natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Han foreslog følgende afgørelse:
Pursuant to Regulation No. 2173/79, the OBEA published a notice on 21 January 1987 concerning the conditions for the sale of the abovementioned meat.
"Af samtlige disse grunde foreslår jeg Domstolen at besvare Hof van Cassatie's spørgsmål således:
Schulte and Reinert responded to the offer and purchased various quantities of meat. They took delivery between 25 June and 17 July 1987.
Sag C-113/90 Gebroeders Schulte AG, H. & E. Reinert KG mod Belgische Dienst voor Bedrijfsleven en Landbouw (OBEA) m.fl. 2.10.1991 (Præjudiciel) "Kontrakt om salg af oksekød fra Interventionslagre - skjulte mangler -reklamation efter købet" (Første Afdeling) Ved kendelse af 9. april 1990 Indgået til Domstolen den 23. april s.a. havde Rechtbank van eerste aanleg, Bruxelles, i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 stillet to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 2, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning nr. 2173/79 af 4. oktober 1979 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser for afsætning af oksekød, som interventi onsorganerne har opkøbt, og om ophævelse af forordning nr. 216/69 (EFT L 251, s. 12).
The OBEA refused to accept the complaint made by the agent of Schulte and Reinert, relying on Article 2(2)(d) of Regulation No. 2173/79, which imposed as a precondition for any application to purchase the requirement that the purchaser waive any right to lodge a complaint concerning the quality and characteristics of any product allocated to him.
I henhold til forordning nr. 2173/79 offentliggjorde OSEA den 21. januar 1987 en meddelelse om salgsbetingelserne for ovennævnte kød.
Accordingly, the waiver could relate only to the quality and characteristics of the product which were apparent on inspection by the potential purchaser and could not extend to any latent defects which, by definition, could not be detected by prior inspection.
I perloden mellem 25. juni 1987 og 17. juli s.a., fik de varen Teveret.
It followed that the purchaser could not predict from which store the product allocated to him would come and was not therefore in a position to carry out a useful prior inspection, for example by means of sampling.
OBEA nægtede at imødekomme Schulte's og Reinert's klage og henviste til ar tikel 2, stk. 2, litra d), i forordning nr. 2173/79, hvorefter ansøgninger om køb for at kunne komme 1 betragtning er betinget af, at køberen erklærer at frasige sig enhver ret til at klage med hensyn til det eventuelt tildelte produkts kvalitet og egenskaber.
intervention agencies and repealing Regulation No. 216/69 does not extend to any latent defects that may exist which, by their very nature, cannot be detected on prior Inspection by the person concerned and render the product unfit for processing."
Domstolen udtalte, at det fremgår af betragtningerne til forordning nr. 2173/79, at frasigelsen af enhver ret til klage efter købet er berettiget, fordi den potentielle køber gives mulighed for forudgående kontrol af de produkter, der sættes til salg.
"Having regard to the foregoing considerations, I suggest that the Court reply as follows to the questions submitted by the national court:
Derfor kan erklæringen om frasigelse af enhver ret til klage kun angå produktets kvalitet og karakteristika, som den pågældende forud kan kontrollere, og kan følgelig ikke omfatte eventuelle skjulte mangler, som efter de res art unddrager sig enhver mulighed for forudgående kontrol fra køberens side.
For the purposes of applying Regulation No. 1431/87, Article 2(2)(d) of Commission Regulation No. 2173/79 laying down procedures for the disposal of beef and veal purchased by intervention agencies and repealing Regulation No. 216/69 must be interpreted as meaning that the declaration referred to therein does not relate to latent defects.
I øvrigt bestemmer artikel 1, stk. 5, i forordning nr. 1431/87, at det ikke på købsansøgningerne angives, på hvilket eller hvilke lagre de ønskede produkter befinder sig.
In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to reply to the second question."
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
(State aids to aluminium undertakings - Capital contributions) (Full Court)
Han foreslog følgende afgørelse:
The application is dismissed.
"På baggrund af det foregående foreslår jeg Domstolen at besvare den forelæggende rets spørgsmål således:
Republic is ordered to pay the costs."
I betragtning af svaret på det første spørgsmål er det ikke fornødent at besvare det andet."
He proposed that the Court dismiss the application for annulment of the contested decision and order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Sag C-261/89: Den Italienske Republik mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case C-364/89: An Bord Bainne, Irish Dairy Board, Co-operative Ltd. ν Hauptzollamt Gronau 3 October 1991
"Statsstøtte til aluminiumsvirksomheder - kapitalindskud" (Domstolens plenum)
(Preliminary ruling) (Monetary compensatory amounts - Exemption from levy) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved stævning Indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 17. august 1989 havde Den Italienske Republik 1 medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 173, stk. 1, anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 90/224/EØF af 24. maj 1989 om den Italienske regerings støtte til to statsejede virksomheder 1 aluminiumsindustrien, Aluminia og Comsal. Denne beslutning, som den italienske regering var underrettet om ved skrivelse af 7. juni 1989, blev offentliggjort 1 De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende den 9. maj 1990 (EFT L 118, s. 42).
By judgment of 15 November 1989, which was received at the Court on 4 December 1989, the Finanzgericht [Finance Court] Düsseldorf referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty two questions on the interpretation of Articles 8 and 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 926/80 of 15 April 1980 on exemption from the application of monetary compensatory amounts in certain cases, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2899/81 of 7 October 1981 (OJ L287, p. 3).
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 12. iuni 1991.
The Commission adopted Regulation No. 926/80, the second of its kind, in order to reduce the difficulties which might be experienced by economic agents following the changes made to the MCMs between the conclusion and performance of contracts.
Hans forslag til afgørelse lød således:
An Bord Bainne concluded with a Dutch undertaking several contracts for the supply of skimmed milk to an undertaking in West Germany.
"Jeg foreslår derfor Domstolen at frifinde Kommissionen og pålægge den italienske regering at betale sagens omkostninger."
Under the contracts, the risk in respect of MCMs was to be borne by the Irish undertaking and the goods in question were to be paid for in German marks.
Ved kendelse af 15. november 1989 indgået til Domstolen den 4. december s.a. havde Finanzgericht Düsseldorf 1 medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 8 og 9 1 Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 926/80 af 15. april 1990 om fritagelse for monetære udligningsbeløb i visse tilfælde (EFT L 99, s. 15), som ændret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2899/81 af 7. oktober 1981 (EFT L 287, s. 3).
Following revaluation of the German mark between conclusion of the contracts in question and delivery of the goods, the Commission had to increase the German MCMs.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem det irske selskab An Bord Bainne og Hauptzollamt Gronau vedrørende fritagelse for forhøjede monetære udligningsbeløb, som virksomheden havde måttet betale efter en opskrivning af DM.
The applications by An Bord Bainne for total or partial exemption from the MCMs were rejected by the Hauptzollamt Gronau, as was Its appeal to the Oberfinanzgericht Münster.
Kommissionen udstedte forordning nr. 926/80, den anden af sin art, for at afhjælpe de ulemper, der kan opstå for erhvervsdrivende som følge af ændringer af de monetære udligningsbeløb i tidsrummet mellem indgåelsen og opfyldelsen af visse kontrakter.
The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, before which the matter came, had the task of determining the additional charge pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of the abovementioned regulation. More particularly, it considered whether the profit resulting from the financial futures transactions should be taken into account.
An Bord Bainne havde indgået en række aftaler med en nederlandsk virksomhed om levering af skummetmælkspulver til en virksomhed 1 Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
In its first question, the national court asked whether Article 8(3) of Regulation No. 926/80, as amended, must be interpreted as meaning that the calculation of the advantage referred to therein may be based on a nonCommunity currency.
Ifølge aftalerne påhvilede risikoen 1 forbindelse med monetære udligningsbeløb An Bord Bainne, og varernes pris skulle betales 1 DM.
An Bord Bainne and the Commission agreed that the calculation referred to in the provision in question had to be based on the currency that the trader concerned actually used for the purposes of a financial futures transaction, even if it was a nonCommunity currency.
På dagen for varekontrakternes Indgåelse Indgik An Bord Bainne en valuta terminshandel om køb af amerikanske dollars til et samlet beløb 1 DM, som svarede til den samlede købesum for varekontrakterne.
The first part of the second question was essentially whether Article 9(2) of Regulation No. 926/80 required, other than in cases referred to in subparagraph (a), verification of the economic connexion in all financial futures transactions, including those made on the same day as the contract for the goods.
Desuden solgte An Bord Bainne de således erhvervede dollars mod DM, og indgik yderligere valutaterminshandler, som bestod i endeligt at veksle de DM, som var købt i forbindelse med en såkaldt "swap"-handel, til amerikanske dollars.
The Court considered that, according to the view of the Community legislature, where the dates of the two transactions were the same, there certainly was an economic connexion, but account was to be taken of all the monetary factors involved when the contract for the goods was concluded.
Som følge af DM's opskrivning 1 tidsrummet mellem de omhandlede kontrakters indgåelse og varernes levering måtte Kommissionen forhøje de tyske monetære udligningsbeløb.
Where the dates of the two transactions coincided, the wording of the provision in question thus excluded the taking into account of any advantage in a sufficiently clear an precise manner as to leave no doubt as to its interpretation and did not authorize any verification of the economic connexion under Article 9.
Hauptzollamt Gronau afslog An Bord Bainne's ansøgninger om hel eller delvis fritagelse for betaling af de forhøjede udligningsbeløb.
In view of that reply, it was unnecessary to consider the questions submitted in the alternative by the national court.
Den forelæggende ret ønskede med sit første spørgsmål oplyst, om artikel 8, stk. 3, 1 forordning nr. 926/80 med senere ændringer skal fortolkes således, at beregningen af den deri omhandlede fortjeneste kan foretages på grundlag af en ikke-fællesskabsvaluta.
The second subparagraph of Article 9 (2) of Regulation No. 926/80 must be interpreted as meaning that, leaving aside the cases coming under point (a) of that subparagraph, the economic connexion with the product in question must in principle be proved in the case of all forward currency operations, excluding however the case provided for in Article 8 (3) where the two operations are concluded on the same day."
Det andet spørgsmål
"In my opinion the Court should rule as follows:
Den forelæggende ret ønskede med første del af sit andet spørgsmål 1 det væsentlige oplyst, om det 1 artikel 9, stk. 2, andet afsnit, i forordning nr. 926/80 foreskrives, at der - bortset fra de i bestemmelsens litra a) omhandlede tilfælde - skal føres bevis for en økonomisk forbindelse mellem varekontrakten og enhver valutaterminshandel, herunder sådanne som er Indgået samme dag som varekontrakten.
The calculation of the advantage referred to in Article 8(3) of Regulation No. 926/80 concerns the specific advantage obtained by the trader concerned and cannot therefore be based on the currency of a nonCommunity countrry such as the United States dollar.
I tilfælde af sammenfaldende transaktionsdatoer udelukker bestemmelsens ordlyd, at der tages hensyn til en fortjeneste, på en så klar og præcis måde, at der ikke er tvivl om bestemmelsens fortolkning, og den tillader Ikke, at der føres bevis for en økonomisk forbindelse 1 henhold til artikel 9.
The second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No. 926/80 must be interpreted as meaning that, leaving aside the cases referred to in subparagraph (a) in which financial futures transactions cannot be taken into account, it is appropriate as a general rule to prove an economic connexion between the forward currency transactions and the contracts for goods; however, where the forward currency transaction and the contract for the goods were concluded on the same day, the third subparagraph of Article 8(3) of the regulation in question excludes consideration of any exchange advantage in determining the additional charge and the application of that provision is subject only to the condition that the dates of the transactions coincided.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
(Fisheries - Licences - Right of establishment) (Full Court)
Artikel 8, stk. 3, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 926/80 af 15. april 1980 om fritagelse for monetære udligningsbeløb 1 visse til fælde, skal fortolkes således, at beregningen af den deri omhandlede fortjeneste skal ske på grundlag af den valuta, som den pågældende har anvendt 1 en valutaterminshandel, også selv om denne valuta Ikke er en fællesskabsval uta.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 March 1989, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that, by requiring nationals of other Member States to set up an Irish company before obtaining a licence to fish
"Jeg foreslår derfor Domstolen at kende følgende for ret:
Ireland is ordered to pay the costs;
Artikel 9, stk. 2, andet afsnit, i forordning (EØF) nr. 926/80 skal fortolkes således, at der - bortset fra de under litra a) omhandlede tilfælde, hvor der ikke kan tages hensyn til valutaterminshandler -generelt skal kunne bevises en økonomisk forbindelse mellem valutatermlnshandlerne og varekontrakten; såfremt valutaterminshandel en er Indgået og varekontrakten afsluttet samme dag, er det ifølge artikel 8, stk. 3, tredje afsnit, i den pågældende forordning udelukket at tage hensyn til fortjenesten i form af kursgevinst ved fastlæggelsen af merudgiften, og anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse er alene betinget af sammenfald af transaktionsdatoerne."
"For all those reasons, I propose that the Court should uphold the Commission's application and declare that, by requiring nationals of other Member States to set up an Irish company in order to obtain a licence to engage in sea fishing from an Irish boat, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 52 of the Treaty. As a result, Ireland should be ordered to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by the United Kingdom, which intervened in support of Ireland's conclusions and should be ordered to bear its own costs."
Sag C-93/89 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Irland
Case C-367/89: Criminal proceedings against A. Richardt, Société en nom collectif "Les Accessoires Scientifiques" 4 October 1991
Irland har ved at kræve, at statsborgere fra andre medlems stater skal oprette et irsk selskab for at få licens til havfiskeri, ikke opfyldt sine forpligtelser i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 52.
Mr Richardt, the Chief Executive of "Les Accessoires Scientifiques", a company established in France, undertook to deliver to a Soviet central purchasing agency, Technopromimport, a unit for the production of bubble memory circuits which contained, inter alia, a milling device imported from the United States into France which was in free circulation in the Community.
Det Forenede Kongerige bærer sine egne omkostninger."
In France, Mr Richardt had completed the necessary formalities for the export of the products in question by air to Moscow.
Generaladvokat Jean Mlscho fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 13. marts 1991.
The products were, it seems, mistakenly accompanied by the Tl document, prescribed by Regulation No. 222/77 for goods not in free circulation in the Community, a fact not contested by the French or the Luxembourg authorities.
"Af alle disse grunde skal jeg foreslå Domstolen at realitetsbehandle sagen og fastslå, at Irland - ved at kræve, at statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater for at få en licens til havfiskeri med et irsk fartøj skal oprette et irsk selskab - ikke har opfyldt sine forpligtelser i henhold til Traktatens artikel 52.
Following the customs inspection at Luxembourg airport, the milling device was seized since, according to the Luxembourg authorities, it was accompanied by incorrect declarations intended to conceal its strategic nature and to enable it to be forwarded to the USSR in breach of the Luxembourg regulations which require, in such cases, a special transit licence.
Irland bør ligeledes pålægges at betale sagens omkostninger bortset fra omkostningerne for Det Forenede Kongerige, der har støttet Irland, Idet Det Forenede Kongerige bør bære sine egne omkostninger."
Mr Richardt and four others were therefore charged with improperly attempting to effect the transit of goods for which a licence was required.
(Præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - fællesskabsforsendelse - strategisk materiel" (Domstolens plenum)
In their appeal in cassation, the Luxembourg Minister of Finance and the Director for Customs essentially contended that Article 10 of Regulation No. 222/77 related only to "everyday" goods, whereas goods of a strategic nature could, inter alia, be made subject to an authorization justified by imperatives of external security.
Ved dom af 30. november 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 6. december 1989, havde Luxembourgs Cour de Cassation 1 medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 222/77 af 13. december 1976 om fællesskabsforsendelse (EFT 1977 L 38, s. 1) for at kunne afgøre, om de begrænsninger, som gælder 1 henhold til den luxembourgske lovgivning for forsendelse af varer af strategisk karakter, er forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
Considering that the decision to be given depended on the interpretation of Regulation No. 222/77, the Cour de Cassation, Luxembourg, stayed the proceedings and referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Richardt havde i Frankrig opfyldt de nødvendige formaliteter for udførsel af varerne med fly til Moskva.
The Court pointed out that the Community transit system covers all goods, whether or not strategic.
Da varerne på grund af en aflysning af en Aeroflot-flyvning ikke kunne bringes om bord på det fly 1 Roissy, som skulle anvendes til transporten, blev de fragtet med lastvogn til Luxembourgs lufthavn og frembudt 1 transit for de luxembourgske toldmyndigheder med henblik på udførsel fra Storhertugdømmets område til Moskva.
Regulation No. 222/77 provided that import, export and transit prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the Member States were applicable provided that they were in conformity with the Treaties.
Varerne var -tilsyneladende som følge af en fejl, men uden at det var blevet påtalt af hverken de franske eller de luxembourgske myndigheder - ledsaget af en Tlformular, som i henhold til forordning nr. 222/77 gælder for varer, som ikke er bragt 1 fri omsætning i Fællesskabet.
It was therefore necessary to decide whether the Treaty rules, in particular Article 36 of the EEC Treaty, prevented the requirement of a special authorization and the consequences of non-compliance, such as confiscation.
Toldkontrollen 1 Luxembourgs lufthavn medførte beslaglæggelse af maskinen, som ifølge de luxembourgske myndigheder var ledsaget af forkerte tolddokumenter med henblik på at skjule dens strategiske karakter og gøre det muligt at forsende den til USSR 1 strid med de luxembourgske bestemmelser, hvorefter der i sådanne tilfælde kræves en særlig transitlicens.
Article 36 had to be interpreted so as not to extend its effects beyond what was necessary for the protection of the interests which it purported to safeguard.
Richardt og fire andre personer blev herefter sigtet for forsøg på ulovlig transit forsendelse af licenspligtige varer.
Measures adopted on the basis of Article 36 could thus be justified only if they corresponded to the interest protected by that article and if they encroached no further than was necessary upon intraCommunity trade.
I første instans havde Tribunal Correctionnel frifundet Richardt og hans medsigtede, men bestemt, at maskinen skulle konfiskeres.
The concept of public security, within the meaning of Article 36 of the Treaty, covered both the internal and the external security of a Member State.
Under disse omstændigheder var transitforsendelsen ifølge Cour d'Appel sket 1 overensstemmelse med loven.
It followed that the Member States were entitled, under Article 36, to subject the transit of goods classified as strategic material to special authorization.
Under kassationssagen havde Storhertugdømmet Luxembourgs finansminister og tolddirektøren i det væsentlige gjort gældende, at artikel 10 1 forordning nr. 222/77 kun omfatter varer, der betragtes som almindelige, mens der for så vidt angår transitforsendelse af varer af strategisk karakter blandt andet kan kræves en tilladelse begrundet i hensynet til statens ydre sikkerhed.
The Court pointed out that seizure or confiscation might be regarded as disproportionate to the aim pursued and therefore incompatible with Article 36 of the Treaty in so far as return of the goods to the Member State from which they had come might be regarded as sufficient.
Cour de Cassation de Luxembourg, der fandt, at afgørelsen af sagen afhang af fortolkningen af forordning nr. 222/77, udsatte sagen og forelagde Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål.
However, it was for the national court to decide whether the conditions imposed were in conformity with the principle of proportionality, having regard to all the circumstances of each case.
Domstolen bemærkede først, at den omhandlede vare på tidspunktet for beslaglæggelsen ikke var indført til Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg, men udelukkende var der i transit. I nærværende sag havde Storhertugdømmet Luxembourgs toldsted derfor samme rolle som et "grænseovergangssted" i henhold til forordning nr. 222/77.
"Council Regulation No. 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit must be Interpreted as not prohibiting legislation of a Member State which, for reasons of external security, imposes the requirement of a special authorization for transit through its territory of goods classified as constituting strategic material, irrespective of the Community transit document issued by a Member State.
Det følger heraf, at den planlagte udførsel Ikke skal betragtes som sket fra Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg, men fra Den Franske Republik, hvor udførsel sformai iteterne i øvrigt tilsyneladende var blevet opfyldt.
However, the measures adopted by the Member State for failure to fulfil that requirement must not be disproportionate to the aim pursued".
Der må som følge af Toldunionen og i medlemsstaternes gensidige interesse anerkendes et almindeligt princip om transitfrihed for varer inden for Fællesskabet.
Mr Advocate General F G Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 8 Mav 1991.
Det skal bemærkes, at fællesskabsordningen for transit omfatter alle varer, uanset deres eventuelle strategiske karakter.
"I am therefore of the opinion that the question referred to the court should be answered as follows: