natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved dom af 4. juni 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 19. juni 1991, havde Gerectshof, Amsterdam, forelagt Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets sjette direktiv.
By judgment of 4 June 1991, which was received at the Court on 19 June 1991, the Gerechtshof, Amsterdam, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 26 of the Sixth Council Directive.
Van Ginkel organiserer turistrejser og driver tillige rejsebureauer.
Van Ginkel carried on business as a tour operator and also ran travel agencies.
Selskabet tilbyder sine kunder "bilferier", hvor kunden anvender egen bil, mens Van Ginkel blot sørger for indkvartering i feriehuse, der som oftest tilhører tredjemand, som betaler van £inkel en provision på 20 % af lejen.
It offered its customers "driving holidays", in which the customer used his own car, whilst Van Ginkel merely provided accommodation in bungalows usually belonging to third parties who paid Van Ginkel a commission equal to 20% of the rental.
Da momsen udelukkende blev beregnet af provi sionsbeløbet, fandt Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting, at den af van Ginkel udførte tjenesteydelse måtte betragtes som leje af ferieboliger, og at momsen derfor skulle beregnes af hele det beløb, kunden skulle betale.
Since value added tax was calculated solely on the basis of the amount of that commission, the Inspector of Turnover Taxes considered that the provision of services by Van Ginkel was to be regarded as the letting of holiday accommodation and that value added tax accordingly had to be calculated on the basis of the total amount of the price charged to the customer.
Domstolen bemærkede, at sjette direktivs artikel 26 ikke indeholder noget udtrykkeligt krav om, at rejsebureauet skal sørge for transporten af den rejsende til og fra overnatningsstedet, for at særordningen i denne artikel kan finde anvendelse.
The Court pointed out that Article 26 of the Sixth Directive did not contain any provision expressly requiring that, for the purposes of the application of the specific system of value added tax laid down in that article, the traveller's transportation to and from his lodgings had to be arranged by the travel agency.
Domstolen udtalte videre, at bestemmelserne i artikel 26 afpasser de gældende momsregler efter den særlige virksomhed, der udøves af rejsebureauerne.
These provisions brought the applicable rules on value added tax into line with the specific nature of the business carried on by travel agencies.
For at tilgodese kundernes behov tilbyder rejsebureauerne en række forskellige ferie- og rejseformer, således at den rejsende efter eget valg kan kombinere transport, indkvartering og alle de andre ydelser, disse virksomheder kan tilbyde.
In order to meet customers' needs, those agencies offered a wide range of holiday and travel packages enabling travellers to combine, on their own terms, transportation, accommodation and any other kind of services which those
Donstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court ruled as follows:
"Bestemmelserne i artikel 26 i Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, skal fortolkes således, at den omstændighed, at et rejsebureau eller en virksomhed, der organiserer turistrejser, ikke sørger for transporten af den rejsende, og at disse virksomheder blot stiller en feriebolig til rådighed for denne, ikke kan bevirke, at de tjenesteydelser, der præsteres af disse virksomheder, udelukkes fra artikel 26's anvendelsesområde."
"Article 26 of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes -Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the customer's transport is not arranged by a travel agency or by a tour operator and that the latter merely provide the customer with holiday accommodation are not such as to exclude the services provided by such undertakings from the scope of Article 26."
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Tred.ie Afdeling den 1. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber of the Court on 1 October 1992.
"Artikel 26 skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen omfatter transaktioner, der udføres af et rejsebureau eller en virksomhed, der organiserer turistrejser, og som består i til rejsende at udleje ferieboliger tilhørende en afgiftspligtig tredjemand, også selv om den rejsende selv sørger for transport til og fra ferieboligen."
"Article 26 must be interpreted as applying to operations carried out by a travel agency or a tour operator consisting in the letting to travellers of holiday accommodation belonging to a third party who is a taxable person, even though the traveller himself arranges for his own transportation to and from the holiday accommodation."
Sag C-209/91: Anne Watson Rask og Kirsten Christensen nod ISS Kantineservice A/S
Case C-209/91: Anne Watson Rask, Kirsten Christensen v ISS Kantineservice A/S - 12 November 1992
12.11.1992 "Varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder" (Tredje Afdeling)
(Maintenance of workers' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings) (Third Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 30. juli 1991 indgået til Domstolen den 6. august 1991 havde Sø- og Handelsretten i København forelagt Domstolen tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 1, stk. 1, og artikel 3, stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF.
By order of 30 July 1991, which was received at the Court on 6 August 1991, the Soeog Handelsretten i Koebenhavn [Maritime and Commercial Court, Copenhagen] referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 3(2) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC.
Sagsøgerne, der var ansat hos Philips A/S i en af dette selskabs fire personalekantiner, blev pr. 1. januar 1989 dernæst ansat hos ISS, som i henhold til en aftale indgået med Philips påtog sig det totale driftsansvar for Philips' kantiner og overtog de medarbejdere, som havde fast beskæftigelse dér, på uændrede løn- og opsige!sesvilkår.
The plaintiffs of the main proceedings were employed in succession by Philips in one of the company's four canteens, and subsequently, as from 1 January 1989, by ISS, under an agreement concluded with Philips. That agreement provided that ISS was to assume full responsibility for the management of Philips' canteens and would take over the staff employed there on a permanent basis on the same conditions as regards salary and seniority.
Sammen med Kirsten Christensen krævede hun desuden betaling af diverse udlæg og tilskud, som de tidligere havde modtaget fra Philips. ISS nægtede at opfylde kravene og bortviste Anne Rask, efter at denne havde afvist at fortsætte arbejdsforholdet under disse betingelser.
Following the unilateral amendment by ISS of the day on which the salaries of the workers transferred were paid, which had been fixed as the last working day of the month, and of the constituent elements of those workers' salaries,
Under de herefter for Sø- og Handelsretten i København anlagte sager om erstatning for uberettiget bortvisning og betaling af de omtvistede udlæg og tilskud havde ISS gjort gældende, at aftalen med Philips i modsætning til det af sagsøgerne anførte ikke var en virksomhedsoverførsel efter direktivet eller den danske lov, som; er vedtaget til gennemførelse af direktivet, og at ISS under alle omstændigheder ikke var forpligtet til at opretholde nøjagtig samme lønvilkår som Philips.
In the proceedings before the national court concerning a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal and for payment of the contested allowances, ISS maintained that, contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the agreement concluded with Philips did not constitute a transfer of an undertaking within the meaning of either the directive or the Danish law adopted for the application of the directive and that, accordingly, ISS was not in any event under an obligation to maintain conditions of pay that were strictly identical to those of Philips.
Domstolen bemærkede, at når en virksomhed ved aftale overdrager ansvaret for en servicefunktion inden for virksomheden, såsom en kantine, til en anden virksomhed, som herved påtager sig en arbejdsgivers forpligtelser over for de arbejdstagere, der er tilknyttet den pågældende servicefunktion, kan den således gennemførte transaktion falde ind under direktivets anvendelsesområde, således som det er defineret i artikel 1, stk. 1.
The Court pointed out in that regard that where an undertaking entrusted, by means of an agreement, responsibility for running a service, such as a canteen, to another undertaking which thereby assumed the obligations of an employer in relation to the employees assigned thereto, the resultant transaction was liable to fall within the scope of the directive, as defined in Article 1(1) thereof.
Den omstændighed, at den aktivitet, der overføres, kun er af sekundær betydning for den overdragende virksomhed og ikke er nødvendig i forhold til virksomhedens formål, kan ikke medføre, at transaktionen falder uden for direktivets anvendelsesområde.
The fact that, in such a case, the activity transferred was for the transferor merely a subsidiary activity not necessarily connected with the company's object could not have the effect of excluding that transaction from the scope of the directive.
Tilsvarende kan den omstændighed, at aftalen mellem overdrageren og erhververen vedrører en tjenesteydelse, der udelukkende erlægges til fordel for overdrageren, mod et vederlag, der er nærmere fastlagt i aftalen, heller ikke udelukke, at direktivet finder anvendelse.
Nor did the fact that the agreement between the transferor and the transferee related to services provided exclusively for the benefit of the transferor against payment on terms laid down by the agreement preclude the applicability of the directive.
Som tidligere fastslået af Domstolen tilsigter direktivet ikke at indføre en ensartet beskyttelse for hele Fællesskabet på grundlag af fælles kriterier.
The Court went on to state that, as the Court had already held, the directive did not aim to introduce a uniform level of protection for the Community as a whole on the basis of common criteria.
Direktivet kan derfor kun påberåbes med henblik på at sikre, at arbejdstageren opnår samme beskyttelse i forhold til erhververen, som han havde i forhold til overdrageren i henhold til vedkommende medlemsstats retsregler.
Accordingly, the benefit of the directive could not be relied upon except to ensure that the worker concerned was protected in its relationship with the transferee in the same way as was the case in his relationship with the transferor, by virtue of the rules of law of the Member State concerned.
For så vidt som det derfor i andre tilfælde end ved en virksomhedsoverførsel i henhold til national ret er tilladt at ændre arbejdsforholdet til ugunst for arbejdstagerne, navnlig med hensyn til lønvilkårene, er en sådan ændring ikke udelukket, blot fordi virksomheden i mellemtiden har været genstand for en overførsel, og aftalen følgelig er indgået med den nye indehaver af virksomheden.
Accordingly, the Court considered that, in so far as it was permissible under national law, except in the case of the transfer of an undertaking, for the employment relationship to be altered to the detriment of the workers, in particular as regards the conditions of pay, such an alteration was not excluded simply by reason of the fact that the undertaking had, in the meantime, been transferred and that the agreement had accordingly been concluded with the new head of the undertaking.
Da erhververen nemlig i medfør af direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1, er trådt i overdragerens sted med hensyn til de rettigheder og forpligtelser, som følger af arbejdsforholdet, kan dette i forhold til erhververen ændres i samme omfang, som det kunne have været ændret i forhold til overdrageren, dog således, at overførselen i sig selv under ingen omstændigheder giver nogen begrundelse for at foretage ændringer.
Since the transferee took the transferor's place by virtue of Article 3(1) of the directive, the employment relationship could, so far as concerned the rights and obligations arising thereunder, be altered in relation to the transferor, on the understanding that in no circumstances could the transfer of an undertaking constitute p_er se the reason for that alteration.
Direktivets artikel 3 skal fortolkes således, at lønvilkårene i henhold til arbejdskontrakten eller arbejdsforholdet, herunder tidspunktet for lønudbetaling og sammensætningen af lønnen, ikke kan ændres i forbindelse med overførselen, selv når den samlede lønsum er uændret.
Article 3 of the directive must be interpreted as meaning that, on the transfer, the terms of the contract of employment or of the employment relationship with regard to salary, in particular the date of payment and the composition of the salary, may not be altered even though the total amount of the salary remains unchanged.
Direktivet er dog ikke til hinder for, at den nye indehaver af virksomheden foretager ændringer i arbejdsforholdet, såfremt sådanne ændringer er tilladt i henhold til national ret, når der ikke sker nogen virksomhedsoverførsel.
The directive does not, however, preclude an alteration in the employment relationship with the new head of the undertaking in so far as the national law applicable allows such an alteration except in the event of the transfer of an undertaking.
Erhververen skal desuden opretholde samme vilkår, som gjaldt for overdrageren ifølge en kollektiv overenskomst, indtil den kollektive overenskomst opsiges eller udløber, eller en anden kollektiv overenskomst træder i kraft eller får virkning."
Furthermore, the transferee is under an obligation to observe the terms of a collective agreement to the same extent as they applied to the transferor, until the date of termination or expiry of the collective agreement or the date of the entry into force or the application of another collective agreement."
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolen den 8. oktober 1992
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 8 October 1992.
Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF af 14. februar 1977 finder anvendelse i en situation, hvor en virksomhed indgår en aftale med en anden virksomhed om driften af dens personalekantiner, hvorved det faste personale, som er beskæftiget i denne del af virksomheden, overtages, så længe den overførte del af virksomheden bevarer sin identitet.
Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 applies in a case where one undertaking enters into an agreement with another undertaking to operate its staff canteens, taking over staff permanently employed in that part of the undertaking, provided that the part of the undertaking transferred retains its identity.
Det er ingen betingelse for, at direktiv 77/187/EØF kan finde anvendelse, at den overførte del af virksomheden vedrører en del af virksomhedens produktion.
For Directive 77/187/EEC to apply, it is not necessary for the part of the undertaking transferred to be concerned with the undertaking's production.
Det er herved tilstrækkeligt, at der er tale om en del af en virksomhed, som kan identificeres som en organisatorisk enhed og udfører aktiviteter af særlig art, inden for hvis rammer de pågældende arbejdstagere er ansat.
It is sufficient for those purposes if the part of the undertaking concerned is identifiable as a unit, from the organizational point of view, carrying on activities, even of a specific nature, which affect the workers concerned.
Direktiv 77/187/EØF er ikke til hinder for, at den nye virksomhedsledelse ensidigt ændrer tidspunktet for udbetaling og/eller sammensætningen af lønnen, hvis den samlede lønsum forbliver uændret, for så vidt de nationale bestemmelser tillader en arbejdsgiver at indføre sådanne ændringer i andre tilfælde end overførsel af virksomheder."
Directive 77/187/EEC does not preclude the unilateral alteration, by the new chief executive, of the time of payment and/or the composition of the salary, on the understanding that the total amount thereof remains unchanged, provided that the relevant national provisions authorize an employer to make such alterations in circumstances other than those involving the transfer of an undertaking."
"Bruxelles-konventionen af 27. september 1968 - anerkendelse af en retsafgørelse truffet over for en udebleven sagsøgt - artikel 27, nr. 2" (Fjerde Afdeling)
(Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Recognition of a judgment given in default of the defendant's appearance - Article 27(2)) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 4. april 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 26. april 1991, havde Bundesgerichtshof stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2.
By order of 4 April 1991, which was received at the Court on 26 April 1991, the Bundesgerichtshof referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention.
Dette modsatte Minalmet GmbH sig under henvisning til, at stævningen i den engelske domssag ikke var blevet forkyndt for Minalmet GmbH under overholdelse af de gældende formkrav i tysk ret.
Minalmet objected to enforcement on the ground that the summons had not been duly served in accordance with German law.
Domstolen bemærkede under henvisning til ordlyden af artikel 27, nr. 2, at det afgørende tidspunkt med hensyn til, om sagsøgte har kunnet varetage sine interesser, er sagens anlæg.
The Court emphasized in that regard that, as was apparent from the provision in question, the relevant time for the defendant to be able to arrange for his defence was the time when proceedings were instituted.
Muligheden for senere at gøre brug af et retsmiddel mod en afgørelse, som er truffet i en udeblivelsessag, og som allerede er blevet eksigibel, kan ikke sidestilles med en adgang til at varetage sine interesser, inden retsafgørelsen træffes.
The possibility of subsequent recourse to a legal remedy against a default judgment, which had already been rendered enforceable, could not constitute a remedy equivalent to a defence prior to the judgment.
Når først der foreligger en eksigibel retsafgørelse, vil sagsøgte, alt efter omstændighederne, have vanskeligere ved at få udsat fuldbyrdelsen af retsafgørelsen, og processuelt kan han også blive vanskeligere stillet. Dermed sker der en betydelig svækkelse af de muligheder, en udebleven sagsøgt har for at varetage sine interesser, og en sådan konsekvens vil være i strid med formålet med konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2.
Once an enforcement order had been made, the defendant could obtain, where appropriate, a suspension of its enforcement only on very strict conditions and could moreover be confronted with procedural difficulties.
"Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, skal fortolkes således, at en i en kontraherende stat afsagt udeblivelsesdom ikke kan anerkendes i en anden kontraherende stat, såfremt det indledende processkrift i sagen ikke forskriftsmæssigt er blevet forkyndt for den udeblevne sagsøgte, og dette gælder også, selv om denne senere har fået kendskab til den afgørelse, der er truffet, men ikke har iværksat de i domsstaten hjemlede retsmidler mod afgørelsen."
"Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention must be interpreted as precluding a judgment given in default of appearance in one Contracting State from being recognized in another Contracting State, where the document instituting the proceedings has not been duly served on the defendant in default, even though he subsequently became aware of the judgment but did not avail himself of any of the legal remedies available under the procedural code of the State in which the judgment was delivered."
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet iF.ierde Afdeling) den 8. iuli 1992.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber of the Court on 8 July 1992.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He considered that the Court should reply as follows:
"I henhold til Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, kan en udeblivelsesdom, der er afsagt i en kontraherende stat, ikke anerkendes i en anden kontraherende stat, såfremt det indledende proces skrift i sagen ikke forskriftsmæssigt er blevet forkyndt for sag søgte, og dette gælder også, selv om sagsøgte har fået kendskab til dommen, men ikke har iværksat nogen af de retsmidler, som efter den førstnævnte stats ret kan føre til, at dommen ophæves eller ændres."
"Under Article 27(2) of the Brussels Convention, a judgment given in default of appearance in one Contracting State must not be recognized in another Contracting State if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings, even if he was aware of the judgment concerned but failed to avail himself of any remedies available under the law of the first State which might have led to that judgment being set aside or varied."
"Landbrug - retten til forarbejdningsstøtte" (Fjerde Afdeling)
(Agriculture - Right to the processing subsidy) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved dom af 14. marts 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 6. maj s.a., havde Tribunal administratif de Paris stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2114/71 og Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1204/72.
By judgment of 14 March 1991, which was received at the Court on 6 May 1991, the Tribunal Administratif, Paris, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2114/71 and Commission Regulation No 1204/72.
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag mellem ovennævnte parter angående en afgørelse, som det franske landbrugsministerium havde truffet og hvorefter CNTA skulle tilbagebetale de udbetalte forskud på forarbejdningsstøtten til olieholdige frø. Afgørelsen var begrundet med, at Kommissionen ikke ville anerkende, at de ovennævnte beløb påhvilede FEOGA, fordi ID-delen af attesten om fællesskabsstøtte blev indgivet til den kompetente myndighed, efter at de frø, som kunne opnå støtte, var blevet presset.
That question was raised in a dispute between the aforesaid parties regarding the decision of the Minister of Agriculture to request the CNTA to repay the advances granted by way of the subsidy for processing oil seeds on the ground that the Commission had refused to charge to the EAGGF the amount of the aforesaid subsidies on account of the fact that the ID part of the Community aid certificate had not been sent to the competent agency until after the seeds eligible for the subsidy had been crushed.
"Støtte til olieholdige frø, jf. Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2114/71 af 28. september 1971 om støtte til olieholdige frø, ydes i henhold til gennemførelsesbestemmelserne i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1204/72 af 7. juli 1972 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til støtteordningen for olieholdige frø på betingelse af, at ID-delen af attesten om fællesskabsstøtte, jf. sidstnævnte forordnings artikel 5, stk. 1, litra b), indgives samme dag, som frøene i en oliemølle undergives den pågældende medlemsstats kontrol, og dermed før frøene forarbejdes til olie."
"The grant of the subsidy for processing oil seeds, as provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2114/71 of 28 September 1971 on the subsidy for oil seeds, is subject, in accordance with the detailed rules of application laid down by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1204/72 of 7 June 1972 laying down detailed rules for the application of the subsidy system for oil seeds, to the condition that the application for the ID part of the Community subsidy certificate referred to in Article 5(1 )(b) of the 1 atter regulation is lodged on the same day as that on which the Member State concerned assumes control over the seeds in the oil mill, and consequently before they are processed for oil production."