natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 478/95 af 1. marts 1995 om supplerende bestemmelser for anvendelsen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 404/93, forså vidt angår ordningen vedrørende toldkontingentet for indførsel af bananer til Fællesskabet og om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 1442/93, er ugyldig, for så vidt den i artikel 3, stk. 2, kun pålægger de erhvervsdrivende i kategori A og C pligt til at indhente eksportlicenser til indførsel af bananer med oprindelse i Columbia, Costa Rica og Nicaragua.·
Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93 is invalid to the extent to which Article 3(2) thereofimposes only on Category A and C operators the obligation to obtain export licences for bananas from Colombia, Costa Rica or Nicaragua.'
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 24. juni 1997.
Advocate General M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 24 June 1997.
Han foreslog at besvare de stillede spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court reply as follows:
»1) Bestemmelsen i EF-traktatens artikel 234, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at den ikke giver en national ret adgang til at fravige reglerne i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 404/93 af 13. februar 1993 om den fælles markedsordning for bananer, som ændret senest ved Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3290/94 af 22. december 1994 om de tilpasninger og overgangsforanstaltninger, der er nødvendige i landbrugssektoren for gennemførelsen af de aftaler, som er indgået under de multilaterale handelsforhandlinger i Uruguay-rundens regi, eller i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 478/95 al 1. marts 1995 om supplerende bestemmelser for anvendelsen afgrundforordningen for så vidt angår ordningen vedrørende toldkontingentet for indførsel af bananer til Fællesskabet og om ændring al forordning (EØF) nr. 1442/93, i en sag om indførsel af bananer fra et tredjeland, der ikke har liltradi en international konvention, der er indgået af medlemsstaterne før traktatens ikrafttræden.
(1) Properly construed, the first paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty does not permit a national court to refuse to apply the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February 1993 on the common organisation of lhe market in bananas, as most recently amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 of 22 December 1994 on the adjustments and transitional arrangements required in the agriculture sector in order to implement the agreements concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, or of Commission Regulation (EC) No 478/95 of 1 March 1995 on additional rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 as regards the tariff quota arrangements for imports of bananas into the Community and amending Regulation (EEC) No 1442/93, in a case involving imports of bananas from a third country which is not party to an international agreement concluded by Member States before the entry into force of the Treaty.
Præjudiciel »Restitutioner for anvendelse af sukker ved fremstillingen asteniske produkter - tarifering· (Fjerde Afdeling) såvel retssikkerheds- som kontroltekniske hensyn, at det afgørende kriterium ved tarifering af varer normalt vil være disses objektive karakteristika og egenskaber som beskrevet i den enkelte position i KN og de supplerende bestemmelser til dennes afsnit og kapitler.
Preliminary ruling (Refund for use of sugar in the manufacture products — Tariff classification) (Fourth Chamber) a medicament in Community legislation (other than that relating specifically to classification in the combined nomenclature) or in the national legislation of the Member States, or in any pharmacopoeia, is not the deciding factor in so far as its classification in this chapter is concerned'.
Ved dom af 12. juni 1996 har Tribunal administratif de Paris forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1010/86 af 25. marts 1986 som ændret ved artikel 9 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1714/88 af 13. juni 1988, og af kapitel 30 i den kombinerede nomenklatur, således som fastsat i bilag 1 til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 af 23. juli 1987 (herefter »KN«).
By judgment of 12 June 19%, the Tribunal Administratif (Administrative Court), Paris, referred for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 as amended by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 and on the interpretation of Chapter 30 of the Combined Nomenclature, as established by Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 (hereinafter 'the CN').
Det bemærkes, at de generelle bemærkninger, der er anført forud for de forklarende bemærkninger til De Europæiske Fællesskabers kombinerede nomenklatur, for så vidt angår kapitel 30 i KN indeholder følgende præcisering: »Tariferingen eller beskrivelsen af et produkt som et lægemiddel i fællesskabslovgivningen (andre end den, der er specielt knyttet til tariferingen i KN) eller i den nationale lovgivning eller i nogen farmakopé er ikke bestemmende for tariferingen i dette kapitel«.
That question has arisen in the course of proceedings between Laboratoires Sarget SA and the Fonds d'Intervention et de Régularisation du Marché du Sucre (Sugar Market Intervention and Stabilisation Fund) concerning repayment of production refunds granted to Sarget as an undertaking using sugar in the manufacture of certain chemical products.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag mellem Laboratoires Sarget SA og Fonds d'intervention et de régularisation du marché du sucre angående et krav om tilbagebetaling af produktionsrestitutioner, der var ydet Sarget, fordi virksomheden havde anvendt sukker ved fremstillingen af visse kemiske produkter.
Regulation No 1010/86, as amended by Article 9 of Regulation No 1714/88 following the introduction of the CN, deals with the granting of refunds to undertakings that use sugar in the manufacture of certain chemical products.
Forordning nr. 1010/86, som ændret ved artikel 9 i forordning nr. 1714/88 efter indførelsen af KN, indeholder regler om ydelse af restitutioner til virksomheder, der anvender sukker ved fremstillingen af visse kemiske produkter.
It should also be noted that, in Delattre [1991], the Court held that, with regard to Directive 65/65, the fact that a product is classified as a foodstuff in another Member Slate cannot prevent its being classified as a medicinal product in the Member State concerned if it displays the characteristics of such a product.
Del forelagte spørgsmål må forstås på den måde, al retten ønsker oplysl, om produkter, som indeholder de samme stoffer som Sargenor, Lysivit, Särvit og Dynamisan og i samme forhold, henhører under kapital 30 i KN og følgelig er omfattet af forordning 1010/86, som affattet i henhold til artikel 9 i forordning nr. 1714/88.
The question referred to the Court must therefore be construed as seeking to ascertain whether products composed of ingredients identical to those contained in Sargcnor, Lysivit, Särvit or Dynamisan, and in the same proportions, fall under Chapter 30 of the CN and consequently under Regulation No 1010/86, as amended by Article 9 of Regulation No 1714/88.
Begrebet farmaceutisk produkt i KN er ikke det samme som begrebet lægemiddel, der forekommer i direktiv 65/65.
The fact that, pursuant to the provisions of Directive 65/65, marketing authorisations were granted for the products at issue in the main proceedings by the compelem French authorities and, consequently, that those products are regarded as medicinal products under French legislation docs not therefore necessarily mean that they must be classified as pharmaceutical products in the CN.
I henhold lil direktivet er det med henblik på at fremme samhandelen og samtidig beskytte den offentlige sundhed muligt, at et relativt vidt spektrum af produkter omfattes af den kontrolordning, der er fastsat i lovgivningen om lægemidler.
It is settled case-law that, in the interests of legal certainly and case of verification, the decisive criterion for the classification of goods for customs purposes is in general to be sought in their objective characteristics and properties as defined in the wording of the relevant heading of the CN.
Endvidere bemærkes, at i dom af 21. marts 1991, Delatire, fastslog Domstolen med hensyn til direktiv 65/65. at det forhold, at et produkt betegnes som levnedsmiddel i en anden medlemsstat, ikke er tilstrækkeligt grundlag for et forbud mod, at produktet i den pågældende stat anerkendes som lægemiddel, når det fremviser sådanne egenskaber. I samme dom fastslog Domstolen også, at så længe harmoniseringen af de
Moreover, in Bioforce ν Oberfinanzdirektion München [1993], paragraph 12, the Court ruled that a pharmaceutical product within the meaning of heading 3(X)4 of the CN has clearly defined therapeutic and, above all, prophylactic characteristics, the effect of which is concentrated on precise functions of the human organism.
Med henblik på besvarelsen af spørgsmålet bemærkes, at efter fast retspraksis følger det af
Reference should be made to the general comments preceding the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities relating to Chapter 30 of the CN, which state that 'the description of a product as
foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at sikre beskyttelsen af sundheden, ikke er fuldstændig, består der forskelle mellem medlemsstaterne, for så vidt angår betegnelsen af produkterne.
It is therefore necessary to examine whether the products in question have therapeutic and prophylactic characteristics and, in particular, whether they are capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of diseases or ailments.
Lysivit og Särvit
Sargenor and Dynamisan
Sagsøgeren findes ikke at have bevist, at Lysivit og Särvit havde en vis terapeutisk og præcis profylaktisk virkning, navnlig på visse funktioner i den menneskelige organisme, og heller ikke, at produkterne kunne anvendes med henblik på forebyggelse eller behandling af en sygdom eller en lidelse.
It has not been established that either Lysivit or Särvit had clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism or that they were capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of specific diseases or ailments.
I øvrigt bemærkes, at i dom af 14. januar 1993, Bioforce, fastslog Domstolen, at et farmaceutisk produkt, som omhandlet i pos. 3004 i KN, har en vis terapeutisk, men især præcis profylaktisk virkning, navnlig på visse funktioner i den menneskelige organisme.
Nor has it been established that Sargenor and Dynamisan had clearly defined therapeutic or prophylactic characteristics with an effect concentrated on precise functions of the human organism or that they are capable of being applied in the prevention or treatment of specific diseases or ailments.
Sagsøgeren findes ikke at have bevist, at Sargenor og Dynamisan havde en vis terapeutisk og præcis profylaktisk virkning, navnlig på visse funktioner i den menneskelige organisme, og heller ikke, at produkterne kunne anvendes med
'Products consisting of ingredients identical to those contained in Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit and Särvit and in the same proportions cannot be classified under heading 3004 of the Combined Nomenclature as established in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, and consequently do not come within the scope of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1010/86 of 25 March 1986 laying down general rules for the production refund on certain sugar products used in the chemical industry, as amended by Article 9 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1714/88 of 13 June 1988 amending certain Regulations concerning the application of the common market organisation for sugar following the introduction of the Combined Nomenclature.'
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
He proposed that the Court rule on the question referred to it as follows:
•Produkter, som indeholder de samme stoffer som Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit og Särvit og i samme forhold, må ikke tariferes i pos.
The Common Customs Tariff should be interpreted to the effect that 'Pharmaceutical products' in Chapter 30 does not cover products with the composition of Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit and Särvit.
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling) den 17. juli 1997.
Case C-187/96 Commission of the European Communities ν Hellenic Republic Freedom of movement for persons
»Den fælles toldtarif skal fortolkes således, at begrebet 'farmaceutiske produkter' i kapitel 30 ikke omfatter produkter med en sammensætning som Sargenor, Dynamisan, Lysivit og Särvit.«
(Failure of a Member Slate to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for workers Article 48 of the EC Treaty Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Person working in the public service of a Member State — Mutual recognition of periods of employment in the public service of another Member State) (Fifth Chamber) if it is intrinsically liable to affect migrant workers more than national workers and if there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage.
Sag C-187/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Hellenske Republik Fri bevægelighed for personer
It is clear from the documents before the Court that the provisions of the contested legislation, at least in iheir application, render it absolutely impossible for periods of employment in the public service of a Member State other than the Hellenic Republic to be taken into account for the purposes of a worker's salary scale grading and lhe grant of a seniority increment, whereas periods of employment already completed in Greek public service arc, in certain cases, taken into account.
»Traktatbrud arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed EF-traktatens artikel 48 - artikel 7 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1612168 person beskæftiget i den offentlige administration i en medlemsstat gensidig anerkendelse af beskæftigebesperioder i den offentlige administration i en anden medlemsstat· (Femte Afdeling) offentlige administration« ikke finder anvendelse i dette tilfælde, da bestemmelsen alene fastsætter, at en medlemsstat kan udelukke andre medlemsstaters statsborgere fra visse stillinger i den offentlige administration.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 3 June 19%, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that by excluding, by regulation or administrative practice, the taking into account of previous employment in the public service of another Member State for the purposes of granting to an employee in Greek public service a seniority increment and grading him on the salary scale, on the sole ground that that previous employment was not performed in Greek public service, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under Community law, in particular under Articles 5 and 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968.
Denne undtagelse vedrører ikke omstændigheder, som en medlemsstat kan tage hensyn til ved fastlæggelsen af lønvilkårene for en arbejdstager, som allerede har fået adgang til at arbejde i den pågældende medlemsstats offentlige administration.
That rule, which plainly operates to the detriment of migrant workers who have spent part of their working life in the public service of a Member State other than the Hellenic Republic, is therefore such as to contravene the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 48 of the Treaty and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 1612/68.
Endvidere bemærkes, at ligebehandlingsprincippet i såvel traktatens artikel 48 som artikel 7 i forordning nr. 1612/68 ifølge Domstolens faste praksis ikke alene forbyder åbenlys forskelsbehandling begrundet i nationalitet, men enhver form for skjult forskelsbehandling, som ved anvendelse af andre kriterier reelt fører til samme resultat.
The Court must observe, first of all, that the derogation contained in Article 48(4) of the EC Treaty, by virtue of which the provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers do not apply 'to employment in the public service', does not apply in the present case since that provision merely provides for the possibility for Member States to exclude nationals of other Member States from access to certain posts in the public service.
Ved stævning, indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 3. juni 1996, har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter fællesskabsretten, nærmere bestemt forpligtelserne efter EF-traktatens artikel 5 og 48 samt artikel 7, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968, da Den Hellenske Republik ved anvendelse af retsforskrifter eller en administrativ praksis udelukker, at der ved tildeling af anciennitetsforbedring og lønmæssig indplacering af en arbejdstager, som er ansat i den græske offentlige administration, tages hensyn til tidligere ansættelser i den offentlige administration i en anden medlemsstat udelukkende af den grund, at der ikke har været tale om ansættelser i den græske offentlige administration.
Consequently, even in the absence of specific Community legislation on this matter, it is for the Hellenic Republic to establish, at the request of the person concerned, whether or not the post he held in another Member State is equivalent to a post in Greek public service which is taken into account for the purposes of salary scale grading and the grant of a seniority increment. The fact that the Member State in question considers that in practice it is difficult to carry out that comparison cannot in any circumstances justify its refusal to do so.
En national retsforskrift må, medmindre den er objektivt begrundet og står i rimeligt forhold lil det tilstræbte formål, anses for at medføre indirekte forskelsbehandling, når den efter selve sin karakter er egnet til i højere grad at berøre
The Court has consistently held that the equal treatment rule laid down in Article 48 of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 prohibits not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result.
Det bemærkes indledningsvis, at undtagelsen i traktatens artikel 48, stk. 4 hvorefter bestemmelserne om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed ikke gælder for »ansættelser i den
Unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to its aim, a provision of national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory
Det fremgår klart af sagens akter, at de omtvistede lovbestemmelser - i hvert fald som disse bestemmelser anvendes i praksis - helt udelukker, at der ved den lønmæssige indplacering af en arbejdstager og ved tildelingen af en anciennitetsforbedring medregnes ansættelsesperioder, som den pågældende har tilbagelagt i den offentlige administration i en anden medlemsstat end Den Hellenske Republik, hvorimod der i visse tilfælde medregnes ansættelsesperioder tilbagelagt i den græske administration.
Declares that by excluding, by regulation or administrative practice, the taking into account of previous employment in the public service of another Member Stale for the purposes of granting to an employee in Greek public service a seniority increment and of grading him on the salary scale, on the sole ground that the previous employment was not performed in Greek public service, the Hellenic Republic L· in breach of its obligations under Community law, in particular under Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community;
Uanset at der ikke er vedtaget særlige fællesskabsbestemmelser på dette punkt, påhviler det følgelig Den Hellenske Republik efter anmodning fra den pågældende at afgøre, om den ansættelse, som denne har haft i en anden medlemsstat, kan ligestilles med en ansættelse i den græske administration, som medregnes ved den lønmæssige indplacering og ved tildelingen af en anciennitetsforbedring.
Declare that, by refusing to recognise periods of employment previously completed by its employees in the public service of the other Member States, on the same conditions as those on which it recognises employment in its own service, for the purposes of classification in the salary scales, award of additional seniority and determining remuneration, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68;
Den omstændighed, at den pågældende medlemsstat finder, at det i
Case C-344/96 Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany Agriculture
»1) Den Hellenske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter fællesskabsretten, nærmere bestemt forpligtelserne efter EF-traktatens artikel 48 og artikel 7, stk 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet, da den ved anvendelse af retsforskrifter eller en administrativ praksis udelukker, at der ved tildeling af anciennitetsforbedring og lønmæssig indplacering af en arbejdstager, som er ansat i den græske offentlige administration, tages hensyn til tidligere ansætteber i den offentlige administration i en anden medlemsstat udelukkende af den grund, at der ikke har været tale om ansættelser i den græske offentlige administration.
(Failure to fulfil obligations Failure to transpose Directives 93162/EEC, 93/63/EEC, 93/64/EEC, 93/78/EEC, 93/79/EEC and 94/3/EC) (Fifth Chamber)
Den Hellenske Republik betaler sagens omkostninger.·
European Communiiics brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 11. december 1997.
periods prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed to comply with:
Han foreslog Domstolen
Commission Directive 93/62/EEC of 5 July 1993,
Sag C-344/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland Landbrug
On 11 February 1997, pursuant to Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, the Commission informed the Court that it wished to discontinue the proceedings with respect to Directive 94/3 and, pursuant to Article 69(5) of those Rules, it applied for an order for costs against the Federal Republic of Germany. It continued with the proceedings with respect to the other directives.
»Traktatbrud - manglende gennemførebe af direktiv 93/62/EØF, 93/63/EØF, 93/64/EØF, 93/78/EØF, 93/791EØF og 94/3/EF· (Femte Afdeling)
Commission Directive 93/64/EEC of 5 July 1993,
Kommissionens direktiv 93/64/EØF af 5. juli 1993
Commission Directive 93/78/EEC of 21 September 1993,
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 17. oktober 1996 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med pastand om, at det fastslås, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme følgende direktiver:
The Federal Republic of Germany does not dispute that Directives 93/62, 93/63, 93/64, 93/78 and 93/79 have not been transposed within the prescribed period. As for the difficulties over interpretation which the German Government raises in that connection, suffice it to note that the Commission was notified of them by memorandum of 10 October 1994 and they were only raised after expiry of the period prescribed for the transposition of the directives in question.
Kommissionens direktiv 93/62/EØF af 5. juli 1993
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.