natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det følger heraf, at selv om Kommissionen ved skrivelserne af 18. marts og 26. april 1994 afslog at tildele sagsøgeren det stipendium, denne havde ansøgt om, kan det i den anden skrivelse indeholdte afslag ikke anses for en bekræftende afgørelse i forhold til det i skrivelsen af 18. marts 1994 indeholdte afslag.
Although by its letters of 18 March and 26 April 1994 the Commission refused the applicant the fellowship requested, the refusal in the second letter after a fresh examination of the application and on the basis of a form completed at the Commission's invitation, cannot, therefore, be regarded as a decision confirming the refusal contained in the letter of 18 March 1994.
Ved skrivelse af 18. marts 1994 afslog Kommissionen sagsøgerens ansøgning under henvisning til, at sagsøgeren var statsborger i modtagerlandet, og til, at ansøgningen ikke omfattede en række bilag, idet sagsøgerens projekt endvidere ikke kunne anses for et forskningsprojekt, men var udtryk for et uddannelsesforløb.
By letter of 18 March 1994 the Commission rejected his application and returned his application form on the grounds that he was a citizen of the host country, that the annexes which should have been included with that application form were missing, and that his project was not a research project, but a course.
I skrivelsen meddelte Kommissionen sagsøgeren, at hans ansøgning kunne forelægges på ny.
In its letter the Commission informed the applicant that his application could be resubmitted.
Ved skrivelse af 26. april 1994 besvarede Kommissionen sagsøgerens henvendelse således:
By letter of 7 April 1994 the applicant resubmitted his application to the Commission.
Det bemærkes, at den omtvistede afgørelse fra Kommissionen om ikke at tildele sagsøgeren det stipendium, denne havde ansøgt om, udelukkende var begrundet i, at sagsøgeren ikke var statsborger i et tredjeland, men statsborger i to medlemsstater, og i, at han ikke opfyldte de betingelser med hensyn til nationalitet, der var en forudsætning for, at han kunne opnå et stipendium gældende for Det Forenede Kongerige eller for Grækenland.
The Court observes that, the sole reason for the contested refusal by the Commission to grant the applicant the fellowship requested is that the applicant was not a national of a non-member country, but a national of two Member States, and did not satisfy the nationality requirements for a research fellowship either for the United Kingdom or for Greece.
»Jeg beklager endnu en gang at måtte tilbagesende Deres ansøgning om et stipendium.
By letter of 26 April 1994 the Commission's officer replied to the applicant as follows: 'I regret to send you back once more your application for a grant.
Jeg bemærker, at De ikke er statsborger i et tredjeland, men statsborger i to EF-lande.
May I emphasize that you are not a citizen of a third country but a citizen from two EC countries.
De må således forstå, at De efter vores statsborgerskabskriterier har både britisk og græsk statsborgerskab, hvorfor De ikke kan komme i betragtning for så vidt angår Det Forenede Kongerige og Grækenland.«
Therefore please understand that with regards to our nationality criteria of eligibility, you have a double British and Greek nationality and that you are not eligible either for UK or Greece.'
Ved stævning indleveret til Rettens Justitskontor den 10. januar 1995 har sagsøgeren herefter anlagt denne sag.
The applicant thereupon brought the present action by application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 10 January 1995.
Hvad nærmere angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sagsøgeren som anført af Kommissionen var græsk statsborger, bemærkes, at det fremgår af sagen, at sagsøgeren til Kommissionen havde fremsendt en kopi af sin opholdstilladelse i Grækenland, der var gyldig et år, og som var forsynet med en tydelig påtegning om, at der var tale om en »opholdstilladelse for udlændinge«.
As regards the question whether the applicant held Greek nationality, as is alleged by the Commission, the Court finds that it is clear from the documents before it that the applicant sent to the Commission, as an annex to his letter of 7 April 1994, a copy of his Greek residence permit, valid for one year, and clearly and conspicuously containing the statement 'Alien's Resident Permit'.
Det savnede derfor grundlag for Kommissionen at antage, at sagsøgeren var græsk statsborger, for så vidt hans opholdstilladelse i Grækenland var en opholdstilladelse for udlændinge.
Consequently, the Commission had no basis for stating that the applicant had Greek nationality, since his Greek residence permit was an alien's residence permit.
Hvad nærmere angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sagsøgeren var britisk statsborger og dermed statsborger i »modtagerlandet«, bemærkes, at
The defendant contended that, since its position regarding the applicant's application had been set out in its letter of 18 March 1994, the decision in its subsequent letter of 26 April 1994 merely confirmed that decision and the applicant's action, having been brought after the two-month
Kommissionen uden at have ændret den opfattelse, som den havde givet udtryk for i sin tidligere skrivelse af 18. marts 1994, sagsøgerens ansøgning til denne, idet den på ny bemærkede, at sagsøgeren ikke var statsborger i et tredjeland, men statsborger i to medlemsstater, og at han derfor ikke opfyldte betingelserne for at kunne opnå et stipendium, hverken for så vidt angår Grækenland eller hvad angår Det Forenede Kongerige.
that he was not a national of a non-member country, but a national of two Member States and that he therefore did not satisfy the eligibility requirements for a fellowship either for Greece or for the United Kingdom.
Såfremt sagsøgeren burde anses for britisk statsborger i henseende til fællesskabsretten, ville han i henhold til artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 68/360/EØF af 15. oktober 1968 have haft krav -ikke på en opholdstilladelse, der var gyldig et år — men på et »opholdsbevis for EF-borgere«, der skulle være gyldigt i fem år og uden videre ville blive fornyet
as a British national for the purposes of the application of Community law, under the abovementioncd provisions of Directive 68/360 he would have been entitled, not to a residence permit valid for one year, but to a 'Residence Permit for a Community National', valid for five years, and automatically renewable.
Det må følgelig lægges til grund, at Kommissionen afslog sagsøgerens ansøgning alene af den grund, at sagsøgeren ikke kunne antages at opfylde betingelserne med hensyn til nationalitet og mobilitet.
Accordingly, the Commission must be regarded as having rejected the application on the sole ground that the applicant did not satisfy the nationality and mobility requirements, and not on the grounds raised by the Commission for the first time in its defence.
Det bemærkes endvidere om dette spørgsmål, at sagsøgerens ovennævnte opholdstilladelse var forsynet med angivelsen »statsborgerskab: britisk«, men samtidig med påtegningen »Nationalitet: Melitea«, dvs. maltesisk, hvilket var årsagen til, at de græske myndigheder ikke havde udstedt et »opholdsbevis for EF-borgere« til sagsøgeren, men en opholdstilladelse for udlændinge.
In addition, although it is true that the applicant's residence permit states 'Citizenship: British', it also states 'Nationality. Melitea', that is Maltese, which explains why the Greek authorities did not issue to the applicant a 'Residence Permit for a Community National', but an Alien's Residence Permit.
Det må herefter fastslås, at Kommissionen ved at antage, at sagsøgeren som følge af sin nationalitet ikke opfyldte betingelserne for at kunne opnå et forskningsstipendium, har truffet den anfægtede afgørelse af 26. april 1994 på et forkert grundlag, hvorfor afgørelsen bør annulleres.
It follows that, in taking the view that because of his nationality the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the award of a research training fellowship, the Commission gave an erroneous statement of reasons for the contested decision of 26 April 1994, which, consequently, must be annulled.
Påstanden om godtgørelse
The claim for compensation
Det må herefter fastslås, at begrundelsen til den anfægtede afgørelse er behæftet med fejl, hvorfor afgørelsen bør annulleres.
That conclusion is not affected by the fact that the Commission contended that the applicant's application was rejected not only on account of his nationality, but also on other grounds set out in its letter of 18 March 1994 informing him that certain documents to his application were missing.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt sagsøgeren har lidt en ikke-økonomisk skade derved, at han har fortabt muligheden for at studere og forske i Det Forenede Kongerige, bemærkes, at det følger af kravet om, at der skal være lidt en faktisk skade, at sagsøgeren i hvert fald skal godtgøre, at hans ansøgning opfyldte de nærmere betingelser for at kunne blive imødekommet.
In the present case, concerning non-material damage flowing from the applicant's loss of his chance to pursue his studies and research in the United Kingdom, the requirement that such damage be actual presupposes that the applicant must establish at least that his application satisfied the substantive conditions for being accepted.
Det er herved uden betydning, at Kommissionen har gjort gældende, at sagsøgerens ansøgning ikke alene blev afslået som følge af spørgsmålet om nationalitet, men også af andre grunde, der er angivet i Kommissionens skrivelse af 18. marts 1994, hvori Kommissionen meddelte sagsøgeren, at en række dokumenter manglede.
The Court finds that, the file shows that the applicant annexed to his letter of 7 April 1994 a document from the host institution, which, as he indicated in that letter, was in his view sufficient.
Det må således fastslås, at det fremgår af sagen, at sagsøgeren vedlagde sin skrivelse af 7. april 1994 et dokument fra værtsinstitutionen, der ifølge ham måtte være tilstrækkeligt.
By letter of 26 April 1994 the Commission, without referring to the statements in its previous letter of 18 March 1994 informing the applicant that he had failed to enclose certain necessary documents with his application, returned the application to him, again stating
Sagsøgeren kan ikke antages at have godtgjort, at hans ansøgning om stipendiet virkelig opfyldte de nærmere betingelser, således at han ville have haft store muligheder for til slut at få ansøgningen imødekommet, såfremt Kommissionen ikke havde begået en fejl med hensyn til hans nationalitet.
The Court considers that the applicant has not established, that his application for the fellowship actually satisfied the prescribed substantive conditions, so that he would have had a strong chance of ultimately being awarded that fellowship, if the Commission had not committed an error as regards his nationality.
Den i skrivelsen af 26. april 1994 indeholdte afgørelse fra Kommissionen annulleres.
Annuls the Commission decision in its letter of 26 April 1994;
Kommissionen frifindes for påstanden om godtgørelse.
Dismisses the claim for compensation;
Sag T-10/95 Akli Chehab / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Case T-10/95 Akli Chehab ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
»Tjenestemænd — vedvarende delvis invaliditet — anerkendelse afforværring* (Anden Afdeling)
(Officials — Partial permanent invalidity — Recognition of deterioration) (Second Chamber)
Sag T-376/94 Georgette Otten / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Case T-376/94 Georgette Otten ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
»Tjenestemænd — invaliditetsudvalg — sammensætning — afgørelse om at bevilge sagsøgeren invalidepension* (Femte Afdeling)
(Officials — Invalidity Committee — Composition — Decision to retire an official on account of invalidity) (Fifth Chamber)
Sag C-120/94 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Hellenske Republik Handelspolitik
Case C-120/94 Commission of the European Communities ν Hellenic Republic Commercial policy
indgået en midlertidig aftale mellem Den Hellenske Republik og den tidligere jugoslaviske republik Makedonien på en række områder, således at Den Hellenske Republik havde ophævet de handelsforanstaltninger, som var truffet den 16. februar 1994.
Macedonia on certain matters, as a result of which the former had lifted the trade restrictions imposed on 16 February 1994.
Ved skrivelse af 22. november 1995 anmodede den græske regering Domstolen om at træffe afgørelse i sagen.
By letter of 22 November 1995 the Greek Government asked the Court to rule on the substance.
Procesreglementets artikel 77 bestemmer, at hvis parterne indgår forlig, inden Domstolen har truffet afgørelse, og de meddeler Domstolen, at de frafalder ethvert krav, bestemmer præsidenten, at sagen skal slettes af registret.
Article 77 of the Rules of Procedure provides that if, before the Court has given its decision, the parties reach a settlement of their dispute and intimate to the Court the abandonment of their claims, the President is to order the case to be removed from the register.
Procesreglementets artikel 78 bestemmer, at hvis sagsøgeren skriftligt meddeler Domstolen, at han hæver sagen, bestemmer præsidenten, at sagen skal slettes af registret.
Article 78 of the Rules provides that if the applicant informs the Court in writing that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings, the President is to order the case to be removed from the register.
Det er ubestridt, at Kommissionen i denne sag ikke har hævet sagen, fordi der er indgået forlig mellem Kommissionen og Den Hellenske Republik, men at Kommissionen som sagsøger hæver sagen, fordi den ikke længere har interesse i at fortsætte retsforhandlingerne henset til den udvikling, der er sket, efter at den mundtlige forhandling er afsluttet.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 22 April 1994, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that the Hellenic Republic has misued the powers provided for in Article 224 of the EC Treaty in order to justify the unilateral measures adopted on 16 February 1994 prohibiting trade, in particular via the Port of Thessalonika, of products originating in, coming from or destined for the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and imports into Greece of products originating in or coming from that Republic, and that by so doing it has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 113 of the EC Treaty and under the common export rules laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2603/69 of 20 December 1969, the common import rules laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 of 5 February 1982, the arrangements applicable to imports into the Community of products originating in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia, the Republic of Slovenia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 3698/93 of 22 December 1993 and the Community transit rules laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2726/90 of 17 September 1990.
Ved skrivelse af 23. oktober 1995 meddelte Kommissionen Domstolen, at den ikke længere havde interesse i at fortsætte sagen, da der var
According to Article 78 of the Rules of Procedure it is sufficient for the applicant to inform the Court in writing that he wishes to discontinue the proceedings for the President to order that the case be removed from the register.
I medfør af procesreglementets artikel 78 er det tilstrækkeligt til, at præsidenten bestemmer, at sagen skal slettes af registret, at sagsøgeren skriftligt meddeler Domstolen, at han hæver sagen.
By letter of 23 October 1995 the Commission informed the Court that it considered that it no longer had an interest in pursuing the proceedings in view of the fact that a temporary agreement had been made between the Hellenic Republic and the former Yugoslav Republic of
Domstolens præsident bestemmer:
The Court made the following order:
Sag C-120/94 slettes af registeret
Case C-l20/94 shall be removed from the Register.
2) omkostningerne
2 by the
Kommissionen dømmes til at betale sagens omkostninger, herunder i forbindelse med begæringen om foreløbige forholdsregler.*
The Commission is ordered to pay the costs, including those entailed application for interim measures.'
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 6. april 1995.
Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 6 April 1995.
Sag C-101/94 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik
Case C-101/94 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic
Præjudiciel — House of Lords — fortolkning af artikel 2 og artikel 4, stk 1, i Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF om beskyttelse af vilde fugle -medlemsstaternes kompetence — udlægning af særligt beskyttede områder — hensyntagen til økonomiske og sociale betragtninger — Lappet Bank
Failure to fulfil obligations —Articles 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty — National legislation reserving the activity of intermediary in dealings in securities outside banks exclusively to companies whose registered office is in Italy and organized according to Italian rules
Traktatbrudssøgsmål—EF-traktatens artikel 52 og 59 —nationallovgivningsomforbeholderudøvelsen af virksomhed som børsmægler, bortset fra banker, for selskaber, der har hjemsted i Italien og er organiseret efter italienske bestemmeher
Preliminary ruling — House of Lords — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds — Powers of the Member States — Determination of the boundaries of special protection areas — Taking account of economic and social considerations — Lappet Bank
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum*) den 21. marts 1996.
Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 19 March 1996.
Generaladvokat C.O. Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum1) den
Advocate General Fennelly delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 21 March 1996.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court:
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
He proposed answering as follows:
En medlemsstat er ikke berettiget til at tage økonomiske hensyn i betragtning som dem, der nævnes i artikel 2 i Rådets direktiv 79/409 af 2. april 1979 om beskyttelse af vilde fugle, ved udlægning af et område som særligt beskyttet område eller ved fastlæggelsen af grænserne for et sådant område i henhold til direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1 og/eller 2.
A Member State is not entitled to take account of economic requirements such as those mentioned in Article 2 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds when classifying special protection areas, or in determining the boundaries of such special protection areas, in accordance with Article 4(1) and/or (2) of the Directive.
Den Italienske Republik har endvidere tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 59, ved at den har begrænset udøvelse af virksomhed som børsmægler, bortset fra banker, til selskaber med hjemsted i Italien.
Declare that by restricting the activity of securities brokerage by brokers other than banks to companies whose registered office is in Italy, the Italian Republic has moreover failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
Økonomiske krav er herved ikke et alment hensyn, der har forrang;
Order the Italian Republic to pay the
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling^ den 21. marts 1996.
a Member State may not take into account economic requirements which it considers amount to imperative reasons of overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.'
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse: hvede som støtte til Republikken Bénin som fødevarehjælp fortolkes på en måde, der giver mulighed for at pålægge den virksomhed, der får tilslag med hensyn til den omtvistede kontrakt, ansvar for forsinkelsen af afskibningen, når den er forpligtet til at levere varen mellem den 1. og den 31. august 1980 og at aftale leveringstakten med modtagerlandets befuldmægtigede, og den to gange afslår det skib, som blev tilbudt den til transporten, og når den, efter at varen er blevet bragt til afskibningshavnen, den 29. august har underrrettet den befuldmægtigede om, at han skulle finde et skib, for at lastningen kunne ske senest den 1. september.«
Articles 6 and 7 of that regulation must be interpreted in conjunction, with the result that the security can be declared forfeit where there is a failure (even slight) to comply with the quality standards, even where the consignee has made no observations or reservations in that regard.
Med hensyn til de øvrige krav, som sagsøgeren fremførte under retsforhandlingerne, foreslog han Domstolen følgende svar:
Advocate General Ruiz-Jaraho delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 21 March 1996.
— levere 5 000 tons blød hvede i løs vægt inden for skibets omkreds i den udpegede afskibningshavn, i dette tilfælde Antwerpens havn;
He proposed answering in the following manner:
— anbringe varen på det sted, der er udpeget af Bénins befuldmægtigede, med hvem tilslagsmodtageren skulle aftale leveringstakten;
As to the other claims made by the plaintiff during the proceedings, he proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
— opfylde de nødvendige toldformaliteter for varens eksport og
to deliver 5 000 tonnes of common wheat in bulk in the vicinity of the vessel to the port of shipment nominated, in this case the port of Antwerp; to set down the goods at the place indicated by the Benin agent, with whom it was to settle the timing of delivery;
Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 21. marts 1996.
Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Council Directive 89/618 on informing the general public about health protection measures to be applied and steps to be taken in the event of a radiological emergency
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 21. marts 1996.
Advocate General Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 21 March 1996.
Han foreslog følgende:
He proposed that the Court should give the following judgment:
»Social Security Commissioner's spørgsmål bør derfor besvares således, at nationale bestemmelser som de her omhandlede, som gør godtgørelse af begravelsesudgifter betinget af, at begravelsen finder sted i den pågældende medlemsstat, er i strid med forbuddet mod forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet i artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68.«
The answer to the questions put by the Social Security Commissioner must therefore be that a national provision such as that at issue which makes a funeral payment conditional on the funeral taking place in the Member State concerned infringes the prohibition on discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68.'
Ugen 25.-29. marts 1996
25 to 29 March 1996
Sag C-272/94 Michel Guiot og Climatec SA Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-238/94 José García and Others v Mutuelle de Prévoyance Sociale d'Aquitaine and Others Free movement for persons
Sag C-238/94 Jose García m.Π. / Mutuelle dc prévoyance sociale d'Aquitaine m.Π. Fri bevægelighed for personer
Muireann Noonan ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
Sag C-129/94 Rafael Ruiz Bernaldez Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Case C-272/94 Michel Guiot and Climatec SA Free movement for persons
Sag C-271/94 Huropa-Parlamcntci / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union Regler for institutionerne
Case T-40/95 V. ν Commission of the European Communities Staff case
Sag C-160/95 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Hellenske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-137/95 Ρ 60 Vereniging van Samenwerkende Prijsregelende Organisaties in de Bouwnijverheid and Others ν Commission of the European Communities Competition
Sag C-270/95 Ρ Christina Kik / Rådet for Den Europæiske Union og Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Regler for virksomhederne
Case C-318/94 44 Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany Company law