natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgår af nævnte retsforskrift, at medlemsstaterne, når de valger, om deres område skal anses for én enkelt region eller opdeles i flere regioner, er forpligtet til at tage hensyn såvel til deres områdes geografiske struktur og naturbetingelserne som til produktionsstrukturerne og bestandens gennemsnitsydelse inden for de forskellige dele af deres område.
The Court stated that it followed from Article 5c (1) of Regulation No. 804/68 that when choosing either to consider their entire territory as a single region or to sub-divide that territory into several regions, the Member States were obliged to take Into consideration both the geographic structure of their territory and the natural conditions, the structures of production and the average herd yields in the different parts of the territory.
Medlemsstaterne har dog ifølge Domstolen et vidt skøn ved anvendelsen af kriterier vedrørende komplicerede økonomiske forhold, og grænserne for denne skønsbeføjelse kan ikke anses for overskredet, medmindre skønnet er åbenbart fejlagtigt.
The Court stated, however, that since the criteria to be assessed related to a complex economic situation, the Member States possessed a wide power of discretion, the limits of which could be considered to have been exceeded only if a manifest error had been committed in assessing those criteria.
Det andet led af det fjerde spørgsmål var, om nævnte retsforskrift opfylder betingelserne i Traktatens artikel 39, stk. 2, og i Rådets direktiv 75/268 om landbrug i bjergområder og i visse ugunstigt stillede områder samt Rådets direktiv 75/269 om fællesskabslisten over ugunstigt stillede landbrugsområder i henhold til direktiv 75/268/EØF (Belgien).
With the second part of the fourth question, the national court asked whether Article 1 (2) of Regulation No. 857/84 was compatible with the requirements flowing from Article 39 (2) of the Treaty and from Council Directive 75/268 on mountain and hill farming and farming in certain lessfavoured areas within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC (Belgium).
Vedrørende den påståede tilsidesættelse af Traktatens artikel 39, stk. 2, fastslog Domstolen, at traktatbestemmelsens betingelse var opfyldt.
With regard, first, to the alleged infringement of Article 39 (2) of the Treaty, the Court pointed out that the requirement contained in Article 39 (2) was complied with in the present case.
De i sagerne omhandlede retsforskrifter var nemlig, når de vurderedes i deres helhed, så tilstrækkeligt smidigt udformet, at medlemsstaterne ved ordningens gennemførelse havde mulighed for at tage hensyn til de strukturelle og naturgivne forskelle mellem de enkelte landbrugsområder inden for deres territorium. rium.
The regulations in question, considered as a whole, were sufficiently flexible to allow the Member States, when implementing the scheme, to take due account of the structural and natural disparities between the various agricultural regions of their territories.
Vedrørende den påståede tilsidesættelse af direktiverne 75/268 og 75/269 fandt Domstolen det tilstrækkeligt at konstatere, at direktiverne har et andet formål end Fællesskabets ordning vedrørende tillægsafgiften for mælk.
With regard, secondly, to the alleged Infringement of Directives 75/268/EEC and 75/269/EEC, cited above, the Court stated that the directives had a different object from that of the Community regulations relating to the additional levy on milk.
Den omstændighed, at visse områder inden for en medlemsstats territorium anerkendes som ugunstigt stillede landbrugsområder i henhold til direktiverne, er således ikke ensbetydende med, at de også udgør selvstændige områder efter artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 857/84.
The fact that certain areas of a State's territory were recognized as lessfavoured agricultural regions within the meaning of those directives did not imply they must constitute
Gennemgangen af de forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan berøre gyldigheden af artikel 5c, stk. 1,2. afsnit, i Rådets forordning nr. 804/68 af 27. juni 1968 som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 856/84 af 31. marts 1984, eller gyldigheden af artikel 1, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984.
Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the second subparagraph of Article 5c (1) of Regulation No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968, as amended by Council Regulation No. 856/84 of 31 March 1984 or of Article 1 (1) of Regulation No. 857/84 of 31 March 1984.
Gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan berøre gyldigheden af artikel 3, nr. 3, sidste afsnit, i Rådets forordning nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 1305/85 af 23. maj 1985, eller gyldigheden af artikel 10, sidste afsnit, i forordning nr. 857/84.
1984, as amended by Council Regulation No. 1305/85 of 23 May 1985, or of the final paragraph of Article 10 of Regulation No. 857/84.
Artikel 1, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat kan anse hele sit område for én enkelt "region", således som dette begreb forstås efter artikel 5c, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 804/68, selv om det ikke udgør en geografisk enhed, inden for hvilken naturbetingelserne, produktionsstrukturerne og bestandens gennemsnitsydelse er sammenlignelige, medmindre den af medlemsstaten valgte ordning åbenbart ikke er tilpasset strukturerne i den pågældende medlemsstat.
Article 1 (2) of Council Regulation No. 857/84 of 31 March 1984 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State may treat its entire territory as a single region within the meaning of Article 5c (1) of Regulation No. 804/68, even if the territory is not a geographic unit in which the natural conditions, structures of production and average herd yields are comparable, unless such a decision is manifestly unsuited to the structures of the Member State in question.
Gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan berøre gyldigheden af artikel 1, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984."
Consideration of the question raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1 (2) of Council Regulation No. 857/84 of 31 March 1984. ■
Generaladvokat Jean Mi seho fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 13. december
Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 13 December 1989
Han sammenfattede sit forslag således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
Gennemgangen af de to første spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan berøre gyldigheden af artikel 5c, stk. 1, i Rådet forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 eller artikel 1, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 i den af fattelse heraf, der var gældende mellem den 2. april 1984 og den 31. marts 1987.
An examination of the first two questions has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5c (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 or of Article 1 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 in the version in force between 2 April 1984 and 31 March 1987.
2. - Traktatens artikler 3, litra d), 38, 39 og 40 samt Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 af 27. juni 1968 om den falles markedsordning for mælk og mejeriprodukter skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at der i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af den fælles landbrugspolitik træffes særlige foranstaltninger for visse producenter, når foranstaltningerne er objektivt begrundede i den særlige situation, de pågældende producenter befinder sig i.
2.(a) Articles 3d, 38, 39 and 40 of the Treaty and Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude that, in implementing the common agricultural policy, specific measures applicable to certain producers are provided for provided that the measures are objectively justified by the special situation in which those producers find themselves.
­ Gennemgangen af det tredje spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan berøre gyldigheden af de omhandlede retsforskrifter i Rådets forordninger (EØF) nr. 857/84, nr. 590/85, nr. 1305/89, nr. 1335/86 og nr. 1343/86.
Consideration of the third question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of the provisions referred to in Council Regulations (EEC) Nos. 857/84, 590/85, 1305/89, 1335/86 and 1343/86.
3. ­ Artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning (E6F) nr. 857/84 skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat kan anse hele sit område for én enkelt region, selv om naturbetingelserne, produktionsstrukturerne og bestandens gennemsnitsydelse ikke over alt er sammenlignelige.
3.(a) Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 must be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is authorized to consider its entire territory as a single region even if the natural conditions, structures of production and the average herd yields are not uniformly comparable.
Sag C­74/89 Kommissionen for De Europeiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Belglen
Consideration of the fourth question has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84, which must be read in conjunction with the other provisions of the scheme".
"Statsstøtte ­ tilbagesøgning ­ ikke foretaget" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-74/89 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium - 21 February 1990 (State aid - Recovery - Non-implementation) (Full Court)
Ved stavning indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor en 9. marts 1989, havde Kommissionen i medfør af EØF­Traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, 2. afsnit, anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Kongeriget Belgien havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF­Traktaten ved ikke at have efterkommet Kommissionens beslutning 84/111.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 9 March 1989, the Commission brought an action under the second subparagraph of Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by not complying with Commission Decision 84/111 the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Ved nævnte beslutning 84/111 havde Kommissionen vedtaget, at den støtte, der vedrørte projektets første fase skulle ophaves, og den del af støtten, der vedrørte projektets anden del, ikke skulle udbetales. Kommissionen havde herved lagt til grund, at den statsstøtte, som den belgiske regering ville yde en kemofiberproducent 1 form af overtagelse af en majoritetsaktiepost var uforenelig med Fællesmarkedet efter EØF­Traktatens artikel 92.
In Decision 84/111, cited above, the Commission, having found that the aid which the Belgian Government intended to grant, in the form of a majority holding, to a synthetic fibre producer was incompatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty, decided that the aid corresponding to the first phase of the project should be withdrawn and that part of it relating to the second phase should not be paid.
Kongeriget Belgien bestred ikke det af Kommissionen påtalte traktatbrud, men anførte, at forsinkelserne med at efterkomme beslutningen skyldtes den decentralisering, der var sket den 1. januar 1989, hvorved statens kompetence på området var overgået til den flamske region.
The Kingdom of Belgium did not deny that it had failed to fulfil its obligations in the way complained of by the Commission. It explained the delays in implementing the decision by the fact that, as a result of regionalization, which took place on 1 January 1989, the necessary powers had passed from the State to the Flemish Region.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at ifølge fast praksis kan en medlemsstat ikke påberåbe sig bestemmelser, praksis eller forhold i sin nationale retsorden som begrundelse for ikke at overholde forpligtelser i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
The Court regarded it as sufficient to point out that, according to settled case-law, a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with obligations resulting from Community law.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Court held that:
84/111 af 30. november 1983 om den belgiske regerings støtteprojekt til fordel for en kemofiberproducent.
By not complying with Commission Decision 84/111 of 30 November 1983 on the proposal of the Belgian Government to grant aid to a synthetic fibre producer, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Kongeriget Belgien afholder sagens omkostninger".
The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. Ü
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz fremsatte forslag, til afgørelse den 14. februar vm:
Mr Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz delivered his opinion at the sitting on 14 February 1990
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should decide as follows:
"- Kongeriget Belgien har ikke efterkommet Rådets beslutning af 30. november 1983 om den belgiske regerings støtteprojekt til fordel for en kemofiberproducent og har således ikke overholdt de forpligtelser, som påhviler det efter EØF-Traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har foretaget tilbagesøgning af den støtte på 725 millioner belgiske francs, det har ydet en kemofiberproducent;
" By failing to withdraw by way of recovery within the prescribed period the aid in the sum of Bfr 725 million granted to a synthetic fibre producer and thereby infringing the Commission Decision of 30 November 1983 on the proposal of the Belgian Government to grant aid to a synthetic fibre producer, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
- Kongeriget Belgien afholder sagens omkostninger".
The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs. "
Sag C-221/88: Det Europeiske Kul- og Stålfallesskab mod konkursboet efter Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni S.p.A.
Case C-221/88 European Coal and Steel Community v Acciaierie e Ferriere Busseni SpA (in liquidation) - 22 February 1990 (Preliminary ruling) (Financial provisions - Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty - Debts in respect of levies on the production of coal and steel) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 28. april 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 4. august samme år, havde Tribunale di Brescia i medfør af EKSF-Traktatens artikel 41 forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Kommissionens henstilling 86/198/EKSF om indførelse af privilegium for krav på afgifter på produktion af kul og stål.
By order of 28 April 1988, received at the Court on 4 August 1988, the Tribunale di Brescia [District Court, Brescia] referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty a number of questions on the interpretation of Commission Recommendation 86/198/ECSC on the establishment of preferential treatment for debts in respect of levies on the production of coal and steel.
Den 3. februar 1987 blev firmaet Busseni erklaret konkurs, hvorefter Det Europæiske Kul- og Stålfællesskab (herefter benævnt: EKSF) i medfør af henstillingen anmeldte to fordringer 1 boet, den ene som privilegeret fordring.
Following the adjudication of insolvency against Busseni on 3 February 1987, the ECSC, on the basis of the above-mentioned recommendation, requested that it be included among the creditors in respect of two debts, one of preferential rank.
Da skifteretten imidlertid afslog at anerkende fordringerne, anlagde EKSF sag ved Tribunale Civile e Penale di Brescia, som fastslog, at Den Italienske Republik ikke havde truffet nogen foranstaltninger til at gennemføre henstillingen i national ret.
Following the rejection of that request by the Official Receiver, the ECSC appealed to the Tribunale Civile e Penale di Brescia which found that the Italian Republic had not adopted any measures to implement the recommendation.
Vedrørende sin kompetence til 1 præjudicielle sager at fortolke EKSF-Traktaten og retsakter indenfor EKSF-Traktatens område bemærkede Domstolen, at EØF-Traktaten og Euratom-Traktaten, i henholdsvis artikel 177 og artikel 150, fastsætter de samme betingelser for Domstolens kompetence til at fortolke
The Court immediately pointed out in this regard that, while the EEC and EAEC Treaties, under Article 177 in the former and Article 150 in the
- 8 - fællesskabsretten efter præjudiciel forelæggelse fra de nationale retter.
- 8 - latter, defined in identical terms the conditions under which the Court might be called on to exercise its power to interpret Community law by way of questions referred for a preliminary ruling by national courts, the ECSC Treaty contained no express provision governing the exercise by the Court of an interpretative jurisdiction.
Derimod indeholder EKSF-Traktaten Ikke nogen udtrykkelig bestemmelse om en fortolknings kompetence for Domstolen, men en udtrykkelig bestemmelse i artikel 41 om Domstolens enekompetence til at träffe præjudiciel afgørelse om gyldigheden af Kommissionens og Rådets afgørelser.
On the other hand, the ECSC Treaty provided expressly under Article 41 that the Court had sole jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on the validity of acts of the Commission and Council.
Ifølge Domstolen er det dog, uanset forskellen i traktatbestemmelsernes ordlyd, de samme to formål, der kommer til udtryk i EKSF-Traktatens artikel 41, EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 og Euratom-Traktatens artikel 150, nemlig nødvendigheden i dels at sikre en ensartet anvendelse af fællesskabsretten, dels i dette Øjemed at etablere et effektivt samarbejde mellem Domstolen og de nationale retter.
Irrespective of the differences in wording, the Court held, the provisions of Article 41 of the ECSC Treaty, Article 177 of the EEC Treaty and Article 150 of the EAEC Treaty all expressed a two-fold need to ensure, on the one hand, maximum uniformity in the application of Community law and, on the other, to establish effective co-operation for that purpose between the Court of Justice and national courts.
Domstolen fandt, at det ville være i strid med Traktaternes formål og indbyrdes sammenhang, om Domstolen ikke også, når det galder retsforskrifter inden for EKSF-Traktatens område, skulle have kompetencen i sidste instans til at fastlægge retsreglernes indhold og anvendeIsområde, således som det er tilfældet med retsforskrifter inden for EØF- og Euratom-Traktaternes område, hvilket fremgår af de enslydende bestemmelser i de sidstnævnte traktaters artikler 177, henholdsvis 150. Dette gør det nemlig muligt at sikre retsforskrifternes ensartede anvendelse, hvilket Domstolen ville blive afskået fra med hensyn til retsforskrifter inden for EKSF-Traktatens område, såfremt kompetencen vedrørende disse retsforskrifter i sidste instans henhørte under de nationale domstole, som muligvis fortolker retsforskrifterne forskelligt.
For that reason, it would have been contrary to the objectives and the cohesion of the Treaties to have a situation in which, where rules derived from the EEC and EAEC Treaties were concerned, the determination of their meaning and scope would ultimately be a matter for the Court of Justice, as provided for, in identical terms, by Article 177 of the EEC Treaty and Article 150 of the EAEC Treaty, which made it possible to ensure uniform application, while in cases where the rules in question derived from the ECSC Treaty, jurisdiction in that regard remained the preserve of the numerous national courts and tribunals, whose interpretations could vary, and where the Court of Justice would have had no power to ensure that such rules were given a uniform interpretation.
Den nationale rets første præjudicielle spørgsmål var, om EKSF kan påberåbe sig henstillingens artikler 1 og 2, selv om der ikke er truffet nationale gennemførelsesbestemmelser dertil, for at sikre, at der i de tilfælde, hvor der i henhold til nationale lovregler foreligger konkurrerende krav, tillagges visse af EKSF's krav på afgifter af den i EKSF-Traktatens artikler 49 og 50 nævnte art et almindeligt eller sarligt privilegium af samme rang, som der ifølge lovgivningen i den pågældende stat tillægges statens krav på merværdiafgift.
In the first question in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the national court sought to know whether the ECSC could, in the absence of any national implementing measures, rely on Articles 1 and 2 of the recommendation in order that some of the debts owed to it in respect of the levies referred to in Articles 49 and 50 of the ECSC Treaty might, in cases of competition between creditors as provided for under national legislation, enjoy a general or special preferential rank equal to that conferred by the law of the State in question on debts owed to that State in respect of VAT.
Domstolen bemærkede med henvisning til sin praksis, at når direktivbestemmelser efter deres indhold fremtræder som ubetingede og tilstrækkeligt præcise, kan der i mangel af rettidige gennemførelsesforanstaltninger støttes ret herpå over for enhver national retsforskrift, som strider mod direktivet, ligesom private kan påberåbe sig direktivbestemmelser, som tillægger dem rettigheder i forhold til staten.
The Court had consistently held that in eyery case where, as in the present, the provisions of a directive appeared, with regard to their content, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions could be relied on, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed periods, as against any provision of national law which did not comply with the directive, or also if they were capable of defining rights which individuals could rely on as against the State.
Dette antages dog kun at gælde i forhold til den pågældende medlemsstat og andre offentlige myndigheder.
On the other hand, such a possibility could only exist as against the Member State concerned and public authorities.
Et direktiv kan derfor ikke i sig selv skabe forpligtelser for private, hvorfor der ikke over for dem kan støttes ret på en direktivbestemmelse alene.
Consequently, a directive could not, by itself, create obligations in respect of an individual and a
På grundlag af det anførte konkluderede Domstolen, at EKSF over for en med lemsstat kan støtte ret på den 1 sagen omhandlede henstilling, såfremt denne opfylder de samme krav, som et direktiv, der ikke er gennemført i national ret, skal opfylde, for at der kan støttes ret derpå, idet godkendelsen af EKSF's krav som privilegeret dog udelukkende har retsvirkning over for den pågældende stat, hvilket kan medføre, at dennes og EKSF's krav kommer i konkurrence.
In a case such as the present, where the ECSC could find Itself in competition not only with the Member State concerned, but also with other creditors of the undertaking, the application of the recommendation, far from affecting exclusively the State to which it had been addressed, might also reduce the prospects which some of those other creditors had of receiving payment.
Den nationale rets andet spørgsmål var, om henstillingen kan give de EKSF-fordringer, der er stiftet før henstillingens vedtagelse, rang af privilegerede krav.
It followed from all the foregoing, the Court ruled, that the ECSC could, if the recommendation in question was of such a kind as would permit a directive, which had not yet been implemented, to be relied on before national courts, invoke that recommendation as against a State, subject to the proviso that recognition of the preferential status of the debts owed to the ECSC could only operate against that State, by placing that Community in competition with it, if necessary.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at Kommissionen med henstillingens artikel 4, som det fremgår af dens 7. betragtning, har Ønsket, at det ved henstillingen tillagte privilegium skal kunne gøres gældende "i forbindelse med procedurer, hvor der foreligger konkurrerende krav, og som stadig verserer på det tidspunkt", hvor henstillingen gennemføres, "for derved at sikre, at krav på EKSF-afgifter, der er opstået i årene forud for henstillingens ved tagelse, så vidt muligt kan inddrives".
On the other hand, the preferential treatment accorded to the ECSC could not reduce the rights of creditors other than the State, as derived from the application of national rules governing competition between creditors in the absence of the recommendation.