natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Europa-Parlamentet anførte videre, at den foreliggende sag viste, at Kommissionen ikke kunne leve op til dette ansvar, idet den havde baseret sit forslag på et andet retsgrundlag end det, Parlamentet anså for korrekt. Følgelig kunne Parlamentet ikke regne med, at Kommissionen ville værne om dets beføjelser ved et annullationssøgsmål.
However, according to the European Parliament, the present case proved that the Commission could not discharge that responsibility since it had based its proposal on a legal basis other than that considered appropriate by the Parliament.
Europa-Parlamentet tilføjede, at Rådets vedtagelse af den anfægtede retsakt ikke kunne anses for et stiltiende afslag på at handle, som giver Parlamentet mulighed for at anlægge passivitetssøgsmål.
The European Parliament added that the Council's adoption of the contested measure could not be regarded as an implied refusal to take
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at den i dommen af 27. september 1988 havde angivet grundene til, at Europa-Parlamentet ikke havde beføjelse til at anlægge sag i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 173.
Therefore, according to the Parliament, there was a gap in the law which the Court had to fill by recognizing the European Parliament's capacity to bring an action for annulment to the extent necessary to safeguard its own prerogatives.
Herefter henviste den til forskellige retsmidler, som kan bringes i anvendelse med henblik på at sikre, at Parlamentets beføjelser overholdes.
By way of preliminary, the Court observed that in its judgment of 27 September 1988, after having stated the reasons why the Parliament did not have the capacity to bring an action under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty, it had pointed out that various legal remedies were available to ensure that the Parliament's prerogatives were protected.
Omstændighederne og forhandlingerne i den foreliggende sag har imidlertid vist, at de forskellige retsmidler, der er omhandlet såvel i Euratom-Traktatens som i EØF-Traktaten - hvor nyttige og varierede de end er - ikke fuldt ud kan sikre, at en retsakt udstedt af Rådet eller Kommissionen, som tilsidesætter Parlamentets beføjelser, i alle tilfælde undergives en prøvelse.
The Court stated, however, that the circumstances and the arguments of the present case showed that the existence of those various legal remedies provided for by the Euratom Treaty and by the EEC Treaty, however effective and varied they may be, were not sufficient to guarantee, in all circumstances, that an act of the Council or the Commission which disregarded the Parliament's prerogatives would be censured.
Under disse omstændigheder kan det forhold, at der ikke i Traktaterne findes en bestemmelse, der giver Parlamentet ret til at anlægge annullationssøgsmål, udgøre en processuel lakune, men det kan ikke gøres gældende over for den grundlæggende interesse i, at den institutionelle balance, der er fastlagt i Traktaterne, opretholdes og respekteres.
Under those circumstances, the absence in the treaties of a provision giving the Parliament the right to bring an action for annulment might constitute a procedural gap, but it could not prevail over the fundamental interest which attached to the maintenance of and compliance with the institutional balance laid down in the treaties.
Domstolen udtalte, at Parlamentet følgelig ved Domstolen kan anlægge et annullationssøgsmål, som er rettet mod en retsakt udstedt af Rådet eller Kommissionen, såfremt dette søgsmål kun har til formål at sikre dets beføjelser, og Parlamentet kun støtter sig på, at disse er tilsidesat.
Consequently, the Court stated that an action for annulment brought by the Parliament against an act of the Council or of the Commission was admissible provided that the action in question sought only to safeguard its prerogatives and that it was founded only on submissions based on the infringement of those prerogatives.
Da Parlamentet havde gjort gældende, at der forelå en tilsidesættelse af dets beføjelse til at deltage i den samarbejdsprocedure, der er fastlagt i EØF-Traktaten, som følge af Rådets valg af hjemmel for den anfægtede forordning, som fratog det den mulighed, den nævnte procedure giver for at deltage mere intenst og mere aktivt i udarbejdelsen af retsakten end under en høringsprocedure, fandt Domstolen, at sagen måtte antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Court stated that since the Parliament had submitted that its prerogative to participate in the co-operation procedure laid down by the EEC Treaty was infringed as the result of the Council's choice of legal basis for the contested regulation, which would have deprived it of the opportunity provided by the abovementioned procedure for more intensive and more active participation in the drafting of the measure than in the consultation procedure, it followed from all the above that the present action was admissible.
Domstolen udtalte og bestemte:
"The Court ruled as follows:
Rådets påstand om sagens afvisning tages ikke til følge.
The objection of inadmissibility raised by the Council is rejected.
Generaladvokaten Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 30. november 1989.
Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 30 November 1989.
Han fremsatte følgende forslag til afgørelse: "Jeg kommer til den konklusion, at nærværende sag, som Parlamentet har anlagt på grundlag af EØF-Traktatens artikel 173 og/eller Euratom-Traktatens artikel 146 må antages til realitets-
He concluded: "I have reached the conclusion that the present action brought by the Parliament under Article 173 of the EEC and/or Article 146 of the Euratom Treaty must be declared admissible by virtue of the first paragraph (or in the alternative the second paragraph) of the abovementioned provisions.
Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger bør udsættes".
The costs must be reserved".
Sag C-332/88: S.A. Alimenta mod S.A. Doux
Case C-332/88: S.A. Alimenta ν S.A. Doux - 22 May 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling)
22.5.1990 (Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Tribunal de commerce de Quimper) )
(Agriculture - Restrictions on intra-Community trade in poultrymeat -Health grounds - Legal effect of an opinion delivered by a veterinary expert) (First Chamber)
Tribunal de commerce de Quimper havde ved dom af 30. september 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 16. november s.a., anmodet Domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 71/118/EØF.
By a judgment of 30 September 1988, which was received at the Court on 16 November 1988, the Tribunal de Commerce, Quimper, referred for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 10 of Council Directive 71/118/EEC.
Spørgsmålet herom var rejst under en sag, som det græske selskab S.A. Alimenta havde anlagt mod det franske selskab S.A. Doux vedrørende det sagsøgte selskabs levering af et parti rensede og slagtede kyllinger med indvolde.
That question was raised in proceedings between S.A. Alimenta, a company incorporated under Greek law, and S.A. Doux, a company incorporated under French law, concerning the supply by Doux of chickens, drawn and with offal.
Nævnte ret udsatte sagen og anmodede Domstolen om at tage stilling til, hvilken retsvirkning der skal tillægges udtalelsen fra en i medfør af artikel 10 i direktiv 71/118 udpeget veterinærsagkyndig. nærsagkyndig.
Following decisions by the Greek veterinary authorities to declare the goods unfit for human consumption and to confiscate them, Doux made a request under Article 10 of Directive 71/118 for the opinion of a veterinary expert Included in the panel drawn up by the Commission.
Sagsøgte i hovedsagen gjorde gældende, at den udtalelse, der afgives af den veterinærsagkyndige, der er udpeget på grundlag af Kommissionens liste, må antages ikke blot at være en sagkyndig kontraefterprøvelse men også en endelig afgørelse af de spørgsmål, den vedrører.
That expert concluded that there was no reason why the goods in question should not have been found to comply with the requirements of the directive.
Domstolen fastslog herom, at den sagkyndiges opgave er at afgive en udtalelse, men ikke at træffe en afgørelse.
The Greek authorities, however, refused to release the goods and thereby prevented them from being sold.
Såfremt Rådet havde haft
Alimenta took the view that Doux
- 5 - til hensigt at give den sagkyndige en sådan kompetence ville dette udtrykkeligt være blevet sagt. Ordet "afgøre" kunne ifølge Domstolen ikke betyde "beslutte" endeligt med bindende virkning; med anvendelsen af dette ord angives alene, at den sagkyndige skal danne sig sine egn mening vedrørende spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt betingelserne i artikel 9, stk. 1, har været opfyldt. Den ved direktivet etablerede procedure medførte ifølge Domstolen ikke nødvendigvis, at den sagkyndiges udtalelse har retligt bindende virkninger.
5 - had failed to meet Its contractual obligations by supplying goods which could not be marketed, and brought the company before the Tribunal de Commerce, Quimper, to seek compensation with Interest.
"Den udtalelse fra en veterinærsagkyndig, der er omhandlet i artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 71/118/EØF af 15. februar 1971 om sundhedsmæssige problemer i forbindelse med handel med fersk fjerkrækød er ikke en endelig og bindende udtalelse, men en vigtig del af grundlaget for den afgørelse, de nationale myndigheder og den nationale ret, der eventuelt får sagen forlagt, skal træffe."
According to the defendant in the main proceedings, the opinion of the expert selected from the panel drawn up by the Commission constituted not only a second opinion but also a definitive decision; it referred in that regard to the wording of the aforementioned Article 10 which required that the expert in question should have an opportunity of "determining" whether the conditions of Article 9 (1) had been fulfilled.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 7. marts 1990."
The Court held in that connexion that the expert was called upon to deliver an opinion, and not to take a decision.
Hans forslag gik ud på følgende: "Artikel 10 i Rådets direktiv 71/118/EØF skal fortolkes således, at den udtalelse, der afgives af den i denne bestemmelse omhandlede veterinærsagkyndige, ikke er bindende for medlemsstaternes nationale myndigheder".
While an opinion could, in certain cases, produce binding legal effects, the directive did not at any point state that the opinion in question was to be absolutely binding on national or Community authorities.
Sag C-251/88: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland
If the Council had intended to confer on the expert a decision-making power of that kind, the Court held, it would have done so in express terms.
23.5.1990 "Financierings- og budgetbestemmelser - traktatbrud - egne indtægter hidrørende fra merværdiafgifter - beregningsmetode ved indregning af afgiftsfrie transaktioner" (Domstolens plenum)
The word "determining" could not be understood as being decisive or binding in meaning; it meant solely that the expert had to form his own opinion as to whether or not the conditions for the application of Article 9 (1) had been satisfied.
Kommissionen mente, at en sådan beregningsmetode, nemlig en nedsættelse af beregningsgrundlaget for egne momsindtægter på grund af fradraget af Bundespost's eventuel indgående moms på telekommunikationsområdet, indebar en tilsidesættelse af artikel 2, stk. 2, tredje led, i forordning nr. 2892/77.
"The opinion delivered by a veterinary expert provided for under Article 10 of Council Directive 71/118/EEC of 15 February 1971 on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat is not decisive or binding in its effect but does represent an important factor to be taken into account by national authorities or courts before which proceedings may be brought."
Som grundlag for søgsmålet havde Kommissionen i første række støttet sig til ordlyden i artikel 9, stk. 2, andet led, i den nævnte forordning.
He proposed that the Court should reply to the question referred as follows: "Article 10 of Council Directive 71/118/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the opinion delivered by a veterinary expert provided for under that provision is not binding on the national authorities of Member States".
Kommissionen havde for det andet gjort gældende, at artiklerne 2 og 9 i for ordning nr. 2892/87 tjente det formål at neutralisere virkningerne for fællesskabsindtægterne af de undtagelsesordninger, som medlemsstaterne har ret til at anvende, samt at den beregningsmetode, som Tyskland har anvendt, f8rer til et opkrævningsgrundlag ved beregningen af egne momsindtægter, som afhænger af den anvendte momssats.
(Financial and budgetary provisions - Failure of a Member State to fulfil Its obligations - Own resources accruing from VAT - Method of calculation applied for the Incorporation of exempt transactions) (Full Court)
Derved ligestilles for så vidt angår egne indtægter de medlemsstater, der har fritaget et område, med de medlemsstater, der opkræver moms for området. det.
On 15 September 1988 it therefore made the present application for a declaration that the FRG had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.
Domstolen bemærkede i Øvrigt, at momssatsen ved opkrævning af merværdiafgift i alle omsætningsled ikke har indflydelse på grundlaget for beregningen af egne indtægter.
The Commission, in support of its application, first relied on the wording of the second indent of Article 9 (2) of the aforementioned regulation.
Domstolen udtaler og bestemte:
The Court was unable to accept that argument.
Han foreslog "at frifinde sagsøgte og at pålægge Kommissionen sagens omkostninger". ninger".
In that way, Member States which chose to exempt a particular sector were
23.5.1990 "Afgifter - Rådets direktiv 83/183/EØF - national lovgivning der ikke opfylder forpligtelserne efter fællesskabsretten"
The Court also ruled that, in the case of taxation of the value added on at each production stage, the rate of VAT had no effect on the basis of assessment for the calculation of VAT own resources.
Ved stævning, indgivet den 3. februar 1989, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF-Traktaten, idet det ikke indrømmer nogle afgiftsfritagelser i medfør af Rådets direktør 83/183/EØF.
In so far as the amount deducted by the FRG from the turnover achieved by the Bundespost in the sphere of telecommunications corresponded exactly to the amount of VAT paid to its suppliers, the VAT rate applied had no bearing on the basis of assessment calculated from the sum of the net purchase value and the value added by the Bundespost.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Court held as follows:
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Commission is ordered to pay the costs."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 14. februar 1990.
Mr Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 22 February 1990.
Hans forslag lød: "I den mod Kongeriget Spanien anlagte sag bør der efter min mening gives dom efter Kommissionens påstand".
He proposed that the Court should "dismiss the action and order the Commission to pay the costs".
Ved dom af 25. april 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 16. maj s.a., stillede Nederlandenes Hoge Raad et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Traktatens artikler 30 og 36. Dette spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en straffesag mod en viktualiehandler, Gourmetterie Van den Burg.
By not granting exemption from value added tax for permanent imports from another Member State by individuals of motor vehicles for private use, trailers, motor cycles, pleasure boats and private aircraft, contrary to Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Inspektører, som skulle sikre overholdelsen af den nederlandske lov om fugle, havde i Gourmetterie Van den Burgs lokaler beslaglagt en død rype.
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 14 February 1990.
Ván den Burg ankede denne dom og gjorde gældende, ét den konfiskerede rype var blevet lovligt dræbt i Det Forenede Kongerige i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2 og 3, sammenholdt med bilag III, 1, nr. 2, i Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF om beskyttelse af vilde fugle.
Case C-169/89: Criminal proceedings against Gourmetterie Van den Burg - 23 May 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - Prohibition on the importation of birds) (Sixth Chamber)
Hoge Raads spørgsmål gik ud på, om det omtvistede forbud kunne anses for at være en foranstaltning, der var berettiget af hensyn til beskyttelse áf dyrs sundhed og liv som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 36.
By a judgment of 25 April 1989, which was received at the Court on 16 May 1989, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden referred for a preliminary ruling one question on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the Treaty.
Domstolen udtalte, at det følger af de generelle beskyttelsesformål med direktiv 79/409/EØF, at skønt medlemsstaterne kan fastsætte strengere regler end direktivets for at sikre en endnu mere effektiv beskyttelse af vandrende eller særligt truede arter, kan de alene indføre sådanne bestemmelser for de fugle arter, der lever på deres område.
That Law was designed to protect birds occurring in the wild state in Europe and prohibited, inter alia, the importation and possession of red grouse. Gourmetterie appealed against that fine and submitted that the confiscated red grouse had been lawfully killed in the United Kingdom in compliance with the combined provisions of Article 6 (2) and (3) of and Annex III/l (2) to Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.
Heraf fulgte, at direktivets artikel 14 ikke giver en medlemsstat kompetence til at give en bestemt fugleart, som hverken er en vandrende art eller truet, en mere omfattende beskyttelse ved et forbud mod indførsel og forhandling end den, der er fastsat i lovgivningen i dèn medlemsstat, på hvis område den pågældende fugl lever, når denne lovgivning er i overensstemmelse med direktiv 79/409/EØF.
It followed from the general protective objectives established by Directive 79/409/EEC that while Member States were permitted to introduce more stringent measures than those provided for by the directive in order to ensure more effective protection for migratory or particularly endangered species, they were not entitled, on the other hand, to adopt measures of that kind for the benefit of other species of birds, with the exception of species which occurred in their territory.
"Traktatens artikel 36 sammenholdt med Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF af 2. april 1979 om beskyttelse af vilde fugle skal fortolkes således, at et forbud mod indførsel og forhandling ikke er berettiget med hensyn til en fugleart, som dels ikke befinder sig på den lovgivende medlemsstats område, men lever i en anden medlemsstat, hvor den kan jages efter di rektivets bestemmelser og efter denne anden medlemsstats lovgivning, og dels hverken er en trækfugleart eller en truet art i direktivets for stand."
The Court went on to rule that the red grouse in question was neither a migratory species nor a particulary endangered species included in Annex I to the Directive and noted that, in any case, it was not found in the Netherlands.
Han foreslog at besvare spørgsmålet således: "EØF­Traktatens artikler om frie varebevægelser skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for anvendelse af en national retsregel, der indeholder et forbud mod forhandling og indførsel af alle eksemplarer, selv døde, af en fugleart, som ikke forekommer i levende live i den lovgivende medlemsstat, men forekommer i rigelig mængde i en anden medlemsstat, hvor den kan jages uden overtrædelse af den i denne stat gældende ret, i overensstemmelse med klassifikationen af den pågældende art i bilagene II/1 og III/I i direktiv 79/409/EØF og i overensstemmelse med de nationale bestemmelser i denne anden medlemsstat, som finder anvendelse på grundlag af di rektivet".
He proposed that the Court should reply to the question referred as follows: "The articles of the EEC Treaty relating to the free movement of goods must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national rule of law which prohibits the marketing and importation of all birds, even dead ones, belonging to a species which is not found live in the legislating Member State but which occurs abundantly in another Member State where it may lawfully be killed, in accordance with the classification of the species in question under Annexes II/l and III/l to Directive 79/409/EEC and in accordance with the national rules of that other Member State applicable under the latter directive".
Sag C­35/88 Kommissionen mod Grækenland
Cases C-35/88
Sag C­347/88 Kommissionen mod Grækenland
Case C-347/88
23.5.1990 En stats traktatbrud ­ EØF­Traktatens artikler 30, 34 og 37, stk. 1 ­ ordning for import og handel med mineralolieprodukter ­enerettigheder ­ ordning med maksimale forbrugerpriser. Generaladvokat: Tesauro.
Commission ν Greece - 23 May 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Articles 30, 34 and 37 (1) of the EEC Treaty - Import, export and marketing system for petroleum products -Exclusive rights - System of maximum consumer prices Advocate General: G. Tesauro Language of the case: Greek
B. For retten i Første Instans
Before the Court of First Instance
De forenede sager C-297/88 og C-197/89 Hassam Dzodzi mod den belgiske stat
Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89:
22.5.1990 (Præjudiciel) Bundesfinanzhof Fortolkning af Den Fælles Toldtarif - tarifering - pos.
K. Gmurzynska-Bscher ν Oberfinanzdirektion Köln - 22 May
Sag C-208/88 Kommissionen mod Danmark
Case C-208/88
(Genstand: se sag 208/88) Generaladvokat: Darmon. Processprog: engelsk.
Commission ν Ireland - 23 May 1990 (Subject: see Case C-208/88) Advocate General : M. Darmon Language of the case: English
Sag T-45/89 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-46/89
Sag C-92/90 Kommissionen mod Grækenland Trakatbrud - Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2374/79 af 26. oktober 1979 om salg til nedsat pris af visse oksekødsprodukter, som ihterventionsorganerne ligger inde med, til visse institutioner og organer med socialt formål, om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 1687/76 og om ophævelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 2035/74 og (EØF) hr. 2036/74 - monopol på forsyning af de nævnte institutioner og organer forbeholdt én ikke udpeget mellemmand. Processprog: græsk.
Commission ν Greece Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2374/79 of 26 October 1979 on the sale at reduced prices of certain products in the beef and veal sector held by intervention agencies to certain welfare institutions and bodies, amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1687/76 and repealing Regulations (EEC) No. 2035/74 and (EEC) No. 2036/74 - Monopoly on the supply to the aforementioned institutions and bodies reserved for an intermediary not chosen by them Language of the case: Greek
Sag C-93/90 E. Cassameli, enke efter Barom'o mod Office National des Pensions, tidligere ONPTS m.fl.
Case C-93/90
(Præjudiciel) Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles Fortolkning af artikel 51 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 -sammenlægning af alders- og efterladtepensioner - virkningen af den tilpasning af ydelserne til leveomkostningerne, der foretages i en medlemsstat, på størrelsen af de ydelser, der udbetales i en anden medlemsstat - ny beregning af en belgisk pension på grund af forhøjelse af en italiensk pension som følge af pristalsregulering. Processprog: fransk.
E. Cassameli, widow of the late Mr Baronio ν Office National des Pensions, formerly O.N.P.T.S., and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling) Tribunal du Travail de Bruxelles Interpretation of Article 51 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 - Overlapping of retirement and survivor's pensions - Effect on the level of benefits given in one Member State of the recalculation of benefits in another Member State to bring them into line with the cost of living - Recalculation of a Belgian pension by virtue of the increase in an Italian pension through index-linking Language of the case: French