natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag C-381/93 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Transport
Case C-381/93 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Transport
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 3. august 1993 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af EØF-traktatens artikel 169 anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik ikke har overholdt sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4055/86 af 22. december 1986.
(Proceedings under Article 169 (Full Court) at least in part on the territory of a Member State other than that in which the provider of the services was established.
I kraft af forordning nr. 4055/86 finder samtlige traktatens bestemmelser om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser anvendelse på området for søtransport mellem medlemsstater.
By application lodged on 3 August 1993, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that Regulation No 4055/86 rendered applicable to the sphere of maritime transport between Member States the totality of the Treaty rules governing the freedom to provide services.
Da det således står fast, at den udveksling af tjenesteydelser, som nærværende sag drejer sig om, er omfattet af traktatens artikel 59, bemærkes, at artikel 59 er til hinder for anvendelse af nationale bestemmelser, som uden at være begrundet i objektive hensyn begrænser en tjenesteyders muligheder foreffektivt at udøve denne frihed.
Once the provision of services at issue in the present action was established as falling within Article 59 of the Treaty, the Court noted that that provision precluded the application of any national legislation which without objective justification impeded a provider of services from actually exercising that freedom.
I lyset af og med henblik på at nå formålene med det indre marked bemærkes, at den nævnte frihed også er til hinder for anvendelse af nationale bestemmelser, sombevirker, at levering af tjenesteydelser mellem medlemsstater bliver vanskeligere end levering af tjenesteydelser internt i en medlemsstat
In the perspective of a single market and in order to permit the realization of its objectives, that freedom likewise precluded the application of any national legislation which had the effect of making the provision of services between Member States more difficult than the provision of services purely within one Member State.
I medfør af disse bestemmelser kan retten tit fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke alene påberåbes af statsborgere i medlemsstaterne, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor modtageren af tjenesteydelserne er hjemmehørende, men også af en virksomhed over for den stat hvor den er etableret når tjenesteydelserne præsteres til modtagere, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat, og, mere generelt i alle tilfælde, hvor en tjenesteyder tilbyder tjenesteydelser i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor han er etableret.
In pursuance of those rules the freedom to provide services could be relied on not only by nationals of Member States established in a Member State other than that of the recipient of the services but also by an undertaking against the State in which it was established where the services were provided to recipients established in another Member State and more generally whenever a provider of services offered services in a Member State other than the one in which he was established.
Imidlertid præsteres tjenesteydelser inden for området søtransport mellem medlemsstater ikke
Not only were intraCommunity maritime transport services frequently supplied to recipients established in a different Member State from that of the provider of the services, but those services were also by definition offered
For levering mellem medlemsstater af tjenesteydelser inden forsøtransportområdet kan der følgelig ikke fastsættes strengere betingelser end dem, der gælder for levering af tilsvarende tjenesteydelser inden for en medlemsstat
Consequently, the provision of maritime transport services between Member States could not be subjea to striaer conditions than those to which analogous provisions of services at domestic level were subject
afgifter for et skibs benyttelse af havneanlæg på dens kontinentale territorium eller øterritorium, nårpassagerne kommer fru eller rejser til havne i en anden medlemsstat, mens der ved befordring mellem to havne på nationalt område kun opkræves afgifter ved indskibning fra den kontinentale havn eller øhavnen, ligesom der opkræves afgifter efter højere satser for passagerer, der kommer fra eller rejser til havne i en anden medlemsstat, end den sats, der anvendes for passagerer, der har en havn på det nationale område som bestemmelsessted.
By maintaining in force a system for levying charges on the disembarkation and embarkation of passengers in the case of vessels usingport installations situated on its continental or bland territory and ontving from ports sta State cr travelling to them, whereas út the case of passenger transport between two ports situated on national territory those charges are levied only on embarkation for departure from the continental or ulandport, and by applying higher rates of charges when passengers arrive from or embarkf or ports situated in another Member State than when they travelto a port situated on national territory, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries;
Generaladvokat C O. Lenz fremsatte forslap til afgørelse for Domstolen den 12. juli 1994.
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 12 Jury 1994
Præjudiciel »Fælleslandbrugspolitik—eksportrestitutioner—nomenklaturen overrestitutioner—fjerkrækød — tarifering* (Første Afdeling) fjerkrækødsektoren, samt vedrørende fortolkningen af bilaget til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 af 17. december 1987 om fastsættelsen af nomenklaturen over eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter.
Preliminary ruling (Common Agricultural Policy — Export refunds — Refund nomenclature — Poultrymeat — Classification) (First Chamber)
(herefter benævnt »restitutionsnomenklaturen«) på et antal udførselsblanketter for
criminal proceedings against M Voogd Vleesimport en -export BV which was prosecuted for entering allegedly inaccurate headings of the agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds on a number of export forms for agricultural products when exporting consignments of poultrymeat to non-member States.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen :
The questions were referred in the context of
Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1151/87 af 27. april 1987 og Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2800/87 af 18. september 1987, begge om fastsættelse af eksportrestitutionerne inden for fjerkræsektoren, skal fortolkes således, at et kyllingelår med (et stykke af) ryggen (uden gump) skal tariferes i underposition: a)
Commission Regulations (EEC) Nos 1151/87 of 27 April 1987 and 2800/87 of 18 September 1987, both of which fix export refunds in the poultrymeat sector, must be interpreted as meaning that a chicken leg with (part of) the back (without the rump) must be classified under subheading:
02 02 Β II e) 3 (»lår og stykker deraf af andet fjerkræ*) i bilagene til forordningerne, såfremt rygstykket på grund af sin størrelse ikke er karaktergivendefor varen, 02 02 ΒII ex g) (»i andre tilfælde*), i modsatfald. fald.
0Z02 Β II e) 3 ('Legs and cuts of legs of other poultry') of the Annexes to those regulations if the size of the piece of back does not give the product its essential character;
Kommissionens förordning nr. 3846/87 af 17. december 1987 om fastsættelsen af nomenklaturen over eksportrestitutioner for landbrugsprodukter skal fortolkes således, at et kyllingelår med (en del af ryggen (uden gump) skal tariferes i underposition: a)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 establishing an agricultural product nomenclature for export refunds must be interpreted as meaning that a chicken leg with (part of) the back (without the rump) must be classified under subheading:
0207 41 71 100 (»halve og kvarte, uden gumpe*) i forordningens bilag hvis rygstykket svarer til den bageste del af ryggen, når der tages hensyn til den tilladte tolerance ved udskæringen, b)
0207 41 71 100 ('Halves or quarters, without rumps') of the Annex to that regulation if the piece of back corresponds to the rear part of the back, allowing for the permitted tolerances in cutting;
0207 4151 000 (»lår og stykker deraf*), hvis dette ikke er tilfældet, og såfremt rygstykket på grund af sin størrelse ikke ændrer varens grundlæggende karakter, c)
0207 41 51 000 ('Legs and cuts thereof) if the above b not the case and the size of the piece of back does not alter the essential character of the product;
0207 41 71 900 (»andre varer*), hvis den ikke kan tariferes i nogen af de to ovennævnte underpositioner.
0207 41 71 900 ('Olhef) if it cannot be classified under either of the two preceding subheadings.
Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 267/87 af 28. januar 1987 om fastsættelse af eksportrestitutionerne inden for fjerkrækødsektoren og ovennævnte forordning nr. 1151/87 skal fortolkes således, at stykker af denforreste del afhønserygge med vinger skal tariferes i underposition: a)
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 267/87 of 28 January 1987 fixing the export refunds on poultrymeat and Regulation No 1151/87, cited above, must be interpreted as meaning that the front part of a chicken's back with wings must be classified under subheading:
Ovennævnte forordning nr. 3846/87 skal fortolkes således, at et stykke af denforreste del afhønserygge med vinger skal tariferes i underposition: a)
0Z02 B II b) ('Whole wings, with or without tips') in the Annexes to those regulations if the size of the piece of back does not give the product its essential character;
0207 41 71 900 (»andre varer*), i modsat fald*
0207 41 71 900 ('Olhef) if the opposite applies."
Generaladvokat C. O. Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens Første Afdeling den 24. marts 1994.
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 24 March 1994
Han foreslog at besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således :
He suggested that the Court make the following ruling:
»1.1 Kyllingelår med (en del af) ryggen (uden gump) er ikke levarte' kyllinger efter pos. 02.02.B.II.a) 1 i bilaget til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1151/87 af 27. april 1987 og bilaget til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2800/87 af 18. september 1987.
A chicken leg with (part of) the back (without the rump) does not constitute a 'quarter' within the meaning of tariff heading 02.02.B.II.a) 1 of the table in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1151/87 of 27 April 1987, the Annex to Regulation (EEC) No 2303/87 of 30 July 1987, and the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2800/87 of 18 September 1987.
1.2 Et sådant produkt henhører - for så vidt angår perioden fra 1. januar 1988 til 1. oktober 1988 - under pos. 0207.41.71.100, 'halve og kvarte, uden gumpe', i bilaget til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3846/87 af 17. december 1987, hvis produktet kan anses for en kvart kylling bestående af underlår, lår og den nederste del af ryggen.
Such a product is, so far as the period from 1 January 1988 to 1 October 1988 is concerned, a 'quarter, without rump' within the meaning of tariff heading 0207.41.71.100 of the table in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 of 17 December 1987 if it can be regarded as a hindquarter consisting of the drumstick, leg, and rear part of the back.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at afgøre, om det omtvistede produkt svarer til denne definition.
The determination whether the product in question corresponds to that definition is a matter for the national court.
Sag C-23/93 TV10 SA / Commissariaat voor de Media Fri bevægelighed for personer
beading 0207.41.21.000 in the Annex to Regulation No 3846/87 (in the version in force until 1 September 1988).
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser — national lovgivning der har til formål at opretholde et alsidigt og ikke kommercielt udbud af radio- og fjernsynsudsendelser*
K the national court considers that front portions of the back with wings constitute 'Whole wings, with or without tips' within the meaning of the answer given under point 2.1 above, together with a back portion attached, the product in question falls under the tariff headings referred to in point 2.1 if the proportion which that back portion bears to the product as a whole, having regard to consumer habits and trade practices ano to the customary methods for cutting chicken in the Member State or region concerned, does not determine the essential character of the product.
Ved mellemafgørelse af 11. maj 1992 indgået til Domstolen den 26. januar 1993 har Raad van State, Afdeling Rechtspraak (Nederlandene), forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-traktatens bestemmelser om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser med henblik på at kunne afgøre, om det er foreneligt med fællesskabsretten, at der i bestemmelser, som er gældende i en medlemsstat, opstilles begrænsninger for, hvilken virksomhed der må udøves af radio- og fjernsynsinstitutioner, som er etableret i andre medlemsstater.
If the back portion does determine the essential character of the product as a whole, the produa is to be classified under tariff heading 02.02.B.II. ex g) ('Other') of the rable in the Annexes to the regulations referred to in point 2.1 of this answer, or, as the case may be, under tariff heading 0207.41.71.900 ('Other*) of Regulation No 3846/87, in the version in force until 1 September 1988.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under behandlingen af en sag, som et luxembourgsk aktieselskab ved navn TV10 — som er en kommerciel radio- og fjernsynsinstitution, der er etableret i Luxembourg — har anlagt mod den nederlandske tilsynsmyndighed for radio- og fjernsynsvirksomhed, Commissariaat voor de Media. Sagen drejer sig om anvendelsen af en række bestemmelser i den nederlandske lov af 21. april 1987 om bestemmelser for udsendelse af radio- og fjernsynsprogrammer, om radio- og fjernsynslicens og om støtte til pressen (»Mediawet«).
Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide services — National legislation designed to maintain a pluralist, non­commercial broadcasting network) (Fifth Chamber) the Netherlands, on the application of provisions of the Netherlands Law of 21 April 1987 governing the supply of radio and television programmes, radio and television licence fees and press subsidies (hereinafter the Mediawet').
På denne baggrund indtog Commissariaat voor de Media det standpunkt i en afgørelse af 28. september 1989, at TV10 havde etableret sig i Luxembourg med det formål at unddrage sig de nederlandske bestemmelser om indenlandske radio- og fjernsynsinstitutioner. Herefter fastslog Commissariaat voor de Media, at TVIO ikke kunne betragtes som en udenlandsk radio- og fjernsynsinstitution efter Mediawet's artikel 66, stk. 1, og at selskabets programmer derfor ikke kunne fordeles gennem kabelanlæg i Nederlandene.
By order of 11 May 1992, received at the Court on 26 January 1993, the Afdeling Rechtspraak (Administrative Appeals Section) of the Netherlands Raad van State (Council of State) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of the Treaty provisions on the freedom to provide services, in order to assess the compatibility with Community law of rules of a Member State restricting the activities of broadcasters established in other Member States.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den nationale ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om begrebet »tjenesteydelser« i traktatens artikel 59 og 60 omfatter det forhold, at de, der forestår driften af kabelanlæg i en medlemsstat fordeler fjernsynsprogrammer, som udsendes af en radioog fjernsynsinstitution, der er etableret i en anden medlemsstat
Those questions were raised in proceedings between TV10, a public limited company governed by Luxembourg law which was a commercial broadcasting undertaking established in Luxembourg, and the Commissariaat voor de Media, the supervisory body for broadcasting in
TV10 blev etableret i Luxembourg, og selskabet tog skridt til at påbegynde sin udsendelsesvirksomhed i overensstemmelse med den luxembourgske lovgivning.
TV10 was in fact established in Luxembourg and took steps to broadcast in accordance with Luxembourg law.
Det fik således de luxembourgske myndigheders tilladelse til at udsende sine programmer over Astra-satellitten, hvorfra de skulle transmitteres til Nederlandene.
It therefore obtained authorization from the Luxembourg authorities to transmit its programmes via the Astra satellite, which directed them to Netherlands territory.
Commissariaat voor de Media har imidlertid fremhævet at TVIO's daglige ledelse i betydeligt omfang blev varetaget af nederlandske statsborgere, og at programmerne skulle fordeles gennem kabelanlæg, hovedsagelig i Luxembourg
The Commissariaat voor de Media noted, however, that day-to-day management of TV10 was largely in the hands of Netherlands nationals and that its programmes were intended to be transmitted by cable networks primarily in Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It further
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen allerede har fastslået, at fjernsynsudsendelser som sådanne henhører under traktatens regler om tjenesteydelser.
The lawfulness of certain restrictions on freedom to provide services noted that TVIO had concluded contracts with cable network operators in Luxembourg and the Netherlands only and not in other States of the European Community.
Domstolen har endvidere præciseret at der ikke er grund til at behandle fordeling af fjernsynsudsendelser gennem kabelanlæg på anden måde.
The Commissariaat voor de Media also stated that although the broadcasting of programmes, purchase and subtitling of foreign programmes, directing and final editing were carried out in Luxembourg, the target audience was the Dutch public, most of those employed for TVlO's various programmes were from the Netherlands and the advertisements were made in the Netherlands.
Som Domstolen allerede har udtalt med hensyn til traktatens artikel 59, kan man ikke nægte en medlemsstat ret til at træffe foranstaltninger, der skal forhindre, at de i traktaten garanterede friheder udnyttes af en tjenesteyder, hvis virksomhed er helt eller fortrinsvis rettet mod denne stats territorium med sigte på at unddrage sig de regler, som ville gælde for ham, såfremt han var etableret på nævnte stats territorium.
By Question 2 the national court essentially asked whether the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services were to be interpreted as precluding a Member State from treating as a domestic broadcaster a broadcasting body constituted under the law of another Member State and established in that State but whose activities were wholly or principally directed towards the territory of the first Member State, if that broadcasting body was established there in order to enable it to avoid the rules which would be applicable to it if it were established within the first State.
Domstolen bemærkede dog, at traktatens bestemmelser om den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser ikke kan anvendes på aktiviteter, hvis samtlige deres relevante elementer findes inden for en enkelt medlemsstat Om dette er tilfældet, afhænger af konstateringer af faktiske forhold, som det tilkommer den nationale ret at foretage.
On that basis the Commissariaat voor de Media, in a decision of 28 September 1989, held that TVIO had established itself in Luxembourg in order to escape the Netherlands legislation applying to domestic associations.
I det foreliggende tilfælde har Raad van State imidlertid fastslået at TV10 er oprettet i overensstemmelse med luxembourgsk lovgivning, at selskabet har sit hjemsted i Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg, og at det havde til hensigt at udsende programmer, som var rettet til Nederlandene.
It concluded that it could not be regarded as a foreign broadcaster within the meaning of Article 66(1) of the Mediawet, and that its programmes could therefore not be transmitted by cable in the Netherlands.
Lovligheden af bestemte begrænsninger i den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Applicability of the rules on freedom to provide services
Heraf følger, at en medlemsstat kan betragte en radio- og fjernsynsinstitution, som etablerer sig i en anden medlemsstat med det formål dér at udføre tjenesteydelser, der er rettet mod den førstnævnte stats område, som en indenlandsk radio- og fjernsynsinstitution, idet en sådan foranstaltning skal forhindre, at institutioner, som etablerer sig i en anden medlemsstat, gennem udøvelse af de i traktaten sikrede friheder kan unddrage sig de forpligtelser, der følger af medlemsstatens lovgivning, i det foreliggende tilfælde de forpligtelser, som skal tjene til at opretholde et alsidigt og ikke kommercielt programindhold.
The Court had already held in connection with Article 59 of the Treaty that a Member Srate could not be denied the right to rake measures to prevent the exercise by a person providing services whose activity was entirely or principally directed towards its territory of the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty for the purpose of avoiding the rules which would be applicable to him if he were established within that State.
Den forelæggende ret har imidlertid rejst det spørgsmål, om en sådan sidestilling ikke indebærer, at retten til ytringsfrihed i henhold til artikel 10 og 14 i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder bringes i fare.
By Question 1 the national court essentially asked whether the concept of 'provision of services' referred to in Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty covered the transmission, via cable network operators established in one Member State, of television programmes supplied by a broadcasting body established in another Member State.
Domstolen har imidlertid antaget, at opretholdelsen af den alsidighed, som den nederlandske politik på radio- og fjernsynsområdet skal sikre, skal beskytte meningsforskelligheder og dermed den ytringsfrihed, som konventionen netop har til formål at beskytte.
The Court noted that it had already held that the transmission of television signals came, as such, within the rules of the Treaty relating to the provision of services. The Court stated that there was no reason to treat the transmission of such signals by cable television any differently.
Med det andet spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om traktatens bestemmelser om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat sidestiller en radioog fjernsynsinstitution, som er oprettet efter en anden medlemsstats lovgivning og er etableret i denne anden medlemsstat, men hvis virksomhed helt eller fortrinsvis er rettet mod den førstnævnte medlemsstats område, med en indenlandsk radio- og fjernsynsinstitution, når etableringen har fundet sted, for at institutionen derved kan unddrage sig de regler, der ville være gældende for den, hvis den var etableret i den
It followed that a Member State could regard as a domestic broadcaster a radio and television organization which established itself in another Member State in order to provide services there which were intended for the first State's territory, since the aim of that measure was to prevent organizations which established themselves in another Member State from being able, by exercising the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, wrongfully to avoid obligations under national law, in this case those designed to ensure the pluralist and non-commercial content of programmes.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således :
The national court, however, considered the question whether that treatment jeopardized the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.