natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved afgørelsen af, om en fællesskabsregel skal vige for en ældre international konvention, må det derfor undersøges, om konventionen pålægger den pågældende medlemsstat forpligtelser, som de tredjelande, der har indgået konventionen, stadig kan kræve opfyldt
In order to determine whether a Community rule may be deprived of effect by an earlier international agreement, it is necessary to examine whether that agreement imposes on the Member State concerned obligations whose performance may still be required by nonmember States which are parties to it.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen anlagde derefter sag ved den forelæggende ret med pastand om, at det fastslås, at den juridiske argumentation, der i skrivelserne var anført til støtte for at give tilladelse og dermed at gå bort fra den hidtidige politik, hvilede på en urigtig retsopfattelse, og at afgørelserne derfor skulle kendes ugyldige.
The applicants in the main proceedings then brought an action before the High Court in which they seek a declaration that the legal reasoning in those letters supporting the grant of a licence and therefore abandonment of the previous policy is vitiated by an error of law so that those decisions must be set aside.
Spørgsmål 1 a)
Question 1(a)
Den nationale ret ønsker med dette spørgsmål oplyst, om traktatens artikel 30 finder anvendelse på en national praksis, der består i at forbyde import af narkotiske midler, som er omfattet af konventionen og kan forhandles i henhold til denne.
However, in proceedings for a preliminary ruling, it is not for this Court but for the national court to determine which obligations are imposed by an earlier international agreement on the Member State concerned and to ascertain their ambit so as to be able to determine the extent to which they thwart application of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty.
Det henhører ikke under Domstolens kompetence i forbindelse med en præjudiciel forelæggelse, men derimod under den nationale ret at tage stilling til, hvilke forpligtelser der påhviler den pågældende medlemsstat i henhold til en ældre international konvention, og nærmere at afgrænse dem, således at det kan afgøres, i hvilket omfang forpligtelserne er til hinder for anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 30 og 36.
By this question the national court wishes to know whether Article 30 of the Treaty applies to a national practice prohibiting importation of narcotic drugs covered by the Convention and marketable under it.
Den nationale ret skal således undersøge, om det for at overholde konventionen i forhold til tredjelande er nødvendigt at tildele de berørte virksomheder kvoter, og om det ville være umuligt for medlemsstaten at udøve kontrol i det omfang, konventionen kræver, hvis import var tilladt
It is therefore for the national court to examine whether compliance with the Convention in relation to nonmember States requires allocation of quotas among the undertakings concerned and whether allowing imports would make it impossible for the Member State to exercise the degree of control required by the Convention.
Spørgsmål 1 c)
Question 1(c)
Den omstændighed, at en sådan foranstaltning kan være en følge af en international konvention, der er indgået før traktaten eller den pågældende medlemsstats tiltrædelse, og at medlemsstaten opretholder denne foranstaltning i henhold til artikel 234, serv om den har karakter af en handelshindring, medfører ikke at den falder uden for anvendelsesområdet for artikel 30, for artikel 234 kan kun anvendes, hvis konventionen pålægger en medlemsstat en forpligtelse, der er uforenelig med traktaten.
The fact that such a measure may have been adopted under an international agreement predating the Treaty or accession by a Member State and that the Member State maintains the measure pursuant to Article 234, despite the fact that it constitutes a barrier, does not remove it from the scope of Article 30, since Article 234 takes effect only if the agreement imposes on a Member State an obligation that is incompatible with the Treaty.
Spørgsmål 1 b)
Question 1(b)
Med dette spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret oplyst om en medlemsstat er berettiget til at afslå at udstede en tilladelse til import af narkotiske midler fra en anden medlemsstat med den begrundelse, at import af narkotiske midler fra en anden medlemsstat ville udgøre en eksistenstrussel for den eneste producent med tilladelse til at fremstille disse midler i medlemsstaten og indebære risici for forsyningssikkerheden med hensyn til diacetylmorfin til medicinske formål.
By this question the national court asks whether a Member State is entitled to refuse a licence for importation of narcotic drugs from another Member State on the ground that importation of such drugs from another Member State threatens the viability of the sole licensed manufacturer in the first State and jeopardizes reliability of supply of diamorphine for medical purposes.
En foranstaltning, der begrænser samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet kan derfor ikke begrundes i en medlemsstats ønsker om at sikre en virksomheds fortsatte eksistens.
A measure which restricts intra-Community trade cannot be justified by a Member State's wish to safeguard the survival of an undertaking.
Derimod kan behovet for at sikre landets faste forsyning til væsentlige medicinske formål i henhold til traktatens artikel 36 begrunde en hindring for samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet i det omfang dette hensyn henhører under beskyttelsen af menneskers liv og sundhed.
On the other hand, the need to ensure that a country has reliable supplies for essential medical purposes may, under Article 36 of the Treaty, justify a barrier to intra-Community trade if that objective is one of protecting the health and life of humans.
Med dette spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat skal sikre den fulde virkning af denne bestemmelse ved at undlade at anvende en national praksis, der består i at forbyde import af diacetylmorfin, når denne praksis, der viser sig at være uforenelig med fællesskabsreglen, har til formål at gennemføre en konvention — såsom konventionen om narkotiske midler — som den pågældende medlemsstat har indgået med andre medlemsstater og tredjelande før traktatens ikrafttræden eller medlemsstatens tiltrædelse, og hvis overholdelse kræver tildeling af kvoter til de
By this question the national court essentially wishes to know whether Article 30 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State must give full effect to that provision by disapplying a national practice prohibiting importation of diamorphine where that practice, which proves to be incompatible with the Community rule, is designed to implement an agreement, such as the Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which was concluded by the Member State concerned with other Member States and nonmember States prior to entry into force of the Treaty or to that Member State's accession and compliance with which would require allocation of quotas among the undertakings concerned and introduction of an effective system of controls.
De ændrede bestemmelser i direktivets artikel 6, der tillader fravigelser fra de regler, som skal sikre, at de traktatfæstede rettigheder i sektoren for offentlige indkøbsaftaler bliver virksomme, må fortolkes snævert
Article 6 of the directive, as amended, which authorizes derogations from the rules intended to ensure effectiveness of rights conferred by the Treaty in the public supply contracts sector, must be interpreted strictly.
Med dette spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret oplyst, om de organer, som er omhandlet i fællesskabsreglerne om offentlige indkøb, herunder særligt direktiv 77/62, når de ønsker at indkøbe diacetylmorfin, kan tildele ordren under hensyntagen til de bydende virksomheders mulighed for på betryggende måde at sikre de løbende forsyninger til landet
Community legislation applicable to theawarding of public contracts, in particular Directive 77/62, may, when seeking to obtain diamorphine, award the contraa on the basis of the ability of the tendering undertakings to guarantee reliability and continuity of supplies in the country.
Ved indkøb til de berørte myndigheder af et produkt som det i hovedsagen omhandlede kan forsyningssikkerheden indgå i de kriterier, der i henhold til direktivets artikel 25 skal lægges til grund ved afgørelsen af, hvad der er det økonomisk mest fordelagtige bud.
Reliability of supplies is one of the criteria which may be taken into account under Article 25 of the directive in order to determine the most economically advantageous tender for a contract for the supply, to the authorities concerned, of a product such as that in question in the main proceedings.
Det kan ikke på grundlag af de for Domstolen fremlagte oplysninger på nuværende tidspunkt antages, at det på grund af den tekniske særegenhed af diacetylmorfin og de sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, der skal træffes for at undgå ulovlig anvendelse, er umuligt at foretage offentligt eller begrænset udbud.
The information provided to the Court does not at this stage warrant the conclusion that the special nature of diamorphine and the security measures to be taken in order to prevent its diversion make it impossible to have an open or restricted invitation to tender.
Der kan derimod i overensstemmelse med direktivets artikel 25 som et kriterium for tildeling af ordren tages hensyn til den bydendes mulighed for at gennemføre passendesikkerhedsforanstaltninger.
On the contrary, a tenderer's ability to implement proper security measures could be taken into account as a criterion for the award of a contraa, in accordance with Article 25 of the directive.
EØF-traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat skal sikre bestemmelsens fulde virkning ved at undlade at anvende en national praksis i strid hermed, medmindre denne praksis er nødvendig for at sikre den pågældende medlemsstats opfyldelse af forpagteiser over for tredjelande, der følger af en konvention, som er indgået før EØF-traktatens ikrafttræden eller medlemsstatens tiltrædelse.
Article 30 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to ensure that this provision is fully effective by disapplying a national practice contrary to it unless that practice is necessary in order for the Member State concerned to comply with obligations towards nonmember States laid down in an agreement concluded prior to entry into force of the Treaty or to accession by that Member State.
En national praksis, der består i at afslå at udstede en tilladelse til import af narkotiske midler fru en anden medlemsstat, er ikke omfattet af undtagelsen i EØF-traktatens artikel 36, når den er begrundet i behovet for at sikre en virksomheds fortsatte eksistens, men kan derimod være omfattet af undtagelsen, når beskyttelsen af menneskers ti» og sundhed kræver, at der sikres en fast forsyning med narkotiske midler til væsentlige medicinske formål, og dette ikke kan opnås lige så effektivt ved foranstaltninger, der er mindre restriktive f or samhandelen inden f or Fællesskabet.
A national practice of refusing licencesfor importation of drugs from another Member State is not covered by the derogation provided for in Article 36 of the EEC Treaty if it is based on the need to safeguard an undertaking's survival but that derogation may apply to it if protection of the health and life of humans requires a reliable supply of drugs for essential medical purposes to be safeguarded and that objective cannot be achieved as effectively by measures less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
Badets direktiv 77/62/EØF af 21. december 1976 om samordning af fremgangsmåderne ved offentlige indkøb som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 881295IEØF af 22. marts 1988 skal fortolkes således, at de deri omhandlede organer, der ønsker at indkøbe diacetylmorfin, kan tildele kontrakten under hensyntagen til de bydende virksomheders mulighed for på betryggende måde at sikre de løbende forsyninger til den pågældende medlemsstat*
Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinatingprocedures for the award of public supply contracts, as amended by Council Directive 88/295/EEC of 22 March 1988, is to be interpreted as authorizing the bodies covered by that directive which wish to obtain diamorphine to award the contract on the basis of the tendering
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court should answer as follows:
»1) EØF-traktatens artikel 30-36 finder anvendelse på lovlig handel med narkotiske midler omfattet af Enkelt Konvention om narkotiske midler fra 1961.1 det omfang, at dette til trods for mulighederne i EØF-traktatens artikel 36 ville medføre, at en medlemsstat ikke kan opfylde de forpligtelser, som er pålagt den i denne konvention, giver EØF-traktatens artikel 234, stk. 1, medlemsstaten mulighed for at opfylde de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i henhold til konventionen, hvis den har tiltrådt konventionen ingen EØF-traktatens ikrafttrædelse eller inden dens tiltrædelse af EØF-traktaten.
Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty apply to lawful trade in narcotic drugs within the meaning of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. However, in so far as this would make it impossible for the Member State concerned, even in the light of the possibilities opened up by Article 36 of the EC Treaty, to comply with the obligations imposed on it by the Single Convention, the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty allows that Member State to comply with its obligations under that Convention if it acceded to the Convention before the entry into force of the EC Treaty or prior to its own accession to the Community.
2) EØF-traktatens artikel 36 giver en medlemsstat adgang til undtagelsesvis at begunstige indenlandsk produktion frem for import fra andre medlemsstater, hvis der kun derved kan sikres en pålidelig forsyning med narkotiske midler til vigtige lægelige formål i denne medlemsstat«
Article 36 of the EC Treaty allows a Member State exceptionally to give preference to domestic production over imports from other Member States if that is the only way in which reliable supplies of narcotic drugs for essential medical purposes can be guaranteed in that Member State.'
Præjudiciel »Bruxelles-konventionen—national lovgivning med konventionen som forbulede —fortolkning —præjudicielt spørgsmål —falder uden for Domstolens kompetence* (Domstolens plenum) betalt i medfør af aftaler, der er erklæret ugyldige.
Preliminary ruling (Brussels Convention — National legislation modelled on it — Interpretation - Question submitted for a preliminary ruling — Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)
Fra den 7. september 1982 indgik Kleinwort og District Council syv renteswap-aftaler, i henhold til hvilke Kleinwort udbetalte District Council beløb på i alt 807 23031 UKL.
(Full Court) bank established in England, and the City of Glasgow District Council concerning the determination of the court with jurisdiction to hear an action for restitution of sums of money paid in performance of contracts declared void.
Ved afgørelse af 18. maj 1993 indgået til Domstolen den 6. juli 1993 har Court of Appeal i medfør af protokollen vedrørende Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, forelagt Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 og 3.
By decision of 18 May 1993 received at the Court on 6 July 1993, the Court of Appeal referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under the Protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters a question on the interpretation of Article 5(1) and (3) of the Convention.
Den 24. januar 1991 fastslog House of Lords i en principiel dom, at lokale myndigheder som District Council ikke havde beføjelse til at indgå aftaler af denne art og at de indgåede aftaler som følge heraf var ugyldige ex tune på grund af inhabilitet hos en af parterne.
From 7 September 1982 Kleinwort Benson and the District Council entered into seven interestrate swap contracts under which Kleinwort Benson made payments to the District Council totalling £807 230.31.
Den 6. september 1991 anlagde Kleinwort under henvisning til, at der forelå en ugrundet
That question was raised in the course of proceedings between Kleinwort Benson Ltd, a
kompetence berigelse, sag i England mod District Council ved High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court, med krav om tilbagebetaling af de beløb, banken havde betalt i henhold til de mellem parterne indgåede aftaler.
whose wording was substantially the same as that of Article 5(1) and (3) of the Convention, and on whose interpretation the Court of Justice had not yet ruled, the Court of Appeal decided to refer the question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Det står fast at den fortolkning af de omhandlede konventionsbestemmelser, Domstolen anmodes om, skal gøre det muligt for den forelæggende ret at træffe afgørelse om anvendelsen, ikke af konventionen, men af den nationale lovgivning i den kontraherende stat hvori denne retsinstans er beliggende.
On 24 January 1991 the House of Lords held in a test case that it was ultra vires local authorities such as the Distria Council to enter into contracts of that kind and that the contracts entered into were consequently void ab initio owing to the lack of capacity of one of the parties.
District Council bestred de engelske retters kompetence til at træffe afgørelse vedrørende Kleinwort's krav, idet sagen om tilbagebetalingen af beløbene efter dets opfattelse skulle anlægges ved retterne på sagsøgtes hjemsted i Skotland.
It is common ground that the purpose of the interpretation which the Court is asked to give of the Convention provisions at issue is to enable the national court to decide on the application not of the Convention but of the national law of the contracting state to which that court belongs.
Den nationale lovgivning, der finder anvendelse i hovedsagen, indeholder ikke en direkte og ubetinget henvisning til fællesskabsretten, hvorefter denne skal gælde i den nationale retsorden, men anvender tværtimod blot konventionen som forbillede og gengiver til dels konventionens bestemmelser.
On 6 September 1991 Kleinwort Benson brought an action against the Distria Council founded on unjust enrichment before the Commercial Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the Court of Justice for restitution of sums of money paid in performance of contracts entered into between the parties.
Kleinwort gjorde derimod for High Court gældende, at District Council blev sagsøgt enten i «sager om kontraktforhold« eller i »sager om erstatning uden for kontrakt«, og at de engelske rener derfor havde kompetence enten i medfør af artikel 5(1) eller (3) i Schedule 4 til Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (lov af 1982 om kompetencen og om retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herefter benævnt »1982loven«).
The District Council challenged the jurisdiction of the English courts to determine Kleinwort Benson's claim arguing that the action for restitution had to be brought before the courts of the place of the defendant's domicile in Scotland.
Under disse omstændigheder kan det ikke antages, at det i den pågældende kontraherende stats ret er blevet bestemt, at de konventionsbestemmelser, der er forelagt Domstolen til fortolkning, skal gælde som sådanne, selv uden for konventionens anvendelsesområde.
Far from containing a direct and unconditional renvoi to provisions of Community law so as to incorporate them into the domestic legal order, the Act takes the Convention as a model only, and does not wholly reproduce the terms thereof.
Efter at High Court den 27. februar 1992 havde fastslået at den ikke havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen, appellerede Kleinwort den 26 marts 1992 denne afgørelse til Court of Appeal
Accordingly, the provisions of the Convention which the Court is asked to interpret cannot be regarded as having been rendered applicable as such, in cases outwith the scope of the Convention, by the law of the contracting state concerned.
Dernæst bemærkes, at i medfør af 1982-loven er retterne i den pågældende kontraherende stat ikke forpligtet til absolut og ubetinget at anvende den fortolkning af konventionen, Domstolen har anvist dem, ved afgørelsen af de sager, der er indbragt for dem.
On the other hand, Kleinwort Benson argued before the High Court that the Distria Council was being sued either 'in matters relating to a contract' or 'in matters relating to tort, delia or quasi-delict', and that the English courts therefore had jurisdiction under either Article 5(1) or Article 5(3) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 ('the 1982 Act').
Court of Appeal fandt at sagens udfald beroede på en afgørelse om anvendelsesområdet for artikel 5(1) og (3) i Schedule 4 til 1982-loven og om forholdet mellem disse to bestemmelser, at disse bestemmelser i det væsentlige havde samme ordlyd som konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1 og 3, og at Domstolen endnu ikke havde truffet afgørelse om fortolkningen af de sidstnævnte bestemmelser.
On 27 February 1992 the High Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the action. On 26 March 1992 Kleinwort Benson appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal.
Som følge heraf besluttede retten at forelægge det præjudicielle spørgsmål.
Considering that the resolution of the dispute required a decision on the scope of Article 5(1) and (3) of Schedule 4 to the 1982 Act and on the interrelationship between those two provisions,
Det kan imidlertid ikke accepteres, at de svar, Domstolen giver retsinstanserne i de kontraherende stater, kun er vejledende og helt uden bindende virkning. Dette ville bevirke en fuldstændig ændring af Domstolens rolle i henhold til protokollen af 3. juni 1971, nemlig som en retsinstans, hvis domme er bindende.
It cannot be accepted that the replies given by the Court to the courts of the contracting states are to be purely advisory and without binding effect.
•Domstolen har ikke kompetence til at afgøre det præjudicielle spørgsmål, der er forelagt af Court of Appeal*
'The Court does not have jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the question submitted by the Court of Appeal'
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslap til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 31. januar 1995.
Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 31 January 1995.
»Bestemmelserne i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, finder ikke anvendelse ved afgørelse af tvister om fordelingen af den stedlige kompetence mellem retsinstanser i én og samme kontraherende stat; følgelig finder protokollen af 3. juni 1991 om fortolkningen af konventionen ikke anvendelse, og det i medfør af protokollens artikel 3 forelagte spørgsmål falder uden for Domstolens kompetence.«
'The provisions of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters are not applicable in order to resolve conflicts of territorial jurisdiction between the courts of a single Member State. It follows that the Protocol of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation of that Convention is not applicable and that the questions raised under Article 3 of that Protocol are outside the Court's jurisdiction.'
Sag C-65/93 Europa-Parlamentet / Rådet for den Europæiske Union Institutionelle spørgsmål
Case C-65/93 European Parliament ν Council of the European Union Law governing the institutions
»EØF-traktatens artikel 43 —pligt til høring afParlamentet* (Domstolens plenum)
Preliminary ruling (Article 43 of the EEC Treaty — Obligation to consult the Parliament) (Full Court)
Den 17. november 1992 besluttede Parlamentet på et plenarmøde at undergive forslaget uopsættelig forhandling og at opføre det på dagsordenen for den 20. november 1992.
On 17 November 1992 the Parliament decided in plenary session to debate the proposal as a matter of urgency on 20 November 1992.