natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvad for det andet angår den ifølge den franske regering nødvendige samordning mellem en hovedforpligtelse og en biforpligtelse, må dette anbringende forkastes, da en foreløbig månedlig tilbageholdelse af forskud på dækning af landbrugsudgifter på grund af misligholdelse af fristen for fremsendelse af det pågældende spørgeskema ikke kan sammenlignes med et endeligt afslag på at dække et beløb, fordi en medlemsstat med urette ikke har opkrævet en afgift.
Secondly, as regards the need to distinguish between a primary and a secondary obligation, the French Government's argument on this point must be rejected because a provisional monthly reduction to advances on the entry of agricultural expenditure in the accounts in the event of noncompliance with the time-limit for communicating the questionnaire cannot be compared to a definitive refusal to enter an amount owing to a Member State's unlawful failure to collect a levy.
Formålet med den anfægtede beslutning er, ud fra et ønske om ensartet anvendelse og retssikkerhed, at præcisere, hvordan den skønsmæssigt fastsatte tilbageholdelse af forskuddet skal ske.
However, those characteristics attributable to the flat-rate element in the reductions are not sufficient to make the reduction disproportionate, having regard to its aim.
For det første bemærkes, forholdsmæssigheden af de i den anfægtede
Consequently, the last plea must also be held to be unfounded.
Fællesskaber frifindes.
The application is dismissed;
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet fSjette Afdeling) den 26. september 19%.
(EEC-Turkey Association Agreement—Decision of the Association Council—Free movement of workers — Renewal of residence permit after one year's legal employment — Employment with two employers in succession) (Sixth Chamber)
Sag C-386/95 Siileyman Eker / Land Baden-Württemberg Forbindelserne udadtil
That question arose in a dispute between Mr Eker, a Turkish national, and the Land Baden-Württemberg concerning the refusal to extend his residence permit for Germany.
Præjudiciel »Associeringsaftalen EØF-Tyrkiet — associeringsrådets afgørelse — arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed —fornyelse af opholdstilladelse efter lovlig beskæftigelse i et år — beskæftigelse udøvet successivt hos to arbejdsgivere*
Since it requires the completion of one year's continuous employment for there to be a right to renewal of the work permit in respect of the same employer, the first indent of Article 6(1) is based on the premiss that only a contractual relationship which lasts for one year is expressive of employment relations stable enough to guarantee the Turkish worker continuity of his employment with the same employer.
Med dette spørgsmål spørger den forelæggende ret reelt, om artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 skal fortolkes således, at den gør forlængelse af en tyrkisk arbejdstagers opholdstilladelse i værtsmedlemsstaten betinget af, at han i en uafbrudt periode på et år har lovlig beskæftigelse hos én og samme arbejdsgiver, eller om denne bestemmelse blot kræver uafbrudt beskæftigelse i et år med behørige arbejds- og opholdstilladelser, selv hos flere arbejdsgivere, når den pågældende ansøger om forlængelse af sin opholdstilladelse med det formål at fortsætte med at arbejde for den arbejdsgiver, hos hvem han har beskæftigelse.
By its question the national court is essentially asking whether the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 is to be interpreted as making extension of a Turkish worker's residence permit in the host Member State subject to his having been legally employed for one year continuously with the same employer, or whether that provision merely requires one year's continuous employment, duly covered by work and residence permits, even for several employers, provided that the worker applies for his residence permit to be extended with a view to continuing working for the employer by whom he is employed.
Ved dom af 29. september 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 11. december 1995, har Bundesverwaltungsgericht forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, i assoceringsrådets afgørelse nr. 1/80 af 19. september 1980 om udvikling af associeringen (herefter »afgørelse nr. 1/80«).
To answer that question, it should be observed, first, that since its judgment in Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie the Court has consistently held that Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in the Member States, so that Turkish nationals who satisfy its conditions may rely directly on the rights conferred on them by the various indents of that provision.
Ved besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål skal det for det første bemærkes, at Domstolen siden dommen af 20. september 1990, Sevince, til stadighed har fastslået, at artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 har direkte virkning i medlemsstaterne, således at tyrkiske statsborgere, som opfylder betingelserne deri, direkte kan gøre
The coherence of the system of gradual integration of Turkish workers in the host State's labour force, established by the three indents of Article 6(1), would be disrupted if the worker had the right to enter the service of another employer even before satisfying the condition of one year's legal employment specified in the first indent of Article 6(1).
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag mellem en tyrkisk statsborger, Siileyman Eker, og Land Baden-Württemberg vedrørende afslag på forlængelse af hans opholdstilladelse i Tyskland.
In accordance with the second indent of Article 6(1), it is only after three years of legal employment in the Member State concerned that a Turkish worker is entitled to take up work with a different employer, on condition that the employer is engaged in the same business as the previous employer and
de rettigheder gældende, som bestemmelsens forskellige led giver dem.
respects the priority to be given to workers of the Member States.
For det andet skal der henvises til fast retspraksis, hvorefter de rettigheder, som de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1, giver den tyrkiske arbejdstager med hensyn til beskæftigelse, uundgåeligt indebærer, at arbejdstageren i det mindste har opholdsret, da retten til adgang til arbejdsmarkedet og til beskæftigelse ellers ville være helt illusorisk.
It follows that in a case such as that in point in the main proceedings where the competent national authorities have authorized a Turkish worker to change employers before completing one year of legal employment with the first employer in respect of whom the work and residence permits were issued, the right to renewal of those permits, referred to in the first indent of Article 6(1), arises only on expiry of a further period of one year's legal employment.
Dels ville sammenhængen i den ordning med gradvis integration af den tyrkiske arbejdstager på værtsmedlemsstatens arbejdsmarked, som er indført ved de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1, blive forstyrret, hvis den pågældende havde ret til at tage beskæftigelse hos en anden arbejdsgiver, endog før han havde opfyldt betingelsen om et års lovlig beskæftigelse i stk. 1, første led.
In those circumstances, the first indent of Article 6(1), which does not confer on the worker the right to choose another employer and does not contain the reservations set out in the second indent, cannot be understood as meaning that a Turkish worker may satisfy its conditions, and therefore exercise the rights it confers, if before completion of the first year of legal employment with a given employer he takes up employment with a new employer.
Det må herved fastslås, at de tre led i artikel 6, stk. 1, giver den tyrkiske arbejdstager rettigheder, som er forskellige og er undergivet betingelser, der varierer i forhold til varigheden af den lovlige beskæftigelse i den pågældende medlemsstat.
'The first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association adopted by the Council of Association established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as making the extension of a Turkish worker's residence permit in the host Member State subject to his having been legally employed continuously f or one year with the same employer.'
Det må antages dels, at når bestemmelsen kræver kontinuerlig beskæftigelse af en varighed på et år som betingelse for, at der kan erhverves ret til forlængelse af arbejdstilladelsen hos samme arbejdsgiver, er artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, baseret på den forudsætning, at kun et kontraktforhold, som fortsat består i en periode på et år, er udtryk for en tilstrækkelig konsolidering af arbejdsforholdet til at sikre den tyrkiske arbejdstager kontinuitet i hans beskæftigelse hos samme arbejdsgiver.
He proposed that the provision in question should be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker acquires a right to the continuation of his employment with an employer only after a year's uninterrupted lawful employment with the same employer.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Preliminary ruling
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Sjette Afdeling^ den 6. marts 1997.
(Equal treatment of men and women — Directive 76/207/EEC — Conditions dismissal — Absence due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement during pregnancy and after confinement) (Sixth Chamber)
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det forelagte spørgsmål således:
Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1), thereof does not preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement.
»Artikel 6, stk. 1, første led, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 af 19. september 1980 fra det associeringsråd, som blev oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, undertegnet i Ankara den 12. september 1963 og godkendt på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets afgørelse 64/732/EØF af 23. december 1963, skal fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager først erhverver ret til fortsat beskæftigelse hos en arbejdsgiver efter et års uafbrudt lovlig beskæftigelse hos den samme arbejdsgiver.«
By order of 19 December 1995, received at the Court on 21 December 1995, the Sø- og Handelsret (Maritime and Commercial Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Articles 5(1) and 2(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 (hereinafter 'the Directive').
Sag C-400/95 Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund i Danmark som mandatar for Helle Elisabeth Larsson / Dansk Handel & Service som mandatar for Føtex Supermarked A/S Socialpolitik 29. maj 1997
In its judgment in the Hertz case, the Court held that the Directive does not envisage the case of an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement.
Den anden sygefraværsperiode, som skyldtes bækkenløsning i forbindelse med graviditeten, varede fra den 4. november 1991 til den 15. marts 1992, på hvilket tidspunkt hun påbegyndte barselsorlov.
The second, which was caused by a loosening of the pelvic ring linked to her pregnancy, lasted from 4 November 1991 to 15 March 1992, when her maternity leave commenced.
Ved kendelse af 19. december 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 21. december 1995, har Sø- og Handelsretten forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 5, stk. 1, og artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 (herefter »direktivet«).
The Court went on to consider that, in the case of an illness manifesting itself after the maternity leave, there is no reason to distinguish an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement from any other illness, and that such a pathological condition is therefore covered by the general rules applicable in the event of illness.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag mellem Helle Elisabeth Larsson og hendes tidligere arbejdsgiver, Føtex Supermarked A/S (herefter »Føtex«).
Ms Larsson gave birth on 2 April 1992. She then took maternity leave of 24 weeks, to which she was entitled under the applicable Danish legislation.
Helle Elisabeth Larsson, der blev ansat af Føtex i marts 1990, meddelte i august 1991 sin arbejdsgiver, at hun var gravid. Under graviditeten var hun sygemeldt i to perioder.
Her maternity leave came to an end on 18 September 1992, after which she took her annual leave until 16 October 1992.
Hun var først sygemeldt fra den 7. august 1991 til den
She was not found fit to resume work until 4 January 1993.
Hun fødte den 2. april 1992 og holdt derefter barselsorlov i 24 uger, hvilket hun havde ret til i henhold til de gældende danske bestemmelser.
It merely held that, in the factual situation submitted to it on that occasion, there was no reason to distinguish, from the point of view of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Directive, between an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement and any other illness.
Hendes barselsorlov udløb den 18. september 1992, hvorefter hun afholdt ferie til den 16. oktober 1992.
By letter dated 10 November 1992, less than one month after the end of her annual leave, Føtex informed Ms Larsson that it was terminating her employment contract as from the end of December 1992.
Da hun fortsat var under behandling for bækkenløsning, blev hun på ny sygemeldt.
Ms Larsson claims that her dismissal while on sick leave was contrary to the Directive inasmuch as her illness began during her pregnancy and continued after the expiry of her maternity leave.
Hun blev først raskmeldt den 4. januar 1993.
Male and female workers are equally exposed to illness.
Ved skrivelse af 10. november 1992, dvs. mindre end en måned efter, at hun havde afsluttet sin ferie, meddelte Føtex hende, at hun var opsagt til fratræden med udgangen af december 1992.
The principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Directive does not, therefore, preclude account being taken of a woman's absence from work between the beginning of her pregnancy and the beginning of her maternity leave when calculating the period providing grounds for her dismissal under national law.
Ifølge Helle Elisabeth Larsson er afskedigelsen af hende, mens hun var sygemeldt, i strid med direktivet, idet sygdommen, som er opstået under graviditeten, fortsatte efter barselsorlovens udløb.
The Directive therefore does not preclude dismissal on the ground of periods of absence due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement, even where such illness first appeared during pregnancy and continued during and after the period of maternity leave.
I virkeligheden er mænd og kvinder i samme grad udsat for at blive syge.
During the maternity leave accorded to her pursuant to national law, a woman is accordingly protected against dismissal due to absence.
Selv om visse sygdomme er kønsbetingede, må det afgørende spørgsmål være, om kvinder afskediges som følge af sygefravær på samme vilkår som mænd; i så fald er der ikke tale om direkte forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
To accept that absence during such a period could be taken into account as grounds for a subsequent dismissal would be contrary to the objective of permitting national measures concerning the protection of women, particularly as regards pregnancy and maternity, pursued by Article 2(3) of the Directive, and would deprive that provision of its effectiveness.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 8. november 1990 (Handels- og Kontorfunktionærernes Forbund, herefter »Hertz-dommen«), som vedrørte afskedigelse af en kvinde på grund af fravær efter barselsorlovens udløb, kendte for ret, at medmindre andet er fastsat i nationale bestemmelser udstedt i medfør af direktivets artikel 2, stk. 3, er direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, sammenholdt med dets artikel 2, stk. 1, ikke til hinder for afskedigelse som følge af fravær, som skyldes en sygdom, der er forårsaget af graviditet eller fødsel.
It must, however, be noted that, in view of the harmful effects which the risk of dismissal may have on the physical and mental state of women who are pregnant, have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, including the particularly serious risk that pregnant women may be prompted voluntarily to terminate their pregnancy, the Community legislature subsequently provided, pursuant to Article 10 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding, for special protection to be given to women, by prohibiting dismissal during the period from the beginning of their pregnancy to the end of their maternity leave, save in exceptional cases unconnected with their condition.
Direktivet er således ikke til hinder for afskedigelse som følge af fravær, som skyldes en sygdom, der er forårsaget af graviditet eller fødsel, selv hvis sygdommen er opstået under graviditeten og fortsat under og efter barselsorloven.
It is clear from the objective of that provision that absence during the protected period, other than for reasons unconnected with the employee's condition, can no longer be taken into account as grounds for subsequent dismissal.
Det bemærkes således, at Domstolen i Hertzdommen fastslog, at direktivet ikke omhandler det tilfælde, at sygdommen er forårsaget af graviditet eller fødsel.
However, Directive 92/85 had not yet been adopted when Ms Larsson was dismissed.
I den barselsorlovsperiode, der tilkommer en kvinde efter national ret, er hun beskyttet mod afskedigelse som følge af sit fravær.
Outside the periods of maternity leave laid down by the Member States to allow female workers to be absent during the period in which the problems inherent in pregnancy and confinement occur, however, and in the absence of any national or, as the case may be, Community provisions affording women specific protection, a woman is not protected under the Directive against dismissal on grounds of periods of absence due to an illness originating in pregnancy.
Det ville således være i strid med det formål, der forfølges med bestemmelsen i direktivets artikel 2, stk. 3, hvorefter der kan udstedes nationale bestemmelser vedrørende beskyttelse af kvinder, særlig i forbindelse med graviditet og moderskab, og medføre, at bestemmelsen mister sin gennemslagskraft, såfremt det antoges, at fravær i den pågældende periode kunne tages i betragtning som begrundelse for en senere afskedigelse.
As has been pointed out above, as male and female workers are equally exposed to illness, the Directive does not concern illnesses attributable to pregnancy or confinement.
Uden for den barselsorlovsperiode, der er fastsat af medlemsstaterne således, at kvinder kan være fraværende i den periode, hvor graviditets- og fødselsbetingede sygdomme må forventes at opstå, og når der ikke er udfærdiget nationale eller i givet fald fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser, der sikrer kvinder en særlig beskyttelse, er kvinder derimod ikke efter direktivet beskyttet mod afskedigelse som følge af fravær, som skyldes en sygdom, der er forårsaget af graviditeten. Da mænd og kvinder som ovenfor nævnt i samme grad er udsat for at blive syge, omhandler direktivet ikke sygdomme, der er forårsaget af graviditet eller fødsel.
'Without prejudice to the provisions of national law adopted pursuant to Article 2(3) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, Article 5(1), in conjunction with Article 2(1), ofthat directive does not preclude dismissals which are the result of absences due to an illness attributable to pregnancy or confinement, even where that illness arose during pregnancy and continued during and after maternity leave.'
Direktiv 92/85 var imidlertid endnu ikke udstedt, da Helle Elisabeth Larsson blev afskediget.
Case C-14/96 Paul Denuit Freedom of movement for persons
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Telecommunications
»Medmindre andet er fastsat i nationale bestemmelser udstedt i medfør af artikel 2, stk 3, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår, er direktivets artikel 5, stk. 1, sammenholdt med dets artikel 2, stk 1, ikke til hinder for afskedigelse som følge af fravær, som skyldes en sygdom, der er forårsaget af graviditet eller fødsel, selv hvis sygdommen er opstået under graviditeten og fortsat under og efter barselsorloven.*
By order of 16 January 1996, received at the Court on 19 January 1996, the Tribunal de Première Instance (Court of First Instance), Brussels, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 2(1) and (2) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 (hereinafter 'the Directive').
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
Coditel complied with the order.
»Artikel 5, stk. 1, sammenholdt med artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår er ikke til hinder for, at en kvinde afskediges som følge af fravær efter endt barselsorlov, såfremt fraværet skyldes sygdom, der er opstået under graviditeten og fortsat under og efter endt barselsorlov, medmindre der ved beregningen af fravær i relation til afskedigelsen er taget hensyn til fravær, som skyldes helbredsmæssige problemer, der er forårsaget af graviditeten og opstået inden fødslen.«
According to the documents made available to the Court, Turner International Sales Ltd (hereinafter 'Turner'), established in London, obtained from the United Kingdom authorities authorization to transmit a television programme called 'TNT & Cartoon Network' via the Astra satellite. The broadcasts have taken place since September 1993. The programme can be received directly with a parabolic antenna or by cable in the United Kingdom and in several western European countries. Since the frequency used by the Astra satellite is not one allocated to the United Kingdom, Turner's authorization is a The Belgian State brought third-party proceedings in relation to the order of 26
Sag C-14/96 Paul Denuit Fri bevægelighed for personer
As the Court found in that judgment, the Directive contains no express definition of that phrase.
— udsendelse aftv-programmer—myndighed over
Coditel then suspended distribution of the channel in question.
Cartoon Network gennem hovedstadsregionen Bruxelles.
Since then, the programme in question has again been distributed in the City of Brussels region.
Ved dom af 16. januar 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 19. januar 1996, har Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles forelagt tre præjudiciellespørgsmålvedrørendefortolkningen af artikel 2, stk. 1 og 2, i Rådets direktiv 89/552/EØF af 3. oktober 1989 (herefter »direktivet«).
A Member State's jurisdiction ratione personae over a television broadcaster could be based only on the broadcaster's connection to that Member State's legal system, which in substance overlapped with the concept of establishment as used in the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EC Treaty, the wording of which presupposed that the supplier and the recipient of a service were 'established' in two different Member States.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under behandlingen af en straffesag mod den administrerende direktør for Coditel Brabant SA (herefter »Coditel«), Paul Denuit, der er sat under tiltale for at have overtrådt den nationale lovgivning på det audiovisuelle område.
By the second part of its first question, the national court seeks to ascertain to what extent application of Article 2(1) of the Directive depends on the non-Community origin of a lesser or greater proportion of the works broadcast.