natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved stævning, indgivet den 11. november 1987, havde firmaet Triveneta Zuccheri SpA, Verona (Italien), og syv andre italienske sukkerforhandlere nedlagt påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 87/533/EØF, stilet til Den Italienske Republik, og hvorved Kommissionen havde fastslået, at den godtgørelse på 37,12 lire, som blev ydet de italienske forhandlere pr. kg hvid sukker på lager den 29. oktober 1984, udgjorde en statslig støtte, som var uforenelig med det fælles marked i EØF-Traktatens artikel 92's forstand, og at godtgørelsen derfor ikke kunne udbetales.
By an application lodged on 11 November 1987, Tri veneta Zuccheri SpA, whose registered office is In Verona (Italy), together with seven other Italian companies which deal in sugar, sought a declaration that Commission Decision No. 87/533/EEC, addressed to the Italian Republic and whereby the Commission found that the reimbursement to Italian traders of Lit.
Godtgørelsen var blevet indført til fordel for disse forhandlere for at erstatte den tabte fortjeneste, som fulgte af nedsættelsen af maksimalprisen ved salg af sukker med 40,08 lire pr. kg i forhold til en tidligere gældende pris, som var besluttet af Den Interministerielle Priskommission.
37.12 per kilogramme of white sugar held in storage on 29 October 1984 constituted a State aid incompatible with the Common Market within the meaning of Article 92 of the EEC Treaty, and could not therefore be operated, was void.
Domstolen havde indledningsvis bemærket, at de sagsøgende firmaers anbringender forudsatte, at den italienske lovgivning om fastsættelse af maksimumspriser for sukker var uforenelig med fællesskabsretten.
This refund was decided upon in order to compensate traders for the diminution in their profit margin resulting from a reduction in the maximum sales price for sugar by Lit.
For at kunne realitetsbehandle disse anbringender måtte Domstolen derfor tage stilling til den nævnte lovgivnings overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
40.09 in relation to the price previously in force.
Det fulgte imidlertid af Domstolens faste praksis, at den kun i forbindelse med traktatbrudssager kunne tage stilling til et spørgsmål om en national bestemmelses overensstemmelse med fællesskabsretten.
Yet it was settled caselaw that, apart from an application for a declaration 1n Infringement proceedings, 1t was not for the Court to rule on the compatibility of a national provision with Community law.
Domstolen havde derfor fastslået, at den ikke under et søgsmål om annullation af en kommissionsbeslutning kunne tage stilling til de anbringender, som de sagsøgende firmaer havde påberåbt sig imod, at den pågældende italienske foranstaltning blev betegnet som støtte, idet den herved ville foregribe afgørelsen af, om den italienske ordning om fastsættelse af sukkerprisen var forenelig med fællesskabsretten.
It followed therefrom that the Court could not rule on the submissions raised by the applicants by which they contested that the Italian measure in question was in the nature of an aid, without risking prejudging, in the context of an application for a declaration of nullity brought against a decision of the Commission, the question of compatibility with Community law of the Italian system for determining sugar prices.
Domstolen kendte for ret:
The Court ruled:
Sagsøgerne betaler in solidum sagens omkostninger."
The applicant companies are jointly to pay the costs".
Generaladvokat Walter van Gerven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 11. januar *\9W.
Advocate General Walter Van Gerven delivered his Opinion at the sitting on
Han foreslog følgende: "Jeg skal derfor forslå Domstolen, at den annullerer Kommissionens beslutning 87/533/EØF på grund af manglende begrundelse og pålægger sagsøgte sagens omkostninger".
He proposed that the Court should declare Commission Decision No. 87/533/EEC void on the ground that 1t did not contain an adequate statement of reasons and that the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Ved kendelse af 15. november 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 18. november s.a., havde Office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 13 i Protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers Privilegier og Immuniteter (herefter benævnt protokollen), samt vedrørende EØF-Traktatens artikler 5 og 7.
By an order of 15 November 1988, which was received at the Court on 18 November 1988, the Office of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling several questions relating to the interpretation of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") and Articles 5 and 7 of the EEC Treaty.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en retssag mellem P.J.K. Tither, der er tjenestemand ved Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber, og Commissioners of Inland Revenue vedrørende disses afslag på at udstede en meddelelse, der er nødvendig for, at Tither kan drage fordel af en ordning, der er bestemt til at fremme erhvervelse og forbedring af private boliger i henhold til Finance Act 1982, benævnt MIRAS (Mortgage Interest Relief at Source), med den begrundelse, at Tither som tjenestemand ved De Europæiske Fællesskaber ikke var en "qualified borrower", hvilket begreb ifølge Finance Act ikke omfatter personer, hvis indtægter hidrørende fra beskæftigelse er omfattet af en særlig skattefritagelse eller skattefrihed.
These questions were raised in the context of proceedings between Mr P.J.K. Tither, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue relating to a refusal to grant a notice necessary to enable him to benefit from a scheme pursuant to the Finance Act 1982, designed to encourage the acquisition and improvement of
Ved besvarelsen af de forelagte spørgsmål understregede Domstolen for det første, at MIRAS-ordningen har til formål at lette de byrder for låntagere, som er forbundet med betaling af renter af pantebreve, med henblik på at fremme privates køb eller forbedring af boliger.
In order to reply to the questions raised by the Special Commissioners of Income Tax, it was first of all necessary to emphasize that the MIRAS scheme was designed to alleviate the burdens on borrowers stemming from the payment of mortgage Interest, In order to encourage the purchase or Improvement of dwelling houses by private persons.
For de personer, hvis skattepligtige indkomst falder under bundgrænsen, har ordningen til formål at yde modtageren en direkte støtte, idet der i et sådant tilfælde ikke er nogen forbindelse mellem en skattebyrde og en rentefradragsret.
As regards persons whose taxable income was too low to be charged to tax at the basic rate, the scheme had the effect of granting the beneficiary a direct subsidy given that, in such a case, there was no relationship between a tax burden and a deduction made from the payment of interest.
På dette grundlag fastslog Domstolen, at protokollens artikel 13 ikke forpligter medlemsstaterne til at yde tjenestemænd eller andre ansatte ved Fællesskaberne de samme former for støtte, som tildeles de ydelsesberettigede i henhold til de gældende nationale bestemmelser.
In the light of that situation, the Court considered that Article 13 of the Protocol did not require Member States to grant officials and other servants of the Community the same subsidies that were paid to beneficiaries determined in accordance with the relevant national provisions.
Artikel 13 kræver blot, at når sådanne personer pålægges bestemte skatter, kan de nyde godt af enhver skattemæssig fordel, som normalt tilkommer skattepligtige personer, således at det undgås, at de pålægges en større skattemæssig byrde.
Article 13 merely required that, whenever such persons were subject to certain taxes, they were able to enjoy any tax advantage normally available to taxable persons, so as to prevent those persons from being subject to a greater tax burden.
Hvad angår EØF-Traktatens artikel 5, henviste Domstolen til sin tidligere praksis, hvorefter denne bestemmelse bl.a. forbyder medlemsstaterne at træffe foranstaltninger, der kan hindre fællesskabsinstitutionernes funktion.
As far as Article 5 of the EEC Treaty was concerned, it had to be remembered that, as the Court had already pointed out, that provision prohibited Member States, Inter alia, from adopting measures which were likely to Impede the functioning of the Community institutions.
Selv om en foranstaltning som MIRAS-ordningen kan have til følge, at Fællesskabernes tjenestemænd og ansatte fratages en Økonomisk fordel, som ville tilkomme dem, hvis de ikke var ansat ved Fællesskaberne, fremgår det ikke, at denne ordning kan afskrække bestemte personer fra at søge ansættelse ved Fællesskaberne eller opmuntre dem til at opgive deres ansættelse dér, hvorfor ordningen ikke kan hindre fællesskabsinstitutionernes funktion.
Although a system such as the MIRAS scheme might have the effect of depriving officials and servants of the Communities of a financial advantage which they would enjoy if they did not have that status, it did not appear that the scheme was likely to dissuade certain persons from entering the service of the Communities, or to induce them to quit the employment that they carried on there. It was, consequently, not of such a nature as to impede the functioning of the Community institutions.
For så vidt angår Traktatens artikel 7, anførte Domstolen, er det ubestridt, at MIRAS-ordningen ikke sondrer mellem ydelsesberettigede på grundlag af nationalitet.
As regards Article 7 of the Treaty, it was not disputed that the MIRAS scheme made no distinction between beneficiaries on the basis of their nationality.
Denne bestemmelse kunne derfor heller ikke have nogen betydning for fortolkningen af protokollens artikel 13.
Accordingly, that provision was also not capable of having any bearing on the interpretation of Article 13 of the Protocol in this case.
"Bestemmelserne i Traktatens artikler 5 og 7 og i artikel 13 i Protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers Privilegier og Immuniteter skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, der subsidierer renter, som en person betaler af lån til køb eller forbedring af sin hovedbopæl, der er beliggende i denne stat, når vedkommende person i den pågældende stat har en skattepligtig indkomst, der er lavere end det betalte rentebeløb, afviser at indrømme denne fordel til personer, som er tjenestemænd eller ansatte ved De Europæiske Fællesskaber, når disse personers skattepligtige indkomst i den pågældende stat er lavere end det rentebeløb, som de betaler."
"The provisions of Articles 5 and 7 of the Treaty and of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities must be interpreted as meaning that they do not preclude a Member State, which subsidizes interest paid by individuals on loans taken out for the acquisition or improvement of their main
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 8. februar wxr:
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8
"Frie varebevægelser - varer i fri omsætning - bevisbyrde" (Sjette Afdeling)
He proposed that the Court's reply should be as follows:
Ved dom af 10. marts 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 14. marts s.a., havde Hof van Beroep, Antwerpen, forelagt nogle præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende for tolkningen af en række fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser om varer, der befinder sig i omsætning inden for Fællesskabet.
"Where a Member State subsidizes interest paid by an Individual on a loan to purchase or Improve his main residence situated within that State if his income taxable in that State is less than the amount of the interest paid, neither Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities nor any other provision of Community law precludes that State from refusing to subsidize such payments of Interest by an individual who is domiciled there for tax purposes and 1s an official or other servant of the Communities to the extent that his income taxable in that State is less than the amount of those payments".
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en straffesag mod Houben, der var tiltalt for at være indrejst i Belgien fra Tyskland med et japansk fremstillet stereoanlæg, der var indbygget i hans motorkøretøj.
Case C-83/89: Openbaar Ministerie and the prosecuting party, the Minister of Finance ν Vincent Houben - 22 March 1990 (Preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - Goods 1n free circulation - Burden of proof) (Sixth Chamber)
Med det første spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale domstol at få oplyst, om det er muligt, og i givet fald på hvilke betingelser, at antage, at en vare, der er indført fra et tredjeland, befinder sig i "fri omsætning" i Fællesskabet, såfremt indfØrselsformaliteterne ikke er blevet afsluttet, og såfremt der ikke er blevet erlagt told.
By a judgment of 10 March 1989, received at the Court on 14 March 1989, the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen referred a number of questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the Interpretation of certain provisions of Community law relating to goods in circulation within the Community.
Domstolen anførte, at der ved varer, som frit kan omsættes, må forstås varer hidrørende fra tredjelande, som i overensstemmelse med de i EØF-Traktatens artikel 10, stk. 1, fastsatte krav lovformeligt er blevet indført til en hvilken som helst medlemsstat.
Those questions were raised during the course of criminal proceedings Instituted by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Belgium against Mr Houben, who was charged with having entered Belgium from Germany while in the possession of stereo equipment manufactured in Japan installed in his car without making the declaration required by law and without paying the customs duty payable on that Importation.
Denne bestemmelse sondrer nemlig ikke mellem varer, der er blevet indført fra et tredjeland, og som er i omsætning i en medlemsstat, hvor indfØrsel s for maliteterne er blevet afsluttet og de forskellige afgifter erlagt, og varer,
In its first question, the national court sought to ascertain whether it was possible, and, if so, in what circumstances, to consider that goods imported from a nonmember country were in "free circulation" in the Community even 1f the import formalities had not been completed and the customs duty paid.
- 24 - som efter en forskriftsmæssig afslutning af indførselsformaliteterne og betaling af de forskellige afgifter i en medlemsstat, derefter importeres til en anden medlemsstat.
In that regard, the Court pointed out that products in free circulation were to be understood as meaning those products which, coming from nonmember countries, had been duly Imported into any one of the Member States in accordance with the requirements laid down in Article 10 (1) of the EEC Treaty.
Hof van Beroep Ønskede med det andet spørgsmål oplyst, hvem det ved indførsel fra en medlemsstat til en anden påhviler at bevise, at varer som medføres af rejsende, eller som indeholdes i deres rejsebagage, befinder sig i fri omsætning inden for Fællesskabet.
The Hof van Beroep's second question sought to determine on whom, on the occasion of an Importation from one Member State Into another, the burden of proving that goods accompanying travellers or contained In their luggage were in free circulation 1n the Community fell.
Domstolen fastslog for det første, at Rådets forordning nr. 222/77 og Kommissionens forordning nr. 223/77 fastsætter den regel, hvorefter beviset for en vares fællesskabskarakter i mangel af undtagelsesbestemmelser kun kan føres ved anvendelse af T2- eller T2L-dokumentet.
The Court noted, first of all, that Council Regulation No. 222/77 and Commission Regulation No. 223/77 established the rule that proof of the Community status of goods was to be provided exclusively, where no exception was provided for, by a T2 or a T2L form.
Domstolen fastslog derefter, at det fremgår af artikel 49, stk. 1 og 2, i forordning nr. 222/77, som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 983/79, at ved transport af varer, som ikke er bestemt til erhvervsmæssige formål, er det tilstrækkeligt til at bevise fællesskabskarakteren at de varer, som medføres af rejsende, eller som indeholdes i deres rejsebagage, at de angives som fællesskabsvarer, og at der ikke er tvivl om angivelsens rigtighed; det er kun, såfremt toldmyndigheden er i tvivl, at den rejsende skal fremvise et dokument for intern fællesskabsforsendelse (T2 eller T2L).
It further pointed out that it was clear from Article 49 (1) and (2) of Regulation No. 222/77 as amended by Council Regulation No. 983/79 that a declaration as to whose accuracy there was no cause for doubt was sufficient, in the case of goods not Intended for commercial use, for goods accompanying a traveller or contained in his luggage to be considered to be Community goods; only if there was a doubt in the mind of the customs authorities was 1t necessary for the traveller to produce an internal Community transit document (T2 or T2L).
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid herom, at den omstændighed, at den pågældende vare er fremstillet i et tredjeland, ikke i sig selv er nok til at skabe tvivl i den nævnte bestemmelses forstand.
The Court specified, however, in that connexion, that the fact that goods were manufactured in a nonmember country was not of itself sufficient to justify doubt within the meaning of the abovementioned provision.
Toldmyndighedernes tvivl med hensyn til rigtigheden af den rejsendes angivelse skal bero på objektive forhold, f.eks. vedrørende de særlige omstændigheder ved den pågældende indførsel, eller oplysninger, som de har modtaget om denne indførsel.
Any doubts on the part of the customs authorities as to the accuracy of the traveller's declaration must be based on objective evidence arising, for example, out of the particular circumstances of, or Information received by the authorities concerning, the importation.
Subjektive meninger hos den toldembedsmand, der skal foretage kontrollen, er ikke tilstrækkelig til at forpligte den rejsende til at fremvise et dokument for intern fællesskabsforsendelse. sendelse.
Subjective considerations on the part of the officials carrying out the inspection were not sufficient to justify requiring the traveller to present an internal Community transport document.
Domstolen udtalte videre, at denne fortolkning er i overensstemmelse med bestemmelsens formål, som er at lette transporten af varer, der ikke er bestemt til erhvervsmæssige formål, og som medføres af rejsende, eller som indeholdes i deres rejsebagage, idet de rejsende herved fritages for den bevisbyrde, som ville tvinge dem til at opfylde formaliteterne i henhold til ordningen for intern fællesskabsforsendelse.
That interpretation was in accordance with the purpose of the provision, which was to facilitate the transport of goods not intended for commercial use accompanying travellers or contained in their luggage by exonerating travellers from the burden of proof which would have obliged them to complete the formalities provided for under the procedure for internal Community transit.
Domstolen besvarede de forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court ruled as follows:
Den rejsende skal imidlertid forevise et dokument for intern fællesskabsforsendelse, når der med hensyn til angivelsens rigtighed foreligger en på objektive forhold grundet tvivl."
However, 1n the event of any doubt, based on objective criteria, as to the accuracy of that declaration, the traveller must produce an Internal Community transport document if one exists".
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 23. januar WPST
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 23 January 1990.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
Ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 10, stk. 1, forstås ved varer som frit kan omsættes i en medlemsstat, sådanne fra tredjeland hidrørende varer, for hvilke de af vedkommende medlemsstat foreskrevne formaliteter i forbindelse med indførslen er blevet opfyldt, og for hvilke denne medlemsstat har opkrævet gældende told og afgifter med tilsvarende virkning, og for hvilke disse told- og afgiftsbeløb ikke er blevet helt eller delvis godtgjort.
Article 10 (1) of the EEC Treaty provides that products coming from a nonmember country are to be considered to be in free circulation in a Member State 1f the import formalities have been complied with and any customs duties or charges having equivalent effect which are payable have been levied in that Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or charges.
Denne definition gælder også, selv om varen eksporteres til en anden medlemsstat.
That definition 1s unaffected by the exportation of a product to another Member State.
- i andre tilfælde, når importøren foreviser et dokument for intern fællesskabsforsendelse.
Pursuant to Article 49 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 222/77 of 13 December 1976 on Community transit, as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 983/79 of 14 May 1979, the provisions of the EEC Treaty which relate to the free movement of goods are to apply to goods accompanying travellers or contained in their luggage, if the goods concerned are not intended for commercial use, provided that:
Rigtigheden af denne angivelse kan ikke drages i tvivl, blot fordi de indførte varer er af et mærke, som giver grundlag for den slutning, at de er fremstillet i en tredjestat."
(i) the Importer declares them as Community goods and there is no doubt as to the accuracy of that declaration, or
"Institutionernes retsforhold - protokollen vedrørende privilegier og immuniteter - europaparlamentarikernes immunitet - Domstolens kompetence" (Sjette Afdeling)
Doubt may not be cast on the accuracy of that declaration on the basis merely of the fact that the brand name of the goods declared suggests that they were manufactured in a nonmember country".
Ifølge sagsøgerne indeholdt pjecen ærekrænkende sigtelser mod dem.
Case C-201/89: Jean-Marie Le Pen and Parti Front National ν D. Puhl and Others
Den nationale ret ønskede med sit spørgsmål oplyst, hvorvidt Domstolen i med før af EØF-Traktatens artikler 178 og 183 er enekompetent til at afgøre en tvist om ansvar uden for kontraktsforhold opstået som følge af uddelingen af en ærekrænkende pjece i Europa-Parlamentets lokaler.
(Law of the Community institutions - Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the Communities - Immunity of Members of the European Parliament - Jurisdiction of the Court) (Sixth Chamber)
Med hensyn til det første problem havde de indstævnte i hovedsagen påberåbt sig artikel 1 i Protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fællesskabers Privilegier og Immuniteter, der fastsætter, at Fællesskabernes lokaler og bygninger er ukrænkelige til støtte herfor havde de gjort gældende, at de nationale retsinstanser ikke havde nogen kompetence til at pådømme forhold, der havde fundet sted i disse lokaler og bygninger, da Domstolen er enekompetent på dette område.
By judgment of 2 June 1989, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 June 1989, the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of EEC Treaty a question on the Interpretation of Community law with respect to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and the national courts respectively.
Bestemmelsen vedrører ikke kompetencefordelingen mellem Dom stolen og de nationale retsinstanser med hensyn til sager om ansvar uden for kontraktsforhold.
That leaflet, which was produced on the initiative of the Socialist Group of the European Parliament after the Parliament adopted a declaration condemning racism and xenophobia, was distributed in various langauge versions in the premises of the Parliament in Strasbourg.