natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ifølge de franske myndigheder var de indførte klaviaturer "enheder" til databehandlingsmaskiner og skulle derfor tariferes under pos. 84.53 B. Varer henhørende under denne toldposition var også omfattet af en toldfritagelse, men således at der gjaldt et årligt loft.
According to the French customs authorities, the imported keyboards constituted computer "parts" under tariff-heading 84.53 B. Goods under that tariff-heading also benefit from suspension of customs duties, but are limited to an annual maximum tariff.
Dette loft blev nået i 1986, og toldmyndighederne indledte derfor en efteropkrævningsprocedure med hensyn til HP-France's indførsler i 1986, således at disse blev pålagt en told på 4,5%.
When that limit was reached in 1986 the customs authorities took action for the postclearance recovery of duties in respect of imports carried out in 1986 by HP-France by charging customs duties at a rate of 4.5%.
Den forelæggende ret ønskede med det præjudicielle spørgsmål oplyst, om betingelserne i artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1697/79, subsidiært betingelser ne i artikel 13 i forordning nr. 1430/79 er opfyldt, når en virksomhed ved toldtariferingen af en vare henholder sig til en forkert tariferingsoplysning, der er givet til et selskab - i samme koncern som debitor -af toldmyndighederne i en anden medlemsstat end den stat, hvis myndigheder er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning af told, og denne tarifering i længere tid ikke er blevet anfægtet af de kompetente myndigheder.
The question referred by the national court seeks to know whether the conditions referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79, or alternatively Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1440/79, have been fulfilled where a company has relied, for the purposes of the tariff classification of a product, on erroneous tariff information provided to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable for payment by the competent authorities of a Member State other than that of the competent authority for the recovery of customs duties, where the latter had not raised any objection as regards such tariff classification.
Artikel 5, stk. 2, første afsnit, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1697/79 af 24. juli 1979 - om efteropkrævning af import- eller eksportafgifter, der ikke er opkrævet hos debitor for varer, der er angivet til en told procedure, som medfører en forpligtelse til at betale sådanne afgifter -skal fortolkes således, at en fejlagtig tariferingsoplysning, der gives til en anden erhvervsdrivende end debitor af toldmyndighederne i en anden stat end den, hvis myndigheder er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning, ikke er 'en fejl, som de kompetente myndigheder selv har begået'. Der er derimod i denne bestemmelses forstand tale om en fejl fra de myndigheders side, der er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning, når disse myndigheder trods antallet og omfanget af debitors indførsler ikke
The first paragraph of Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the postclearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties must be interpreted as meaning that erroneous information provided to a trader other than the person li able for payment by customs authorities of a Member State other than that of the competent authority for postclearance recovery does not constitute an 'error made by the competent authorities themselves'; moreover, an error is made by the competent authorities for recovery within the meaning of that provisions where those authorities, despite the frequency and the size of the imports made by the person liable for payment, have not raised any objection as regards tariff classification of the goods in question, even though comparison between the declared tariff heading and the explicit description of the goods according to the specifications of the
- 30 - har gjort indsigelse mod de pågældende varers tarifering, selv om det ville fremgå af en sammenligning mellem den angivne toldposition og den udtrykkelige varebeskrivelse i henhold til specifikationerne i Nomenklaturen, at der forelå en fejlagtig tarifering.
30 nomenclature would have led to the discovery that the goods had been wrongly classified.
Ved vurderingen af, om der foreligger en fejl, 'som debitor ikke med rimelighed kunne forventes at have opdaget', jf. artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1697/79, må der bl.a. tages hensyn til fejlens karakter, den erhvervsdrivendes erfaring og den agtpågivenhed, han har udvist. I denne forbindelse fremhæves følgende forhold:
In order to assess whether 'an error which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable' had been made, ad referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 account should be taken, in particular, of the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader in question and of the diligence which he shows.
Selv en erfaren erhvervsdrivende kan anse sine toldangivelser for korrekte, når han med hensyn til tariferingen af de pågældende varer henholder sig til en tariferingsoplysning, der er givet af toldmyndighederne i en anden medlemsstat end den stat, hvis myndigheder er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning, til et selskab i samme koncern som debitor, og når den tarifering, der er angivet i toldangivelsen, i længere tid ikke er blevet anfægtet af de kompetente myndigheder.
In this respect, it should be noted that: there is strong evidence tending to show the complex nature of the problem to be resolved if it were necessary to adopt, in view of the existing differences in the Member States as regards tariff classification of a product, a regulation which finally clarified the tariff-heading under which the product should be classified; even an experienced trader may consider his customs declarations to be accurate where he has relied, as regards the tariff classification of the goods in question, on tariff information provided by the customs authorities of a Member State other than that of the competent authorities for postclearance recovery to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable for payment and where the tariff classification shown on the customs declaration has not been disputed for a comparatively long period by the competent authorities; the requirement that the trader in question be diligent must be considered to have been fulfilled where, bearing in mind the existence of tariff information provided to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable for payment, he had no doubt as to the accuracy of the tariff classification of the goods in question; it is for the national court to find whether, on the basis of that interpretation, the criteria applicable to consideration of whether the error which led to the customs duties not being charged was detectable by the person liable for payment have been met, account being taken of the circumstances of the present case.
Det påhviler den nationale ret ud fra denne fortolkning at fastslå, om de kriterier, som skal indgå i vurderingen af, om debitor burde have opdaget den fejl, der førte til, at afgifterne ikke blev opkrævet, konkret er opfyldt.
The requirement laid down in the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79, according to which the person liable must have observed all the provisions laid down by the rules in force as far as his customs declaration is concerned must be considered to have been met where the trader has declared in good faith the goods in question under the wrong tari f f-heading where that heading was shown clearly and explicitly in the trade description of the goods in question, so
- 31 - under en forkert toldposition, når denne er angivet klart og tydeligt med en beskrivelse af de pågældende varer, således at de kompetente toldmyndigheder straks og uden nogen tvivl kunne have fastslået, at der ikke var overensstemmelse med den korrekte toldposition.
- 31 that the competent customs authorities should have determined immediately and unambiguously the lack of correspondence with the correct tariff-heading.
Ved anvendelsen af artikel 13 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1430/79 om godtgørelse af eller fritagelse for import- eller eksportafgifter kan der være tale om særlige forhold i denne bestemmelses forstand, når en erhvervsdrivende henholder sig til en fejlagtig oplysning, som er givet til et selskab i samme koncern som debitor af en kompetent toldmyndighed i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvis myndigheder er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning.
For the purposes of applying Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties, the fact that a trader relied on erroneous information provided to a company belonging to the same group as the person liable for payment by a competent customs authority of a Member State other than that of the competent customs authority for recovery, may constitute a special situation within the meaning of that Article.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret at fastslå, om de øvrige betingelser for at anvende artikel 13 er opfyldt, dvs., at der ikke foreligger åbenbare forsømmeligheder eller urigtigheder, og at procedurereglerne er iagttaget."
It is for the national court to find whether all the other conditions which apply to the application of Article 13, namely manifest lack of negligence and evasion, as well as observance of the rules of procedure, have been met."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 22. oktober 1992.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 22 October 1992.
Artikel 5, stk. 2, første afsnit, i Rådets forordning nr. 1697/79 skal fortolkes således, at en ukorrekt bindende tariferingsoplysning, der gives til en anden erhvervsdrivende end debitor af toldmyndighederne i en anden stat, der ikke er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning, ikke er en fejl, som de kompetente myndigheder har begået. Der er derimod i denne bestemmelses forstand tale om en fejl fra de myndigheders side, der er kompetente til at foretage efteropkrævning, når disse myndigheder trods antallet og omfanget af debitors indførsler ikke har gjort indsigelse mod de pågældende varers tarifering, selv om varernes korrekte tarifering kunne have været fastslået ved en sammenligning mellem den angivne toldposition og den udtrykkelige varebetegnelse.
The first paragraph of Article 5 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1697/79 must be interpreted as meaning that erroneous information provided to a trader other than the person liable for payment by customs authorities of a Member State other than that of the competent authority for postclearance recovery does not constitute an error made by the competent authorities; moreover, an error is made by the competent authorities for recovery within the meaning of that provisions where those authorities, despite the frequency and the size of the imports made by the person liable for payment, have not raised any objection as regards tariff classification of the goods in question, even though comparison between the declared tariff heading and the explicit description of the goods would have allowed the exact tariff-heading to be determined.
Artikel 5, stk. 2, første afsnit, i Rådets forordning nr. 1697/79 må fortolkes således, at det tilkommer den forelæggende ret at afgøre, om debitor med rimelighed kunne have opdaget fejlen, under hensyntagen til fejlens karakter, den erhvervsdrivendes erfaring og den agtpågivenhed, han har udvist.
The first paragraph of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1697/79 should be interpreted as meaning that it is for the national court to determine whether the error was reasonably detectable by the person liable for payment, taking into account the nature of the error, the professional experience of the trader concerned and the diligence which he has shown.
Debitor skal have givet toldmyndighederne de oplysninger, der kræves i henhold til fællesskabsbestemmelserne om toldangivelse og de
The person liable must have provided the customs authorities with all the necessary information provided for in the Community regulations on customs declarations and by the national rules which implement or supplement them, as appropriate; it suffices that the information, even if inaccurate, should have been provided in good faith.
"Betingelserne i artikel 13, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1430/79 er opfyldt, når den erhvervsdrivende har henholdt sig til en bindende tariferingsoplysning, som de kompetente toldmyndigheder har givet til et andet selskab i samme koncern som debitor, medmindre der foreligger urigtigheder eller åbenbare forsømmeligheder."
The conditions referred to in Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1430/79 are met when, other than where there is no manifest negligence or evasion, the trader concerned has relied on firm information provided by the competent customs authorities to a subsidiary of the group to which it belongs."
Præjudiciel "Den Fælles Toldtarif - Den Kombinerede Nomenklatur - stivelsesprodukt" (Fjerde Afdeling)
Case C-256/91 Emsl and-Starke GmbH ν Oberfinanzdirektion München (Preliminary ruling - Combined Nomenclature - Starch product) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 20. august 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 10. oktober 1991, havde Bundesfinanzhof forelagt fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Den Fælles Toldtarif som affattet ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2587/91 af 26. juli 1991 om ændring af bilag I til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2658/87 om told- og statistiknomenklaturen og Den Fælles Toldtarif.
By order of 20 August 1991, received at the Court Registry on 10 October 1991, the Bundesfinanzhof referred four questions for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2587/91 of 26 July 1991 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff.
"Den Fælles Toldtarif - Den Kombinerede Nomenklatur - skal fortolkes således, at et stivelsesprodukt (stivelsesindhold (bestemt ved Ewers metode) 99 vægtprocent eller 81,1 vægtprocent ved forsukringsmetoden; acetylindhold 0,65, henholdsvis 0,67 vægtprocent), som består af umodificeret kartoffelstivelse, tilsat neutraliseret kartoffel sti velsesester, der er befriet for acetaldehyd, og som er beregnet til anvendelse i papir- og tekstilindustrien, men som efter sin beskaffenhed også kan anvendes til konsum, selv om det ikke er tilladt i henhold til levnedsmiddellovgivningen, skal tariferes under underpos. 1108 13 00."
"The Common customs Tariff (Combined Nomenclature) must be interpreted as meaning that a starch product intended for use in the paper and textile industries and, as it is constituted, also suitable for human consumption although not authorized as such under food legislation (starch content (determined by the Ewers method): 99% by weight, or (sacchari fi cation method) 81.1% by weight, with an acetyl content of 0.65% or 0.67% by weight) made up of native potato starch, to which an acetaldehyde-free and neutral i zed potato starch ester is added, must be classified under subheading 1108 13 00."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling) den 16. december 1992.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 16 December 1992.
"Den Kombinerede Nomenklatur skal fortolkes således, at et stivelsesprodukt (stivelsesindhold 99 vægtprocent og acetylindhold 0,65% (bestemt ved Ewers metode)), som består af umodificeret kartoffelstivelse, tilsat neutraliseret kartoffel sti velsesester, der er befriet for acetaldehyd, og som er beregnet
"The Combined Nomenclature should be interpreted as meaning that a starch product intended for use in the paper and textile industries and, as it is constituted, also suitable for human consumption although not authorized as such under food legislation (starch content (determined by the Ewers method): 99% by weight, or (saccharification method) 81.1% by weight, with an acetyl content of 0.65% or 0.67% by weight) made up of native potato starch, to which an acetaldehyde-free and neutralized potato starch ester is added, must be classified under subheading 1108 13 00."
Forenede sager C-260/91 og C-261/91: Diversinte SA m.fl. mod Administración Principal de Aduanas e Impuestos
Joined Cases C-260/91 and C-261/91 Di versinte SA and Another v Administración Principal de Aduanas e Impuestos Especiales de La Junquera 1 April 1993 (Preliminary ruling - Validity of retroactive effect of the tax on certain milk powder originating in Spain) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved kendelser af 2. oktober 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 14. oktober s.a., havde Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central, Madrid, forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende lovligheden af den tilbagevirkende gyldighed af artikel 3, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 744/87 af 16. marts 1987 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 805/86.
By orders of 2 October 1991, received at the Court Registry on 14 October 1991, the Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de Madrid referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the validity of the retroactive effect of the last paragraph of Article 3 of commission Regulation (EEC) No 744/87 of 16 March 1987 amending Regulation (EEC) No 805/86.
I perioden 28. februar - 2. marts 1987 eksporterede selskabet Iberlacta til Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland 207 tons mælkepulver, som havde et fedtindhold på 12%, og som var denatureret med henblik på at blive anvendt som foder.
Between 28 February and 2 March 1987, Iberlacta exported to the Federal Republic of Germany 207 tonnes of milk powder with a 12% fat content and denatured for use as animal feed.
I perioden 3.-5. marts 1987 eksporterede selskabet Diversinte til Tyskland 120 tons af et tilsvarende produkt, som havde et fedtindhold på 18%.
Between 3 and 5 March 1987 Diversinte, for its part, exported to the Federal Republic of Germany 120 tonnes of a similar product with an 18% fat content.
Den 17. marts 1987 blev den omtvistede forordning offentliggjort i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende.
The disputed regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 17 March 1987.
I henhold til forordningen blev en afgift, som indtil da skulle betales ved udførsel fra Spanien af skummetmælkspulver, som var importeret til Spanien, og som inden den 1. marts 1986 var denatureret efter spanske forskrifter, udvidet til at omfatte alle former for mælkepulver, uanset fedtindhold, som var denatureret efter de samme forskrifter og eksporteret fra Spanien efter at være blevet importeret hertil.
According to the regulation, a tax which had theretofore been charged on the re-exportation from Spain of milk powder denatured, in accordance with the provision in force there, before 1 March 1986, was extended to milk powder, regardless of its fat content, denatured in accordance with the same provisions and reexported from Spain.
I forordningens artikel 3, stk. 2, hedder det, at ordningen anvendes fra den 12. februar 1987.
The last paragraph of Article 3 of that regulation brought it into force with effect from 12 February 1987.
Til gennemførelse af forordningen anmodede toldmyndighederne Diversinte og Iberlacta om at betale afgiften, hvilket selskaberne, idet de dog bestred, at den principielt var korrekt opkrævet.
In implementation of that regulation the customs authorities requested Diversinte and Iberlacta to pay that tax, which they did while disputing the principle.
Selskaberne gjorde nærmere gældende, at den omtvistede forordning var ugyldig, eftersom den var tillagt tilbagevirkende gyldighed, men ikke opfyldte de betingelser, Domstolen stiller for at anerkende tilbagevirkende gyldighed.
According to those companies, the disputed regulation was not valid because it was retroactive in effect without fulfilling the conditions under which the Court accepted retroactivity.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgår af dens faste praksis, at selv om retssikkerhedsprincippet i almindelighed forbyder, at en fællesskabsretsakt gives gyldighed fra et tidspunkt, der ligger før aktens offentliggørelse, kan dette rent undtagelsesvis tillades, når det tilstræbte formål fordrer det, og når de berørtes berettigede forventning respekteres behørigt.
The Court has consistently held that although as a general rule the principle of legal certainty runs counter to the temporal effects of Community acts running from a date prior to its publication, exceptionally it may be otherwise where the object to be achieved requires it and where the legitimate expectations of those affected is duly respected.
Begrundelsen skal følgelig klart og utvetydigt angive de betragtninger, som den fællesskabsmyndighed, der har udstedt den anfægtede retsakt, har lagt til grund.
The measure must show clearly and unequivocally the statement of reasons of the Community authority which drew up the disputed act.
"Artikel 3, stk. 2, i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 744/887 af 16. marts 1987 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 805/86 om indførelse af en afgift på denatureret skummetmælkspulver fra Spanien og om undtagelse fra forordning (EØF) nr. 1378/86 vedrørende fastsættelse af tiltrædelses­ udligningsbeløbene i samhandelen med Spanien er ugyldig, for så vidt som det herved bestemmes, at forordningen anvendes fra den 12. februar 1987."
"The 1 ast paragraph of article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC)No 744/87 of 16 March 1987 amending Regulation No 805/86 introducing a charge on denatured skimmed-mi Ik powder coming from Spain and derogating from Regulation (EEC) No 1378/86 as regards the accession compensatory amounts in trade with Spain is not valid in so far as it declares that regulation applicable with effect from 12 February 1987."
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse den 3. december 1992.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 3 December 1992.
"Gennemgangen af de præjudicielle spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af forordning nr. 744/87."
"Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 744/87."
Β ­ Retten
Court of First Instance
Sag T­4/92: Vardakas mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case T-4/92 Vardakas ν Commission of the European Communi ti es
(Tjenestemandssag) "Løn ­ udi andsti Hæg" (Femte Afdeling)
(Staff Case - Remuneration - Expatriation allowance) (Fifth Chamber)
Sag T­65/89: BPB Industries & British Gypsum mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber 1.4.1993 "Konkurrence ­ misbrug af dominerende stilling ­ eksklusive købsaftaler ­troskabspræmie ­ påvirkning af samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne ­ ansvar for overtrædelsen" (Anden Afdeling)
Case T-65/89 BPB Industries A British Gypsum ν Commission of the European Communities 1 April 1993
Sagen drejer sig om Kommissionen beslutning 89/22/EØF af 5. december 1988 om en procedure i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikel 86 (IV/31.900 ­ BPB
The present case concerns Commission Decision 89/22/EEC of 5 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.900 -BPB Industries Pic), which imposed fines on the applicants for infringing Article 86 of the EEC Treaty.
Industries pic), hvorved sagsøgerne blev pålagt bøder for overtrædelser af EØF-Traktatens artikel 86.
In support of their claims for annulment of the Decision, the applicants made two series of allegations, concerning, first, breach of the rights of the defence and, secondly, failure to establish any infringement.
Manglende fremsendelse af dokumenter og overholdelse af kontradiktionsprincippet
Non-disclosure of documents and observance of the rights of the defence
Sagsøgerne havde gjort gældende, at beslutningen skulle annulleres, idet Kommissionen ikke havde tilstillet dem alle de relevante dokumenter, den var i besiddelse af, og at denne undladelse skadede sagsøgerne betydeligt.
The applicants maintained that the Decision should be annulled since the Commission failed to disclose to them all the relevant documents which were in its possession, to their considerable detriment.