natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår begrebet »tv-radiospredning« kan den definition, der gives i artikel 1, litra a), i direktiv 89/552, ikke fortolkes som en indskrænkning af direktivets anvendelsesområde.
As regards the concept of «television broadcasting», the definition given in Article 1 (a) of Directive 89/552 cannot be interpreted as a restriction of its scope.
Under hensyn til den ordning, der ved direktiv 89/552 er indført for fordelingen af forpligtelserne mellem de medlemsstater, hvorfra programmerne udsendes, og de medlemsstater, hvori de modtages, kan denne argumentation ikke tiltrædes.
As regards the genesis of Directive 89/552, the fourth recital in the preamble to that directive expressly refers to the adoption by the Council of Europe of the Convention on Transfrontier Television. As is apparent from Article 3 thereof, that convention also applies to television programmes retransmitted by cable.
Med hensyn til tilblivelsen af direktiv 89/552 er der grund til at bemærke, at der i fjerde betragtning til direktivet udtrykkeligt henvises til, at Europarådet har vedtaget en europæisk konvention om grænseoverskridende fjernsyn.
According to the Commission, the system introduced by Article 22 of the 1987 decree constitutes a serious restriction on the retransmission in the French-speaking region of Belgium of television broadcasts from other Member States.
Det fremgår af denne konventions artikel 3, at den også finder anvendelse på tv-programmer, som viderespredes gennem kabelanlæg.
Consequently, that system infringes Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552.
Heraf følger, at den omstændighed, at viderespredning gennem kabelanlæg ikke var særlig udbredt, da direktiv 89/552 blev udstedt, ikke kan påberåbes til støtte for, at denne form for virksomhed skulle falde uden for direktivets anvendelsesområde.
Consequently, the fact that cable distribution was not very widespread at the time when Directive 89/552 was adopted cannot be relied on in support of an argument that this activity is excluded from the scope of that directive.
1987dekretets anvendelsesområde
The scope of the 1987 decree
Den belgiske regering har anført, at 1987dekretets artikel 22, stk. 2, kun gælder for tjenesteydelser, som udføres af kabeldistributionsselskaber, der har hjemsted i Det Franske Fællesskab.
According to the Belgian Government, Directive 89/552 concerns only primary television broadcasting, and does not cover transmission by cable, which is a secondary form of broadcasting, that is to say, the communication of programmes broadcast by an organization other than the originating organization («retransmission»).
Dekretet medfører ingen begrænsning i den frie udveksling af udsendelser fra udlandet.
The Belgian Government contends that Article 22(2) of the 1987 decree covers only the provision of services by cable operators established in the territory of the French Community.
Kun i det tilfælde, som er omhandlet i artikel 2, stk. 2, andet punktum, kan modtagermedlemsstaten undtagelsesvis suspendereretransmissionaffjernsynsudsendelser på de i bestemmelsen anførte betingelser.
The Belgian Government advances three arguments in that regard. First, as defined in Article 1(a) of Directive 89/552, the term «television broadcasting» clearly refers only to the initial broadcasting of television programmes.
Hvis en medlemsstat finder, at en anden medlemsstat har undladt at opfylde de forpligtelser, der påhviler den i medfør af direktivet, kan den desuden rejse traktatbrudssøgsmål i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 170 eller anmode Kommissionen om at skride ind over for medlemsstaten i henhold til traktatens artikel 169.
Next, the term «retransmission» used in Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552 does not cover cable television broadcasts.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes, at en medlemsstat efter fast retspraksis ikke er berettiget til ensidigt at træffe udlignings- eller beskyttelsesforanstaltninger for at imødegå en anden medlemsstats eventuelle overtrædelse af bestemmelserne i Fællesskabsretten.
Lastly, the reason why cable television broadcasting was not covered by Directive 89/552 is that it was not yet very widespread at the time when the directive was adopted.
Hertil bemærkes, at viderespredning gennem kabelanlæg af udsendelser fra udlandet efter Domstolens praksis er en tjenesteydelse af grænseoverskridende karakter.
According to the case-law of the Court of Justice, cable retransmission of foreign programmes constitutes a transfrontier service.
Det fremgår imidlertid af betragtningerne til direktiv 89/552, at direktivet netop har til formål at fjerne de hindringer for den frie udveksling af tv udsendelser, som består på grund af forskelle mellem medlemsstaternes lovgivninger.
As is apparent from the sixth, seventh and ninth recitals in the preamble to Directive 89/552, that directive is precisely aimed at eliminating restrictions on freedom to provide television broadcasting services arising from disparities between the laws of the Member States.
Det pågældende argument kan således ikke tiltrædes.
Those arguments cannot be accepted.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt 1987dekretets artikel 22 er forenelig med direktiv 89/552.
The compatibility of Article 22 of the 1987 decree with Directive 89/552
Den belgiske regering har anført, at artikel 10, stk. 1, tredje punktum, i den europæiske konvention til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder udtrykkeligt giver mulighed for at indføre en obligatorisk godkendelsesordning for radio- og fjernsynsforetagender og dermed, så meget mere, for foretagender, der viderefordeler udsendelser.
The ninth recital in the preamble to Directive 89/552 expressly refers to the disparities between the laws, regulations and administrative measures in Member States concerning the pursuit of activities as television broadcasters and cable operators, without drawing any distinction between primary and secondary television broadcasting. According to the tenth recital, all restrictions on freedom to provide broadcasting services within the Community which result from such disparities must be abolished.
Den belgiske regering gør gældende, at der kun er fri adgang til udveksling af et tv-program i hele Fællesskabet, hvis lovgivningen i det land, hvorfra programmet udsendes, herunder også direktivets bestemmelser, er overholdt.
The Belgian Government maintains that a television programme may circulate freely throughout the Community only if it complies with the applicable law of the originating State, including the provisions of the directive.
Dette princip indebærer, at modtagermedlemsstaten skal kunne kontrollere, om de tv-institutioner,
It necessarily follows from that principle that the
Dette argument kan ikke tiltrædes.
to Article 10 of the Convention does not prevent such a system from being contrary to Community law.
En medlemsstat kan således ikke unddrage sig denne forpligtelse i medfør af direktiv 89/552 ved at påberåbe sig traktatens artikel 3 B, stk. 2.
receiving Member State must be able to verify whether foreign television broadcasters applying for authorization to retransmit their programmes in the territory of the French Community of Belgium comply with the law of the originating State.
Argumentet vedrørende alsidigheden i medierne
The argument concerning Article 128 of the EC Treaty
En obligatorisk godkendelsesordning på tvområdet er ganske vist ikke i strid med menneskerettighedskonventionensartikellO,men dette er ikke til hinder for, at en sådan ordning kan være i strid med fællesskabsretten.
Having regard to the system whereby Directive 89/552 divides obligations between the Member States from which programmes emanate and the Member States receiving them, those arguments cannot be accepted.
Den belgiske regering har anført, at den ordning, som er indført ved 1987-dekretet, og som tager sigte på at tilgodese visse kulturelle mål, må antages at være berettiget, for så vidt som direktiv 89/552 og særlig direktivets artikel 4 og 5 skal fortolkes på baggrund af traktatens bestemmelser om kultur i artikel 128, som blev indføjet i EF-traktaten ved traktaten om Den Europæiske Union.
It is solely for the Member State from which television broadcasts emanate to monitor the application of the law of the originating Member State applying to such broadcasts and to ensure compliance with Directive 89/552, and the receiving Member State is not authorized to exercise its own control in that regard.
I henhold til traktatens artikel 128, stk. 1, bidrager Fællesskabet til, at medlemsstaternes kulturer kan udfolde sig, idet det respekterer den nationale og regionale mangfoldighed og samtidig fremhæver den fælles kulturarv, og i henhold til artikel 128, stk. 4, tager Fællesskabet også hensyn til de kulturelle aspekter i sin indsats i henhold til andre bestemmelser i traktaten.
Moreover, if a Member State considers that another Member State has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive, it may bring Treaty infringement proceedings under Article 170 of the EC Treaty or request the Commission itself to take action against that Member State under Article 169 of the Treaty.
Artikel 128 indeholder imidlertid ingen bemyndigelse til modtagermedlemsstaten til, som en fravigelse af den ordning, der er indført ved direktiv 89/552, at underkaste udsendelser fra en anden medlemsstat en fornyet kontrol.
However, that article does not in any way authorize the receiving State, by way of derogation from the system established by Directive 89/552, to make programmes emanating from another Member State subject to further controls.
Overholdelsen af artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 89/552 i Det Flamske Fællesskab
The Belgian Government maintains that, according to the principle of subsidiarity laid down in the second paragraph of Article 3b of the EC Treaty, it is at liberty to intervene in cultural matters, provided that it does not fail to observe its obligations under Community law.
Den belgiske regering har gjort gældende, at den i medfør af subsidiaritetsprincippet i EF-traktatens artikel 3 B, stk. 2, har fri adgang til at handle på kulturområdet, når blot den ikke derved unddrager sig sine fællesskabsforpligtelser.
The Belgian Government maintains that the second sentence of Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms expressly provides for the possible establishment of a compulsory authorization system applying to broadcasting undertakings and, a fortiori, to organizations engaged in the distribution of television programmes.
Tredje klagepunkt: artikel 3, 5 og 10 i dekretet af 4. maj 1994
That argument cannot be accepted.
Medlemsstaterne skal sikre modtagefrihed og må ikke hindre retransmission på deres område af fjernsynsudsendelser fra andre medlemsstater af grunde, der falder inden for de ved direktivet samordnede områder.
Member States are obliged to ensure freedom of reception and not to restrict the retransmission on their territory of television broadcasts from other Member States in the fields coordinated by that directive.
Den 4. maj 1994 udstedte Det Flamske Fællesskab et dekret om kabeldistributionsnet for radio og fjernsyn, om den tilladelse, der er nødvendig til anlæg og drift af sådanne net, og om fremme af udsendelse og produktion af
The fact that a compulsory authorization system applying to the television sector is not contrary
I henhold til artikel 25 i direktiv 89/552 sætter medlemsstaterne de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 3. oktober 1991, og de underretter straks Kommissionen herom.
The argument concerning the preservation of pluralism in the media government of another Member State; second, the broadcaster, as the original producer of the programmes, must be subject to control by that Member State and, third, the programmes must not compromise public policy, morality or law and order.
Da gennemførelsen ikke har fundet sted inden udløbet af den fastsatte frist, må der gives Kommissionen medhold i dette klagepunkt.
Under Article 5(2) of the decree of 4 May 1994, it is for the Flemish Government to monitor compliance with those conditions and to authorize or refuse retransmission.
Manglende gennemførelse i Det Tysksprogede Fællesskab (femte klagepunkt)
Consequently, that system is, a fortiori, contrary to Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552.
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at Kongeriget Belgien for Det Tysksprogede Fællesskabs vedkommende ikke inden for de fastsatte frister har udstedt de nødvendige bestemmelser for at efterkomme artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 89/552.
As has already been stated, it is solely for the Member States from which programmes emanate to monitor compliance with the provisions of the directive by the broadcasters under their jurisdiction.
Kommissionen har anført, at bestemmelserne om den forudgående tilladelse må anses for at være opretholdt ved dekretet af 4. maj 1994, idet der i dekretets artikel 10, stk. 2, nr. 4, opstilles tre betingelser for viderespredning af programmer fra andre medlemsstater.
Even if the provisions of the decree of 4 May 1994 at issue were intended merely to introduce a system of verification, the requirement of prior authorization, which constitutes a serious obstacle to the free movement of programmes in the Community provided for by the directive, goes beyond what is necessary for ascertaining that the programmes in question emanate from another Member State.
I henhold til artikel 5, stk. 2, i dekretet af 4. maj 1994 tilkommer det den flamske regering at føre kontrol med, at disse betingelser overholdes, og at give tilladelse til eller afslå at give tilladelse til viderespredningen.
According to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed, as regards the bilingual Metropolitan Region of Brussels, to implement within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Article 2(2) of Directive 89/552.
Den belgiske regering har anført, at der i Det Tysksprogede Fællesskab er fuldstændig fri adgang til viderespredning af tvudsendelser, uanset hvorfra programmet sendes og uanset programindholdet, idet der ikke i Det Tysksprogede Fællesskab gælder bestemmelser, som giver dette adgang til at forhindre fri udveksling af udsendelser.
In that regard, the Belgian Government states that, as far as that region is concerned, Directive 89/552 was transposed by the Law of 30 March 1995.
Det er i denne henseende tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at Kommissionen ikke har henvist til nogen bestemmelse eller til noget forhold, som kan give grundlag for at fastslå, at der ikke i Det Tysksprogede Fællesskab er sikret fri adgang til at modtage og videresprede udsendelser fra andre medlemsstater som foreskrevet i artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 89/552.
Without there being any need to examine whether, in the light of Directive 89/552, a Member State is still entitled, on the basis of Article 59 of the Treaty, to take measures to prevent a person providing services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory from exercising the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty for the purpose of avoiding the rules which would be applicable to him if he were established within that State, it need only be stated that those cases do not in any event authorize a Member State generally to exclude provision of certain services by operators established in other Member States, since that would entail abolition of the freedom to provide services (Case C-211/91 Commission ν Belgium).
Som det allerede er udtalt, er det kun de medlemsstater, hvorfra udsendelserne bringes, der skal føre kontrol med, at bestemmelserne i direktiv 89/552 overholdes af de radio- eller fjernsynsinstitutioner, der hører under deres myndighed.
Article 25 of Directive 89/552 provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive by no later than 3 October 1991, and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Manglende korrekt gennemførelse af artikel 14 og 15 i direktiv 89/552 i Det Franske Fællesskab (sjette klagepunkt)
Since the transposition did not take place within the period prescribed, this objection must be upheld.
Manglende gennemførelse i den tosprogede hovedstadsregion Bruxelles (fjerde klagepunkt)
On 4 May 1994 the Flemish Community adopted the Decree on radio and television networks and the authorization necessary for the establishment and operation of such networks and on promoting the broadcasting and production of television programmes (hereinafter «the decree of 4 May 1994»).
Det må herefter fastslås, at Kommissionen må gives medhold i sit sjette klagepunkt.
According to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed, as regards the Germanspeaking Community, to implement within the
Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at Kongeriget Belgien for den tosprogede hovedstadsregion Bruxelles' vedkommende ikke inden for de fastsatte frister har udstedt de nødvendige bestemmelser for at efterkomme artikel 2, stk. 2, i direktiv 89/552.
According to the Commission, the decree of 4 May 1994 maintains the system of prior authorization, since Article 10(2)(4) makes the retransmission of programmes from other Member States subject to three conditions.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Sixth objection: failure to transpose Articles 14 and 15 of Directive 89/552 properly in the French Community
I øvrigt frifindes Kongeriget Belgien.
In those circumstances, the Commission's sixth objection must be upheld.
Forenede sager C-58/95, C-75/95, C-112/95, C119/95, C-123/95, C-135/95, C-140/95, C141/95, C-154/95 og C-157/95 S. Galloti m.fl.
Advocate General O. Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 April 1996.
Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
He proposed that the Court uphold the application in full and order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
Præjudiciel »Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne (Første Afdeling)
Italian Republic's failure to implement the directive within the prescribed time-limit.
Ved ti kendelser afsagt i tiden fra den 26. oktober 1994 til den 4. april 1995, indgået til Domstolen mellem den 6. marts og den 19. maj 1995, har Pretora circondariale di Roma's afdelinger i henholdsvis Tivoli og Castelnuovo di Porto forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 om ændring af direktiv 75/442/EØF om affald (herefter »direktiv 91/156«).
By ten orders made between 26 October 1994 and 4 April 1995, received at the Court between 6 March and 19 May 1995, the Pretore of the Pretura Circondariale di Roma (District Magistrate's Court, Rome), sitting in some of the proceedings as the Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli (Tivoli Division) and in the remainder as the Sezione Distaccata di Castelnuovo di Porto (Castelnuovo di Porto Division), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions relating to Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (hereinafter «the directive»).
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under straffesager mod personer, der står tiltalt for at have overtrådt den italienske lovgivning om affald.
The questions are based on the Pretore's interpretation of the directive, according to which the new Community law provisions relaxed the permit system for waste recovery and introduced a system of controls that is primarily administrative in nature, restricting criminal-law controls to serious cases.
De forelagte spørgsmål
In addition, according to the Pretore the aim of the directive is to ensure the proper functioning of the Internal Market and to remove disparities in the treatment of economic operators.
En sådan fortolkning af direktiv 91/156 for så vidt angår reglerne om tilladelser er fejlagtig.
Those questions were raised in criminal proceedings against various people accused of contravening Italian legislation on waste.
I øvrigt må det nævnes, at der ikke ved direktiv 91/156 er pålagt medlemsstaterne nogen præcis forpligtelse med hensyn til reglerne om kontrol og sanktioner.
Such an interpretation of the permit system in Directive 91/156 is incorrect.
Heraf kan dog ikke sluttes, at nationale bestemmelser om straf for overtrædelser af de lovregler, hvorved direktivet iværksættes, er i strid med direktivet.Medlemsstaterne er nemlig med forbehold af deres frihed ved valg af form og midler i henhold til traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, forpligtet til at vælge de bedst egnede former og midler for at sikre direktivernes tilsigtede virkninger.
Articles 9 and 10 of the directive require undertakings and establishments handling waste to obtain a permit, whether they carry out disposal operations specified in Annex IIA to the directive or operations which may lead to recovery specified in Annex IIB.
Ifølge den forelæggende ret har dette direktiv i øvrigt til formål at få det indre marked til at fungere godt og at fjerne uligheder i behandlingen af de erhvervsdrivende.
Article 11 makes provision for exemptions from the permit requirement in the
Domstolen har netop vedrørende direktiv 91/156 fastslået, at dette gyldigt blev vedtaget med hjemmel i traktatens artikel 130 S i stedet for dens artikel 100 A idet hovedformålet med den i direktivets artikel 1 forudsatte harmonisering, er ud fra hensynet til at beskytte miljøet, at sikre en effektiv behandling af affald i Fællesskabet,
The national court seeks essentially to ascertain, first, whether Community law, in particular Directive 91/156, must be interpreted as permitting the imposition of criminal penalties such as those laid down in Italian law and, secondly, what consequences may result from the
Det er derfor forkert at antage, at dette direktiv særligt har til formål at få det indre marked til at fungere rigtigt og at fjerne uligheder i behandlingen af de erhvervsdrivende.
It is therefore incorrect to consider the specific objectives of that directive to be the proper functioning of the internal market and the abolition of disparities in the treatment of economic operators.
I den forbindelse må det tilføjes, at også selv om direktiv 91/156 havde de særlige mål, som den forelæggende ret formoder, ville der ikke dermed ske nogen begrænsning af medlemsstaternes frihed i henhold til traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, til at vælge de bedst egnede former og midler til at tilvejebringe dets tilsigtede virkning.
Moreover, even if Directive 91/156 did pursue the specific objectives that the national court ascribes to it, that would not reduce the freedom conferred on the Member States by the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty to choose the most appropriate forms and methods for ensuring its effectiveness.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Finally, the Court has held that Directive 91/156 was validly adopted on the basis of Article 130s
»Traktatens artikel 5 og 189, stk 3, skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat ikke herved er afskåret fra at benytte strafferetlige sanktioner for på hensigtsmæssig måde at sikre, at forpligtelserne ifølge direktiv 91/156 opfyldes, såfremt de i den forbindelse fastsatte strafferetlige sanktioner er de samme som de, der finder anvendelse i tilfælde af overtrædelser af samme art og grovhed af national ret, når blot disse sanktioner er effektive, står i rimeligt forhold til overtrædelsen og har en afskrækkende virkning.·
«Article 5 and the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and dissuasive.»
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling^ den 8. februar 1996.
Advocate General N. Fennelly delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 8 February 1996.