natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den forelæggende ret Ønskede med sit første spørgsmål en afgérelse af, om nationale bestemmelser med en definition af begrebet affald, der ikke omfatter stoffer og genstande, som kan genbruges økonomisk, er 1 overensstemmelse med Rådets direktiver 75/442 og 78/319.
Directive 75/442 on waste and Council Directive 78/319 on toxic and dangerous waste.
Domstolen bemarkede 1 den forbindelse, at den 1 dom af 28. marts 1990, Vessoso og Zanetti (se sammendrag heraf ovenfor), havde statueret, at begrebet affald, jfr. artikel 1 i Rådets direktiver 75/442 og 78/319, ikke skal fortolkes således, at stoffer og ting, som kan genbruges Økonomisk, falder uden for begrebet. bet.
Those questions were raised In criminal proceedings brought against transport operators accused of having transported chemical waste, on behalf of others, without having obtained prior authorization and having thereby Infringed Decree No. 915 of the President of the Italian Republic, which was adopted in order to transpose into national law the two abovementioned directives.
Den forelæggende ret Ønskede med sit andet spørgsmål i det væsentlige afgjort, om nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter der ikke for transport af affald, som er omfattet af Rådets direktiv 75/442, stilles krav om forudgående tilladelse, er forenelige med dette direktivs artikel 10.
In their defence, the accused maintained, first of all, that the substances which they transported did not constitute waste within the meaning of the presidential decree. The substances in question were capable of economic reutilization and had therefore not been discarded, nor was there an Intention to discard them.
Domstolen bemarkede, at medlemsstaterne Ifølge artikel 10 i direktiv 75/442 er forpligtet til at underkaste transport af affald tilsyn ved den af dem udpegede kompetente myndighed, hvorimod medlemsstaterne Ikke skal krave forudgående tilladelse til en sådan transportvirksomhed.
The accused pointed out, moreover, that the presidential decree made subject to authorization only the transport of toxic and dangerous waste within the meaning of Directive 78/319.
Domstolen fremhavede dog, at medlemsstaterne ifølge direktivets artikel 4 har adgang til at vedtage regler om, at der til transport af affald, som er omfattet af navnte direktiv, skal Indhentes forudgående tilladelse, såfremt dette findes påkrævet af hensyn til gennemførelse af direktivets formål.
From that fact they concluded that, assuming that the substances that they had transported were waste within the meaning of Directive 75/442, no authorization was needed to transport them.
Den forelæggende ret Ønskede med sit tredje spørgsmål en afgérelse af, om det gyldigt efter artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 75/442 kan bestemmes, at kompetencen til at udstede tilladelser til transport af affald er tillagt myndigheder, hvis kompetence ikke omfatter hele det nationale område.
By its first question, the national court asked whether a national regulation which adopted a definition of the concept of waste which excluded substances and objects which were capable of economic reutilization was compatible with Council Directives 75/442 and 78/319.
Domstolen henviste i den forbindelse blot til, at det af direktivets artikel 5 fremgår, at kompetencen for de myndigheder, som medlemsstaterne udpeger til at give tilladelse til de forskellige former for virksomhed i forbindelse med fjernelse af affald, kan være begrænset til et bestemt område.
The Court pointed out 1n that regard that in its judgment of 28 March 1990, Vessoso and Zanetti (see summary above) the Court ruled that the concept of waste within the meaning of Article 1 of Council Directive 75/442 and Article 1 of Council Directive 78/319 was not to be understood as excluding substances and objects which were capable of economic reutilization.
Medlemsstaterne har dog adgang til at vedtage regler om, at der til transport af affald, som er omfattet af nævnte direktiv, skal indhentes forudgående tilladelse, såfremt dette findes påkrævet af hensyn til gennemførelse af direktivets formål.
The Court emphasized, however, that under Article 4 of the directive the Member States could lawfully subject the transport of waste covered by that directive to a system of prior authorization if they considered it necessary to achieve the objectives of the directive.
Kompetencen til at udstede tilladelser til transport af affald kan efter artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 75/442 gyldigt tillagges myndigheder, hvis kompetence ikke omfatter hele det nationale område."
In that regard the Court considered it sufficient to point out that it followed from Article 5 of the Directive that the authorities which the Member States designated for the purposes of authorizing the disposal of waste could be competent only in a specific area.
(Præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - ægthedscertifikat - toldværdi - forordning (EØF) nr. 1224/80" (Første Afdeling)
National legislation which does not make the transport of waste covered by Council Directive 75/442 subject to a system of prior authorization 1s compatible with Article 10 of that directive.
Certifikaterne var nødvendige for at kunne indføre kød toldfrit inden for rammerne af det fællesskabstoldkontingent, der var åbnet ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 217/81.
The vesting in authorities which do not have competence at the national level of the power to Issue authorizations for the transport of waste 1s compatible with Article 5 of Council Directive 75/442."
Første spørgsmål
Opinions: See Joined Cases C-206 and C-207/88, above.
Malt gjorde under henvisning til Domstolens praksis gældende, at tillægsbeløbet for ægthedscertifikatet ikke er en del af den pris, der er betalt eller skal betales for importerede varer.
Case C-219/88 Malt GmbH ν Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf - 28 March 1990 (Preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - Certificate of authenticity - Value for customs purposes - Regulation (EEC) No. 1224/80) (First Chamber)
I den forbindelse anførte Domstolen først, at selv om den allerede har statueret, at kvoteomkostninger faktureret 1 et tredjeland ved erhvervelse af eksportkontingenter for tekstiler ikke er en integrerende del af toldvardien, må det dog understreges, at der er stor forskel mellem de ægthedscertifikater, der kræves ved import af oksekød af HØj kvalitet, og eksportlicenserne for teksti Ivarer.
By order of 26 May 1988, received at the Court on 3 August 1988, the Bundesfinanzhof [Federal Finance Court] referred three questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Council Regulation No. 1224/80.
Domstolen udtalte videre, at certifikatet tjener til at attestere, at varen er i overensstemmelse med de nærmere angivelser 1 artikel 1 i forordning nr. 263/81. Da disse angivelser vedrører slagtekvægets beskaffenhed, kan certifikatet ikke udstedes, medmindre det slagteri, der udsteder certifikatet, har foretaget en undersøgelse af kvæget.
Those questions had been raised in proceedings between Malt GmbH and the Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf following the latter's decision to include in the value for customs purposes of a consignment of beef the costs connected with the acquisition 1n the Argentine Republic of certificates of authenticity relating thereto.
Selv i tilfælde, hvor der
The certificates were needed to allow the
- 29 - sker en indirekte overførsel af kvoter fra et slagteri til et andet, vedrører agthedscertifikatet og oplysningerne heri en bestemt vare.
Contrary to the position in relation to the quota system applicable to textiles, there could be no lawful trade in authenticity certificates separate from that of the goods to which they related.
Heraf følger, at udgifterne 1 forbindelse med erhvervelse af agthedscertif1kater skal anses for en integrerende del af den pris, som faktisk er betalt eller skal betales for varerne, og dermed af toldværdien.
It followed that the costs relating to the acquisition of authenticity certificates had to be regarded as an Integral part of the price paid or to be paid for the goods and therefore of the value for customs purposes.
Malt gjorde gældende, at de tillægsbeløb, der var betalt for ægthedscertifikaterne, faktisk svarede til de afgifter, Fællesskabet havde givet afkald på i forbindelse med toldkontingentet.
Malt alleged that the additional amounts paid for authenticity certificates represented the substantive equivalent of levies which the Community had renounced as part of tariff quotas.
Disse beløb var derfor afgifter i den betydning, der er forudsat i artikel 3, stk. 4, litra b), i forordning nr. 1224/80, selv om de skulle betales i et tredjeland.
Such amounts thus constituted taxes within the meaning of Article 3 (4) (b) of Regulation No. 1224/80 even if they were payable in a non-member country.
Domstolen bemærkede imidlertid, at artikel 3, stk. 4, kun vedrører "afgifter, som skal betales i Fællesskabet".
It was however to be observed that Article 3 (4) concerned only "taxes payable in the Community".
Udgifterne til ægthedscertifikaterne betales til det argentinske slagteri, som udsteder certifikatet, som en integrerende del af den pris, der skal betales for varerne.
Costs relating to authenticity certificates, as an integral part of the price payable for the goods, were paid to the Argentinian slaughterhouse which issued the certificate.
Disse udgifter kan derfor ikke betegnes som "afgifter, som skal betales i Fællesskabet", som ifølge deres natur opkræves af de kompetente myndigheder i medlemsstaterne.
Such costs could not therefore be described as "taxes payable in the Community" which by their nature were charged by the competent authorities of the Member States.
- 30 - rende del af toldværdien af varer indført til Fællesskabet i den betydning, der er forudsat i bestemmelserne i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1224/80 af 28. maj 1980 om varers toldværdi".
Article 3 (1) and (3) thereof must be Interpreted as meaning that in assessing the value of Imported Argentinian beef for the purposes of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 217/81 of 20 January 1981, opening a Community tariff quota for high quality, fresh, chilled or frozen beef and veal falling within subheading 02.01 A II (a) and 02.01 A II (b) of the Common Customs Tariff, the amounts paid to the seller in addition to the price of the goods for the certificates of authenticity needed for recourse to the quota rules must be regarded as an integral part of the value for customs purposes.
(Præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - Fælles Toldtarif - Øreperforeringsapparater og ørespyd" (Første Afdeling)
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows: "Funds paid to vendors for the necessary authenticity certificates to benefit from the Community rules on quotas are not an Integral part of the value for customs purposes of the goods Imported Into the Community within the meaning of the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1224/80 of 20 May 1980 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes."
Ved kendelse afsagt den 27. juni 1988, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 28. november 1988, havde Finanzgericht München forelagt Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af positionerne og underpositionerne i Den Fælles Toldtarif 71.16 A, 73.31 B, 82.04, 84.59 E og 90.17.
Case C-344/88: Erich Wittmann GmbH & Co. KG ν Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth - 28 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Free movement of goods - Common Customs Tariff - Ear-p1ercing instruments and stud earrings) (First Chamber) By order of 27 June 1988, which was received at the Court on 28 November 1988, the Finanzgericht München [Finance Court, Munich] referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of tariff headings 71.16 A, 73.31 B, 82.04, 84.59 E and 90.17 of the Common Customs Tariff.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag mellem selskabet Wittmann, der importerer Øreperforeringsapparater og Ørespyd, og Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth. Den nationale ret Ønskede med spørgsmålene oplyst, under hvilke positioner i Den Fælles Toldtarif de omhandlede produkter skal indplaceres.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Wittmann GmbH, an Importer of ear-piercing Instruments and stud earrings, and Hauptzollamt Nürnberg-Fürth Intended to determine the heading of the Common Customs Tariff under which the said goods were to be classified.
Domstolen kendte for ret:
The Court held that:
Sag C-62/88: Den Hellenske Republik mod Rådet for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Subheading 84.59 E II of the Common Customs Tariff must be Interpreted as including ear-pierdng instruments."
29.3.1990 "Handelspolitik - import af landbrugsprodukter - A-ulykken i Tjernobyl" (Domstolens plenum)
Mr Advocate General Jean Mlscho delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 11 January 1990.
Det første led af anbringendet gik ud på, at Rådet havde tilsidesat såvel EØF- som Euratom-Traktaten ved at udstede forordning nr. 3955/87 med hjemmel i EØF-Traktatens artikel 113.
Subheading 84.59 E II must be Interpreted as Including guns designed to pierce the earlobe by placing therein the object referred to in the answer to the first question.^.
Herved påpegede Domstolen - i Ughed med, hvad den tidligere havde statueret -at en Institution inden for rammerne af den geldende kompetenceregler i Fallesskabet skal foretage sit valg af hjemmel for en retsakt på grundlag af objektive forhold, som Domstolen har mulighed for at efterpréve.
Case C-62/88: Hellenic Republic ν Council of the European Communities - 29 March 1990 (Commercial policy - Importation of agricultural products - Accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power station) (Full Court)
Videre fastslog Domstolen, at den anfægtede forordning ifølge sit formål og indhold, således som det fremgik af selve forordningens ordlyd, havde til formål at regulere samhandelen mellem Fællesskabet og tredjelande, hvorfor den udgjorde et led i den fælles handelspolitik i EØF-Traktatens artikel 113's forstand.
That regulation, which had been adopted by the Council by a qualified majority, on the basis of Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, made the release for free circulation of certain agricultural products originating in non-member countries subject to the observance of maximum permitted levels of radioactive contamination.
Domstolen fandt det ikke udelukket at anvende artikel 113 som hjemmel for den anfægtede forordning af den grund, at Euratom-Traktatens artikler 30 ff. indeholder særlige regler om grundlæggende normer til beskyttelse af befolkningens sundhed mod de farer, som er forbundet med ioniserende stråling.
The first submission was directed against the legal basis for the contested regulation; in the second part of that submission the Hellenic Republic claimed that, by basing Regulation No. 3955/87 on Article 113 of the EEC Treaty, the Council had infringed the EEC and Euratom Treaties.
Disse bestemmelser tilsigter nemlig en beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed inden for den nukleare sektor og har ikke til formål at regulere samhandelen mellem Fallesskabet og tredjelande.
Specifically, the Hellenic Republic maintained that the regulation was concerned solely with protecting the health of the peoples of the Member States from the consequences of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl and should therefore have been based either on Article 31 of the Euratom Treaty or on Articles 130r and 130s of the EEC Treaty, possibly in conjunction with Article 235 thereof.
Disse traktatbestemmelser begrænser imidlertid ingenlunde Fællesskabets beføjelser efter andre af Traktatens bestemmelser, selv om de foranstaltninger, der skal træffes efter de sidstnævnte bestemmelser, samtidig forfølger et af formålene med miljøbeskyttelsen.
According to the purpose and content of the contested regulation, apparent from Its actual wording, Its object was to control trade between the Community and non-member countries; as such, it fell within the scope of common commercial policy under Article 113 of the EEC Treaty.
Det andet led af den græske regerings første anbringende var, at Rådet havde gjort sig skyldig i magtfordrejning. Rådet havde valgt Traktatens artikel 113 som hjemmel for forordning nr. 3955/87 udelukkende med det formål at kunne vedtage forordningen med kvalificeret flertal og dermed undgå at skulle træffe afgørelsen med den i Traktatens artikel 130 S fordrede enstemmighed.
Similarly, the fact that the maximum permitted levels for radioactive contamination in agricultural products were fixed in response to a concern for the protection of public health, and that the protection of human health was one of the goals of the action by the Community relating to the environment under Article 130r, could not serve to remove Regulation No. 3955/87 from the sphere of the common commercial policy.
Domstolen fandt det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, som den tidligere havde anført, at Traktatens artikel 113 udgjorde den rigtige hjemmel for den anfægtede forordning.
The Court explained that Articles 130r and 130s were Intended to vest the Community with powers to undertake special action with regard to the environment.
Rådet kunne således ikke antages at have begået magtfordrejning ved at vedtage forordningen i overensstemmelse med den i denne traktatbestemmelse foreskrevne procedure.
They did not, however, encroach on the powers held by the Community by virtue of other provisions of the Treaty, even though the measures to be adopted thereunder also sought, as one of their aims, to protect the environment.
Den græske regering kritiserede i den forbindelse Rådet for ikke at have angivet i forordningen, om den var i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens forslag eller ej.
Turning to the possibility of citing Article 235 as well, the Court merely pointed out that, as it had previously held, the use of that article as the legal basis for a measure was justified only where no other provision of the Treaty gave the Community institutions the necessary power to adopt the measure in question.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at det fremgår af selve artikel 190's ordlyd, at den foreskriver en forpligtelse til at henvise til Kommissionens forslag i de retsakter, som kun kan træffes efter forslag fra Kommissionen, men derimod ingen forpligtelse til at angive, om retsakten er i overensstemmelse med forslaget eller ej.
In the second part of Its first submission the Hellenic Government had claimed that the Council had misused its powers by choosing Article 113 of the EEC Treaty as the legal basis for Regulation No. 3955/87 for the sole purpose of being able to act by a qualified majority, thereby evading the unanimity of decision-making required by Article 130s of the EEC Treaty.
Generaladvokat Marco Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 14. februar
The Council could not therefore be accused of misusing Its powers by following the procedure laid down thereunder in adopting the regulation.
Han foreslog Domstolen at afsige følgende dom: "Sagsøgte frifindes, og Den Hellenske Republik betaler sagens, herunder intervenienternes omkostninger".
The second submission alleged an Infringement of Article 190 of the EEC Treaty.
27.3.1990 (Préjudiciel) Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main Gyldigheden af artikel 9, stk. 2, tredje afsnit, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2499/82 af 15. september 1982 om bestemmelserne vedrørende forebyggende destillation for vinproduktionsåret 1982-1983 - tilbagesøgning af den udbetalte støtte, når minlmumsopkøbsprisen Ikke er betalt inden fristen på 90 dage - proportionalitetsprincippet. Generaladvokat : M. Darmon.
It was sufficient to recall that the y/ery wording of Article 190 showed that, although it required the Inclusion of a reference to the Commission's proposal in measures which could be adopted only on a proposal of the Commission, it did not require a statement as to whether or not the measure In question was in accordance with that proposal.
Sag C­67/89 Α. Berkenheide nod Hauptzollamt Münster
Case C-33/89
B. For Retten i Ferste Inst
Case C-119/88
Sag C-16/89 6.
Case C-117/89
27.3.1990 (Præjudiciel) College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven Fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 - kvoteordning inden for mejerisektoren - situationen for producenter, der har fremlagt en plan rfor udviklingen af mejeriproduktionen i henhold til direktiv 159/72/EØF - bestemmelse af de individuelle referencemangder. Generaladvokat : W. van Gerven. Processprog : nederlandsk.
K. J. Kracht ν Bundesanstalt für Arbeit - 29 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) Bundessozi alger1 cht Interpretation of Articles 73 and 76 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 -Suspension of entitlement to family benefits or family allowances - No waiver of application for family allowances.
27.3.1990 (Præjudiciel) Chelmsford Crown Court Fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 - national lovgivning med forbud mod, at butikker uden tilladelse sælger et vist betydeligt omfang af lovlige pornografiske artikler. Generaladvokat : CO. Lenz.
- Account taken of an exceptional event (cattle disease) for the purpose of calculating reference quantities.
29.3.1990 (Préjudiciel) Finanzgericht München Fortolkningen af artikel 8, stk. 1, litra b), III), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1224/80 af 28. maj 1980 om varers toldværdi - såsæd fremstillet uden for EF, for hvilken den i EF hjemmehørende køber inden for EF's område skal betale licensafgifter til den ligeledes 1 EF hjemmehørende indehaver af opformeringsretten. Generaladvokat : CO. Lenz.
Interpretation of Article 3 (1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 857/84 of 31 March 1984 - System of quotas in the milk sector - Position of producers who have lodged development plans for milk production under Directive 159/72/EEC -Calculation of Individual reference quantities
Processprog : tysk.
Case C-155/89
Sag T-27/89 Tjenestemandssag.
Case C-23/89
IV ­ NYE SAGER
IV - NEW CASES
Sag C­49/90 Interfel mod Sica Veranjou (Præjudiciel) Tribunal de Grande Instance de la Flèche Fortolkningen af EØF­Traktatens artikler 30 og 85 ­ fortolkningen af artikel 15b i forordning (Ε0Π nr. 1035/72 som ændret ved for­ordning (EØF) nr. 3284/83 ­ gyldigheden efter fællesskabsretten af en brancheaftale, som ved ministeriel bekendtgørelse er udvi­det til at omfatte samtlige producenter ­ forbud mod at ekspor­tere spiseæbler af typen "Golden delicious" til Det Forenede Kongerige. Processprog : fransk.
Interfel ν Sica Veranjou (Reference for a preliminary ruling) Tribunal de Grande Instance, La Flèche Interpretation of Articles 30 and 85 of the EEC Treaty - Interpretation of Article 15b of Regulation (EEC) No. 1035/72 as amended by Regulation (EEC) No. 3284/83 - Validity under Community law of an Inter-trade agreement extended by Ministerial Decree to all producers -Prohibition of the exportation to the United Kingdom of "Golden Delicious" dessert apples.
Sag C­50/90 Sunzest mod Kommissionen Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning af 5. december 1989 ­import fra Cypern af produkter, som skal vare ledsaget af det sundhedscertifikat, der er omhandlet 1 Rådets direktiv 77/93/EØF af 21. december 1976 om foranstaltninger mod indslabning i medlemsstaterne af skadegørere på planter eller planteprodukter.
Sunzest ν Commission Application for the annulment of the Commission Decision of 5 December 1989 -Importation from Cyprus of goods requiring to be accompanied by the health certificate referred to 1n Council Directive 77/93/EEC of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant products.
Processprog : engelsk.
Language of the case: English
B. For Retten i Første Instans
Before the Court of First Instance
Sag T­13/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-13/90
Sag T­14/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-14/90
Sag T­15/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-15/90
Sag T­16/90 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-16/90
Udgivet af Informationstjenesten ved De Europeiske Fællesskabers Domstol L ­ 2925 Luxembourg.
Published by the Information Service of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
Ugen 2. - 6. april 1990
Week of 2 - 6 April 1990
De forenede sager C-111/89, C-112/88 og C-20/89 Den Hellenske Republik og Sammenslutningen af Cedratproducenter mod Kommissionen
Joined Cases C-lll/88, C-112/88 and C-20/89 Hellenic Republic and Crete Citron Producers' Association ν Commission Commercial policy