natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 28. februar 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 1. april 1996, har Supremo Tribunal Administrativo forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 950/68 af 28. juni 1968 om den fælles toldtarif, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3331/85 af 5. december 1985 (herefter »nomenklaturen«).
It is therefore first necessary to examine whether an electrical apparatus such as the product here in dispute falls to be classified in the Nomenclature pursuant to General Rule 3(b) and, if necessary, to determine the essential character of that product.
Efter fast retspraksis følger det såvel af retssikkerheds- som kontroltekniske hensyn, at det afgørende kriterium ved tarifering af varer normalt er disses objektive karakteristika og egenskaber, som beskrevet i den enkelte position i den fælles toldtarif og de supplerende bestemmelser til dennes afsnit og kapitler. Med henblik på fortolkningen af den fælles toldtarif udgør såvel de bestemmelser, der indleder kapitlerne i den fælles toldtarif, som Toldsamarbejdsrådets forklarende bemærkninger vigtige hjælpemidler til at sikre en ensartet anvendelse af toldtariffen, hvorfor de kan betragtes som gyldige midler til fortolkning af toldtariffen.
It should be borne in mind that where, as in the main proceedings in this case, it appears that a product falls to be classified under two headings without application of General Rule 3(a), General Rule 3(b), which is essentially reproduced in Note 3 to Section XVI of the Nomenclature, provides that the classification of products made up of different components depends on the material or component which gives them their essential character.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem det portugisiske selskab Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld.aog Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro angående tarifering af et elektrisk apparat, der tjener som »kontinuerligt strømforsyningssystem«, bestående af to kabinetter (herefter »den omtvistede vare«).
Those questions have arisen in a dispute between Codiesel — Sociedade de Apoio Técnico à Indústria Ld·', a company established under Portuguese law and the Conselho Técnico Aduaneiro (Customs Examination Board) in regard to the tariff classification of an electrical apparatus which constitutes a UPS (uninterruptible power supply) consisting of two cabinets (hereinafter 'the product in dispute').
Det ene kabinet indeholder en ladeensretter, der forsyner en vekselretter med strøm fra elektricitetsnettet og kontinuerligt oplader af et batteri, en vekselretter, der konverterer strømmen til en reguleret vekselspænding, samt en omformer med statisk kontakt, der absorberer for høje spændinger, således at overbelastning undgås (herefter »ladcensrcttcrkabinettet«).
The first cabinet consists of a rectifier/charger which feeds power from networks to an inverter and powers a battery, a DC/AC inverter which converts the current into regulated alternating current, and a static bypass switch allowing surges to be absorbed without overcharging (hereinafter 'the rectifier/charger cabinet').
Det andet kabinet indeholder et blyakkumulatorbatteri, der sikrer strøm til 30 minutters drift (herefter »akkumulatorkabinettet«).
The second cabinet houses a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery which can operate independently for 30 minutes (hereinafter 'the accumulator cabinet').
Det skal derfor først undersøges, om et elektrisk apparat som den omtvistede vare skal tariferes i nomenklaturen ifølge den almindelige tariferingsbestemmelse nr. 3 b), ligesom det i givet fald skal fastslås, hvad der er varens særlige kendetegn.
The applicability of that rule in the main proceedings in this case is corroborated by Rule 3(b), point VIII, of the General Rules for the Interpretation of the Nomenclature of the Customs Cooperation Council, which provides inter alia that it applies to goods with separable components, provided those components are adapted one to the other and are mutually complementary and that together they form a whole which it would be difficult to sell in different parts.
Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ønsker med sine spørgsmål oplyst, om nomenklaturen og underpos.
Since the product in dispute is an 'uninterruptible power supply' designed to regulate and ensure a permanent power supply, it must be held, first, that the rectifier/charger cabinet confers on it its essential character and, second, that the accumulator cabinet is of only secondary importance.
84.53.B, 85.01.B.II og 85.04.B.I skal fortolkes således, at et elektrisk apparat, der
The accumulator battery in the accumulator cabinet constitutes, in summary, only an alternative source of accumulated energy designed to supply, within the limits of its autonomy, the inverter in the event of disruption or failure of the primary network of the
Det bemærkes, at når en vare som i hovedsagen tilsyneladende skal tariferes under to positioner,
The Court has consistently held that, in the interests of legal certainty and ease of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties, as defined in the relevant headings of the Common Customs Tariff and the notes to the sections or chapters.
Det er åbenbart, at den statiske enhed, som hovedsagen angår, ikke har nogen funktion og ikke opfylder den opgave, den er tiltænkt, såfremt den adskilles fra akkumulatorbatteriet.
Furthermore, the rectifier converts the alternating current into direct current which keeps the accumulator battery charged.
»Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 950/68 af 28. juni 1968 om den fælles toldtarif, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3331/85 af 5. december 1985, skal fortolkes således, at et elektrisk apparat, der tjener som 'kontinuerligt strømforsyningssystem', og som består deb af et kabinet, der indeholder en ladeensretter, en vekselretter og en omformer med statisk kontakt, dels af et kabinet, der indeholder et blyakkumulatorbatteri, skal tariferes under pos. 85.01.Β.Π, 'transformatorer, statiske omformere (ensrettere etc.)'«.
'Council Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 of 28 June 1968 on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3331/85 of 5 December 1985, must be interpreted as meaning that an electrical apparatus which is an "uninterruptible power supply" consisting, on the one hand, of a cabinet containing a rectifier/charger, an inverter and a static bypass switch and, on the other, of a cabinet housing a sealed lead-acid accumulator battery must be classified under tariff subheading 85.01.B.1I as "transformers, static converters, rectifiers and rectifying apparatus".'
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling') den 24. april 1997.
Advocate General N. Fennelly delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 24 April 1997.
»1) Efter Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3331/85 af 5. december 1985 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 950/68 om den fælles toldtarif kan tariferingen af den del af et apparat til kontinuerlig strømforsyning, sammensat af en akkumulatorgruppe, ikke afvige fra tariferingen af den del, der består af en ensretter, en vcksclrcttcr og en omformer med statisk kontakt, da den sidstnævnte del efter bestemmelse 3 b) i de almindelige bestemmelser til fortolkning af nomenklaturen i den fælles toldtarif skal betragtes som den del, der definerer systemets væsentlige karakter.
'(1) The part of the apparatus of an uninterruptible power supply system that comprises a set of accumulators should not be assigned, under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3331/85 of 5 December 1985 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff, a tariff classification separate from that assigned to the part comprising a rectifier, an AC converter and a static inverter switch, which, in accordance with Rule 3(b) of the General Rules for the interpretation of the nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, should be regarded as defining the essential character of such a system.
Præjudiciel »Den fælles toldtarif (Fjerde Afdeling) oplyst, om underposition 0406 20 90, således som den var formuleret på tidspunktet for de faktiske omstændigheder i hovedsagen, skal fortolkes således, at den omfatter revet ost, som på indførselstidspunktet på grund af den måde, hvorpå den er emballeret og opbevares, er blevet klumpet og efter udpakning og efter at have været udsat for luftens påvirkning smuldrer i uensartede klumper.
Preliminary ruling (Common Customs (Fourth Chamber) particular those contained in Regulation No 316/91, may affect the classification of such a product.
Hvis dette findes ikke at være tilfældet, ønsker retten oplyst, i hvilket omfang senere bestemmelser, herunder bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 316/91, kan have betydning for tariferingen af en sådan vare.
Heading 0406 covers 'cheese and curd', and therefore a product such as that here in the main proceedings comes under that heading. It thus remains to consider whether a product having the same characteristics as that at issue in the main proceedings comes under subheading 0406 20 90 or subheading 0406 90 11.
Ved dom af 25. januar 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 29. maj 1995, har Supremo Tribunal Administrativo forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af underposition 0406 20 90 og 0406 90 11 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 af 23. juli 1987 om told- og statistiknomenklaturen og den fælles toldtarif (herefter »KN«), som ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3174/88 af 21. september 1988 og Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 316/91 af 7. februar 1991 om tarifering af visse varer i den kombinerede nomenklatur.
By judgment of 25 January 1995, received at the Court on 29 May 1995, the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) referred for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of subheadings 0406 20 90 and 0406 90 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (hereinafter 'the CN'), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 and by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 316/91 of 7 February 1991 concerning the classification of certain goods in the combined nomenclature.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag anlagt af Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Ld.a mod
It should be noted in this regard that subheading 0406 20 covers 'grated or powdered cheese, of all kinds', while subheading 0406 90 covers 'other cheese'.
Position 0406 omfatter »ost og ostemasse«. En vare som den i hovedsagen omhandlede henhører under denne position.
It therefore follows that subheading 0406 20, being more specific, is in principle to be preferred to subheading 0406 90.
Det skal derfor undersøges, om en vare med egenskaber som den i hovedsagen omhandlede vare henhører under underposition 0406 20 90 eller underposition 0406 90 11.
Customs Authority (Specialized Customs Court of Second Instance)) concerning the customs classification of cheese imported into Portugal from the Netherlands.
Tidspunktet for de faktiske omstændigheder, dvs. i 1989, var i den overgangsperiode, der var fastsat i traktaten om Republikken Portugals tiltrædelse af De Europæiske Fællesskaber, hvorunder der under visse omstændigheder fortsat kunne anvendes en national toldtarif.
At the material time, that is to say, in 1989, the transition period provided for in the Treaty governing the accession of the Portuguese Republic to the European Communities, during which a national customs tariff continued to apply in certain circumstances, was still in force.
Det følger heraf, at eftersom underposition 0406 20 har den mest specificerede
This finding is supported both by the 1989 Explanatory Notes and those of 1990.
Med sine spørgsmål - som skal behandles under ét - ønsker den forelæggende ret i det væsentlige
If not, it wishes to know to what extent subsequent provisions, in
Det følger heraf, at for så vidt som varen er ost, der blev revet, inden den blev pakket, og som smuldrede i uensartede klumper efter udpakning og efter at være blevet udsat for luftens påvirkning, er den i forhold til KN objektivt bedømt reven ost, selv om den er fremstillet af en ostetype, der har et højere indhold af fugtighed end de oste, der sædvanligvis anvendes ved fremstilling af revet ost, og uanset dens indpakning og opbevaring.
'Subheading 0406 20 90 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3174/88 of 21 September 1988 amending Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87, must be interpreted as including grated cheese which, when imported, is, by reason of the method of packaging and preservation used, in an agglomerated form and, after unpacking and exposure to the surrounding air, breaks down into irregular granules.'
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om underposition 0406 20's rækkevidde, bemærkes, at udtrykket »af enhver art« ikke er begrænset til kun at omfatte visse revne oste.
Advocate General Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 16 January 1997.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
Court of First Instance
»1) Forordning (EØF) nr. 316/91 af 7. februar 1991 om tarifering af visse varer i Den Kombinerede Nomenklatur indeholder betingelserne for tarifering i positioner og underpositioner; forordningen binder ikke de nationale myndigheder, når de skal tarifere varer på grundlag af varens objektive karakteristika, når varen er importeret før forordningen trådte i kraft.
(Air transport — Continuation of an exclusive concession on domestic routes — Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Articles 5 and 8 — Rights of the defence — Audi alteram partem — Principle of good faith — Principle of proportionality —Añide 90(2) of the EC Treaty) (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) application of the Community competition rules in that sector.
Forklarende bemærkninger fra tiden efter sagens faktiske omstændigheder kan også tages i betragtning af de nationale myndigheder ved tarifering af et importeret produkt; det er tilstrækkeligt, at det fremgår af bestemmelsens objektive kendetegn, at den ikke er blevet ændret.
One of those five regulations is Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intraCommunity air routes (hereinafter 'Regulation No 2408/92' or 'the Regulation'), which entered into force on 1 January 1993 pursuant to Article 16 thereof.
Den kombinerede toldtarifnomenklatur, således som den er udformet fra bilaget i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3174/88 af 21. september 1988, som ændret ved bilag I i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 af 23. juli 1987 om tarifnomenklaturen og statistikken og om den fælles toldtarif, skal fortolkes således, at position nr 0406 2090 omfatter en ost, der efter at være revet, udsættes for en behandling hvor ilten udtrækkes og erstattes af en opløsning af nitrogen af hensyn til en så lang som mulig konservering, hvorefter den indpakkes og presses i plasticsække a 15 kg med en høj fugtighedsgrad, og med form af en kompakt masse eller pasta, som efter udpakning og udsættelse for luften påvirkning smuldrer i uensartede klumper.«
With a view to the gradual establishment of the internal market for air transport, the Community legislature adopted three sets of measures in 1987, 1990 and 1992 which were known as 'packages' on account of the fact that they consisted of several documents. The third 'package', adopted on 23 July 1992, consists of five regulations which aim to ensure the freedom to provide air transport services and the
Sag T-260/94 Air Inter SA / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Transport
Air Inter brought this action by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 12 July 1994.
»Luftfart — opretholdelse af en enekoncession på indenrigsruter — forordning (EØF) nr. 2408/92 — artikel 5 og 8 — retten til at varetage sine interesser — kontradiktionsprincippet — princippet om redelighed — proportionalitetsprincippet — EF-traktatens artikel 90, stk 2« (Anden Udvidede Afdeling)
By letter of 21 June 1993 TAT European Airlines ('TAT'), established at Tours, France, applied to the Directorate-General for Civil Aviation in the French Ministry of Transport for a licence to operate on the Paris (Orly)-Toulouse and Paris (Orly)Marseille routes, referring, in its application, to the Regulation.
De relevante retsforskrifter skrivelsen til TAT anførtes det, at de franske myndigheder i medfør af denne bestemmelse var berettiget til at forbeholde Air ínter den eneret, som selskabet var blevet tillagt ved en aftale af 5. juli 1985 mellem den franske stat og selskabet (herefter »1985-aftalen«).
By letter of 21 July 1993 the Director General of Civil Aviation rejected that application, basing his rejection on Article 5 of the Regulation. In his letter he indicated to TAT that under that provision the French authorities could maintain the exclusivity which they had granted to Air Inter by an agreement of 5 July 1985 signed by the French State and that company (hereinafter 'the 1985 Agreement').
På det pågældende tidspunkt ejede luftfartsselskabet Air France, hvis kapital for mere end 99%'s vedkommende tilhørte den franske stat, mere end 70% af Air Inter's kapital.
At that time, Air France, in which the French State had a shareholding in excess of 99%, held more than 70% of the share capital of Air Inter.
Med henblik på en gradvis gennemførelse af det indre marked på luftfartsområdet indførte fællesskabslovgiver i 1987, 1990 og 1992 tre grupper af ordninger, såkaldte »pakker«, da de omfatter adskillige retsakter.
Article 8(3) of the Regulation does not provide for the direct participation of air carriers in the administrative procedure leading to the adoption by the Commission of a decision on the distribution of traffic within an airport system.
Blandt de fem forordninger er Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2408/92 af 23. juli 1992 om EF-luftfartsselskabers adgang til luftruter inden for Fællesskabet (herefter »forordning nr. 2408/92« eller »forordningen«), der trådte i kraft den 1. januar 1993, jf. artikel 16.
It follows that the Regulation does not in itself confer rights of defence on an air carrier faced with a situation such as that in which the applicant was placed in this case.
Ved skrivelse af 21. juni 1993 ansøgte luftfartsselskabet TAT European Airlines (herefter »TAT«), Tours (Frankrig), Generaldirektoratet for Civil Luftfart under det franske Ministerium for Infrastruktur, Transport og Turisme om tilladelse til at beflyve ruterne Paris (Orly)-Toulouse og Paris (Orly)Marseille under henvisning til reglerne i forordningen.
As regards the procedure initiated under Article 8(3) of the Regulation, which led to the adoption of the contested decision, it is settled law that respect for the rights of the defence, in all proceedings which are initiated against a person and which are liable to culminate in a measure adversely affecting that person, is a fundamental principle of Community law which must be guaranteed even in the absence of any specific rules.
Ved skrivelse af 21. juli 1993 afslog generaldirektøren for civil luftfart ansøgningen under henvisning til forordningens artikel 5. I
That principle requires that the person concerned must be placed in a position in which he can effectively make known his view of the matters on the basis of which the Commission adopted its measure.
Den 28. september 1993 indgav TAT en klage til Kommissionen, hvori selskabet gjorde gældende, at der forelå en overtrædelse af EØF-traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 86 og artikel 90 og var sket en tilsidesættelse af en aftale, som var blevet indgået den 30. oktober 1990 mellem Kommissionen, den franske regering og Air France (herefter »1990-aftalen«) med henblik på at give mulighed for konkurrence på bl.a. strækningerne Paris-Toulouse og Paris-Marseille. TAT anførte endvidere subsidiært, at forordningens bestemmelser var tilsidesat.
On 28 September 1993 TAT lodged a complaint with the Commission claiming that there had been an infringement of Articles 3(f), 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty and a failure to comply with an agreement concluded on 30 October 1990 between the Commission, the French Government and Air France (hereinafter 'the 1990 Agreement') aimed at opening up, inter alia, the Paris-Toulouse and Paris-Marseille routes to competition.
Selskabet gjorde gældende, at Air France koncernens monopol på ruterne Paris (Orly)Marseille og Paris (Orly)-Toulouse burde være blevet bragt til ophør den 1. marts 1992 som fastsat i 1990-aftalen.
It submitted that the monopoly of the Air France group on the Paris (Orly)Marseille and Paris (Orly)-Toulouse routes should have come to an end on 1 March 1992, as provided for in the 1990 Agreement.
Endvidere fandt forordningens artikel 5 ikke anvendelse, idet Air Inter ikke havde eneret på de to strækninger, eftersom TAT netop selv befløj disse fra og til Roissy-Charles de Gaulle-lufthavnen (herefter »CDG«).
Nor was Article 5 of the Regulation applicable, since Air Inter had not enjoyed exclusivity on those two routes, as TAT provided a service from Roissy-Charles de Gaulle airport (hereinafter 'CDG') on those same routes.
Endelig anførte TAT, at
The applicant's economic position
forskelsbehandlingen af selskabet var uforenelig med forordningens artikel 8, stk. 1.
In that letter it explained its business situation, in particular with regard to the air services it supplied and its contractual relationship with the French State, which had entrusted it with public service tasks.
grundlag af hvilke Kommissionen har udstedt den omtvistede retsakt.
In short, it was particularly opposed to an abrupt and hasty opening of the main air routes which it served from and to Orly airport.
Den 27. april 1994 vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 94/291/EF om en procedure i forbindelse med anvendelsen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2408/92 (sag VII/AMA/IV/93 - TAT - Paris (Orly)Marseille og Paris (Orly)-Toulouse) (herefter »beslutning 94/291« eller »den anfægtede beslutning«).
Second, the applicant was expressly named in the national instrument on which it relied for its exclusive traffic rights, namely the 1985 Agreement, it not being necessary here to examine the legal effect of that agreement. Finally, the contested decision repeatedly expressly mentions the applicant.
Ved stævning indleveret til Retten den 12. juli 1994 har Air Inter anlagt denne sag.
Consequently, the conditions laid down by the judgment in Netherlands and Others ν Commission are satisfied in this case.
Krænkelse af sagsøgerens ret til at varetage sine interesser
Consequently, the applicant had rights of defence which should have been observed in the procedure culminating in the adoption of the contested decision and it is unnecessary to consider the general question whether rights of defence exist also in a situation where a procedure initiated under Article 8(3) of the Regulation, which has to be completed within a period of one month, would affect an indeterminate number of air carriers.
Ifølge den fastlagte ordning skal Kommissionen udelukkende rette henvendelse til den pågældende medlemsstat efter at have hørt det rådgivende udvalg, der består af repræsentanter for medlemsstaterne.
The Commission — referring to the French authorities' statements — has indicated, without contradiction in that regard by the applicant, that the applicant had been kept informed by those authorities of the course of the procedure.
Det er kun generelt og fakultativt, at Kommissionen for at løse sine opgaver »kan« indhente oplysninger hos luftfartsselskaberne.
It must therefore be concluded from this that the applicant was at least aware of the observations submitted by the French authorities to the Commission.