natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis er arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed et af Fællesskabets grundlæggende principper, og bestemmelserne til gennemførelse af
It followed that Article 48 (3) must be interpreted as enumerating, in a non-exhaustive way, certain rights benefiting nationals of Member States in the context of the free movement of workers and that that freedom also entailed the right for nationals of Member States to move freely within the territory of the other Member States and to stay there for the purposes of seeking employment.
- 9 - denne frihed skal derfor fortolkes udvidende.
9 - qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged.
Domstolen fastslog herefter, at EØF-Traktatens artikel 48, stk. 3, skal for tolkes således, at den, uden at være udtømmende, regulerer visse rettigheder for medlemsstaternes statsborgere som led i arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, og at den frie bevægelighed også indebærer, at EF-statsborgerne har ret til at bevæge sig frit inden for de andre medlemsstaters område og til at opholde sig på dette område for at søge beskæftigelse dér.
In the absence of a Community provision prescribing the period during which Community nationals seeking employment in a Member State may stay there, a period of six months, such as that as laid down in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, did not appear in principle to be insufficient to enable the persons concerned to apprise themselves, in the host Member State, of offers of employment corresponding to their occupational qualifications and to take, where appropriate, the necessary steps in order to be engaged and, therefore, did not jeopardize the effectiveness of the principle of free movement.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen først, at den tilsigtede virkning med artikel 48 nås, såfremt fællesskabsbestemmelserne eller - hvis sådanne ikke findes -lovgivningen i en medlemsstat giver de arbejdssøgende en rimelig frist, således at de på den pågældende medlemsstats territorium kan få kendskab til tilbudte stillinger, der svarer til deres faglige kvalifikationer, og i givet fald træffe de fornødne foranstaltninger for at opnå beskæftigelse.
"It is not contrary to the provisions of Community law governing the free movement of workers for the legislation of a Member State to provide that a national of another Member State who entered the first State in order to seek employment may be required to leave the territory of that State (subject to appeal) if he has not found employment there after six months, unless the person concerned provides evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and that he has genuine chances of being engaged."
En sådan frist undergraver derfor ikke den tilsigtede virkning med princippet om den frie bevægelighed.
Mr Advocate General Marco Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 November 1990.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
"Fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed er ikke til hinder for, at det i en medlemsstats lovgivning bestemmes, at en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, der er indrejst på den førstnævnte stats område for at søge beskæftigelse dér, kan udvises - medmindre udvisningen påklages — såfremt den pågældende ikke har opnået beskæftigelse inden seks måneder.
"1) A national of a Member State who is seeking employment in the territory of another Member State is entitled, by virtue of the freedom of movement of workers, to reside there so long as his search for employment is effective and serious; the authorities of the host Member State may not rely on the mere expiry of a time-limit prescribed by national law in order to ask him to leave the territory unless they have found that he is not genuinely seeking employment.
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet for Domstolens plenum den 8. november 1990.
The declaration adopted by the Council on 15 October 1968 cannot provide indications which the national court can take into consideration in order to determine the rules governing the right of residence referred to in point 1 above."
Ved stævning, indgivet den 2. december 1987, havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Den Italienske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist havde truffet de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for en fuldstændig og korrekt gennemførelse i dens nationale retsorden af Rådets direktiv 80/68/EØF.
10 - correctly into its internal legal order Council Directive 80/68/EEC, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Den Italienske Republik, har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at overholde bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 80/68/EØF af 17. december 1979 om beskyttelse af grund vandet mod forurening forårsaget af visse farlige stoffer.
By failing to adopt within the prescribed time-limit the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 25. september 1990.
Mr Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 25 September 1990.
"Kommissionens påstand bør tages til følge med undtagelse af det klagepunkt, der vedrører direktivets artikel 4. Jeg skal således foreslå, at det statueres, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke på korrekt vis har gennemført direktiv 80/68/EØF i dens nationale retsorden, og at Den Italienske Republik tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger."
He concluded that "the Commission's application should be allowed in all respects except for the claim concerning Article 4 of the directive.
Sag C-131/88: Kommissionen for De Europeiske Fællesskaber mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland
Case C-131/88 - 28 February 1991 Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany
28.2.1991 "Miljø - traktatbrud - manglende gennemførelse af et direktiv - grundvand" (Domstolens plenum)
(Environment - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose a directive - Groundwater) (Full Court)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 6. maj 1988, havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med på stand om, at det statueredes, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke havde truffet de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at overholde bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 80/68/EØF.
By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 6 May 1988, the Commission brought an action for a declaration that by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC, the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for at overholde bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 80/68/EØF af 17. december 1979 om beskyttelse af grund vandet mod forurening forårsaget af visse farlige stoffer.
By failing to adopt within the prescribed time-limit the measures necessary to comply with Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
"Kommissionens påstand bør i det hele tages til følge. Jeg skal således foreslå, at det statueres, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke på korrekt vis har gennemført direktiv 80/68/EØF i dens nationale retsorden, og at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger."
He concluded that "the Commission's application should be allowed in all respects except for the claim concerning Article 4 of the directive.
Sag C-57/89: Kommissionen for De Europeiske Fællesskaber mod Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland
Case C-57/89 - 28 February 1991 Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany
28.2.1991 "Miljø - beskyttelse af vilde fugle - anlægsarbejder i et særligt beskyttet område" (Domstolens plenum)
(Environment - Conservation of wild birds - Construction work in a special protection area) (Full Court)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 28. februar 1989, havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den har truffet beslutning om eller gennemført visse anlægsarbejder, som forringer levestederne for fredede fugle i Leybucht, der er et særligt beskyttet område, hvilket er i strid med bestemmelserne i Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 28 February 1989, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty for a declaration that by planning or undertaking certain dykebuilding works detrimental to the habitat of protected birds in the special protection area of the Leybucht, contrary to the provisions of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds, the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Kommissionen anførte, at anlægsarbejderne forstyrrer de fuglearter, der i henhold til direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, jfr. dets bilag I, er stillet under
The Commission claimed that those works disturb birds which enjoy special protection under the provisions of Article 4 (1) of the directive, in conjunction with Annex I, and damage the habitat of the birds, which is designated as a special protection area.
Ifølge Kommissionen kræver direktivets artikel 4, stk. 4, første punktum, positive beskyttelsesforanstaltninger, som udelukker enhver forringelse eller forurening af disse levesteder ved forvaltningen af et særligt beskyttet område, og dette gælder uden undtagelse, og uden at der kan tages hensyn til økonomiske interesser.
The Commission emphasized that the first sentence of Article 4 (4) of the directive requires Member States to take positive steps to avoid any deterioration or pollution of habitats as part of the management of special protection areas, without exception and without economic interests being taken into consideration.
Domstolen udtalte, at selv om medlemsstaterne har et vist skøn, når de skal fastlægge de områder, der er bedst egnede til udlægning som særligt beskyttede områder, kan de derimod ikke råde over samme skån, når de ændrer eller for mindsker sådanne områders areal, da de i deres erklæringer selv har anerkendt, at der i disse områder består de mest egnede levevilkår for de i direktivets bilag I opregnede arter.
Although the Member States did have a certain discretion with regard to the choice of the territories which are most suitable for classification as special protection areas, they did not have the same discretion in modifying or reducing the extent of the areas, since they had themselves acknowledged in their declarations that those areas contain the most suitable environments for the species listed in Annex I to the directive.
I modsat fald ville medlemsstaterne ensidigt kunne unddrage sig de forpligtelser, som direktivets artikel 4, stk. 4, pålægger dem med hensyn til særligt beskyttede områder.
If that were not so, the Member States could unilaterally escape from the obligations imposed on them by Article 4 (4) of the directive with regard to special protection areas.
Heraf følger, at medlemsstaterne kun må formindske et særligt beskyttet områdes areal, når der foreligger ganske særlige omstændigheder.
It followed that the power of the Member States to reduce the extent of a special protection area can be justified only on exceptional grounds.
Der må således være tale om almene hensyn, der har forrang for det økologiske formål, der forfølges med direktivet.
Those grounds had to correspond to a general interest which was superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive.
I denne sammenhæng kan de interesser, der er nævnt i direktivets artikel 2 - nemlig økonomiske og rekreative hensyn - ikke komme i betragtning.
In that context the interests referred to in Article 2 of the directive, namely economic and recreational requirements, did not enter into consideration.
Domstolen har nemlig allerede fastslået, at denne bestemmelse ikke udgør en selvstændig fravigelse af den ved direktivet indførte beskyttelsesordning.
As the Court had already pointed out, that provision did not constitute an autonomous derogation from the general system of protection established by the directive.
Domstolen fastslog endvidere, at de formål, der forfølges med de pågældende anlægsarbejder, nemlig forebyggelse af faren for oversvømmelse og kystsikring, udgør hensyn, der er tilstrækkeligt vægtige til at retfærdiggøre dem, så længe disse foranstaltninger er begrænset til det strengt nødvendige og kun indebærer den ringest mulige formindskelse af det særligt beskyttede område.
It had to be stated that the objectives of the works carried out, namely the danger of flooding and the protection of the coast, constitute sufficiently serious reasons to justify the dyke works and the strengthening of coastal structures as long as those measures were confined to a strict minimum and involved only the smallest possible reduction of the special protection area.
Domstolen bemærkede, at ikke kun kystsikringshensyn, men også ønsket om at sikre fiskeri f laden i Greetsiel adgang til denne havn, har været bestemmende for digeføringen.
The line of the dyke was influenced by considerations relating not only to coastal protection but also to the concern to ensure that fishing vessels from Greetsiel had access to the harbour.
Under hensyn til de udviklede fortolkningsprincipper i sammenhæng med direktivets artikel 4, stk. 4, er en hensyntagen til sådanne interesser i princippet uforenelig med de i denne bestemmelse fastsatte krav.
In the light of the principles for the interpretation of Article 4 (4) of the directive set out above, to take
Der hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Court held that:
Sagsøgte frifindes.
The application is dismissed .
Kommissionen betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenientens og de i forbindelse med sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler afholdte omkostninger."
The Commission is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of the intervener and those relating to the application for interim measures."
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 5. december 1990.
Mr Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 5 December 1990.
"at frifinde sagsøgte samt tilpligte Kommissionen at betale sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenientens".
He proposed that the Court should "dismiss the application and order the Commission to pay the costs".
Sag C-234/89: Stergios Delimitis mod Henninger Bräu AG
Case C-234/89 - 28 February 1991 Stergios Del imitis ν Henninger Bräu AG (Competition - - Beersupply agreements - Effects on intra-Community trade -Block-exemption - Jurisdiction of the national courts) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse af 13. juli 1989, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 27. s.m., havde Oberlandesgericht forelagt flere præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkning af EØF-Traktatens artikel 85 og Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1984/83.
By order of 13 July 1989, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 July 1989, the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main referred several questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 85 of the EEC Treaty and Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem Stergios Delimitis, som er forpagter af en restaurant i Frankfurt am Main, og det derværende bryggeri Heninger Bräu AG. Sagen vedrører betalingen af et beløb, som bryggeriet hævder, at Stergios Delimitis skylder, efter at han har opsagt deres aftale om levering af øl, som indeholdt en bestemmelse om eksklusiv købspligt.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Del imitis, the operator of a café in Frankfurt am main, and Henninger Bräu AG, a brewery established in the same city, concerning an amount claimed by the brewery from Mr Del imitis following the termination, at Mr Delimitis's request, of a contract between them for the supply of beer which included an exclusive purchasing agreement.
Ifølge aftalen er forpagteren forpligtet til årligt at aftage en mindste mængde af bryggeriets øl samt dække sin omsætning med alkoholfrie drikkevarer med produkter fra bryggeriets datterselskaber.
Under that contract, the café operator undertook to buy a minimum quantity of beer from the brewery and to purchase non-alcoholic beverages from subsidiaries of the brewery.
Forpagteren har dog ret til at købe øl og alkoholfrie drikkevarer fra virksomheder i andre medlemsstater.
However, the café operator was entitled to buy beers and non-alcoholic beverages from undertakings established in other Member States.
Stergios Delimitis anså bryggeriets modregning for at være ulovlig og anlagde sag ved Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, hvorunder han bl.a. gjorde gældende, at aftalen var ugyldig i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 2.
The latter contested the brewery's statement of account before the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main, claiming, inter alia, that the contract was automatically void under Article 85 (2) of the EEC Treaty.
Landgericht gav ikke sagsøgeren medhold.
His action was dismissed by the Landgericht.
Retten fandt ikke, at aftalen påvirkede samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, idet det stod forpagteren frit for at dække sin omsætning ved indkøb i andre medlemsstater. Derfor var det uden betydning, om den pågældende aftale ikke opfyldte betingelserne for gruppefritagelse i forordning nr. 1984/83.
It considered that the contract did not affect trade between Member States within the meaning of Article 85 (1) on the grounds, in particular, that the café operator remained free to obtain supplies in another Member State and that consequently, it mattered little that the contract at issue did not comply with the conditions for the exemption by category provided for by Regulation No. 1984/83.
En aftale om levering af øl er forbudt efter EØF-Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, såfremt to kumulative betingelser er opfyldt.
A beersupply agreement is prohibited under Article 85 (1) of the EEC Treaty if two cumulative conditions are satisfied.
Det kræves for det første, at det nationale marked for distribution af øl til udskænkningssteder i kraft af den Økonomiske og juridiske sammenhæng, hvori den pågældende aftale indgår, er vanskeligt tilgængeligt for konkurrenter, som muligt kunne etablere sig dér eller forøge deres markedsandel.
In the first place, access to the national market for the distribution of beer on premises for the sale and consumption of drinks must, in the economic and legal context of the agreement at issue, be difficult for competitors who might establish themselves in that market or enlarge their share of it.
Det forhold, at den pågældende aftale på dette marked indgår i "et bundt" af ensartede aftaler, som tilsammen påvirker konkurrencen, er blot en af de faktorer, som skal tages i betragtning ved vurderingen af, om et sådant marked reelt er van skeligt tilgængeligt.
The fact that, in that market, the agreement at issue is one of a number of similar agreements having a cumulative effect on competition is merely one of several factors for determining whether access to the market is indeed difficult.
Det kræves for det andet, at den pågældende aftale på væsentlig måde bidrager til den markedsbegrænsende virkning, som det nævnte aftalebundt har i kraft af sin samlede økonomiske og juridiske sammenhæng.
In the second place, the agreement at issue must contribute significantly to the obstructive effect of the contracts viewed as a whole in their economic and legal context.
Spørgsmålet, om den enkelte aftaler bidrager væsentligt hertil, afhænger af de kontraherende parters stilling på det pågældende marked og af aftalens varighed.
The scale of the contributory rôle played by the individual agreement depends on the position of the contracting parties in the market in question and on the duration of the agreement.
En aftale om levering af Øl, som giver en videreforhandler tilladelse til at købe Øl fra andre medlemsstater, påvirker ikke handelen mellem medlemsstaterne, når denne tilladelse også giver en inden- eller udenlandsk leverandør en reel mulighed for at levere videreforhandlere Øl med oprindelse i de øvrige medlemsstater.
A beersupply agreement which permits the reseller to buy beer from other Member States is not liable to affect trade between those States, provided that the permission corresponds to a real possibility that a national or foreign supplier will supply the reseller with beers originating in other Member States.
Betingelserne for, at artikel 6, stk. 1, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1984/83 af 22. juni 1983 om anvendelsen af Traktatens aftikel 85, stk. 3, på kategorier af eksklusive købsaftaler, er ikke opfyldt, når de drikkevarer, som er omfattet af den eksklusive købsaftale, ikke er anført i selve aftalens tekst, men det er aftalt, at disse drikkervarer fremgår af den til hver tid gældende prisliste fra bryggeriet eller dettes datterselskaber.
The conditions governing the application of Article 6 (1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the application of Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive purchasing agreements are not satisfied if the drinks covered by the exclusive purchasing terms are not listed in writing in the agreement itself but are stated to be those set out in the price-list used by the brewery or its subsidiaries, as amended from time to time.
Gruppefritagelsen i henhold til forordning (EØF) nr. 1984/83 finder ikke anvendelse på en aftale om levering af Øl, som vedrører et udskænkningssted, som er udlejet til videreforhandleren eller stillet til hans rådighed af leverandøren og som omfatter en købsforpligtelse med hensyn til andre drikkevarer end øl, når aftalen ikke opfylder betingelsen i forordningens artikel 8, stk. 2, litra b).
The block-exemption under Regulation (EEC) No. 1984/83 does not apply to an agreement for supplying beer for premises used for the sale and consumption of drinks leased to the reseller or otherwise made available to him by the supplier, when that agreement includes an undertaking to purchase drinks other than beer, unless it meets the requirement laid down in Article 8 (2) (b) of the regulation.
Lige så lidt kan en national retsinstans ikke erklære Traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, uanvendelig på en aftale under henvisning til samme bestemmelses stk. 3.
Similarly, the national court may not by virtue of Article 85 (3) declare Article 85 (1) of the Treaty to be Inapplicable to such an agreement.
Den kan dog statuere aftalen ugyldig i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 2, når den er nået til sikkerhed om, at den ikke kan fritages efter artikel 85, stk. 3.
It may, however, declare the agreement void under Article 85 (2) if it is convinced that the agreement could not be the subject of a decision exempting it under Article 85 (3).
Generaladvokat Walter Van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 11. oktober 1990.
Mr Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 11 October 1990.