natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
10 Hvad angår sagens genstand fastslog Rettens præsident for det første, at begæringen om udsættelse af gennemførelsen kun kunne sigte mod at opnå en fritagelse for forpligtelsen til at stille en bankgaranti som betingelse for at undgå en øjeblikkelig inddrivelse af det skyldige restbeløb af den bøde, der blev pålagt ved beslutning 1999/60, og for det andet, at begæringen om udsættelse af tvangsfuldbyrdelsen af beslutningen var irrelevant.
10 As regards the purpose of the proceedings, it was held, first, that the practical object of the application for suspension of operation could only be to obtain release from the obligation to provide a bank guarantee as a condition for postponing recovery of the fine imposed by Decision 1999/60 and, secondly, that the application for stay of enforcement of that decision was devoid of purpose.
11 Det fremgår i øvrigt af den appellerede kendelses præmis 27, at betingelsen om fumus boni juris er opfyldt i denne sag.
11 In paragraph 27 of the order under appeal, it was held that the condition relating to a prima facie case was satisfied.
12 Derimod fandt Rettens præsident for så vidt angår betingelsen om uopsættelighed, at appellanterne ikke havde bevist, at en gennemførelse af beslutning 1999/60 kunne påføre dem en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade.
12 As regards the condition relating to urgency, however, the President of the Court of First Instance formed the view that the applicants had failed to show that implementation of Decision 1999/60 could cause them serious and irreparable damage.
13 Rettens præsident baserede i det væsentlige denne konklusion på fire betragtninger. ninger.
13 The President arrived at that conclusion essentially on the basis of four kinds of consideration.
14 For det første fastslog præsidenten i den appellerede kendelses præmis 33, »at der ikke kan drages nogen konklusioner af de ureviderede tal, sagsøgerne har fremlagt«.
14 First, he held at paragraph 33 of the order under appeal that 'no conclusion [could] be drawn from the unaudited figures produced by the applicants'.
Selskaberne havde nemlig ganske vist fremlagt nogle statusopgørelser, en kort sagkyndig erklæring vedrørende deres likviditet og andre oplysninger hidrørende fra pengeinstitutter, men det fremgår af Rettens præsidents bemærk ninger,
Although they had produced balance sheets, a summary auditor's report on their cash-flow and other information from banking establishments, the President found that:
— at 1998-regnskaberne ikke var blevet revideret (den appellerede kendelses præmis 30)
— the 1998 accounts had not been audited (paragraph 30);
— at betydelige reserver var holdt skjult i de fremlagte tal, eller at der i det mindste bestod en reel uvished på dette punkt (den appellerede kendelses præmis 31)
— the figures produced failed to disclose substantial financial reserves or, at the very least, there was real uncertainty on that point (paragraph 31);
— at der i den korte sagkyndige erklæring ikke var taget hensyn til de disponible likvide midler i en periode på over et år (den appellerede kendelses præmis 32).
— the long-term (a term exceeding one year) liquid funds available to the applicants had not been taken into account in the summary report (paragraph 32).
15 Det fremgår af den appellerede kendelses præmis 35, at det også var uvist, i hvilket omfang W. Henss, der direkte eller indirekte er hovedejer af de fem
15 In paragraph 35 of the order under appeal, it is stated that there was also uncertainty as to the extent to which Mr Henss, who is directly or indirectly the principal owner of the five applicant undertakings, was a creditor in respect of
16 For det andet fastslog Rettens præsident i den appellerede kendelses præmis 34:
16 Secondly, the President of the Court of First Instance noted in paragraph 34 of the order under appeal that:
»Dr. Reimnitz har også henvist til, at den blotte omstændighed, at selskabsdeltagerne eller direktøren for et selskab i bestemte situationer er forpligtet til at indgive konkursbegæring, efter tysk ret ikke er ensbetydende med, at begæringen imødekommes.
'Doctor Reimnitz also stated that, under German law, the mere fact that, in certain situations, the members or chief executive of a company are obliged to apply for bankruptcy proceedings to be commenced does not mean that the application will be accepted.
Det forhold, at en virksomhed har likviditetsvanskeligheder, medfører ikke nødvendigvis, at den må likvideres, og at arbejdspladser således går tabt.
Cash-flow difficulties do not necessarily lead to liquidation of the undertaking and, concomitantly, the loss of jobs.
Sagsøgerne har bekræftet, at der ikke kun efter tysk ret, men også efter østrigsk ret er et alternativ til en konkurs.
The applicants confirmed that, not only under German law but also under Austrian law, there is an alternative to bankruptcy.
En virksomhed, der er insolvent, kan således under den kompetente nationale rets tilsyn indgå et forlig med kreditorerne, som indebærer, at gælden afvikles.«
Thus, where an undertaking is insolvent, it may, under the supervision of the competent national court, enter into a scheme of arrangement with its debtor, under which its debts are discharged.'
17 For det tredje fastslog Rettens præsident i den appellerede kendelses præmis 36, at det måtte anses for passende at tage hensyn til selskabsdeltagernes eventuelle muligheder for at bistå selskabet med at fremskaffe en bankgaranti, og at appellanterne ikke havde forsøgt at bevise, at W. Henns i sin egenskab af direkte eller indirekte hovedejer af de fem virksomheder ikke var i stand til at yde dem en sådan bistand.
17 Thirdly, on the view that it was appropriate to take into account the possibilities available to members of assisting the undertaking in providing a bank guarantee, the President of the Court of First Instance pointed out in paragraph 36 of the order under appeal that the applicants had made no attempt to prove that Mr Henss — in his capacity as principal direct or indirect owner of the five undertakings — was not in a position to provide the necessary assistance.
18 Endelig bemærkede Rettens præsident i den appellerede kendelses præmis 37, at appellanterne ikke havde ført bevis for, at det var umuligt at opnå en bankgaranti for det skyldige bødebeløb, da kun to af selskaberne havde fremlagt erklæringer fra pengeinstitutter, der attesterede disses afvisning af at stille en sådan
18 Lastly, the President observed in paragraph 37 of the order under appeal that the applicants had failed to produce evidence to show that there was no possibility of obtaining a bank guarantee covering the amount of the fine outstanding, since only two of the undertakings in question had produced statements from banking
HFB M.FL. MOD KOMMISSIONEN bankgaranti, og da de kun havde rettet henvendelse til de tre banker, de normalt samarbejdede med.
HFB V COMMISSION institutions confirming their refusal to grant such a guarantee and they had approached only three banks, with which they had regular dealings.
19 På grundlag af alle disse betragtninger konkluderede Rettens præsident i den appellerede kendelses præmis 38, første punktum, at appellanterne ikke havde ført bevis for, at risikoen for konkurs eller likvidation var forudsigelig med en tilstrækkelig grad af sandsynlighed, hvis de skulle stille en bankgaranti for den skyldige del af den pålagte bøde.
19 On the basis of all those considerations, the President of the Court of First Instance concluded, in the first sentence of paragraph 38 of the order under appeal, that the applicants had not produced evidence to show that the risk of bankruptcy or liquidation was foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability in the event of their having to provide a bank guarantee covering the outstanding amount of the fine imposed.
20 Den appellerede kendelses præmis 38, andet punktum, lyder således:
20 It is stated in the second sentence of paragraph 38 of the order under appeal that:
»Det skal herved understreges, at det forhold, at sagsøgerne måtte blive forpligtet til at indgive konkursbegæring, ikke i sig selv kan udgøre en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade ... da formålet med en konkursbehandling netop er at forsøge at sanere de pågældende virksomheder.«
'In that connection, it must be emphasised that the mere risk that the applicants might be obliged to apply for winding-up proceedings cannot constitute serious and irreversible damage..., the object of such proceedings being, on the contrary, to seek to repair the situation of the undertakings concerned.'
Parternes argumenter
The arguments of the parties
21 Appellanterne har til støtte for appellen gjort fire anbringender gældende om tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten, subsidiært om rettergangsfejl, der har krænket deres interesser.
21 The appellants rely on four pleas in law, alleging infringement of Community law and, in the alternative, breach of procedure which adversely affected their interests.
De har nærmere anført, at Rettens præsident har anlagt en
Essentially, they submit that the President of the Court of First Instance
22 Som det første anbringende har appellanterne gjort gældende, at Rettens præsident med urette antog, at det forhold, at appellanterne måtte blive forpligtet til at indgive konkursbegæring, ikke i sig selv kan udgøre en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade, og at formålet med en konkursbehandling er at forsøge at sanere den pågældende virksomhed.
By the first plea, it is maintained that the President erred, first, in his view that the mere risk that the appellants would be compelled to seek commencement of bankruptcy proceedings could not amount to serious and irreparable damage and, second, in considering that the objective of such proceedings was to repair the situation of the undertaking concerned.
Appellanterne har henvist til, at der foreligger en uoprettelig skade, såfremt erstatningen kommer for sent — f.eks. i tilfælde af en konkurs, før der er afsagt dom vedrørende realiteten — og gjort gældende, at det forhold, at den part, der har fremsat begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler, kan blive forpligtet til at indgive konkursbegæring, udgør en sådan uoprettelig skade.
According to the appellants, irreparable damage arises where reparation is attempted too late — for example, where bankruptcy is declared before delivery of the judgment in the main proceedings — and the risk that bankruptcy proceedings may have to be commenced, involving the assets of the party seeking interim relief, constitutes just such a case.
Appellanterne har endvidere anført, at hovedformålet med en konkursbehandling i både Tyskland og Østrig er at fyldestgøre en debitors kreditorer i fællesskab, idet debitors formue realiseres fuldt ud, hvorefter provenuet fordeles mellem kreditorerne.
The appellants also maintain that, both in Germany and in Austria, the primary purpose of insolvency proceedings is to pay off the creditors as a body, the entirety of the debtor's assets being placed in liquidation and the proceeds distributed between the creditors.
Kun under bestemte betingelser, navnlig at kreditorerne indvilger i at give afkald på en stor del af deres krav, kan der træffes beslutning om en anden ordning, der gør det muligt at opretholde virksomheden, inden for rammerne af en plan for afvikling af gælden.
Only in certain circumstances — for instance, in connection with a creditors' agreement to waive many of their rights — could it be decided in the context of insolvency arrangements that, by way of extraordinary settlement, the undertaking could remain in business.
Appellanterne har i denne forbindelse nævnt faktorer som
In that respect, the
HFB M.FL. MOD KOMMISSIONEN forringelse af virksomhedens omdømme, fortabelse af muligheden for at afgive tilbud, kontrol udøvet af tredjemand osv.
HFB V COMMISSION appellants plead inter alia damage to the reputation of the undertaking; loss of tendering capability; and subordination to third parties.
Ifølge appellanterne har Rettens præsident således anlagt en forkert fortolkning af begrebet uoprettelig skade i fællesskabsrettens forstand og foretaget en række konstateringer, der er i modstrid med de oplysninger, der fremgår af sagens akter.
According to the appellants, therefore, the President of the Court of First Instance proceeded on the basis of a misinterpretation of what constitutes irreparable damage for the purposes of Community law and made a number of findings at odds with the evidence in the documents before him.
Da der er tale om en bøde, som endnu ikke er fastsat endeligt, når henses til annullationssøgsmålet til prøvelse af Kommissionens beslutning, kan det retligt ikke retfærdiggøres, at det forlanges af den berørte virksomhed, at den indgiver konkursbegæring, og af kreditorerne, at de giver afkald på en betydelig del af deres fordringer med henblik på at sanere virksomheden.
As regards the payment of a fine which is not yet definitive (given that an action has been brought for annulment of the Commission decision), it is legally indefensible to compel the undertaking concerned to commence insolvency proceedings and its creditors to waive a substantial portion of the monies owed them, in order to redress the situation of the undertaking.
Som det andet anbringende har appellanterne gjort gældende, at Rettens præsident med urette ved bedømmelsen af selskabernes økonomiske kapacitet baserede sig på W. Henss' økonomiske kapacitet som fysisk person og selskabsdeltager, selv om hans hæftelse for selskabernes gæld er begrænset til hans indskud.
By their second plea in law, the appellants argue that the President of the Court of First Instance erred in basing his evaluation of their financial strength on that of Mr Henss, in his capacity as a natural person who is a member of those undertakings, whereas his liability for their company debts is limited to his capital contributions.
En sådan fysisk person, der er selskabsdeltager i en virksomhed, er nemlig ikke en virksomhed som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, eller i artikel 53 i aftalen om Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde.
Indeed, a natural person who is a member of an undertaking does not constitute an undertaking within the meaning of Article 85(1) of the Treaty or Article 53 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.
I modsætning til hvad der gør sig gældende for selskaber inden for samme koncern, er der intet retligt grundlag for at forpligte sådanne selskabsdeltagere til at betale yderligere beløb med henblik på at stille en bankgaranti.
In contrast with the situation of companies which are linked together within a group, there is no legal basis by virtue of which such members may be compelled to pay additional amounts in order to set up a bank guarantee.
Ifølge appellanterne fører Rettens præsidents synspunkt desuden til en diskriminering af virksomheder, hvis selskabsdeltagere kan identificeres, i forhold til virksomheder, hvor de er ukendte, fordi kapitalandelene hele tiden skifter ejere,
The approach adopted by the President of the Court of First Instance also gives rise to discrimination against undertakings whose members are identifiable as compared with undertakings within which, given the continuously changing
30 Som det tredje anbringende har appellanterne anført, at det i forbindelse med en begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler kræves, at det kan forudses med en tilstrækkelig grad af sandsynlighed, at der vil indtræde en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade, og at det ikke skal godtgøres, at der er en absolut vished herfor.
30 By their third plea, the appellants argue that in applications for interim relief, the likelihood of serious and irreparable damage must be established with a sufficient degree of probability, not with absolute certainty.
Den part, der fremsætter begæring om en foreløbig forholdsregel, skal således ikke føre bevis for uopsætteligheden, men blot fremkomme med overbevisende argumenter, således at det »umiddelbart« forekommer berettiget at imødekomme begæringen.
Accordingly, the party seeking interim relief need not prove urgency, but must merely make out a prima facie case for the grant of the measure sought.
Der er dermed knyttet langt mindre strenge krav til bevisbyrden end i de tilfælde, hvor sagsøgeren skal føre fuldt bevis for det, han påberåber sig.
The standard of proof is thus considerably less stringent than that applicable if the appellant had to demonstrate in full its every allegation.
31 Det fremgår imidlertid ifølge appellanterne af den appellerede kendelse, at Rettens præsident i strid med disse principper har stillet alt for store beviskrav til appellanterne, hvilket udgør en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten eller en rettergangsfejl, der har krænket deres interesser.
31 However, according to the appellants, it is clear from the order under appeal that, contrary to those principles, the President of the Court of First Instance required the applicants to provide proof of urgency to too high a standard, thereby committing an infringement of Community law or a procedural irregularity adversely affecting their interests.
Dette er bl.a. tilfældet i den appellerede kendelses præmis 36, for så vidt som der tages hensyn til W. Henss' økonomiske situation, i præmis 37 i relation til beviset for umuligheden af at opnå en bankgaranti og i præmis 38 med hensyn til beviset for risikoen for konkurs eller likvidation af appellanterne.
This is evidenced particularly by paragraph 36 of the order under appeal, concerning the taking into account of the financial situation of Mr Henss; paragraph 37, concerning the evidence that it was impossible to obtain a bank guarantee; and paragraph 38, concerning the evidence that the appellants risked bankruptcy or liquidation.
Appellanterne har derfor anmodet Domstolen om undtagelsesvis at foretage en fornyet prøvelse af de fremlagte beviser og en fornyet konstatering af, hvilke faktiske omstændigheder der »umiddelbart« må anses for godtgjort.
The appellants therefore request the Court of Justice, by way of an exception, to re-examine the evidence submitted and to make fresh findings of fact on the basis that the required standard is justification 'prima facie'.
32 Som det fjerde anbringende har appellanterne gjort gældende, at Rettens præsident har baseret sig på konstateringer, der er i modstrid med de for Retten fremlagte sagsakter.
32 By their fourth plea in law, the appellants argue that the President of the Court of First Instance made several findings at odds with the evidence in the documents before him.
Det fremgår således af den appellerede doms præmis 31, at Rettens præsident rejste tvivl om de fremlagte tal med den begrundelse, at tre af appellanterne havde været i stand til at betale et betydeligt beløb den 5. februar 1999, selv om deres statusopgørelser skulle bevise, at de den 31. december 1998 ikke længere havde tilstrækkelige likvide midler til at betale den resterende del af bøden. Den korte sagkyndige erklæring, der var fremlagt som bilag til begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler, indeholdt imidlertid en behørig forklaring på,
It is clear from paragraph 31 of the order under appeal that the President viewed with scepticism the figures produced to him on the ground that three of the appellants had been in a position to make a substantial payment on 5 February 1999 whereas their balance sheets suggested that, on 31 December 1998, they did not have sufficient cash resources available to pay the balance owing on the fine.
HFB M.FL. MOD KOMMISSIONEN hvorledes det på trods af likviditetsunderskuddet pr. 31. december 1998 havde været muligt at foretage visse betalinger i februar 1999, til skade for anden kortfristet gæld.
HFB V COMMISSION for interim measures, it was duly explained how it was possible, notwithstanding a financial deficit on 31 December 1998, to make certain payments in February 1999 at the cost of certain other short-term debts.
Ifølge appellanterne udgør denne fejl en tilsidesættelse af fællesskabsretten eller en rettergangsfejl, der krænker deres interesser.
According to the appellants, that error amounts to an infringement of Community law or a procedural irregularity adversely affecting their interests.
Kommissionen har indledningsvis redegjort for, hvordan den fortolker den appellerede kendelse.
As a preliminary step, the Commission sets out its own interpretation of the order under appeal.
Den har for det første anført, at Rettens præsidents hovedkonklusion findes i præmis 38, første punktum, hvorefter appellanterne ikke har ført bevis for, at risikoen for konkurs eller likvidation er forudsigelig med en tilstrækkelig grad af sandsynlighed, hvis de skal stille en bankgaranti for den skyldige del af den pålagte bøde.
It maintains, first of all, that the principal conclusion reached by the President of the Court of First Instance is stated in the first sentence of paragraph 38, to the effect that the applicants failed to show that the risk of bankruptcy or liquidation was foreseeable with a sufficient degree of probability in the event of their having to provide a bank guarantee covering the outstanding amount of the fine imposed.
Ifølge Kommissionen skal denne konstatering fra Rettens præsidents side om manglende bevis forstås således, at den også gælder risikoen for, at appellanterne må indgive konkursbegæring.
Next, the Commission maintains that the President's finding as to insufficient proof must be understood as also applying to the risk that the applicants would have to request commencement of bankruptcy proceedings.
Begrundelsen i kendelsen giver nemlig på ingen måde grundlag for at antage, at Rettens præsident har anset sidstnævnte risiko for at være tilstrækkeligt bevist.
According to the Commission, there is nothing in the grounds given in the order under appeal to suggest that the President of the Court of First Instance regarded that risk as sufficiently established.
For så vidt angår den i den appellerede kendelses præmis 38, andet punktum, indeholdte konklusion om, at risikoen for en konkursbegæring ikke udgør en alvorlig og uoprettelig skade, er der ifølge Kommissionen tale om en supplerende eller subsidiær begrundelse.
Lastly, according to the Commission, the finding in the second sentence of paragraph 38 of the order under appeal, to the effect that the risk of having to request commencement of bankruptcy proceedings does not constitute serious and irreparable damage, is in the nature of an additional or alternative ground.
Kommissionen har på denne baggrund konkluderet, at appellen bør forkastes, eftersom de anbringender, der er fremført mod hovedkonklusionen i den appellerede kendelse, nærmere bestemt det andet, tredje og fjerde anbringende,
The Commission concludes that the appeal should be dismissed since the pleas in law put forward in rebuttal of the principal conclusion reached in the order under appeal — specifically, the second, third and fourth pleas — fail to invalidate that
Det første anbringende bør derfor kun undersøges subsidiært.
The first plea in law should therefore be considered merely by way of an alternative argument.
I relation til dette første anbringende har Kommissionen anført, at appellanterne havde erkendt, at der selv efter indgivelsen af en konkursbegæring fortsat er mulighed for at undgå en likviditation af virksomheden.
So far as regards the first plea, the Commission contends that the appellants themselves had acknowledged that, even after the declaration of bankruptcy, there were ways of preventing the undertaking from being placed in liquidation.
Det er i det væsentlige denne betydning, der skal tillægges den appellerede kendelses præmis 38, andet punktum.
That was the thrust of the second sentence of paragraph 38 of the order under appeal.
Hvad angår den skade, appellanterne efter deres egen opfattelse vil lide, selv om konkursbehandlingen måtte munde ud i en aftale eller et forlig, har Kommis sionen gjort gældende, at appellanterne ikke påberåbte sig denne skade i første instans.
The damage which the appellants claim that they would suffer even if the insolvency proceedings culminated in an arrangement or composition was not relied upon at first instance.