natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Såfremt den nationale ret fastslår, at gennemførelsesbestemmelserne til en ordning er omfattet af anvendelsesområdet for direktiv 76/207/EØF, og det er godtgjort, at gennemførelsesbestemmelserne omfatter en større procentdel af kvinder end af mænd og således indebærer en indirekte forskelsbehandling i henhold til direktivets arti kel 2, stk. 1, tilkommer det den kompetente myndighed at påvise, at reglen, der medfører forskelsbehandling, er begrundet i objektive hensyn, der ikke har nogen forbindelse med forskelsbehandling på grundlag af køn.
If the national court reaches the conclusion that the conditions of operation of a scheme fall within the scope of Directive 76/207/EEC and that, on the basis of proof that the relevant scheme affects a greater percentage of women than of men, there is indirect discrimination within the meaning of Article 2(1) of that directive, it will be for the competent authority to prove that the rule giving rise to the discrimination is based on objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
Såfremt det viser sig, at en medlemsstat i sin lovgivning tilsidesætter forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling i direktiv 79/7/EØF og 76/207/EØF, og problemet ikke kan løses ved, at de regler, som gælder for de øvrige tilskudsberettigede, også anvendes på den ugunstigt stillede gruppe, tilkommer det på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin i givet fald den nationale retsinstans efter parternes på stand og efter den fremgangsmåde, der er fastlagt i Domstolens praksis, at dømme medlemsstaten til at erstatte det tab, der lides som følge af overtrædelsen".
If it appears that the legislation of a Member State infringes the prohibition of discrimination contained in Directives 79/7/EEC and 76/207/EEC and it is not a solution to apply to the members of the group placed under a disadvantage the rules applying to other persons entitled to benefit, it is, as Community law stands at present, for the national court where appropriate - acting at the request of the parties and applying the rules specified in the Court's caselaw - to declare the Member State liable for the damage caused by that infringement".
16.7.1992 (Præjudiciel) "Konkurrence - konkurrenceret - forordning nr. 17 - nationale myndigheders anvendelse af oplysninger indhentet af Kommissionen" (Domstolens plenum)
(Preliminary rul ing) (Competition - Competition law - Regulation No 17 - Use by national authorities of information obtained by the Commission) (Full Court)
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag mellem ovennævnte parter i forbindelse med, at DGDC havde stævnet AEB og de øvrige banker for at have overtrådt den spanske lov 110/1963 om ophævelse af visse former for konkurrencebegrænsende praksis, for så vidt angik visse bankforretninger og gebyrer.
By an order of 28 January 1991, which was received at the Court on 15 February 1991, the Tribunal de Defensa de la Competencia referred for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of Article 214 of the EEC Treaty and of Council Regulation No 17.
DGDC havde anlagt sagen på grundlag af oplysninger indhentet af Kommissionen i medfør af bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 17.
Those questions were raised in the course of a dispute between the abovementioned parties concerning an action brought by the DGDC on the basis of information gathered by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Regulation No 17 against the AEB and the abovementioned banks for infringing, with regard to certain banking services and commissions, the provisions of Spanish Law No 110/1963 on the elimination of restrictive competition practices.
AEB og bankerne gjorde gældende, at de nationale myndigheder ikke kunne anvende disse oplysninger som bevismiddel under en sag anlagt for at stoppe overtrædelsen af nationale konkurrenceregler.
The AEB and the banks maintained that that information could not be used by the national authorities in order to establish that a procedure designed to punish infringements of the national rules on competition was well founded.
Domstolen udtalte med hensyn til nationale myndigheders anvendelse af oplysninger i besvarelser på begæringer om oplysninger rettet til virksomheder i medfør af artikel 11 i forordning nr. 17, at en sådan begæring har til formål, at Kommissionen derved kan indhente de fornødne faktiske eller retlige oplysninger for at kunne udøve sin kompetence.
With regard to the use by the national authorities of the information contained in the requests for information sent to the undertakings pursuant to Article 11 of Regulation No 17, the Court stated that the purpose of such a request was to provide the Commission with the elements of fact or of law necessary for it to exercise its own powers.
Bevisværdien af oplysninger, som er fremkommet på denne måde, og de omstændigheder, hvorunder oplysningerne kan gøres gældende over for virksomhederne, er derfor fastlagt i fællesskabsretten og alene begrænset til de af forordning nr. 17 omhandlede sagsforhold.
The probative value of the information so communicated and the conditions under which that information could be relied on against the undertakings were, consequently, defined by Community law and limited solely to the procedure governed by Regulation No 17.
Domstolen fremhævede, at retten til kontradiktion og Kommissionens tavshedspligt nemlig ikke ville blive respekteret, såfremt en anden myndighed end Kommissionen kunne anvende disse oplysninger som bevismidler i for bindelse med sagsforhold, som forordnir.^n ikke omfatter.
The rights of the defence and the obligation of professional secrecy would not be observed if an authority other than the Commission could use that information as evidence in the context of procedures which were not governed by that regulation.
I modsætning til den spanske regerings argumenter om, at en sådan fortolkning ville medføre, at den blotte henvisning til et faktisk forhold i et dokument sendt til Kommissionen, var tilstrækkelig til, at oplysningen ikke kunne anvendes under nogen form for national sagsbehandling, fastslog Dom stolen, at en national sagsbehandling gyldigt kan omfatte sådanne oplysninger, forudsat at de ikke bevises ved hjælp af dokumenter eller oplysninger indhentet af Kommissionen, men ved hjælp af de i den nationale ret hjemlede bevismidler og under iagttagelse af de deri forudsatte retsgarantier.
The Court pointed out that, contrary to the argument of the Spanish Government, according to which the consequence of such an interpretation would be that the mere mention of a fact in a document sent to the Commission would be sufficient to put it beyond the reach of any national proceeding, such facts could validly be the subject matter of a national proceeding, provided, however, that the proof of their existence had been established not by the documents and information gathered by the Commission but by evidence which was appropriate to national law and which observed the guarantees laid down by that law.
Med hensyn til medlemsstaternes myndigheders anvendelse af oplysninger indeholdt i de begæringer og anmeldelser, som er omhandlet i artikel 2, 4 og 5 i forordning nr. 17, udtalte Domstolen indledningsvis, at disse oplysninger ikke er omfattet af en bestemmelse, som analogt med forordningens artikel 20, stk. 1, begrænser de omstændigheder, hvorunder disse oplysninger kan anvendes.
With regard to the use by the authorities of the Member States of the information contained in the requests and notifications provided for under Articles 2, 4 and 5 of Regulation No 17, the Court stated firstly that that information was not subject to any provision analogous to those of Article 20(1) of the regulation, limiting the conditions under which that information could be used.
Domstolen fortsatte, at selv om der ikke foreligger en sådan udtrykkelig regel, kan oplysninger, som virksomhederne har meddelt Kommissionen, ikke anvendes ud over den retlige sammenhæng, som gælder for den sagsbehandling, hvorunder oplysningerne er indhentet.
However, even in the absence of such an express rule, the use of the information communicated by the undertakings to the Commission must take due
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 214 og bestemmelserne i Rådets forordning nr. 17 af 6. februar 1962, første forordning om anvendelse af bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikel 85 og 86, skal fortolkes således, at medlemsstaterne ved udøvelsen af deres beføjelser i medfør af nationale eller fællesskabsretlige konkurrenceregler ikke som bevismidler kan anvende ikke offentliggjorte oplysninger, der indeholdes i besvarelserne på begæringer om oplysninger rettet til virksomhederne i medfør af artikel 11 i forordning nr. 17 eller de oplysninger, der indeholdes i de i artikel 2, 4 og 5 i forordning nr. 17 omhandlede ansøgninger og anmeldelser."
"Article 214 of the EEC Treaty and the provisions of Regulation No 17 of the Council of 6 February 1962, First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty, must be interpreted as meaning that in the exercise of their jurisdiction to apply national and Community use to as evidence requests for rules on competition the Member States may not unpublished information contained in the replies information directed to undertakings under Article
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 10. iuli 1992.
Mr Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of 10 June 1992.
Oplysninger i en begæring indgivet i medfør af artikel 2 eller i en anmeldelse indgivet i henhold til artikel 4 og 5 i forordning nr. 17, og som af Kommissionen er fremsendt til medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder, jf. forordningens artikel 10, stk. 1, kan de pågældende myndigheder ikke i sager, som kan medføre, at de pågældende virksomheder pålægges sanktioner, anvende med henblik på at bevise, at nationale konkurrenceregler er overtrådt.
Information contained in an application made under article 2 or a notification made under Articles 4 or 5 of Regulation No 17 and transmitted by the Commission to the competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with Article 10(1) of that regulation may not be used by those authorities, in proceedings which might result in the imposition of a penalty on the undertakings concerned, as evidence that the national rules on competition have been infringed.
Efter at have modtaget sådanne oplysninger er medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder imidlertid ikke afskåret fra selv at indlede undersøgelser inden for rammerne af de nævnte nationale bestemmelser.
The competent authorities of the Member States are not, however, precluded from instituting their own investigations under those rules as a result of having received that information.
Oplysninger, som Kommissionen har indhentet i henhold til artikel 11 i forordning nr. 17 og fremsendt til medlemsstaternes nationale myndigheder i henhold til forordningens artikel 10, stk. 1, kan de pågældende myndigheder ikke anvende med henblik på at bevise, at nationale konkurrenceregler er overtrådt.
Information acquired by the Commission under Article 11 of Regulation No 17 and transmitted to the competent authorities of the Member States in accordance with Article 10(1) of that regulation may not be used by those authorities as evidence that the national rules on competition have been infringed.
Efter at have modtaget så danne oplysninger er medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder imidlertid ikke afskåret fra selv at indlede undersøgelser inden for rammer ne af de nævnte nationale bestemmelser.
The competent authorities of the member States are not, however, precluded from instituting their own investigations under those rules as a result of having received that information.
Såfremt medlemsstaternes nationale myndigheder i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 88 og artikel 9, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 17, bringer bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, og 86 i anvendelse, kan de, under sager, som kan medføre, at de berørte virksomheder pålægges sanktioner, anvende oplysninger i en begæring indgivet i henhold til forordningens artikel 2 eller i en anmeldelse indgivet i henhold til dens artikel 4 og 5 med henblik på at bevise, at ovennævnte traktatbestemmelser er overtrådt.
Where the competent authorities of the Member States apply Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EEC Treaty in accordance with Article 88 of that Treaty and Article 9(3) of Regulation No 17, they are not entitled, in proceedings which might result in the imposition of a penalty on the undertakings concerned, to use information contained in an application made under Article 2 or a notification made under Articles 4 or 5 of that regulation as evidence that those provisions of the Treaty have been infringed.
Efter at have mod taget sådanne oplysninger er de imidlertid ikke afskåret fra selv at indlede undersøgelser i henhold til de nævnte traktatbestemmelser.
Those authorities are not, however, precluded from instituting their own investigations in application of those provisions of the Treaty as a result of having received that information.
Medlemsstaternes kompetente myndigheder må ikke anvende oplysninger, som Kommissionen har indhentet i henhold til artikel i forordning nr. 17, med henblik på at bevise, at EØF-Traktatens artikel 85,
The competent authorities of the Member States are not entitled to use information acquired by the Commission under Article 11 of Regulation
Sag C-83/91: Wienand Mei 1 icke mod ADV/ORGA F. A. Meyer AG
No 17 as evidence that Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EEC Treaty have been infringed.
Erhvervsret - selskabsret - direktiv 77/91/EØF"
Case C-83/91: Wienand Neilicke ν ADV/ORGA F.A. Meyer AG - 16.7.1992 (Prel imi nary rul i ng) (Company law - Directive 77/91/EEC) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse afsagt den 15. januar 1991 og indgået til Domstolen den 1. marts 1991 havde Landgericht Hannover stillet nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets andet direktiv 77/91/EØF om samordning af de garantier, der kræves i medlemsstaterne af de i artikel 58, stk. 2, i Traktaten nævnte selskaber til beskyttelse af såvel selskabsdeltagernes som tredjemands interesser, for så vidt angår stiftelsen af aktieselskabet samt bevarelse af og ændringer i dets kapital, med det formål at gøre disse garantier lige byrdefulde.
By an order of 15 January 1991, which was received at the Court on 1 March 1991, the Landgericht Hannover referred for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of the Second Council Directive (77/91/EEC) of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, in respect of the formation of public liability companies and the maintenance and alteration of their capital, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at det ikke var godtgjort, at betingelserne for at anvende denne retspraksis var opfyldt i hovedsagen.
The Court stated that it had not been proved that the conditions for the application of that caselaw had been met in the case in the main proceedings.
Selskabet havde således hele tiden bestridt, at den tyske retspraksis fandt anvendelse i sagen, og den forelæggende ret havde kun taget betinget stilling hertil.
ORGA had always disputed the application of the German caselaw to the dispute at issue and the national court itself gave a conditional opinion on the matter.
Heraf fulgte, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt læren om skjult apportindskud var forenelig ^ed det andet direktiv, var hypotetisk, hvilket også blev bekræftet af, at der ikke i sagen var sådanne oplysninger om de faktiske og ret lige forhold, at det kunne fastlægges, under hvilke omstændigheder kapitalforhøjelsen i selskabet havde fundet sted, eller hvorledes sammenhængen var mellem det foretagne indskud og læren om skjult apportindskud, således som denne er fastlagt i tysk retspraksis.
It followed that the problem of the compatibility of the theory of the contribution in kind with the second directive was hypothetical and that that was confirmed by the fact that the file on the case did not specify the elements of fact and law which would permit the context to be defined in which the increase in ORGA's capital took place and to prove the links between the contribution made and the theory of the disguised contribution in kind, as it emerged from the German case-law.
Domstolen ville under disse omstændigheder gå uden for sit kompetenceområde, hvis den besluttede at træffe afgørelse uden at have de faktiske og
Accordingly, the Court would exceed the limits on its function if it decided to give a ruling without having available the elements of fact and law necessary to give a useful reply to the questions referred to it.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Court ruled: a ruling on the questions put by the
"Det er ufornødent at træffe afgørelse vedrørende de af Landgericht Hannover stillede spørgsmål."
"It is unnecessary to give Landgericht Hannover".
General advokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 8. april 1992.
Mr Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of 8 April 1992.
Har foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows to the questions (as reformulated by him) submitted by the Landgericht Hannover:
En fordring på et selskab, som indskydes i selskabet i forbindelse med en kapitalforhøjelse, skal i henhold til det andet direktiv betragtes som et kontantindskud, såfremt der er tale om en klar, likvid og eksigibel fordring. En transaktion, der består i dobbelt betaling, er derfor i overensstemmelse med det andet direktiv, såfremt fordringen opfylder disse betingelser.
A claim made against a company and contributed to that company in connection with an increase in capital in cash is to be described, within the meaning and for the purposes of the second directive, as a contribution in cash in so far as the claim in question is for cash and is liquidated and payable, a transaction comprising a double payment is therefore in conformity with the second directive, provided that the claim is liquidated and payable.
Artikel 11, stk. 1, i det andet direktiv, jf. artikel 10 og artikel 27, stk. 2, skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen ikke kan anvendes analogt på andre tilfælde end dem, der er omhandlet i bestemmelsen.
Article 11 of the second directive, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 27(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that it may not be applied by analogy to cases other than those envisaged therein; the member States may, however, on the basis of the relevant provisions of the general law within their own legal order, take action against transactions of which the timing raises suspicions and where the parties' intent to circumvent is proved, after interpretation, if appropriate, by the Court of Justice.
Den nationale ret, som skal anvende regler i det andet direktiv, er forpligtet til at fortolke national ret i lyset af direktivets ordlyd og formål."
The national court, when called upon to apply the second directive, is required to interpret its own national law in the light of the text and the purpose of that directive".
Ved kendelse af 18. oktober 1990 indgået til Domstolen den 16. november s.a. havde Tribunal Fiscai Aduaneiro do Porto (Portugal) stillet otte præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens bestemmelser om afgifter med tilsvarende virkning som indførselstold og om diskriminerende interne afgifter for at vurdere en national automobilafgifts forenelighed med fællesskabsretten.
By an order of 18 October 1990, which was received at the Court on 16 November 1990, the Tribunal Fiscal Aduaneiro do Porto (Portugal) referred for a preliminary ruling eight questions on the interpretation of the provisions of the EEC Treaty concerning charges having an effect equivalent to customs import duties and discriminatory internal taxation in order to determine whether national legislation introducing a tax on motor vehicles was compatible with Community law.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag vedrørende en afgørelse, hvorved toldvæsenet i Porto pålagde Dias en bøde for toldmæssigt bedrageri, idet han havde foretaget visse tekniske ændringer ved et importeret motorkøretøj uden at have betalt den afgift, som denne ændring indebar. Afgiften rammer i princippet alle motorkøretøjer, uanset om de er importeret til Portugal eller samles eller fremstilles dér.
Those questions arose in the course of a dispute concerning the decision of the Director of the Oporto Customs Office to fine Mr Dias for customs fraud on the ground that he changed certain technical specifications of an imported motor vehicle without paying the tax which such changes entailed and which was applicable in principle to all motor vehicles whether imported into Portugal or assemble or produced there.
Domstolen udtalte indledningsvis, at i størstedelen af medlemsstaterne er afgiftsordningerne karakteriseret ved, at der gælder meget forskellige regler for, hvilke produkter, som er pålagt afgift, og hvilke produkter som nyder godt af nedslag eller fradrag.
The Court pointed out, firstly, that in most of the Member States the systems of taxation were characterized by the extreme diversity with which certain products were taxed or benefitted from abatements or deductions.
At visse kategorier af varer behandles forskelligt, har ikke betydning for spørgsmålet, om interne afgifter, som er pålagt andre kategorier af varer, er forenelige med fællesskabsretten, såfremt disse afgifter finder ensartet anvendelse på den pågældende kategori af varer.
The possibility of discriminatory treatment for certain categories of products could have no bearing on the compatibility with Community law of internal taxes applying to other categories of products provided that those taxes were themselves applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
At visse produkter forskelsbehandles, indebærer ikke nødvendigvis, at hele afgiftsordningen bliver uforenelig med fællesskabsretten.
The possibility of discrimination against certain products did not necessarily render the entire fiscal system incompatible with Community law.
Domstolen fastslog, at en afgift, som rammer både indførte og indenlandske varer, men som reelt udelukkende opkræves af indførte varer, fordi den indenlandske produktion er særdeles begrænset, ikke er en afgift med tilsvarende virkning som indførselstold som omhandlet i EØF-Traktatens artikel 9 og 12, såfremt den er led i en generel intern afgiftsordning, der systematisk og efter objektive kriterie. anvendes på kategorier af varer, uanset disses oprindelse.
The Court pointed out, secondly, that a charge which applied both to imported products and national products, but in practice applied almost exclusively to imported products because domestic production is extremely small did not constitute a charge having an effect equivalent to a customs duty on imports within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the EEC Treaty if it was part of a general system of internal dues applied systematically to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria irrespective of the origin of the products.
Den er følgelig en intern afgift i henhold til artikel 95.
It therefore constituted internal taxation within the meaning of Article 95.
Den automobil afgift, som uden forskel finder anvendelse på køretøjer, der er samlet eller fremstillet i Portugal, og på såvel nye som brugte importerede motorkøretøjer, er en del af en generel intern afgiftsordning, som påhviler kategorier af varer på grundlag af et objektivt kriterium, i nærværende sag cylindervolumen.
The motor vehicle tax, which applied without distinction both to motor vehicles assembled and produced in Portugal and to imported motor vehicles, both new and second hand, formed part of such a general system of internal dues applied to categories of products in accordance with objective criteria, in the present case engine capacity.