natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at Lozano Palacios, der er spansk statsborger, var tjenestemand i det spanske socialministerium, da hun blev stillet til rådighed for Kommissionen i Bruxelles for en periode på to år, nemlig fra den 1. maj 1991 til den 30. april 1993.
It appears from the judgment under appeal that Ms Lozano Palacios, who is of Spanish nationality, was an official with the Spanish Ministry of Social Affairs when she was seconded to the Commission in Brussels for a period of two years (1 May 1991 to 30 April 1993).
Hendes udstationering blev senere forlænget til den 15. februar 1994.
That period was later extended until 15 February 1994.
Ved appelskrift indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 12. februar 1997 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber iværksat appel af dom afsagt af Retten i Første Instans den 12. december 1996 i sagen Lozano Palacios mod Kommissionen (herefter »den anfægtede dom«), hvorved Retten fastslog, at Lozano Palacios var berettiget til bosættelsespenge i henhold til artikel 5, stk. 1, første afsnit, i bilag VII til vedtægten for tjenestemænd i De Europæiske Fællesskaber (herefter »vedtægten«), allerede fordi hun modtog udlandstillægget
Ms Lozano Palacios submitted a complaint against that decision under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations. She asked for her place of recruitment to be determined as being Madrid and for the centre of her interests, within the meaning of Article 7(3) of Annex VII, to be determined as being Albacete (Spain) and, in consequence of those determinations, requested that she be granted the installation allowance, the daily subsistence allowance and reimbursement of both her removal and travel expenses.
Under udstationeringen blev appelindstævnte fortsat lønnet af det spanske socialministerium
While on detachment Ms Lozano Palacios continued to be paid by the Spanish Ministry of Social Affairs and to discharge her tax obligations in Spain.
Domstolens bemærkninger
The judgment under appeal
Bosættelsespenge, som er et fast, udeleligt beløb, tilkommer således automatisk tjenestemanden, når han fastansættes, på betingelse af, at han er berettiget til udlandstillæg, og at det bevises, at han har taget bopæl på tjenestestedet, hvorimod han ikke skal bevise, at der foreligger faktiske udgifter i den forbindelse.
Thus the installation allowance, which is fiat-rate and indivisible in nature, is automatically payable to an official at the time of his establishment -provided that he is entitled to the expatriation allowance and that it is established that he has settled in the place of employment — and there is no need for that official to show the existence of actual expenses.
Dette fremgår også ubestrideligt af artikel 5, stk. 3, andet afsnit, i bilag VII til vedtægten.
That is also the clear sense of the second subparagraph of Article 5(3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
Appelindstævnte indgav en klage over denne afgørelse. Hun anmodede om, at Madrid blev fastsat som hendes indkaldelsessted, at Albacete (Spanien) blev fastsat som det sted, til hvilket hun havde et naturligt tilhørsforhold i dette begrebs forstand i artikel 7, stk. 3, i bilag VII, og anmodede følgelig om at få udbetalt bosættelsespenge og dagpenge samt om godtgørelse af flytte- og rejseudgifter.
The Court of First Instance found that, at the time of her recruitment by the Commission, Ms Lozano Palacios had no residence other than her Brussels residence.
Ved afgørelse af 11. november 1994 (herefter »den omtvistede afgørelse«) afviste Kommissionen udtrykkeligt denne klage.
The Court of First Instance therefore confirmed that the contested decision, in so far as it determined her place of recruitment as Brussels, was valid and rejected her claims for the daily subsistence allowance, reimbursement of removal expenses and travel expenses.
Ved afgørelse af 7. februar 1995 ændrede Kommissionen med tilbagevirkende gyldighed fra den 16. februar 1994 appelindstævntes hjemsted til Albacete, hvor hendes forældre boede.
However, the Court of First Instance annulled the contested decision in so far as it refused to grant Ms Lozano Palacios the installation allowance:
Denne fortolkning finder støtte i formålet med bosættelsespenge, som er at kompensere de uundgåelige byrder for den pågældende, som følger af overgangen fra en usikker stilling — typisk som tjenestemand på prøve — til en fast stilling som fastansat tjenestemand, hvilket forudsætter en indsats for at blive integreret på tjenestestedet i et ubestemt, men væsentligt tidsrum.
This interpretation is borne out by the purpose of the installation allowance, which is designed to offset the inevitable expenses entailed for the official concerned in passing from a precarious status (usually that of a probationary official) to the stable position of an established official, which requires an effort on his part to become integrated, for an indeterminate but substantial period of time, in his place of employment.
En sådan ydelse skal udbetales uanset den omstændighed, at en fastansat tjenestemand som oftest fortsat bliver boende på det samme sted som før.
Entitlement to that allowance is not affected by the fact that in most cases the official continues when established to be settled in the same place as before.
Den stadfæstede således den omtvistede afgørelse, hvorved Bruxelles var blevet fastsat som hendes
By the same token, when an official is granted the installation allowance after being
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling") den 27. januar 1998.
Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 27 January 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen
He asked the Court to:
»at forkaste Kommissionens appel af Rettens dom af 12. december 1996 i sag T-33/95 og at dømme appellanten til at betale sagens omkostninger, herunder indstævntes omkostninger i forbindelse med appelsagen«
'— Dismiss the appeal brought by the Commission against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 1996 in Case T-33/95;' and
Sag C-7/95 Ρ John Deere Ltd / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Konkurrence
Case C-7/95 John Deere Ltd ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
•Appel — formaliteten — retsspørgsmål — faktisk spørgsmål — konkurrence informationsudvekslingsordning — konkurrencebegrænsning — afslag på fritagelse* (Femte Afdeling) a) Den administrative procedure
(Appeal —Admissibility — Question of law — Question of fact — Competition — Information exchange system — Restriction of competition — Refusal to grant an exemption) (Fifth Chamber)
Den 7. maj 1992 anlagde appellanten sag ved Retten med påstand om, at den omtvistede beslutning blev annulleret og at Kommissionen blev pålagt sagens omkostninger.
On 7 May 1992 the appellant brought an action before the Court of First Instance for annulment of the contested decision and for an order requiring the Commission to pay the costs.
Den 11. november 1988 sendte Kommissionen en meddelelse af klagepunkter til AEA, til hver af de otte medlemmer, der var omfattet af den første anmeldelse, og til Systematics International Group of Companies Limited (herefter 'SEL'), et edbserviceselskab, der er ansvarlig for behandlingen og anvendelsen af de data, der findes i V55-blanketten.
On 11 November 1988 the Commission issued a statement of objections to the AEA, to each of the eight members concerned by the first notification, and to Systematics International Group of Companies Limited (hereinafter "SIL"), a data-processing company with responsibility for the processing and handling of the data contained in Form V55.
b) Aftalens indhold og retlige baggrund
(b) The content of the agreement and its legal context
Appellanten har under appellen nedlagt påstand om, at Domstolen ophæver den appellerede dom og annullerer den omtvistede beslutning, samt at Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale omkostningerne ved nærværende appel samt omkostningerne i forbindelse med forhandlingerne, som fandt sted for Retten.
By its appeal, the appellant asks the Court to quash the contested judgment, annul the contested decision and order the Commission to pay the costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.
I henhold til lovgivningen i Det Forenede Kongerige skal alle køretøjer indregistreres i Department of Transport, såfremt de skal anvendes på offentlig vej i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Under the law of the United Kingdom all vehicles must be registered with the Department of Transport if they are to be used on public roads in the United
princippet heller ikke til at bedømme de beviser, som Retten har lagt til grund ved fastlæggelsen af de faktiske omstændigheder.
conclusion drawn by the Court of First Instance from certain facts was vitiated by an error in law.
I nærværende sag er fastsættelsen af det kriterium, som er til hinder for et nøjagtigt kendskab til konkurrenternes salg, baseret på en kompliceret økonomisk vurdering af markedet.
An appeal must indicate precisely the contested elements of the judgment which the appellant seeks to have set aside, and also the legal arguments specifically advanced in support of the appeal.
Retten har følgelig med føje foretaget en begrænset prøvelse på dette punkt
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in holding, that the contested decision contained sufficient reasoning as regards the Data System.
Appellanten har gjort gældende, at selskabet selv og andre virksomheder—anderledes end fastslået af Retten — i deres anmeldelse af Data System klart havde erklæret at de havde indstillet deltagelsen i aktiviteterne i forbindelse med den tidligere informationsudvekslingsordning.
The Court of First Instance made findings of fact which the Court of Justice hearing an appeal does not have jurisdiction to review.
Det må herefter fastslå, at Retten gav en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for den bedømmelse, den foretog, da den fastslog, at Kommissionen under hensyn til markedets karakter og de udvekslede oplysningers art ikke havde gjort sig skyldig i et åbenbart fejlskøn.
That requirement is not satisfied by an appeal confined to repeating or reproducing word for word the pleas in law and arguments previously submitted to the Court of First Instance, including those based on facts expressly rejected by that court.
Det andet anbringende
The third part of the first ground of appeal
Appellanten gør gældende, at hverken Retten eller Kommissionen har konstateret det mindste spor af en aftale om at fastlægge grænserne for forhandlernes salgsområder.
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance failed to give sufficient reasons for upholding the criterion of ten vehicles sold.
Det bemærkes, at appellantens argumentation hviler på en kritik af fastlæggelsen og bedømmelsen af de faktiske omstændigheder, på grundlag af hvilke Retten fandt, at den omtvistede ordning også omhandlede den første anmeldelse.
The appeal may be based only on grounds relating to the infringement of rules of law, to the exclusion of any appraisal of the facts.
Appellanten har ikke fremført noget argument, hvoraf det fremgår, at den konklusion, som Retten drog på grundlag af bestemte faktiske omstændigheder, er behæftet med en retlig fejl.
The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts except where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documents submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
Appellanten har anført, at Retten har begået en fejl, da den fandt, at den omtvistede beslutning var tilstrækkeligt begrundet for så vidt angår Data System.
When the Court of First Instance has established or assessed the facts, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction under Article 168a of the Treaty to review the legal characterisation of those facts by the Court of First Instance and the legal conclusions it has drawn from them.
Det bemærkes, at appellanten gentager det samme argument som det, den allerede havde fremført for Retten, og søger i virkeligheden at opnå, at argumentet undersøges på ny, men uden at den gør forsøg på at fremføre juridiske argumenter, der særligt kunne vise, at Retten begik en retlig fejl, da den antog, at opdelingen af forhandlernes salgsområder ved henvisning til postnummersystemet forudsatte en aftale, i hvert fald en stiltiende aftale.
It is appropriate to recall the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which, although as a general rule the Community judicature undertakes a comprehensive review of the question whether or not the conditions for the application of Article 85(1) are met, its review of complex economic appraisals made by the Commission is necessarily limited to verifying whether the relevant rules on procedure and on the statement of reasons have been complied with, whether the facts have been accurately stated and whether there has been any manifest error of appraisal or a misuse of powers.
Det bemærkes, at Retten fastlagde de faktiske omstændigheder, som det falder uden for Domstolens kompetence at prøve under en appel.
The Court of Justice thus has no jurisdiction to establish the facts or, in principle, to examine the evidence which the Court of First Instance accepted in support of those facts.
Appellanten har gjort gældende, at Retten ikke tilstrækkeligt har forklaret grundene til, at den godkendte kriteriet vedrørende ti solgte køretøjer.
The appellant maintains that, contrary to the finding of the Court of First Instance, it and other companies had unequivocally stated in the notification of the Data System that they had ceased participating in the earlier information exchange system.
I det første led i det tredje anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at Retten ikke tog hensyn til alle de relevante faktorer med henblik på fastlæggelsen af konkurrencevilkårene på markedet for landbrugstraktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige.
In those circumstances, it must be concluded that, in finding that the Commission had not committed any manifest error in using the criterion of ten units sold, having regard to the characteristics of the market and the kind of information exchanged, the Court of First Instance gave sufficient reasons for its appraisal.
Det er i så henseende tilstrækkeligt at anføre, at appellanten i nærværende sag ikke har fremført noget konkret anbringende til godtgørelse af, at Rettens konstateringer af de faktiske omstændigheder på noget punkt er indholdsmæssigt urigtige, når henses til de dokumenter, som appellanten fremlagde, og uden at det er nødvendigt at foretage en bedømmelse af værdien af hele det materiale, hvad der blev fremlagt for Retten herom.
entry onto the market and the extent to which the products were sufficiently homogenous to conclude that the Commission's analysis of that market was not marred by any manifest error of assessment.
Det skal endelig bemærkes, at Retten gav en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for de hensyn, som førte den til denne konklusion.
The appellant submits that neither the Court of First Instance nor the Commission has found the slightest trace of evidence of an agreement intended to define the dealers' sales territories.
I det fjerde led i det tredje anbringende har appellanten gjort gældende, at Retten begik en retlig fejl, da den fandt, at Kommissionen korrekt havde defineret det relevante marked som markedet for landbrugstraktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige.
It states that the sole purpose of redefining those territories was to make them conform to the postcode sectors so as to prevent one postcode sector from being part of two or more different dealer territories.
Appellanten bebrejder Retten, at den undlod at gennemgå den økonomiske undersøgelse, som professor Albaen fremlagde i sine udtalelser, der var vedlagt de processkrifter, som appellanten fremlagde under retsmødet for Retten.
It states that the parties to the agreement rearranged their dealer territories independently of one another after the postcode system was introduced into the United Kingdom. According to the appellant, this ground of appeal concerns a question of law since what is challenged is the Court of First Instance's legal characterisation of the facts.
Under en appel har Domstolen således kun kompetence til at tage stilling til Rettens bedømmelse af de anbringender, der er blevet behandlet for den.
The appellant alleges that the Court of First Instance failed to consider Professor Albach's economic analysis presented in his reports annexed to the pleadings it lodged and at the hearing before the Court of First Instance.
Retten har ganske vist ikke givet en detaljeret fremstilling af argumenterne i professor Albach's sagkyndige udtalelse.
It is true that the Court of First Instance does not set out in detail the arguments contained in Professor Albach's expert report.
Der kan imidlertid ikke stilles krav om en sådan klargørelse af et bevis for at sikre, at Retten har taget behørigt hensyn hertil ved bedømmelsen.
Such an explanation of a piece of evidence cannot, however, be required for the purposes of making sure that the Court of First Instance took due account of it in its assessment.
Dette gælder så meget mere, når Rettens prøvelse som i nærværende sag er begrænset til at kontrollere, at Kommissionens bedømmelse ikke er behæftet med en åbenbar vildfarelse.
This applies a fortiori where, as in this case, the review carried out by the Court of First Instance was confined to determining that the Commission's assessment contained no manifest error.
For så vidt angår nærværende sag må det imidlertid bemærkes, at det i dette fjerde led i det tredje anbringende fremførte argument ikke er blevet fremført på noget tidspunkt før nærværende appel.
It must be observed that, as is apparent from paragraph 63 of the contested judgment, the appellant is repeating the same argument as that which it had already put before the Court of First Instance and that it is in fact seeking reexamination of its argument without even attempting to adduce legal arguments specifically establishing that the Court of First Instance erred in law by concluding that the parcelling out of dealers' sales territories by reference to the postcode system presupposed an agreement or at least a tacit agreement.
Appellanten har gjort gældende, at Retten med urette antog, at den omstændighed, at det omhandlede marked var »stærkt koncentreret«, automatisk betød, at konkurrencen var »stærkt svækket«.
By the third part of its third ground of appeal, the appellant maintains that the documentary evidence which it put before the Court of First Instance showed that the Court's findings concerning the characteristics of the United Kingdom tractor market are wrong as regards the relative stability of the competitors' positions, high barriers to entry and the extent to which the products are sufficiently homogenous.
I det tredje led i det tredje anbringende gør appellanten gældende, at de dokumenter, som den havde fremlagt for Retten, viser, at Rettens konstateringer vedrørende karakteren af markedet for traktorer i Det Forenede Kongerige er urigtige, for så vidt angår den relative stabilitet af konkurrenternes placeringer, de høje barrierer for adgangen og spørgsmålet, om produkterne er tilstrækkeligt ensartede.
In the first part of its third ground, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of all relevant factors for determining the conditions of competition on the United Kingdom agricultural tractor market.
Det fremgår af denne præmis i den appellerede dom, at den anfægtede udtalelse er taget fra et sætningsled, der forekommer i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af virkningerne af informationsudvekslingsordningen for konkurrencen.
The Court of First Instance has exclusive jurisdiction, first, to establish the facts, save where the substantive inaccuracy of its findings is apparent from the documentary evidence submitted to it and, second, to assess those facts.
Dette sætningsled kan derfor ikke bedømmes isoleret. Når det læses i sin sammenhæng, fremgår det klart, at Retten ikke nøjedes med at fastslå en simpel sammenhæng
It is sufficient to observe here that in the present case the appellant has not put forward any specific argument to demonstrate, on the basis of the documents it has produced and without any need to weigh up all the evidence presented to the Court of First Instance on this subject, any substantive inaccuracy in the findings of fact made by the Court of First Instance.
Retten er alene kompetent til dels at fastlægge de faktiske omstændigheder i sagen, når bortses fra tilfælde, hvor den indholdsmæssige urigtighed af dens konstateringer følger af de akter, den har fået forelagt i sagen, dels til at tage stilling til disse faktiske omstændigheder.
Second, the appellant's argument does not in any way establish that the Court of First Instance erred in law by basing its assessment on the market shares of the main traders, the relative stability of those traders' individual positions, the high barriers to
I så henseende skal der indledningsvis mindres om, at det følger af Domstolens praksis, at de for begrebet samordnet praksis forudsatte kriterier koordination og samarbejde, som langt fra stiller krav om udarbejdelse af en egentlig »plan«, skal forstås ud fra den grundtanke, der ligger bag traktatens konkurrencebestemmelser, hvorefter enhver erhvervsdrivende uafhængigt skal tage stilling til den politik, han vil føre på det fælles marked, og de vilkår, han vil tilbyde sin kundekreds.
The appellant claims that in that interpretation of Article 85(1) the Court of First Instance committed an error in that it confused effects on competition with effects on trade between Member States.
Appellanten har gjort gældende, at Retten begik en fejl ved fortolkningen af artikel 85, stk. 1, idet den har sammenblandet virkningerne for konkurrence med virkningerne for samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne.
By the fourth part of the third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the Court of First Instance erred in law in holding that the Commission correctly defined the relevant market as the agricultural tractor market in the United Kingdom.
Det skal indledningsvis fastslås, at Retten med rette bemærkede, at eftersom det ikke var gjort gældende, at aftalen havde til formål at begrænse konkurrencen, måtte dens virkninger undersøges med henblik på at fastslå, om den hindrede, begrænsede eller fordrejede konkurrencen mærkbart
It must be stated first of all that the Court of First Instance was right to consider that since it was not contended that the agreement had an anticompetitive object, the effects of the agreement had to be evaluated in order to determine whether it prevented, restricted or distorted competition to an appreciable degree.
Det følger af denne samme retspraksis, at selv om dette krav om uafhængighed ganske vist ikke udelukker de erhvervsdrivendes ret til at rationelt at tilpasse sig deres konkurrenters konstaterede eller antagelige adfærd, udelukker det imidlertid kategorisk enhver direkte eller indirekte kontakt mellem sådanne erhvervsdrivende, som har til formål eller til følge, at der opstår konkurrencevilkår som ikke svarer til det pågældende markeds normale vilkår i betragtning af produkternes eller de præsterede tjenesteydelsers art, størrelsen og antallet af virksomheder på markedet samt dettes omfang.
To allow a party to put forward for the first time before the Court of Justice a plea in law which it has not raised before the Court of First Instance would mean allowing that party to bring before the Court, whose jurisdiction in appeals is limited, a wider case than that heard by the Court of First Instance. In an appeal the Court's jurisdiction is thus confined to examining the assessment by the Court of First Instance of the pleas argued before it.
Det fremgår af Domstolens faste praksis, at for at kunne bedømme, om en aftale må antages at være forbudt på grund af de konkurrenceforstyrrelser, den har til følge, må det undersøges, hvorledes konkurrencen ville forme sig under forhold, hvor aftalen ikke fandtes.
According to the settled case-law of the Court, in order to determine whether an agreement is to be considered to be prohibited by reason of the distortion of competition which is its effect, the competition in question should be assessed within the actual context in which it would occur in the absence of the agreement in dispute.