natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF­Traktatens artikel 30 og artikel 22, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 af 27. juni 1968 om den fælles markedsordning for mælk og mejeriprodukter, ved at gøre indførsel og salg af ost hid­rørende fra andre medlemsstater, hvor produkterne er lovligt frem­stillet og bragt i omsætning, betinget af, at de har et vist mindsteindhold af fedt, eller ved, i overensstemmelse med den for­tolkning af national lovgivning, som anlægges af den italienske re­gering, at forbyde, at der under betegnelsen "ost" indføres og sæl­ges osteprodukter, som ikke har et sådant mindsteindhold af fedt, og som hidrører fra andre medlemsstater, hvor de er lovligt bragt i om­sætning under denne betegnelse.
By making the importation and marketing of cheeses originating in other Member States where they are lawfully manufactured and marketed conditional upon compliance with a minimum fat content or, according to the interpretation of its national legislation by the Italian Government, by banning the importation and marketing under the description "cheese" of cheeses not complying with that minimum fat content from other Member States where they are lawfully marketed under that description, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 22 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 5. juli
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 5 July 1990.
Han foreslog Domstolen "at domfælde Den Italienske Republik for at have an­vendt bestemmelser på importerede produkter fra andre medlemsstater, der in­debærer et absolut salgsforbud eller et forbud mod at sælge produkterne under betegnelsen 'ost', selv om de er lovligt fremstillet i produktionsmedlems­staten i overensstemmelse med de dér gældende produktionsforskrifter, og selv om de i denne stat kan sælges under betegnelsen 'ost'". Endvidere foreslog ge­neraladvokaten at "tilpligte Den Italienske Republik at betale sagens omkost­ninger".
He proposed that the Court should "declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations by applying to goods imported from other Member States rules involving an absolute ban on sales or a ban on sales under the description 'cheese', even though the goods affected are legally manufactured in the Member State of production in accordance with the rules governing production in that State, where they may be described as 'cheese' ..., and order the Italian Republic to pay the costs".
Sag C­196/89: Anklagemyndigheden mod E. Nespoli og G. Grippa
Case C-196/89 : Criminal proceedings against E. Nespoli and G. Crippa
(præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser ­ national ordning for osteprodukter" (Domstolens plenum)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - National legislation on cheeses) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 9. juni 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 19. juni s.a., havde Pretura di Milano forelagt Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF­Traktatens artikler 30 og 36.
By order of 9 June 1989, which was received at the Court on 19 June, the Pretore di Milano asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty.
Spørgsmålet var stillet under en straffesag mod E. Nespoli og G. Grippa, som var tiltalt for, i strid med italiensk lovgivning om osteprodukter, at have importeret, omsat og udbudt ost af typen emmentaler til salg, der var frem­stillet i Frankrig, og hvis fedtindhold udgjorde 30%, idet italiensk lovgiv­ning stiller krav om et fedtindhold på mindst 45% i osteprodukter af denne type.
The question was raised in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Nespoli and Mr Crippa, who were prosecuted for importing, marketing and offering for sale in Italy French-produced Emmenthal-type cheese having a fat content of 30%, contrary to the Italian legislation on cheeses, under which cheeses of that type are required to have a minimum fat content of 45%.
Indledningsvis bemærkede Domstolen, at en national ordning som den i forelæggelseskendelsen beskrevne udgør en hindring for samhandelen, da den indeholder et forbud mod, at der fra andre medlemsstater importeres osteprodukter med et lavere fedtindhold end foreskrevet, selv om produkterne er lovligt fremstillet og bragt i omsætning i de pågældende medlemsstater.
First, the Court observed that national rules of the type described in the order for reference constituted a barrier to trade in so far as they prohibited the importation of cheeses having a lower fat content than that laid down from Member States where those cheeses were lawfully manufactured and marketed.
Domstolen fandt, at en sådan ordning ikke ifølge Traktatens artikel 30 kunne antages at være begrundet i tvingende hensyn til beskyttelse af forbrugerne eller til god handelsskik.
Such rules could not be regarded for the purposes of the application of Article 30 as being justified by Imperative requirements relating to the defence of consumers or the fairness of commercial transactions.
Sag C-200/89: FUNOC mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
The Italian Government argued that consumers' legitimate expectations would net be satisfied If they were offered products purporting to be cheeses, which, in view of the variety of national rules applying to this field, had very different characteristics.
"Socialpolitik - Den Europæiske Socialfond - søgsmål om annullation af beslutning om nedsættelse af støtte" (Anden Afdeling)
Lastly, the Court held that a national measure of the type at issue could not qualify for a derogation under Article 36 on the ground of protection of public health.
FUNOC havde under samme sag nedlagt påstand om erstatning for det tab, beslutningen havde forvoldt.
It could not be considered that public health was likely to be endangered by the consumption of low-fat cheeses.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgik af beskrivelsen i sagsøgerens ansøgning til Fonden, at det oprindelige projekt skulle omfatte undervisning over 3 år af 90 unge uden særlig uddannelse, i alt 1.000 timer fordelt på 3 uddannelsesfor løb.
"Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty are to be interpreted as precluding a Member State, subject to any particular rules applicable to cheeses which enjoy special protection, for example by virtue of a registered designation of origin or a geographical description, from applying national rules requiring compliance with a minimum fat content to all cheeses imported from another Member State when those cheeses have been lawfully manufactured and marketed in that Member State and consumers are provided with proper information."
Domskonklusionen lød således:
The Court declared as follows:
Han foreslog Domstolen, "at frifinde sagsøgte og pålægge sagsøgeren at betale sagens omkostninger".
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs."
11.10.1990 "Landbrug - ansvar uden for kontraktsforhold - afskaffelse af supplerende mekanisme for samhandelen - nye kartofter" (Fjerde Afdeling)
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 10 July 1990.
Domstolen forkastede dette klagepunkt som grundløst.
He proposed that the Court should "dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs",
Sagsøgerene gjorde for det tredje gældende, at forordning nr. 530/88 er retsstridig, idet den blev vedtaget før indførelsen af en overvågningsordning for indførslerne af nye kartofter hidrørende fra lande i middelhavsområdet i henhold til tillægsprotokoller til samarbejds- og associeringsaftalerne mellem EØF og disse lande.
By application lodged on 21 February 1989, the applicants brought an action under Article 178 and the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EEC Treaty for compensation for the damage caused by the - allegedly unlawful - adoption of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 530/88 withdrawing new potatoes from the list of products covered by the supplementary trade mechanism (STM).
Den udtalte, at der ikke mellem SMS-ordningen og protokollerne er en sådan sammenhæng, at det på en eller anden måde kan fastslås, at Kommissionen har pligt til at opretholde anvendelsen af SMS-ordningen for nye kartofter, indtil der inden for rammerne af protokollerne vedtages egnede overvågningsforanstaltninger vedrørende indførte produkter hidrørende fra tredjelande.
It was claimed that it had resulted, among other things, in increased imports to the Community from non-member countries in the Mediterranean and hence had caused a decline in prices.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 12. juli 1990.
Lastly, the applicants maintained that the Commission's finding that trade in new potatoes between Spain and the Community of Ten and between Spain and France in 1986/1988 had followed a normal pattern was based on a manifest error of assessment.
Han foreslog Domstolen "at frifinde sagsøgte og pålægge sagsøgerne at afholde sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenientens omkostninger.
That complaint had to be rejected as unfounded. First, bearing in mind that the market in new potatoes was closely linked with the market in ware potatoes, it was accepted that the decrease in the level of the Community of Ten's imports of new potatoes from Spain corresponded to a correlative
Processprog: engelsk.
The Court declared as follows:
Processprog: tysk.
Case C-209/88
11.10.1990 En stats traktatbrud - foranstaltningerne til gennemførelse af Kommissionens direktiv 85/411/EØF af 25. juli 1985 om ændring af Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF af 2. april 1979 om beskyttelse af vilde fugle ikke truffet inden for den fastsatte frist. Generaladvokat: W. Van Gerven. Processprog: italiensk.
Commission ν France 9 October 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Infringement of Article 5 of the EEC Treaty - Infringement of Article 10 (1) (b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3626/82 of 3 December 1982 on the implementation in the Community of the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora (Washington Convention) - Issue of import licences for skins of feline animals originating in Bolivia Advocate General: J. Mischo Language of the case: French
B. Retten i Første Instans
Lenz Language of the case: Greek
Sag T-124/89 Tjenestemandssag
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) Bundesgerichtshof
Gyldigheden af artikel 3 a, stk. 1, andet led, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 som ændret ved forordning (EØF) nr. 764/89 af 20. marts 1989 - tidligere modtagere af en ikke-markedsfØringspræmie for mælk afskåret fra at få tildelt en produktionskvote på 60%, såfremt den tidligere modtagers successor allerede er i besiddelse af en kvote i henhold til artikel 2 i forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84.
11 October 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the measures necessary to implement Commission Directive 85/411/EEC of 25 July 1985 amending Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds Advocate General: W. Van Gerven Language of the case: Italian
Processprog: tysk.
Before the Court of First Instance
Processprog: tysk.
Case T-4/90
Processprog: tysk.
Case T-115/89
Processprog: engelsk.
Case T-124/89
Processprog: tysk.
NEW CASES
Sag C-272/90 J.Y. Noorden mod Assedie Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Tribunal de Grande Instance de Valence.
Spain ν Council Annulment of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1875/90 of 27 June 1990 amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4054/89 of 19 December 1989 allocating, for 1990, Community catch quotas in Greenland waters Language of the case: Spanish
Fortolkning af artikel 3 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 af 24. juli 1979 om efteropkrævning af import- eller eksportafgifter, der ikke er opkrævet hos debitor for varer, der er angivet til en toldprocedure, som medfører en forpligtelse til at betale sådanne afgifter - "handlinger, der vil kunne undergives strafferetlig forfølgning".
F.-J. Kliemann ν Council and Commission Action for damages - Non-contractual liability on the part of the Community on account of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 and Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1371/84 - System of production quotas for milk - Former recipients of the premium for the non-marketing of milk debarred until a quota is allocated under Regulation (EEC) No. 764/89 Language of the case: German
Processprog: tysk.
Case C-266/90
Sag C-277/90 J. Hurtz mod Rådet og Kommissionen (Se sag C-265/90)
F. Bock ν Council and Commission (see Case C-265/90)
Sag C-279/90 B. Hüsemann mod Rådet og Kommissionen (Se sag C-265/90)
Appeal - Norsk Hydro ν Commission Appeal against the order given on 19 June 1990 by the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) in Case T-106/89, Norsk Hydro ν Commission, relating to the annulment of Commission
T-40/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case C-269/90
T-41/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case C-270/90
T-42/90 Tjenestemandssag.
G. Werner ν Commission (see Case C-265/90)
BERIGTIGELSE
Case C-272/90
Pi side 10 erstattes sag 202/88 af:
Case C-273/90
19.9.1990 En stats traktatbrud ­ tilsidesættelse af artiklerne 11, 15 og 21 i Ridets forordning (EØF) nr. 3796/81 af 29. december 1981, af artiklerne 1­3 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3598/83 af 20. december 1983 samt af artikel 2 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3191/82 af 29. november 1982 ­ manglende meddelelse af visse oplysninger om priser i fiskerisektoren. Generaladvokat: J. Mischo.
Interpretation of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties - "An act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings" Language of the case: German
Processprog: græsk.
Case C-274/90
Udgivet af Informationstjenesten ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol, L­2925 Luxembourg.
H.-J. Hallmanns ν Council and Commission (see Case C-265/90)
Redaktionen sluttet den 15. oktober 1990.
W. Ashölter ν Council and Commission (see Case C-265/90)
ARBEJDET VED DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABERS DOMSTOL OG RET I FØRSTE INSTANS *)
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE AND OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES * Weeks of 15 to 19 and 22 to 26 October 1990
Sag C-10/89
Case C-10/89
SA CNL-Sucal NV mod Hag GF AG Frie varebevægelser De forenede sager C-297/88 og C-197/89 Massam Dzodzi mod den belgiske stat Fri bevægelighed for personer Sag C-301/88 Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce mod Fish Producers og Grimsby Fish Producers Landbrug
Case C-301/88 The Queen ν Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce ex parte The Fish Producers' Organization Ltd and The Grimsby Fish Producers' Organization Ltd. Agriculture
* DENNE PUBLIKATION UDARBEJDES AF DOMSTOLENS INFORMATIONSTJENESTE NED HENBLIK PÃ EN HURTIG ORIENTERING OM ARBEJDET VED DOMSTOLEN OG RETTEN I FØRSTE INSTANS.
THIS BULLETIN IS PREPARED BY THE INFORMATION SERVICE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY READERS WITH RAPID INFORMATION ON THE WORK OF THE INSTITUTION.
DOMMENE OG DE FREMSATTE FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE OFFENTLIGGØRES SENERE I "SAMLING AF AFGØRELSER", SOM ER ENESTE GYLDIGE UDGAVE.
HOWEVER, ONLY THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE JUDGMENTS AND OPINIONS PUBLISHED LATER IN THE REPORTS OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT IS AUTHENTIC.
(præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - varemærkeret" (Domstolens plenum)
SA CNL-Sucal NV ν HAG GF AG - 17 October 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - Trade mark) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 24. november 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 13. januar 1989, havde Bundesgerichtshof under en sag mellem de ovennævnte selskaber forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30, 36 og 222 i forbindelse med varemærkeretten.
By an order of 24 November 1988, received at the Court on 13 January 1989, the Bundesgerichtshof referred to the Court several questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 222 of the EEC Treaty in relation to trade marks. The questions had arisen in proceedings between the above companies.
Det tyske selskab Hag GF AG sælger koffeinfri kaffe, som selskabet fremstiller efter en fremgangsmåde, det har opfundet.
The German company HAG GF AG produced and distributed coffee which had been decaffeinated using a process that it had invented.
I Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland er selskabet indehaver af en lang række varemærker; det ældste, hvis væsentligste bestanddel er ordet "HAG", blev registreret i 1907.
It held a number of trade marks in the Federal Republic of Germany, the oldest of which was registered in 1907; the main feature of those marks consisted in the word "HAG".
Hag GF AG registrerede i 1908 i Belgien to varemærker, der omfattede betegnelsen "Kaffee HAG".
In 1908 the company registered two trade marks in Belgium using the name "Kaffee HAG".
I 1927 stiftede sagsøgeren et helejet og fuldt ud kontrolleret datterselskab i Belgien under firmanavnet "Café HAG SA".
In 1927 it set up a wholly-owned and controlled subsidiary company in Belgium, under the name "Café HAG SA".
Datterselskabet lod registrere i hvert fald to varemærker i sit navn, herunder ét, hvori bl.a. navnet "Café HAG" indgår.
That company registered at least two trade marks, one of which included the name "Café HAG".
Med virkning fra 1935 overdrog Hag GF AG til datterselskabet også de mærker, som moderselskabet havde registreret i sit eget navn i Belgien.
In addition HAG GF AG transferred to the subsidiary company the trade marks which it had registered in its own name in Belgium.
I 1944 blev Café HAG SA beslaglagt som fjendtlig ejendom.
In 1944 the entire assets of Café HAG SA were sequestrated as enemy property.
Senere solgte den belgiske stat samtlige aktier til Van 0evelen-fami lien.
The Belgian authorities subsequently sold all shares in the company to the Van Oevelen family.
I 1971 overdrog Café HAG SA sine varemærker i Benelux-området til kommanditselskabet Van Zuylen Frères, Liège, nu - efter ændringer af selskabsform og firma - selskabet CNL-SUCAL, der er et helejet datterselskab af det schweiziske selskab Jacobs-Suchard AG.
In 1971 Café HAG SA assigned its Benelux trade marks to Van Zuylen Frères, a limited partnership based in Liège, which, following a change of legal form and company name, became SA CNL-Sucal, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Swiss company Jacobs-Suchard AG.
CNL-SUCAL begyndte at indføre den koffeinfri kaffe, som det fremstiller i Belgien, til Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland under mærket "HAG".
It began to import into the Federal Republic of Germany the decaffeinated "HAG" coffee that it manufactured in Belgium.
HAG AG anlagde i denne anledning sag ved tysk ret, hvorunder selskabet gjorde gældende, at "Kaffee HAG" i Tyskland har opnået status som et berømt varemærke, og at den koffeinfri kaffe, selskabet sælger under dette mærke, takket være en ny fremstillingsproces er af højere kvalitet end den koffeinfri kaffe, CNL-SUCAL indfører til Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland.
HAG GF AG, which maintained that "Kaffee HAG" had acquired the status of a famous brand in Germany and that its decaffeinated product was, by virtue of a new manufacturing process, superior in quality to the decaffeinated coffee imported into the Federal Republic of Germany by CNL-Sucal, brought an action in the German courts in order to oppose such importation.
Domstolen udtalte indledningsvis, at det med henblik på besvarelsen af den nationale rets spørgsmål fandtes nødvendigt at tage den fortolkning, der var anlagt i Domstolens dom af 3. juli 1974, Van Zuylen/Hag (192/73, Sml. s. 731) op til fornyet overvejelse på baggrund af den retspraksis, som senere har fæstnet sig vedrørende spørgsmålet om forholdet mellem den industrielle og kommercielle ejendomsret og Traktatens almindelige bestemmelser, navnlig vedrørende de frie varebevægelser.
Before replying to the questions posed by the Bundesgerichtshof, the Court stated that it believed that the interpretation it had given in its
Domstolen fremhævede som et afgørende moment ved et sagsforhold som i denne sag, at indehaveren af den i national lovgivning beskyttede varemærkeret ikke har givet nogen form for samtykke til, at et lignende produkt, som fremstilles og sælges af en virksomhed, der hverken retligt eller Økonomisk står i noget afhængighedsforhold til indehaveren af varemærket, bringes i omsætning i en anden medlemsstat under et identisk eller forveksleligt mærke.
3 - judgment of 3 July 1974 in Case 192/73, Van Zuvlen ν HAG [1974] ECR 731, warranted reconsideration in the light of the case-law which had developed gradually concerning the relationship between industrial and commercial property and the general rules of the Treaty, particularly in the area of free movement of goods.
I denne situation vil varemærkets hovedfunktion, som er at give forbrugeren eller den endelige bruger sikkerhed for mærkevarens oprindelsesægthed, blive undergravet, såfremt varemærkets indehaver ikke kan udøve sin ret efter national lovgivning til at modsætte sig indførsel af et lignende produkt under en betegnelse, der kan forveksles med vedkommendes eget varemærke, idet forbrugerne da ikke længere med sikkerhed kan fastslå mærkevarens oprindelse, og varemærkets indehaver risikerer at blive sat i forbindelse med et produkt af dårlig kvalitet, som han ikke har noget ansvar for.
The Court went on to point out that in a situation such as that which had arisen in the present case, the decisive factor was the absence of any form of consent on the part of the holder of the trade mark protected by national law to a similar product being put into circulation in another Member State under an identical or confusingly similar trade mark, that product having been produced and marketed by a company which was not legally or economically dependent on the holder of the trade mark.
Det kunne ikke føre til noget andet resultat, at det varemærke, der var beskyttet efter national lovgivning, og det lignende varemærke, som det importerede produkt var forsynet med i henhold til eksportmedlemsstatens lovgivning, oprindelig havde tilhørt den samme indehaver, som blev frataget retten til ét af varemærkerne ved en ekspropriation, der blev gennemført i den ene af de to stater, før Fællesskabet blev oprettet.
In such circumstances the essential function of the trade mark, which was to guarantee the identity of the origin of the trade-marked product to the consumer or ultimate user, would be compromised if the holder of the trade mark could not avail himself of the possibility offered to him under national law of opposing the importation of a similar product under a name that could be confused with its own mark, because consumers would then no longer be able to identify with any certainty the origin of the product bearing the trade mark and the holder could find that a poor quality product for which he was in no way responsible was attributed to him.
Efter ekspropriationen havde hver af de to varemærker således - uanset den fælles oprindelse - inden for sit geografiske område uafhængigt opfyldt sin funktion, nemlig at garantere, at mærkevarerne har én bestemt oprindelse.
The Court stated that its analysis was not affected by the fact that the mark protected under national law and the similar mark which the imported product bore, by virtue of the legislation of the Member State from which it was imported, originally belonged to the same holder who had been dispossessed of one of the marks following the expropriation carried out by one of those States before the Community was established.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
From the time of that expropriation and despite their common origin each of those trade marks performed independently and in its particular territorial area the rôle of guaranteeing that the products bearing the trade mark came from a single source.