natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 og artikel 7 finder ikke anvendelse på en rent intern situation i en medlemsstat, hvor en statsborger fra denne medlemsstat, som opholder sig i den, efter dér at have erhvervet de krævede faglige kvalifikationer ikke på noget tidspunkt har benyttet sig af retten til fri bevægelighed for at etablere sig i en anden medlemsstat."
"Neither Article 52 nor Article 7 of the EEC Treaty applies to a purely internal situation in a Member State, such as that of a national of that State who, residing in that State after acquiring the requisite professional qualifications there, has never exercised freedom of movement with a view to establishing himself in another Member State."
Fortolkning af artikel 9 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1153/75 af 30. april 1975 om udstedelse af ledsagedokumenter og om fastlæggelse af de forpligtelser, der inden for vinsektoren påhviler producent og forhandler, undtagen detailhandler - rækkevidden af sætningen: "Disse angivelser er ikke obligatoriske".
Interpretation of Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75 prescribing the form of the accompanying documents for wine products and specifying the obligations of wine producers and traders other than retailers - Meaning of the words "entry of these particulars shall not be compulsory".
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 8. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber of the Court on 8 October 1992.
"Den sidste sætning i artikel 9 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1153/75 n vedrører udelukkende bestemmelserne i stykke 3 i samme artikel
"The last sentence of Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 1153/75 refers exclusively to the provisions of paragraph (3) thereof."
Sag C-284/91:
Case C-284/91: Belgian State ν Suiker Export
Fortolkning af artikel 15 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3330/74 om den fælles markedsordning for sukker - importafgift - sukker med oprindelse i Fællesskabet - tyveri af sukker placeret under eksportordningen T 1 - tilbagebetaling af modtagne eksportrestitutioner.
Interpretation of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 on the common organization of the markets in sugar - Import levy - Sugar of Community origin - Theft of sugar placed for export under the Τ 1 regime - Reimbursement of the amounts levied by way of export refunds.
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber of the Court on 8 October 1992.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålet således:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
"Artikel 15 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3330/74 af 19. december 1974 skal fortolkes således, at der ikke skal betales importafgift af en vare med indenlandsk oprindelse, som er blevet stjålet, mens den forud for udførsel til tredjelande var placeret under ordningen for T 1-varer med henblik på udbetaling af restitutioner, nå» de tidligere for udførsel opnåede restitutioner er tilbagebetalt."
"Article 15 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3330/74 of 19 December 1974 must be interpreted as meaning that an import levy is not payable in respect of goods of domestic origin which were stolen when they were placed under the Tl regime before being exported to non-member countries, with a view to obtaining export refunds, where the refunds previously obtained in respect of such exportation have already been reimbursed."
Fortolkning af artikel 3, stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheden i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder hpdriftpr piler dele af bedrifter - anvendelse i det tilfælde, hvor en virksomned overdrager driften af sin kantine til en anden virksomhed - opretholdelse af de arbejdsvilkår, der er aftalt ved en kollektiv overenskomst - lønnens for faldstidspunkt - ændret sammensætning af en løn, idet den samlede lønsum forblev uændret.
Interpretation of Article 3(2) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses - Application to a situation where an undertaking entrusts the operation of its canteen to another undertaking - Maintenance of working conditions stipulated by a collective agreement - Time when wages are paid -Alteration in the composition of wages where the total amount thereof remains unchanged.
Generaladvokat W. Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. oktobet 1992.
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber 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, 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 the part of the undertaking transferred retains its identity.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at fastslå, om denne identitet er bevaret, hvorved den skal tage hensyn til alle faktiske omstændigheder, som er kendetegnende for den pågældende transaktion.
It is for the national court to establish whether that identity is maintained, taking account of all the factual circumstances surrounding the transaction concerned.
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
Udgivet af Informationstjenesten ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol L-2925 Luxembourg.
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 wages, 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."
ARBEJDET VED DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABERS DOMSTOL
THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OG RET I FØRSTE INSTANS ]
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 1
Ugen 12.-16. oktober 1992 Nr. 26/92
Week of 12 to 16 October 1992
INDHOLD
No 26-92
I. DOMME side
SUMMARY
GENGIVELSE KAN SKE MED KILDEANGIVELSE.
Joined Cases C-63/90 and C-67/90
Sag C-262/91: Kommissionen mod Den Italienske Republik Afgifter Sag C-162/91: Tenuta il Bosco mod Ministero delle finanze Landbrug
Taxation Case C-65/91 Commission ν Hellenic Republic Commercial policy Case C-262/91 Commission ν Italian Republic Taxation Case C-162/91 Tenuta di Bosco ν Ministero delle Finanze Agriculture
KENDELSER
ORDERS
Sag C-295/92-R: Landbouwschap mod Kommissionen Statsstøtte
Case C-295/92-R Landbouwschap ν Commission State aid
Landbrug Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Claus Gulmann Sag C-236/91: Kommissionen mod Irland Landbrug Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat Claus Gulmann Sag C-191/91 Abbott mod Oberfinanzdirektion Köln Frie varebevægelser Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat W. Van Gerven Sag C-188/91 Deutsche Shell mod Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg Forbindelser udadtil Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat W. Van Gerven
Case C-231/91 Annuss ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Agriculture Opinion of Mr Advocate General Gulmann Case C-235/91 Commission ν Ireland Agriculture Opinion of Mr Advocate General Gulmann Case C-236/91 Commission ν Ireland Agriculture Opinion of Mr Advocate General Gulmann Case C-191/91 Abbott ν Oberfinanzdirektion Cologne Free movement of goods Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven Case C-188/91 Deutsche Shell ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Harburg External relations Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven Case C-190/91 A. Lante ν Regione Veneto Agriculture Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven
Landbrug Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat W. Van Gerven
Joined Cases C-63/90 and C-67/90: Portuguese Republic and Kingdom of Spain ν Council - 13 October 1992
Forenede sager C-63/90 og C-67/90: Den Portugisiske Republik og Kongeriget Spanien mod Rådet
Under those conditions a finding that fishing results had fallen short of the quantities forecast could not in itself give rise to an obligation to make a fresh allocation for the following year.
13.10.1992 "Fiskeri - forordning om fordeling af fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne -akten vedrørende Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse" (Domstolens plenum)
With regard to the infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, the Court pointed out that inasmuch as the Act of Accession did not alter the existing situation in regard to the allocation of external resources, the acquis communautaire continued to apply.
Ved stævninger indgivet den 14. og 16. marts 1990 havde Den Portugisiske Republik og Kongeriget Spanien nedlagt påstand om annullation af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4054/89 om fordeling for 1990 af Fællesskabets fangstkvoter i grønlandske farvande.
Consequently, new Member States could not invoke circumstances prior to accession including their fishing activities during the reference period or prior thereto in order to avoid the application of the provisions in issue.
Fordelingsprocenterne, som var fastsat på grundlag af fiskeriet i referenceperioden 1973-1978 og omsat tildelte mængder, havde været uændrede siden 1983 og var blevet lagt til grund ved alle efterfølgende fordelinger.
As from their accession they were in the same situation as Member States excluded from allocations by virtue of the principle of the relative stability of fishing activities, reflected as regards agreements entered into prior to accession in the allocation carried out in 1983.
Spaniens og Portugals tiltrædelse af Fællesskabet den 1. januar 1986 medførte ingen ændring af fordelingsnøglen, idet de to nye medlemsstater ikke blev omfattet heraf.
That assessment could not be invalidated by the fact that by virtue of accession the new Member States were no longer competent to enter into autonomous agreements, which placed them in a situation identical to that of all the other Member States, or by the fact that they had not received any counterpart for the external resources contributed by them to the Community.
Sagsøgernes anbringende om, at den betydelige forhøjelse af de fiskerimuligheder, Grønland havde tilbudt, herunder yderligere 7 500 tons torsk, burde have foranlediget Rådet til at medtage sagsøgerne ved fordelingen, hvilket det kunne have gjort uden at tilsidesatte de medlemsstaters interesser, som allerede var omfattet af denne fordelingsnøgle, kunne ikke tiltrædes.
As regards the argument by the Portuguese Government that it was for the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give expression to the general requirement of equity by interpreting the stability sought in a flexible manner, it should be recalled that the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic regulated external fishery resources in such a way as to leave the system of allocation at issue unchanged.
Som Domstolen allerede havde præciseret, måtte princippet om et relativt stabilt fiskeri forstås således, at der opretholdes en bestemt procentdel for hver enkelt medlemsstat, men ikke indebærer en garanti for en bestemt mængde fisk.
Under those conditions the accession of the applicants could not constitute a factor capable of changing the Court's case-law to the effect that the stability requirement entails the maintenance of a fixed percentage for each Member State.
Nye medlemsstater kan derfor ikke påberåbe sig omstændigheder, der ligger forud for tiltrædelsen, herunder deres fiskeri i eller forud for referenceperioden, til støtte for, at disse bestemmelser ikke finder anvendelse.
(Fishing - Regulation allocating catch quotas amongst the Member States - Act of Accession of Spain) (Full Court)
Sagsøgernes tiltrædelse af Fællesskabet er derfor ikke en omstændighed, der kan antages at medføre en ændring i Domstolens praksis, hvor kravet om relativ stabilitet er fortolket således, at det betyder, at der opretholdes en bestemt procentdel for hver enkelt medlemsstat.
By applications lodged on 19, 20 and 21 March 1990 the Kingdom of Spain sought the annulment of Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 4053/89, 4049/89 and 4051/89 allocating for the year 1990 certain catch quotas amongst the Member States in respect of vessels fishing in the waters of the Faroe Isles, in the exclusive economic zone of Norway and in the zone situated around Jan Mayen and in the waters of Sweden.
Med hensyn til argumentet om, at Rådet havde tilsidesat det princip om "solidaritet inden for Fællesskabet", som ifølge den portugisiske regering kan udledes af Traktatens artikel 5, stk. 2, bemærkede Domstolen, at Rådets udstedelse af en lovforskrift ikke kan være en tilsidesættelse af den forpligtelse, der påhviler medlemsstaterne til at sikre fællesskabsrettens gennemslagskraft, idet hver enkelt medlemsstats varetagelse af sine interesser i Rådet klart falder uden for rammerne af ovennævnte forpligtelse, og heller ikke kan være en tilsidesættelse af den loyalitetsforpligtelse, der påhviler Rådet som institution.
In support of their applications, the applicant relied on two grounds based respectively on an infringement of the principle of the relative stability of fishing activities and on the principle of the prohibition of discrimination (see in that respect the summary of Cases C-63/90 and 67/90 above).
Den Portugisiske Republik og Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.
The Commission, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom shall bear their own costs. "
Kommissionen, Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige bærer deres egne omkostninger."
He proposed that the Court should: dismiss the applications as ill-founded; in each case order the applicants to pay the costs in accordance with Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure save for the costs borne, in accordance with Article 69(4), by the Commission and the intervening Member States themselves."
Ved stævninger indgivet den 19., 20. og 21. marts 1990 havde Kongeriget Spanien anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4053/89, nr. 4049/89 og nr. 4051/89 om fordeling for 1990 af visse fangstkvoter mellem medlemsstaterne for fartøjer, der udøver fiskeri i færøske farvande, i Norges eksklusive økonomiske zone og i fiskerizonen omkring Jan Mayen, og i svenske farvande.
By an order of 31 October 1990, which was received at the Court on 4 February 1991, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council.
Til støtte for søgsmålene fremførte sagsøgeren to anbringender, nemlig om tilsidesættelse af princippet om et relativt stabilt fiskeri og om tilsidesættelse af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling.
Those questions arose in a dispute between the parties mentioned above with regard to the levying of capital duty on the profits transferred to Weber Haus GmbH and Co KG by a limited company in the same group.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger.
Pursuant to that agreement, the limited company transferred its profits to Weber Haus.
Kommissionen, Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige bærer deres egne omkostninger."
To justify its decision the Finanzamt based itself on Article 4 of the German law on the taxation of capital movements.
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse i de forenede sager C-63/90 og C-67/90 og i sagerne C-70/90. C-71/90 og C-73/90 den 6. maj 1992.
The Bundesfinanzhof, before which the case came, questioned the compatibility of that provision with Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335.
"- at sagsøgte blev frifundet, at sagsøgerne i hver enkelt sag dømtes til at betale sagens omkostninger, jf. procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 2, idet Kommissionen og de medlemsstater, der havde interveneret i sagerne, selv afholder deres egne omkostninger, jf. artikel 69, stk. 4."
In that connection the Court stated that when a transfer of profits to a capital company increased the assets of that company and was likely to increase the value of that company's shares that constituted a taxable event which might give rise to capital duty, when carried out by a shareholder.
Ved kendelse af 31. oktober 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 4. februar 1991, havde Bundesfinanzhof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b), i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF.
However, a transfer of profits could not be treated as a contribution when the company receiving the sums transferred held the shares of the company making the payment and in that capacity was authorized to receive the income from
Spørgsmålene var stillet under en sag mellem ovennævnte parter.
those shares; in fact such a transaction had to be regarded as a distribution of dividends which by its nature was not subject to capital duty.
Mere end 99% af andelene i de to selskaber tilhører ægteparret W. Imidlertid indehaves ægteparret W.'s andele i anpartsselskabet af Weber Haus, som udøver de med andelene forbundne rettigheder og derfor er bemyndiget til at modtage de udloddede overskud.
"By virtue of Article 4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, a transfer of profits as between two companies having a common shareholder may be subject to capital duty where it is clear from the circumstances of the case that it is a payment made by the shareholder to one of his companies through the intermediary of the other.
I øvrigt har de to selskaber indgået en aftale, hvorefter anpartsselskabets overskud skal overføres til Weber haus.
However, such a transaction may not be subject to capital duty where the company receiving the profits holds shares in the company making the payment."
I henhold til nævnte aftale overførte anpartsselskabet sit overskud til Weber Haus.
Mr Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 14 May 1992.
Finanzamt påberåbte sig herved § 4 i den tyske lov om kapitaltilførselsafgifter.
He considered that the Court should rule as follows:
Bundesfinanzhof, som sagen blev indbragt for, rejste spørgsmålet, om ovennævnte bestemmelse er forenelig med artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b), i direktiv 69/335.
"Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC does not permit Member States to charge capital duty on the transfer of profits from a company to a limited partnership, under a profit transfer agreement, where the company and the partnership have a common member and that member has previously contributed the rights represented by his shares in the company to the business assets of the partnership."
En overskudsoverførsel mellem to selskaber, som kontrolleres af en fælles selskabsdeltager, må antages at være en ydelse fra en selskabsdeltager, når det af de konkrete omstændigheder klart fremgår, at overførslen reelt er en betaling, som foretages af den fælles selskabsdeltager til det ene af selskaberne gennem det andet.
(Raising of capital - Capital duty - Concept of part of a business -Contribution of a branch) (First Chamber)
Domstolen bemærkede dog, at en overskudsoverførsel ikke kan antages at være et indskud, når det selskab, som modtager de overførte beløb, er deltager i det selskab, der overfører dem, og dermed er bemyndiget til at modtage udbyttet af de nævnte andele; en sådan transaktion må sidestilles med en udbetaling af udbytte, der efter sin art ikke kan undergives kapitaltilførselsafgift.
By order of 31 October 1990, which was received at the Court on 4 February 1991, the Bundesfinanzhof referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
Those questions arose in proceedings between the parties mentioned above in relation to the rate of tax applied to a transaction carried out on the creation of the Europartner company.
En sådan disposition kan dog ikke undergives kapitaltilførselsafgift, når det selskab, der modtager overskudsbeløb, er deltager i det selskab, der overfører dem."
Commerzbank, one of the shareholders of Europartner, contributed to that company five branches belonging to it.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 14. mai 1992.
Europartner requested that contribution to be taxed at the reduced rate provided at the time by the German law on the taxation of capital movements.
"I henhold til artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b), i direktiv 69/335/EØF kan medlemsstaterne ikke opkræve kapitaltilførselsafgift af en overskudsoverførsel fra et selskab til et kommanditselskab, som sker i henhold til en aftale om overskudsoverførsel, såfremt selskabet og kommanditselskabet har en fælles deltager, som forinden i kommanditselskabets formue har indskudt de rettigheder, der udgøres af hans selskabsandele".
In the event, the Finanzamt took the view that the branches contributed by Commerzbank were not a part of that bank's business to which the lower rate of tax might be applied, since the branches were not entirely autonomous and did not carry on business which was distinct from that of the rest of the undertaking.
13.10.1992 "Kapitaltilførsel - kapitaltilførselsafgift - begrebet del af en virksomhed - indskud af en filial " (Første Afdeling)
In that connection the Court pointed out that at the material time the contribution of parts of a business was taxed at the reduced rate provided for in Article 7 mentioned above, as stated in Council Directive 73/80/EEC.
Ved kendelse af 31. oktober 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 4. februar 1991, havde Bundesfinanzhof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF.
Such a transaction was subsequently exempted from capital duty by Council Directive 85/303/EEC.
Commerzbank, der er en af aktionærerne i Europartner, havde i selskabet indskudt fem banken tilhørende filialer. Europartner anmodede om, at den nedsatte sats, der på det pågældende tidspunkt var gældende i henhold til den tyske lov om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, blev bragt i anvendelse.
In that connection it had to be stated that the grant of such favourable tax arrangements was not tied to the number of activities carried on at the time of the contribution by the company to which the entity subject to transfer belonged, but to the ability of that entity to contribute by its business to the development of the undertaking to which it was transferred.
Finanzamt var i den konkrete sag af den opfattelse, at de indskudte filialer ikke kunne anses for at være en del af en virksomhed, hvor den nedsatte sats kunne finde anvendelse, idet filialerne ikke var helt selvstændige, og ikke udøver en erhvervsaktivitet, der efter sin art er forskellig fra den øvrige virksomheds aktivitet.
Nor did a lack of legal personality preclude an entity from carrying on an economic activity, and only the carrying on of that activity was to be taken into consideration in determining whether a part of an undertaking constituted a part of a business, even if that business was financed by resources made available by the main establishment or was carried on by the entity in question on the basis of instructions given by that establishment.