøgeren i tilfælde af et afslag havde mulighed for at anlægge sag ved Retten.
In its reply of 5 August 1994, the Commission, after pointing out that the offer was open to acceptance on an unconditional basis only and that, in the event of its being refused, the applicant could bring proceedings before the Court of First Instance, granted him an extension of time of ten days in which to accept it.
Sagsøgeren besvarede imidlertid ikke denne skrivelse.
The applicant did not reply to that letter.
Som institutionerne har anerkendt i deres meddelelse af 5. august 1992, fremgår det af Mulder II-dommen, at Fællesskabet er erstatningsansvarligt over for hver enkelt producent, der har lidt et tab som følge af, at han har været forhindret i at levere mælk i medfør af forordning nr. 857/84.
As the institutions acknowledged in their Communication of 5 August 1992, it follows from Mulder II that the Community incurred liability vis-à-vis each producer who suffered injury through having been prevented from delivering milk as a result of the application of Regulation No 857/84.
Det fremgår af sagens akter, at sagsøgeren, som i 1991 fik tildelt en særlig referencemængde, er en producent, som befinder sig i den situation, der er omhandlet i nævnte meddelelse.
It is apparent from the documents before the Court that the applicant, who was granted a special reference quantity in 1991, is in the position of the producers to whom that Communication relates.
Sagen er følgelig anlagt for sent og på et tidspunkt, da alle sagsøgerens krav var forældede.
accept. Consequently, the applicant was entitled in principle to compensation for his losses.
Da sagen blev anlagt den 30. juli 1997, var det seneste tab, sagsøgeren havde lidt, indtruffet mere end fem år før denne dato, nemlig i 1991, hvor sagsøgeren havde kunnet genoptaget mælkeproduktionen.
It is necessary, however, to examine whether, and to what extent, his claim is barred by lapse of time.
•1) Rådet for Den Europæiske Union og Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber fiffindes.
Under Article 43 of the Statute, the limitation period is interrupted only if proceedings are instituted before the Community judicature or if, prior to such proceedings, an application is made to the relevant Community institution.
2) Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger.«
The applicant's argument that, as a result of the waiver of the right to plead limitation provided for by the Communication of 5 August 1992, a new limitation period started to run must be rejected.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens pjenumj den 26. november 1998.
The waiver was a unilateral act which was intended to limit the number of actions brought by encouraging producers to await the introduction of the flat-rate compensation scheme provided for by Regulation No 2187/93.
Sag C-251/97 Den Franske Republik / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
In the present case, the compensation offer was received by the applicant on 28 January 1994.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
It was not accepted within the two-month timelimit laid down in Regulation No 2187/93, and no action for damages was brought within that period.
Generaladvokat N. Fennellv fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 26. november 1998.
That timelimit was then extended, vis-à-vis the applicant, until the expiry of the final ten-day deadline fixed by the Commission's letter of 5 August 1994.
Præjudiciel — Pretura circondariale di Bussano del Grappa — fortolkning af artikel 9 og artikel 2 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3950/92 af 28. december 1992 om en tillægsafgift i sektoren for mælk og mejeriprodukter (EFT L 405, s. 1) -begrebet »køber* — mælk, der er leveret, men ikke solgt til en sammenslutning af kooperativer af medlemmerne af det samme kooperativ — omfattet -fortolkning af artikel 2, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 3950/92 - beløb tilbageholdt som forskud på skyldig afgift — arten af køberens forpligtelse
Since the action was brought on 30 July 1997, the last time that the applicant suffered loss was more than five years before that date, namely in 1991, that being the year in which he was able to resume milk production.
Præjudiciel — Tribunal de commerce, Tournai — fortolkning af udtrykket »varemærkets renommé*, der anvendes i den ensartede Beneha-lov (og i artikel 5, stk. 2, i Rådets første direktiv af 21.12.1988 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varemærker — 89/104/EØF)
Consequently, the action has been brought out of time, all the applicant's rights having already become time-barred.
Sag C-65/97 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Cascina Laura sas di Arch.
Case C-251/97 French Republic ν Commission of the European Communities
Delbò & C. og Gariboldi Engineering Company srl Søgsmål anlagt i henhold til en voldgiftsbestemmelse -manglende opfyldebe af en kontrakt
For a trade mark to have a 'reputation' within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988, it must be established that the mark is known to a significant part of the relevant sectors of the public;
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 26. november 1998.
It is sufficient that such reputation extends to a substantial part of the Benelux territory, which may be part only of one of the Benelux countries.
Præjudiciel — Juzgado de 1* Instancia n° 22, Valencia - fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 85/577/EØF af 20. december 1985 om forbrugerbeskyttelse i forbindelse med aftaler indgået uden f or fast forretningssted i relation til en »timeshare*-aftale — anvendelsesområde (aftale såvel om tjenesteydelse som om en disposition vedrørende fast ejendom) — betingelser for udøvelsen af retten til at træde tilbage
Preliminary ruling — Pretura Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa — Interpretation of Articles 9 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Definition of 'purchaser' — Milk contributed, not sold, to an association of cooperatives by members of one of those cooperatives — Whether included — Interpretation of Article 2(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 3950192 — Sum deducted by way of advance on the levy payable — Nature ofpurchaser's obligation
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 26. november 1998.
Preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Commerce de Tournai —Interpretation of the term "repute of the trade mark" used in the Uniform Benelux Law (and in Article 5(2) of the First Council Directive to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks - 89/104/EEC)
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 26. november 1998.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 26 November 1998.
Sag T-179/98 José Cuenda Guijarro m.fl. / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union
Case C-65/97 Commission of the European Communities ν Cascina Laura sas di Arch.
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning om ikke at indlede proceduren efter EF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, efter at sagsøgeren havde klaget over, at de tyske myndigheder havde ydet støtte til Deutsche Post
The time-share contract entered into between Travel Vac and M.J Antelm Sanchis is not excluded from the scope of Directive 85/577/EEC by virtue of Article 3(2)(a) therefor, since not only does it concern time-shares, it also deals with the provision of other services properly speaking which are more important, at least so far as their value is concerned, than property rights.
Denne publikation udarbejdes af Domstolens Presse- og Informationsafdeling (L-2925 Luxembourg) med henblik på en hurtig orientering om arbejdet ved Domstolen og Retten i Første Instans.
It is not necessary for a trader to have behaved in a certain manner or for to have intended to manipulate and need not therefore be proved, any more than restriction of free will.
Dommene og de fremsatte forslag til afgørelse offentliggøres senere i »Samling af Afgørelser«, som er eneste gyldige udgave.
The formal requirements relating to the notification provided for in Article 5(1) of Directive 85/577 flow from the general provisions of the laws of the Member States.
Gengivelse kan ske med kildeangivelse.
Such notification does not need to be in writing.
Originalsprog: fransk Redaktionen afsluttet den 27.11.1998 Katalognr.: DX AC-98 0029-DA-C
Case C-178/97 Barry Banks and Others ν Théâtre Royal de la Monnaie
INDHOLD side side
Law governing the institutions
Sag C-247/97 Marcel Schoonbroodt m.fl. / État belge Frie varebevægelser
Case C-247/97 13 Marcel Schoonbroodt and Others v État belge Free movement of goods
Sag C-410/96 André Ambry Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Case C-326/96 B. S. Levez ν T. H. Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd Social policy
Sag C-337/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Industrial Refuse & Coal Energy Ltd Regler for institutionerne Page 2
Case C-410/96 André Ambry Freedom to provide services
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. maj 1998.
Furthermore, the parties agree that all managers employed by Jennings in its betting shops were subject to the same contract terms.
Han foreslog heri følgende besvarelse:
National legislation
»1) Fællesskabsretten, herunder navnlig EF-traktatens artikel 119, er til hinder for i en sag angående efterbetaling af løn på grundlag af princippet om lige løn til mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere for del samme arbejde at anvende en national processuel regel, der begrænser det tidsrum forud for sagens anlæg, for hvilket der kan opnås efterbetaling, for så vidt den pågældende regel er mindre gunstig, end hvad der gælder for tilsvarende søgsmål af national karakter angående efterbetaling af løn på grundlag af nationale bestemmelser, herunder navnlig arbejdsretlige.
In the United Kingdom, the Equal Pay Act 1970 (hereinafter 'EPA') provides that a woman is not entitled, in proceedings brought in respect of a failure to comply with an equality clause (including proceedings before an industrial tribunal), to be awarded any payment by way of arrears of remuneration or damages in respect of a time earlier than two years before the date on
Sag C-410/96 André Ambry Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
certainty, reasonable limitation periods for bringing proceedings.