natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hvis man gav modtageren adgang til at anlægge sag mod den, der faktisk har udført søtransporten, ved retten på det endelige leveringssted eller ved retten på det sted, hvor skaden er konstateret, ville det således i de fleste tilfælde indebære, at man anerkendte en kompetence for retterne på det sted, hvor sagsøgeren har bopæl, hvilket konventionen klart taler imod i andre tilfælde end dem, der udtrykkeligt er fastsat.
In the judgments of 30 November 1976, Mines de Potasse dAlsace, and of 7 March 1995, Shevill and Others, the Court held that the expression 'place where the harmful event occurred' in Article 5(3) of the Convention must be understood as being intended to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it, so that the defendant may be sued, at the option of the plaintiff, in the courts for either of those places.
Under disse omstændigheder kan den sag, forsikringsselskaberne har anlagt mod de sidstnævnte parter, ikke være en sag om kontraktforhold i konventionens artikel 5, nr. l's forstand.
It must next be borne in mind that, under Article 3 of the Convention, persons domiciled in a Contracting State may be sued in the courts of another Contracting State only by virtue of the rules set out in Sections 2 to 6 of Title II.
Herefter kan det sted, hvor skaden er indtrådt, i forbindelse med en international transport som den, der er tale om i hovedsagen, kun være det sted, hvor den, der faktisk har udført søtransporten, har skullet levere godset.
That term cannot be construed so extensively as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences can be felt of an event which has already caused damage actually arising elsewhere.
Der skal herefter tages stilling til, om en sådan sag må anses for at være en sag om erstatning uden for kontrakt i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3's forstand.
Those rules include, in Article 6(1) of the Convention, the rule that a person may also be sued, *where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled'.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at konventionen ikke henviser til begrebet en »sag, der ikke kan opdeles«, men kun, i artikel 22, benytter begrebet »indbyrdes sammenhængende krav«.
After pointing out that the purpose of Article 6(1) of the Convention, and of Article 22, is to ensure that judgments which are incompatible with each other are not given in the Contracting States, the Court held in Kalfelis that, for Article 6(1) of the Convention to apply there must exist between the various actions brought by the same plaintiff against different defendants a connection of such a kind that it is expedient to determine the actions together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.
I dom af 27. september 1988 i sagen Kalfelis har Domstolen defineret begrebet »erstatning uden for kontrakt« i konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3's forstand som et selvstændigt begreb, der omfatter ethvert krav om, at en sagsøgt pålægges et erstatningsansvar, som ikke er knyttet til et »kontraktforhold« i artikel 5, nr. l's forstand.
To allow the consignee to bring the actual maritime carrier before the courts for the place of final delivery or before those for the place where the damage was ascertained would in most cases mean attributing jurisdiction to the courts for the place of the plaintiffs domicile, whereas the authors of the Convention demonstrated their opposition to such attribution of jurisdiction otherwise than in the cases for which it expressly provides.
I dom af 24. juni 1981 i sagen Elefanten Schuh fastslog Domstolen, at konventionens artikel 22 kun finder anvendelse, når indbyrdes sammenhængende sager er anlagt ved retterne i to eller flere kontraherende stater.
In those circumstances, the place where the damage arose in the case of an international transport operation of the kind at issue in the main proceedings can only be the place where the actual maritime carrier was to deliver the goods.
Det fremgår imidlertid af sagens akter, at er i den foreliggende sag ikke er anlagt særskilte sager ved retter i forskellige kontraherende stater, og betingelserne for at anvende artikel 22 er således ikke opfyldt.
It must be noted at the outset that the Convention does not use the term 'indivisible'
Det sted, hvor varemodtageren efter søtransportens og den afsluttende landtransports gennemførelse blot har ladet konstatere, at de leverede varer er beskadigede, kan ikke tiene til fastlæggelse af 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen erforegået i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 5, nr. 3, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 som fortolket af Domstolen.
The place where the consignee of the goods, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine the "place where the harmful event occurred'' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 28 September 1968, as interpreted by the Court.
Artikel 6, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 skal fortolkes således, at en person, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, ikke kan sagsøges i en anden kontraherende stat ved en ret, ved hvilken sag er anlagt mod en medsagsøgt, der har bopæl uden for de kontraherende stater, under påberåbelse af, at sagen er af en sådan karakter, at den ikke kan opdeles, og at kravene ikke kun er indbyrdes sammenhængende. ·
An action by which the consignee of goods found to be damaged on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, or by which his insurer who has been subrogated to his rights after compensating him, seeks redress for the damage suffered, relying on the bill of lading covering the maritime transport, not against the person who issued that document on his headed paper but against the person whom the plaintiff considered to be the actual maritime carrier, falls within the scope not of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention of 26 May 1989 on the Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, but of matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that Convention.
Det sted, hvor sagsøgeren blot har fastslået, at skaden er indtrådt, kan ikke benyttes ved fastlæggelsen af 'det sted, hvor skadetilføjelsen er foregået' efter Domstolens fortolkning af dette udtryk, jf. konventionens artikel 5, nr. 3.
The place where the consignee of the goods, on completion of a transport operation by sea and then by land, merely discovered the existence of the damage to the goods delivered to him cannot serve to determine the 'place where the harmful event occurred' within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Convention of 28 September 1968, as interpreted by the Court.
Konventionens artikel 3 og artikel 6, nr. 1, skal fortolkes således, at en person, der har bopæl på en kontraherende stats område, ikke kan sagsøges ved en ret i en anden kontraherende medlemsstat, ved hvilken sag er anlagt mod en medsagsøgt, der har bopæl uden for de kontraherende stater, under påberåbelse af, at sagen er af en sådan karakter, at den ikke kan opdeles, og kravene ikke blot konnekse«.
Article 6(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 must be interpreted as meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State cannot be sued in another Contracting State before a court seised of an action against a co-defendant not domiciled in a Contracting State on the ground that the dispute is indivisible rather than merely displaying a connection.
27. oktober 1998 kapitaltilførselsafgifter
27 October 1998
— afgift på virksomheders nettoformue·
Taxes on the raising of capital — Tax on companies' net assets)
Sagen vedrører virksomhedens krav om tilbagebetaling af et beløb, den har betalt i form af afgift på virksomheders nettoformue.
A tax on assets such as that at issue, on the other hand, is levied annually, at the end of the financial year, on the net assets of companies as set out in their balance sheets.
Ved kendelse af 18. oktober 19% har Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Firenze forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985 (herefter »direktivet«).
According to Nonwoven, the tax contravened the prohibition in the Directive of making the raising of capital subject to any charge other than capital duty.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag mellem Manifattura italiana Nonwoven SpA (herefter
The national court is essentially asking whether the Directive precludes the levying on capital
Ifølge Nonwoven er afgiften i strid med direktivets bestemmelse om, at der af kapitaltilførsler ikke må opkræves andre skatter og afgifter end kapitaltilførselsafgiften.
It follows that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings is neither a capital duty nor a
kan undergives afgiften, alle medfører en reel udvidelse af selskabers kapital eller formue.
tax having the same characteristics as such a duty.
»Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985, er ikke til hinder for, at kapitalselskaber pålægges en afgift som f.eks. den italienske afgift på virksomheders nettoformue.·
'Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying on capital companies of a tax such as the tax on companies' net assets.'
Generaladvokat N. Fenneliv fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling") den 18. juni 1998.
Advocate General N. Fennelly delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 18 June 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålet på følgende måde:
He suggested that the Court reply as follows:
»Direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985 om ændring af direktiv 69/335/EØF er ikke til hinder for, at der hos kapitalselskaber opkræves en afgift som den årlige afgift af selskabers nettoformue, der er indført ved Den Italienske Republiks lovdekret nr. 394 af 30. september 1992.«
Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 amending Directive 69/335/EEC, does not apply to the imposition on capital companies of a tax such as the annual tax on the net assets of companies introduced by virtue of Decree-Law of the Italian Republic No 394 of 30 September 1992.
— afgift på det notarialdokument, hvorved
It follows that, even if a debenture loan is secured by a mortgage, the repayment of the loan on notarial deeds recording the repayment of debenture loans.
Ved kendelser af henholdsvis 3. og 9. december 1996 har Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Catalunya forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 1, litra b), og artikel 12, i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 (herefter »direktivet«).
By its question, the national court seeks, in substance, to ascertain whether Article 11(b) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of taxation on debenture loans applies to the duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of loans and, if so, whether such a duty is covered by the derogation provided for in particular in Article 12(l)(d) of the Directive.
Heraf følger, at direktivets artikel 11, litra b), skal fortolkes således, at forbuddet mod at afgiftsbelægge et obligationslån omfatter afgift på indfrielse af et sådant lån.
It must be remembered that Article 11(b) of the Directive prohibits taxation, of any form whatsoever, on loans raised by the issue of debentures or other negotiable securities, by whomsoever issued, or any formalities relating thereto, or the creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or dealing in such debentures or other negotiable securities.
Spørgsmålet blev rejst under to retssager mellem Fuerzas Eléctricas de Catalunya SA og Autopistas Concesionaria Española SA mod Departament d'Economia i Finances de la Generalität de Catalunya vedrørende betaling af en afgift på et notarialdokument, som attesterer indfrielse af et obligationslån.
It follows that Article 11(b) of the Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of taxation on debenture loans extends to taxation on the repayment of such loans.
Endvidere bemærkes det, at direktivets artikel 11, litra b), ikke blot omfatter forbud mod afgift på obligationslån, men også på alle dermed sammenhængende formaliteter.
It must then be remembered that Article 11(b) of the Directive prohibits not only taxation on debenture loans, but also on any formalities relating thereto.
Selv om den pågældende afgift i hovedsagen ikke rammer indfrielsen af lånet som sådant, opkræves den alligevel på det notarialdokument, som er obligatorisk med henblik på lånets registrering, altså på grund af en dermed sammenhængende formalitet.
Accordingly, even if the duty at issue in the main proceedings is not chargeable on the repayment of loans as such, it is none the less levied on the notarial deeds which are obligatory to have the repayment registered, that is to say in respect of formalities relating thereto.
Det bemærkes endelig, at medlemsstaterne i henhold til direktivets artikel 12, stk. 1, litra d), kan opkræve afgift på aflysning af pant og andre rettigheder i fast ejendom.
Finally, it must be recognised that the Member States remain free, in accordance with Article 12(l)(d) of the Directive, to levy duties on the discharge of mortgages or other charges on land or other property.
Indfrielse af et obligationslån udgør imidlertid en selvstændig økonomisk transaktion, som må adskilles fra aflysning af et pant oprettet med henblik på at garantere for af lånet udstedte obligationer.
However, the repayment of a debenture loan constitutes a discrete financial transaction, separate from the discharge of a mortgage registered in order to secure the debentures resulting from the loan.
»Artikel 11 og 12 i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for opkrævning af en afgift på 0,5% af notarialdokumenter, som attesterer indfrielsen af et lån under omstændigheder som de i hovedsagerne foreliggende.«
'Article 11(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibition of taxation on debenture loans applies to the duty on notarial deeds recording the repayment of loans.
— fusion ved allerede helejede
He recommended that the Court reply as follows:
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 69/335/EØF - kapitaltilførselsafgift datterselskabers inkorporering i moderselskabet· (Sjette Afdeling)
Articles 11 and 12 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital should be interpreted as precluding the levying of 0.5% duty on the notarial deed recording the redemption of a loan in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst i en sag, som det italienske selskab Abbruzzi Gas SpA har anlagt mod Amministrazione Tributaria di Milano vedrørende en registreringsafgift, der er betalt i anledning af inkorporeringen i Agas ved fusion af selskaberne Briangas SpA og Italgasdotti Serio Sri.
Preliminary ruling (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Merger of companies — Acquisition by a company which already holds all the securities of the companies acquired) (Sixth Chamber) di Milano concerning duty levied on the registration of a merger which took place through the acquisition by Agas of Briangas Spa and Italgasdotti Serio Sri.
Herudover gælder forbuddet ifølge direktivets artikel 10, litra c), mod opkrævning af skatter eller afgifter af enhver art på indregistrering eller andre formaliteter, der går forud for udøvelse af en virksomhed, som et selskab kan underkastes på grund af dets juridiske karakter.
By order of 24 March 1997, the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale (Provincial Tax Court), Milan, referred for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (hereinafter 'the Directive').
Den nationale ret ønsker med dette spørgsmål nærmere bestemt en afgørelse af, om direktivet er til hinder for opkrævning af en registreringsafgift ved inkorporeringen af selskaber i et andet selskab, der i forvejen ejer samtlige aktier eller andele i de inkorporerede selskaber.
By that question, the national court is essentially asking whether the Directive precludes the levying of registration duty where companies are acquired by another company which already holds all their stocks and shares.
For så vidt angår hovedsagen må det for det første fastslås, at en disposition i form af
That question was raised in proceedings between Abruzzi Gas SpA, a company incorporated under Italian law, and the Amministrazione Tributaria
inkorporering i et selskab, der i forvejen besidder hele aktiekapitalen eller alle andele i de inkorporerede selskaber, ikke medfører en forhøjelse af selskabskapitalen i det inkorporerende selskab, og derfor ikke er omfattet af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra c).
Consequently, the registration duty at issue in the main proceedings does not fall under the prohibition laid down in Article 10(c) of the Directive.
Denne disposition omfattes heller ikke af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, litra d).
It is apparent from Article 1 of the Directive, read in conjunction with Article 4 thereof, that the duty levied on contributions to capital companies constitutes a 'capital duty" within the meaning of the Directive where it applies to transactions covered by the Directive.
Heraf følger, at forbuddet ifølge direktivets artikel 10, litra c), ikke finder anvendelse på den i hovedsagen omhandlede registreringsafgift.
It must be concluded that one of the aims pursued by the Directive does not apply to registration duty levied in respect of the acquisition of companies by a company which already holds all their share capital.
Det må endelig fastslås, at en disposition som den i hovedsagen omhandlede ikke er omfattet af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 2, litra b). Anvendelsen af denne bestemmelse er nemlig betinget af en udvidelse af selskabsformen i form af ydelser fra en deltager, hvilket der ikke er tale om i forbindelse med den omhandlede transaktion.
The transactions which are or may be rendered subject to the harmonised capital duty by the Member States are defined in Article 4 of the Directive objectively and with uniform application to all Member States.
Afslutningsvis bemærkes, at direktivet ikke finder anvendelse på en registreringsafgift, der opkræves ved inkorporering af selskaber i et andet selskab, som i forvejen ejer hele kapitalen i de inkorporerede selskaber.
Consequently, if the transaction in question is to fall within the scope of the Directive, it must be possible to bring it within one of the cases described in Article 4 thereof to which Article 10(a) and (b) of the Directive refer.
Med hensyn til anvendeligheden af direktivets artikel 10, litra c), bemærkes dernæst, at registreringsafgiften i tilfælde som det i
That is in turn subject to the prohibition laid down in Article 10(c) of the Directive on taxation in respect of registration or any other formality required before the commencement of business, to which a company may be subject by reason of its legal form.
»Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/303/EØF af 10. juni 1985, er ikke til hinder for opkrævning af en registreringsafgift ved inkorporering af selskaber i et andet selskab, der i forvejen ejer hele kapitalen i de inkorporerede selskaber.·
With reference to the present case, it should be noted, first of all, that a merger through acquisition by a company which already holds all the shares in the companies acquired does not entail any increase in the share capital of the acquiring company and does not therefore fall within the scope of Article 4(l)(c) of the Directive.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling') den 25. juni 1998.
Nor does such a transaction fall within the scope of Article 4(l)(d) of the Directive.
»Artikel 4, stk. 1, litra c), og artikel 7, stk. 1, litra b), i Rådets direktiv 69/335/EØF af 17. juli 1969 om kapitaltilførselsafgifter, som ændret ved Rådets direktiv 85/503/EØF af 10. juni 1985, skal forstås således, at det ikke er ulovligt at opkræve en registreringsafgift i tilfælde af en fusion, hvorved et selskab inkorporeres i et andet, som allerede ejer 100% af det første selskabs kapital.«
Secondly, as regards the applicability of Article 10(c) of the Directive, in a case such as that in point in the main proceedings, the registration duty does not appear to have been paid on the registration of a new capital company, that is to say, on completion of a formality required for the commencement of business.
Sag C-230/97 Ibiyinka Awoyemi Fri bevægelighed for personer
Furthermore, it was not levied on the registration of an increase in capital, necessary for the carrying on of that business.
Ved dom af 17. juni 1997 har Hof van Cassatie forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 8, stk. 1, i Rådets første direktiv 80/1263/EØF af 4. december 1980 samt af artikel 1, stk. 2, og artikel 8, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 91/439/EØF af 29. juli 1991.
'Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, does not preclude the levying of registration duty in respect of the acquisition of companies by a company which already holds all the shares in the companies acquired'
Medlemsstaterne kan dog ikke på det pågældende område anvende en straf, der står i et sådant misforhold til lovovertrædelsens grovhed, at den kommer til at udgøre en hindring for arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed (jf. Skanavi og Chryssanthakopoulos-dommen af 29.2.19%).
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 25 June 1998.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet rejst under en straffesag, som anklagemyndigheden har indledt mod Ibiyinka Awoyemi, der er tiltalt for at have ført et motorkøretøj på offentlig vej i Belgien uden at være indehaver af et gyldigt kørekort.
It is not contrary to Articles 4(l)(c) or 7(l)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, for registration duty to be levied in respect of merger by acquisition of a company by another company which already holds 100% of the shares in the first company.