natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 er ugyldig, for så vidt den ikke indeholder nogen udtrykkelig bestemmelse, hvorefter der skal tages hensyn til situationen for tidligere mælkeproducenter, som ikke har produceret mælk i de i forordningens artikel 2, stk. 1 og 2, angivne referenceår, fordi de har forpligtet sig til ikke at markedsføre mælk i denne periode i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1078/77.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 is void in so far as it contains no explicit provision taking into account the position of former milk producers who had no milk production in the reference years specified in Article 2(1) and (2) of the regulation because those producers had given undertakings not to market milk during that period pursuant to Article 2 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1078/77.
Da det første spørgsmål skal besvares bekræftende, er det tredje spørgsmål, som den nationale ret har forelagt Domstolen, uden genstand.«
Given that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, the third question referred by the national court no longer requires an answer. '
»Samordnet praksis mellem virksomheder etableret i tredjelande vedrørende de salgspriser, der anvendes over for køber etableret i Fællesskabet« — Domstolens plenum —
The European Parliament brought an action pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that Council Decision 87/373/EEC laying down the procedure for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission was void.
En række celluloseproducenter og to sammenslutninger heraf uden for Fællesska bet havde anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning IV/29.725 af 19. december 1984, hvori det blev lagt til grund, at sagsøgerne havde gjort sig skyldig i flere overtrædelser af Traktatens artikel 85, og hvorved de blev pålagt bøder.
By that decision the Council laid down the procedures which it might require to be observed for the exercise of the powers conferred by it on the Commission for the implementation of the rules laid down by the Council and adopted the provisions governing the composition, the functioning and the role of the committees of the representatives of the Member States called upon to act.
Kommissionen havde nærmere bestemt lagt til grund, at sagsøgerne havde gennemført en samordning vedrørende de priser, der hvert kvartal blev meddelt deres kunder i Fællesskabet, og vedrørende de priser, der rent faktisk blev anvendt
It claimed that the first paragraph of Article 173 of the Treaty did not expressly provide that the European Parliament might bring an action for annulment.
Kommissionen angav i beslutningen, hvorfor den var af den opfattelse, at Fællesskabet havde kompetence til at bringe Traktatens artikel 85 i anvendelse over for den pågældende samordning.
The Court took the view that it was necessary to consider whether it was possible, by means of an interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 173, for the European Parliament to be recognized as having capacity to bring actions for the annulment of acts of the Council or the Commission.
Adressaterne for beslutningen driver handel inden for Fællesskabet gennem datterselskaber, filialer mv., og samordningen omfattede to tredjedele af leveran­cerne og 60% af forbruget af cellulose inden for Fællesskabet.
As was apparent from Articles 143 and 144 of the Treaty, the European Parliament was empowered to exercise political control over the Commission, which was required to ' ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied' and to censure the Commission where necessary if the latter should fail properly to discharge that task.
Hvad angår de finske virksomheder og Fincell, anførte Kommissionen nærmere, at frihandelsaftalen mellem Fællesskabet og Finland »ingen bestemmelse ((inde­holder)), der forhindrer Kommissionen i øjeblikkeligt at bringe EØF­Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, i anvendelse, når der er tale om en påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstater«.
Moreover, the Parliament was in a position to exercise influence over the content of the legislative measures adopted by the Council, either by means of the opinions which it issued under the consultation procedure or by means of the positions which it adopted under the cooperation procedure.
Flere af sagsøgerne gjorde gældende, at Fællesskabet savnede kompetence til at bringe de fællesskabsretlige konkurrenceregler i anvendelse over for dem.
It did not follow that, because it was entitled to have a failure to act established and to intervene in proceedings before the Court, the Parliament had to be recognized as having the possibility of bringing actions for annulment.
De anførte nærmere, at Kommissionen havde anlagt en forkert vurdering med hensyn til det geografiske anvendelsesområde for artikel 85.
There was no necessary link, the Court held, between the action for annulment and the action for failure to act.
Visse af de canadiske sagsøgere gjorde endvidere gældende, at Fællesskabet ved at pålægge dem bøder og gøre en nedsættelse af disse betinget af, at sagsøgerne i fremtiden anlagde en anden praksis, havde krænket Canadas suverænitet og dermed princippet »comitas gentium«.
The European Parliament also stated that the first paragraph of Article 173 reflected a principle of equality between the institutions expressly mentioned in that provision, in the sense that each of them was entitled to bring an action against measures adopted by the other and, conversely, its own measures could be submitted by the other institutions for review by the Court.
De finske sagsøgere gjorde gældende, at det under alle omstændigheder kun var de i frihandelsaftalen mellem Fællesskabet og Finland indeholdte konkurrenceregler, der kunne finde anvendelse på dem, og dermed ikke Traktatens artikel 85, og at Fællesskabet med Finland burde have drøftet spørgsmålet om de forholdsregler, man agtede at træffe over for den omtvistede aftale, jf. proceduren i frihandelsaf­talens artikel 27.
Since it had held that measures of the European Parliament capable of producing legal effects could be the subject of an action for annulment, the Court should, with a view to maintaining the institutional balance, decide that the European Parliament had the capacity to challenge acts of the Council and the Commission.
Abringendet om, at der var anlagt en forkert vurdering med hensyn til det geografiske anvendelsesområde for Traktatens artikel 85, og om, at beslutningen stred mod folkeretten a) De enkelte virksomheder
However, the Court took the view that a comparison between Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty (see the 'Les Verts' judgment) and Article 33 of the same Treaty showed that, according to the scheme of the Treaties, in those cases where provision was made for acts of the European Parliament to be subject lo a review of their legality, the European Parliament was not thereby empowered to bring a direct action on its own initiative against acts of other institutions.
Domstolen bemærkede herom indledningsvis, at Traktatens artikel 85 indeholder et forbud mod alle former for aftaler og samordnet praksis, der kan påvirke samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne, og som har til formål eller til følge at begrænse konkurrencen inden for Fællesskabet.
The European Parliament's argument that there had to be a parallelism between the capacity of defendant and the capacity of applicant in proceedings for judicial review had therefore to be rejected in the opinion of the Court.
Såfremt cellulose­producenterne foretager direkte salg til købere etableret i Fællesskabet og prismæssigt konkurrerer med hinanden for at opnå ordrer, består der en konkurrence inden for fællesmarkedet.
The European Parliament then claimed that the Court had recognized by implication in the 'Budget' judgment (Council ν European Parliament, 3 July 1986) that it had the capacity to bring an action for annulment.
Når producenterne derimod gennemfører en samordning med hensyn til de priser, de vil forlange af deres kunder i Fællesskabet, og rent faktisk fører denne samordning ud i livet ved at sælge til sådanne samordnede priser, deltager de i en samordning, der har til formål at begrænse konkurrencen inden for Fællesskabet i den i Traktatens artikel 85 forudsatte betydning.
However, the Court pointed out that the budgetary procedure described in Article 203 (4), (5) and (6) of the Treaty was characterized by successive deliberations of the two arms of the budgetary authority in the course of which each of them might, in accordance with the voting conditions laid down in the Treaty, react to the positions taken by the other. Those deliberations constituted measures preparatory to the drawing­up of the budget.
Domstolen lagde herefter til grund, at Kommissionen ikke havde anlagt en forkert vurdering med hensyn til det geografiske anvendelsesområde for artikel 85.
As was apparent from the judgment in the 'Budget' case, cited above, the budget did not become legally binding until completion of the procedure, that is to say when the President of the European Parliament, in his capacity as an organ of that institution, declared that the budget had been finally adopted.
Hvad angår beslutningens angivelige uforenelighed med folkeretten, udtalte Domstolen, at det afgørende spørgsmål er, hvor den pågældende aftale føres ud i livet.
The European Parliament then went on to state that if it has no power to bring actions for annulment it would not be in a position to defend its prerogatives vis­à­vis the other institutions.
I det foreliggende tilfælde havde producenterne ført deres aftale om priser ud i livet inden for fællesmarkedet, og Fællesskabets kompetence til at bringe de fællesskabsretlige konkurrenceregler i anvendelse over for samordningen måtte derfor anses for at have hjemmel i territorialhøjhedsprincippet, der er et alminde­ligt anerkendt folkeretligt princip.
The prerogatives of the European Parliament had been augmented by the Single European Act, which had vested in it a power of joint decision with respect to accession and association agreements and had established a cooperation proce­dure in certain specified cases, but without any changes having been made to Article 173 of the Treaty.
Hvad angår den angivelige krænkelse af princippet »comitas gentium«, bemær­kede Domstolen blot, at det anførte ville være til hinder for, at Fællesskabet ville kunne bringe de fællesskabsretlige konkurrenceregler i anvendelse over for aftaler som de omhandlede, hvilken retsopfattelse Domstolen som nævnt allerede havde forkastet.
The Court ruled that, apart from the abovementioned rights granted to the European Parliament by Article 175, the Treaty provided means for submitting for review by the Court acts of the Council adopted in disregard of the Parliament's prerogatives.
Det fremgik af KEA's vedtægter, at denne er en sammenslutning, der ikke som sådan drev erhvervsvirksomhed, men havde til formål at fremme sine medlemmers
Whilst the first paragraph of Article 173 granted to all the Member States in general terms the right to bring an action for the annulment of such acts, Article 155 of the Treaty conferred more specifically on the Commission the responsibility of ensuring that the Parliament's prerogatives were
erhvervsmæssige interesser, for så vidt angår deres eksport, idet sammenslutningen i det væsentlige var et forum for medlemmerne med hensyn til oplysninger vedrørende deres eksportmarkeder.
Similarly, the illegality of a measure on the ground of breach of the prerogatives of the European Parliament might be raised as an issue before a national court and the measure in question might be the subject of a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling as to its validity.
Inden for sammenslutningen er der oprettet forskellige »grupper«, herunder »cellulose­gruppen«, og dennes medlemmer kan i henhold til sammenslutningens vedtægter indgå prisaftaler, nærmere bestemt under møder, der afholdes mere eller mindre regelmæssigt, hvorved det er en forudsætning for en sådan aftale, at alle medlemmer forinden får meddelelse om, at en prisdrøftelse vil finde sted, idet det ligeledes er en betingelse, at et tilstrækkeligt stort antal medlemmer er til stede.
He proposed that the Court should : ' Reject the objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council and hold that the European Parliament has the capacity to bring an action for annulment under Article 173 of the Treaty where prerogatives of its own are adversely affected. The question whether such is the case in this instance should be considered at the same time as the substance of the case. '
Beslutningen måtte herefter annulleres, for så vidt den angik ΚΕΑ.
See under Environment the judgment in Case C-380/87
Domstolen udtalte herom, at det måtte undersøges, hvorvidt frihandelsaftalens artikler 23­27 som anført af sagsøgerne udelukker en anvendelse af Traktatens artikel 85, i henseende til forbindelserne mellem Fællesskabet og Finland.
Case C-26/88 : Brother International GmbH ν Hauptzollamt — see under Free movement of goods
Domstolen forkastede herefter anbringendet om, at kun de i frihandelsaftalen mellem Fællesskabet og Finland indeholdte konkurrenceregler kunne finde anvendelse. delse.
lished that they had committed several infringements of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty and imposed fines on them.
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 25. maj 1988.
A number of applicants raised submissions regarding the Community's jurisdic­tion to apply its competition rules to them.
— dels sagsøgernes klagepunkt over for den anfægtede beslutning, for så vidt denne tager retligt udgangspunkt i princippet om virkningsstedet, således at Domstolen senere vil skulle afgøre, om det er med rette, at Kommissionen har udøvet sin kompetence over for sagsøgerne, på grundlag af en undersøgelse af, om virkningerne af det af Kommissionen påtalte forhold, var væsentlige, umiddelbare og forudselige,
They noted that the Court did not adopt the 'effects doctrine' (judgment in ICI of 14 July 1972) and added that, even if there was a basis in Community law for applying Article 85 to them, the action of applying the rule interpreted in that way would be contrary to public international law which precluded any claim by the Community to regulate conduct restricting competition adopted outside the territory of the Community merely by reason of the economic repercussions which that conduct produced within the Community.
— dels anbringendet om, at frihandelsaftalen mellem Fællesskabet og Republik ken Finland er til hinder for, at bestemmelserne i artikel 85 kan bringes i anvendelse over for de finske sagsøgere«.
The applicants which were members of ΚΕΑ further submitted that the applica­tion of Community competition rules to them was contrary to public international law in so far as it was in breach of the principle of non-interference.
Selskabet Hoechst A.G. havde anlagt to sager med påstand om annullation af tre beslutninger truffet af Kommissionen, nemlig en beslutning om gennemførelse af
The Finnish applicants considered that in any event it was only the rules on competition contained in the Free Trade Agreement between the Community and
en kontrolundersøgelse, jf. artikel 14, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 17, og en beslutning om fastsættelse af tvangsbødens endelige størrelse, jf. samme bestemmelse.
Incorrect assessment of the territorial scope of Article 85 of the Treaty and incompatibility of the decision with public international law
Da Kommissionen var kommet i besiddelse af oplysninger, der gav grundlag for at antage, at der bestod aftaler eller samordnet praksis mellem visse producenter og leverandører af PVC og Polyethylen inden for Fællesskabet med det formål at fastsætte priser og leveringskvoter for disse produkter, besluttede den at gennem føre en kontrolundersøgelse af en række virksomheder, herunder sagsøgerens, hvilket blev formaliseret ved ovennævnte beslutning om kontrolundersøgelse.
The Court recalled that Article 85 of the Treaty prohibited all agreements between undertakings and concerted practices which might affect trade between Member States and which had as their object or effect the restriction of competition within the common market.
Kommissionen forsøgte at gennemføre kontrolundersøgelsen, men sagsøgeren nægtede at underkaste sig den under henvisning til, at der var tale om en retsstridig ransagning.
The Court observed that the main sources of supply of wood pulp were outside the Community, in Canada, the United States of America, Sweden and Finland and that the market therefore had global dimensions.
Kommissionen traf herefter beslutningen om at pålægge sagsøgeren tvangsbøder på 1 000 ECU for hver dag, selskabet nægtede at underkaste sig kontrolundersøgelsen.
Where wood pulp producers established in those countries sold directly to purchasers established in the Community and engaged in price competition in order to win orders from those customers, that constituted competition within the common market.
Da Ambtsgericht Franfkurt am Main på begæring af Bundeskartellamt, som Kommissionen havde henvendt sig til i henhold til forordning nr. 17, havde afsagt en ransagningskendelse til fordel for Kommissionen, gennemførte denne straks den pågældende kontrolundersøgelse.
It followed that where those producers concerted on the prices to be charged to their customers in the Community and put that concertation into effect by selling at prices which were actually coordinated, they were taking part in concertation which had the object and effect of restricting competition within the common market within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty.
Beslutningen om kontrolundersøgelse
The Court concluded that, in those circumstances, the Commission had not made an incorrect assessment of the territorial scope of Article 85.
Det sagsøgende selskab anførte først, at den omtvistede beslutning var retsstridig, idet den tillod Kommissionens ansatte at træffe foranstaltninger, som selskabet betegner som ransagning, der ikke er hjemlet i artikel 14 i forordning nr. 17, og som tilsidesætter grundlæggende fællesskabsretlige principper.
As for the compatibility of the decision with public international law, the decisive factor was the place where the agreement, decision or concerted practice was implemented.
Domstolen bemærkede først, at artikel 14 i forordning nr. 17 ikke kan fortolkes således, at det fører til resultater, som er uforenelige med almindelige fællesskabs retlige principper og da slet ikke med de grundlæggende rettigheder.
The producers in this case implemented their pricing agreement within the common market. Accordingly, the Community's jurisdiction to apply its competition rules to such conduct was covered by the territoriality principle as universally recognized in public international law.
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis hører de grundlæggende rettigheder til de almindelige retsgrundsætninger, som Domstolen skal beskytte, idet Domstolen skal lægge medlemsstaternes fælles forfatningstraditioner samt de internationale traktater, som medlemsstaterne har været med til at udarbejde, eller som de senere har tiltrådt, til grund.
As regards the argument relating to disregard of international comity, the Court observed that it amounted to calling in question the Community's jurisdiction to apply its competition rules to conduct such as that found to exist in this case and that, as such, that argument had already been rejected.
Med hensyn til det grundlæggende princip om boligens ukrænkelighed bemærkede Domstolen, at et sådant princip ganske vist må anerkendes i Fællesskabets retsorden, for så vidt angår fysiske personers privatbolig, da princippet anerkendes i medlemsstaternes retsorden, men at det samme ikke gælder virksomheder, da medlemsstaternes retssystemer udviser ikke ubetydelige forskelle, for så vidt angår arten og omfanget af forretningslokalers beskyttelse over for offentlige myndigheders indgreb.
According to its Articles of Association, ΚΕΑ was a non-profit-making associa­tion whose purpose was the promotion of the commercial interests of its members in the exportation of their products and it served primarily as a clearing house for its members for information regarding their export markets.
Det er i øvrigt ikke muligt at nå til et andet resultat på grundlag af menneskerettighedskonventionens artikel 8.
ΚΕΑ did not itself engage in manufacture, selling or distribution.
Domstolen tilføjede, at alle medlemsstaternes retssystemer ikke desto mindre indeholder bestemmelser — ganske vist på forskellige vilkår — om beskyttelse af enhver fysisk eller juridisk persons virksomhedsområde mod vilkårlige eller urimelige indgreb fra det offentliges side.
It followed, according to the Court, that KEA's pricing recommendations could not be distinguished from the pricing agreements concluded by undertakings which were members of the Pulp Group and that ΚΕΑ had not played a separate role in the implementation of those agreements.
Kravet om en sådan beskyttelse må derfor anerkendes som et almindeligt fællesskabsretligt princip.
The Court held that the decision should be declared void in so far as it concerned ΚΕΑ.
I denne henseende må retten til adgang til alle virksomhedernes lokaler tillægges særlig betydning.
The Court observed that it was necessary to determine whether, as the applicants maintained.
En sådan ret indebærer nemlig - - medmindre den er helt overflødig — muligheden for at søge efter forskellige oplysninger, som endnu ikke er kendt eller fuldt belyst.
Articles 23 and 27 of the Free Trade Agreement had the effect of precluding the application of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty in so far as trade between the Community and Finland was concerned.
Uden en sådan mulighed er det umuligt for Kommissionen at indsamle de for kontrolundersøgelsen nødvendige oplysninger i det tilfælde, hvor de pågældende virksomheder nægter at samarbejde eller lægger hindringer i vejen for kontrolundersøgelsen.
The Court noted that under Article 23(1) of the Free Trade Agreement, in particular, agreements and concerted practices which had as their object or effect the restriction of competition were incompatible with the proper functioning of the Agreement in so far as they might affect trade between the Community and Finland.
I så fald kan Kommissionen med hjemmel i artikel 14, stk. 6, uden virksomhedernes medvirken søge efter alle de for kontrolundersøgelsen nødvendige oplysninger med bistand fra de nationale myndigheder, som er forpligtet til at bistå Kommissionens repræsentanter ved løsningen af disses opgaver.
The Court also observed that Articles 23 and 27 of the Free Trade Agreement presupposed that the Contracting Parties had rules enabling them to take action against agreements which they regarded as being incompatible with that Agree­ment. As far as the Community was concerned, those rules could only be the provisions of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty.
Domstolen udtalte, at Kommissionen ved en sådan lejlighed skal overholde de proceduregarantier, der ifølge national ret gælder på dette område, og påse, at den i henhold til national ret kompetente myndighed er i besiddelse af alle de oplysninger, der er nødvendige, for at den kan udføre sin kontrolopgave.
The Court pointed out that in this case the Community applied its competition rules to the Finnish applicants not because they had concerted with each other but because they took part in a very much larger concertation with US, Canadian and Swedish undertakings which restricted competition within the Community.
Domstolen fremhævede i denne forbindelse, at denne myndighed — hvad enten
It was thus not just trade with Finland that was affected.
den er judiciel eller ikke — ikke ved denne lejlighed kan lade sin egen vurdering af, om de anordnede kontrolundersøgelser er nødvendige, træde i stedet for Kommissionens, idet dennes faktiske og retlige skøn kun er undergivet Domstolens legalitetskontrol.
It followed, according to the Court, that the submission relating to the exclusive application of the competition rules in the Free Trade Agreement between the Community and Finland had to be rejected.