natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det fremgår endelig af det forelagte spørgsmål, at varerne lovligt sælges i de andre lande under navnet "Clinique", uden at brugen af et sådant navn synes at vildlede forbrugerne.
Finally, according to the very wording of the question referred, those products were ordinarily marketed in other countries under the name "Clinique" and the use of that name apparently did not mislead consumers.
"Traktatens artikel 30 og 36 og artikel 6, stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 76/768/EØF af 27. juli 1976 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om kosmetiske midler skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for, at en national bestemmelse forbyder indførsel og salg af en vare, der betragtes og frembydes som kosmetisk, med den begrundelse, at varen bærer navnet 'Clinique'."
Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty and Article 6(2) of Council Directive 76/768/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic products must be interpreted as precluding a national measure which prohibits the importation and marketing of a product classified and packaged as a cosmetic on the ground that the product bears the name "Clinique".
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 29. september 1993.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 29 September 1993.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare det stillede spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should reply in the following terms:
"EØF-traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at den principielt ikke er til hinder for anvendelsen af nationale bestemmelser vedrørende illoyal konkurrence med henblik på at forbyde markedsføring af en kosmetikvare med den begrundelse, at forbrugerne vildledes af varens navn til at tro, at varen har medicinske egenskaber - også selv om varen lovligt markedsføres i andre medlemsstater under det pågældende navn.
"Article 30 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that it does not in principle preclude the application of national provisions on unfair competition to prohibit the marketing of a cosmetic product on the ground that consumers might be misled by the name of the product into believing that the product has medicinal characteristics, even though the product is lawfully marketed in other Member States under the name in question.
Det påhviler samtidig efter fællesskabsretten den nationale ret ved vurderingen af, om de nationale regler skal finde anvendelse, at lægge en helhedsbedømmelse til grund, hvori indgår alle relevante hensyn, herunder de
The national court must, however, when applying national provisions, ensure that their application will not lead to obstacles to trade
omstændigheder, hvorunder varerne sælges, og vildledningsfaren i forhold til den relevante forbrugergruppe."
between Member States, unless their application is imperative for consumer protection and fair trading, and unless the measure chosen is proportionate to the object pursued and that objective cannot be achieved by measures which are less restrictive of intra-Community trade.
Sag C-308/87: A. Grifoni mod Kommissionen
Case C-308/87 A. Grifoni ν Commission
"Ansvar uden for kontraktforhold - erstatning af skaden" (Sjette Afdeling)
(Non-contractual liability - Compensation fordamage) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved mellemdom af 27. marts 1990 i denne sag dømte Domstolen Det Europæiske Atomenergifællesskab ved Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber til at erstatte halvdelen af den skade, sagsøgeren led som følge af sit fald fra tagterrassen på den meteorologiske station ved Det Fælles Forskningscenter i Ispra (Italien).
By interlocutory judgment of 27 March 1990 in this case {Grifoni v Commission [1990] ECR 1-1203), the Court ordered the European Atomic Energy Community, represented by the Commission of the European Communities, to pay compensation, to the amount of 50%, for the damage suffered by the applicant as the result of his fall from the flat roof of the meteorological station of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra (Italy).
Ifølge dommen skulle parterne inden seks måneder fra dommens afsigelse med dele Domstolen en opgørelse efter fælles aftale eller, såfremt der ikke blev opnået nogen aftale, tilstille Domstolen deres respektive opgørelser af erstatningsbeløbet.
Under the terms of that judgment, the parties had to submit to the Court, within six months, a calculation of the amount of compensation established by common accord or, failing such agreement, their own assessments with figures in support.
Efter dommens afsigelse førte forhandlinger mellem parterne vedrørende tabsopgørelsen ikke til noget resultat inden for den fastsatte frist.
Following that judgment negotiations between the parties with a view to assessing the damage failed to result in a successful outcome within the period provided for.
Kommissionen betaler til sagsøgeren 268 210 529 LIT.
Ordered the Commission to pay to the applicant compensation in the amount of LIT 268 210 529;
Hver part betaler sine omkostninger, med undtagelse af udgifterne til den af Domstolen anordnede lægesagkyndige udtalelse, hvilke fordeles ligeligt mellem parterne."
Ordered the parties to bear their own costs except for those of the medical report ordered by the Court which should be borne as to one-half by each of the parties.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet i Sjette Afdeling den 16. september 1993.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 16 September 1993.
Fællesskabet dømmes til at betale sagsøgeren erstatning for den skade, han led ved ulykken den 24. oktober 1985, med et beløb på 238 077 293 LIT med rente 8% fra datoen for dommens afsigelse, indtil betaling sker.
Order the Community to pay to the applicant, as compensation for the damage suffered as a result of the accident of 24 October 1985, the sum of LIT 238 077 293 together with interest at the annual rate of 8% with effect from the date of judgment to the date of actual payment;
Hver part bærer sine omkostninger."
Order the parties to bear their own costs.
Ved dom af 8. januar 1993, indgået til Domstolen den 15. januar s.a., havde Cour du travail de Liège forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF.
By judgment of 8 January 1993, which was received at the Court on 15 January 1993, the Court du Travail de Liège (Labour Court, Liège) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC.
Spørgsmålet var stillet under en sag mellem M. Minne og Onem om udbetaling af arbejdsløshedsydelser.
That question arose in proceedings between Mrs Minne and the Belgian Office National de l'Emploi (National Employment Office) ("the ONEM") concerning the granting of unemployment benefit.
I perioden 15. juli 1986 - 31. marts 1990 arbejdede M. Minne, som havde bopæl i Belgien, i Capellen (Luxembourg) i hotelbranchen, hvor hun også skulle arbejde om natten.
From 15 July 1986 to 31 March 1990, Mrs Minne, who was living in Belgium, worked in the hotel and catering industry at Capel len (Luxembourg) where she was required to work nights.
Efter at være fratrådt sit arbejde som følge af, at hun flyttede til Liégeprovinsen (Belgien), anmodede hun om at få udbetalt arbejdsløshedsydelser med virkning fra den 2. april 1990.
She ceased working when she moved to live in the Province de Liège (Belgium), where she applied for unemployment benefit.
Onem afviste at udbetale hende de nævnte ydelser med henvisning til, at hun havde erklæret, at hun af familiemæssige grunde ikke længere var villig til at arbejde om natten.
The ONEM refused to grant her that benefit on the ground that she had declared that she was no longer prepared to work at night for family reasons.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at den nationale retsinstans i det væsentlige ønskede oplyst, om direktivets artikel 5 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat, hvor hverken mænd eller kvinder må arbejde om natten, opretholder differentierede ordninger med hensyn til undtagelserne for de to køn.
In its question, the national court sought in substance to ascertain whether Article 5 of the directive precluded a Member State which precluded night-work for both men and women from maintaining systems of derogations which differed from one sex to the other.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Court stated that in the present case the discrimination did not lie in the principle of the prohibition of night-work, which applied without distinction to men and women, but rather in the derogations from that principle.
"Artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til be-
In this case, it did not follow from the legislation at issue that the nature of the differences between the two systems of derogations was justified by the
I det omfang de nationale bestemmelser er vedtaget for at sikre, at medlemsstaten opfylder sine forpligtelser i henhold til en konvention, der er indgået med tredjelande før traktatens ikrafttrædelse, kan direktivets artikel 5 ikke finde anvendelse."
need to ensure protection of a woman's biological condition or by the special relationship which exists between a woman and her child.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet for Domstolens Sjette Afdeling den 9. december 1993.
In those circumstances, unequal treatment could not be justified on the basis of Article 2(3) of the directive.
"Artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat vedtager bestemmelser om begrænsning af natarbejde for kvinder uden at fastsætte tilsvarende be grænsninger også for mænd. Imidlertid følger det af traktatens artikel 234, stk. 1, at de nationale domstoles forpligtelse til at undlade at anvende nationale be stemmelser, der er i strid med direktivets artikel 5, ikke består, såfremt sådanne bestemmelser skal anvendes med henblik på at opfylde internationale forpligtelser, som påhviler den pågældende medlemsstat over for tredjelande i henhold til en konvention, der som ILO-konvention nr. 89 af 9. juli 1948 er indgået før traktatens ikrafttrædelse."
The Court pointed out that it fell to the national court and not to the Court of Justice in the context of a preliminary ruling, to ascertain, with a view to determining the extent to which the obligations arising from an agreement concluded with non-member countries before the entry into force of the Treaty constituted an obstacle to the application of Article 5 of the directive, what were the obligations thus imposed on the Member State concerned by an earlier international agreement and whether the national provisions in question were designed to implement those obligations.
KENDELSER
The Court ruled:
Sag T-278/93 R, sag T-555/93 R, sag T-280/93 R og sag T-541/93 R D. A. Jones m.fl. mod Rådet og Kommissionen
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 9 December 1993.
"Mælkekvoter - særlige rettergangsformer - foreløbige forholdsregler"
"Article 5 of Directive 76/207 prohibits a Member State from adopting rules limiting night-work for women without providing similar limitations also for men.
Ved domme af 28. april 1988 (Mulder I) havde Domstolen erklæret forordning nr. 857/84, som suppleret ved Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1371/84 af 16. maj 1984 om gennemførelsesbestemmelserne for den tillægsafgift, der er omhandlet i artikel 5c i forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68, ugyldig i det omfang, forordningerne ikke bestemte, at der skulle tildeles en referencemængde til de producenter, som i henhold til en forpligtelse påtaget i henhold til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1078/77 af 17. maj 1977 om indførelse af en præmieordning for ikke-markedsføring af mælk og mejeriprodukter og for omstilling af malkekvægsbesætninger, ikke havde leveret mælk i det referenceår, som den pågældende medlemsstat havde lagt til grund.
However, it follows from the first paragraph of Article 234 of the Treaty that the obligation of the national court to disregard provisions of national law contrary to the said Article 5 of the directive does not apply where the application of the said provisions is necessary to ensure observance of international obligations of the Member State in question vis-à-vis non-member countries pursuant to an agreement, such as Convention No 89 of the International Labour Organization of 9 July 1948, concluded before the entry into force of the said Treaty."
Nogle af de berørte producenter, herunder sagsøgerne, som fandt, at deres interesser blev krænket på grund af visse bestemmelser i forordningen, navnlig vedrørende forældelsesfristen, anlagde annuiiationssøgsmål ved Retten.
Case T-278/93 R, T-555/93R, Τ-280/93 and Τ-541/93 R O.A. Jones and Others ν Council and Commission 1 February 1994 (Milk quotas - Application for adoption of interim measures - Temporary measures)
De nedlagde påstand om delvis annullation af forordning nr. 2187/93, og de indgav desuden begæring om foreløbige forholdsregler.
In its judgments in Case 120/86 Mulder ν Minister van Landbouw en
Ifølge artikel 8, stk. 2, litra a), afbrydes den forældelsesfrist på fem år, der i artikel 43 i statutten er fastsat for Fællesskabets erstatningsansvar, enten på den dato, hvor den pågældende producent fremsætter kravet over for en af Fællesskabets institutioner, den dato, hvor der anlægges et søgsmål ved Domstolen, eller senest datoen for den ovennævnte meddelelse af 5. august 1992.
In its judgment of 19 May 1992 in Joined Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90 Mulder and Others ν Council and Commi ssi on [1992] ECR 1-3061 {"Mulder II") the Court held that the Council and the Commission were obliged to make good the damage suffered by the applicants as a result of the application of Regulation 857/84.
Ifølge artikel 10, stk. 1 og 2, i forordning nr. 2187/93 skal erstatningskravet i hver medlemsstat være indgivet til den myndighed, som medlemsstaten har udpeget med henblik herpå, senest den 30. september 1993.
Further to that judgment of the Court, the Council and the Commission recognized, in a communication published in the Official Journal on 5 August 1992 (Official Journal C 198, p.
Denne har derefter i henhold til artikel 14, stk. 1, en frist på højst fire måneder fra kravets modtagelse til på Rådets og Kommissionens vegne og for disses regning at fremsætte et tilbud om erstatning til producenten, ledsaget af en kvittering for fuld og endelig afgørelse.
4), that the findings in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Mulder II, cited above, applied to all persons in a comparable situation to that of the applicants in those cases and, pending the adoption of the measures necessary to give effect to the judgment of the Court, undertook in the case of applications made after 5 August 1992 not to rely on the provisions of Article 43 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, pursuant to which proceedings against the Community in matters arising from non-contractual liability are barred after a period of five years from the occurrence of the event giving rise thereto.
I artikel 14, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 2187/93 bestemmes det, at såfremt tilbuddet ikke accepteres inden for en frist på to måneder fra dets mod tagelse, medfører dette, at det ikke længere er bindende for de berørte fællesskabsinstitutioner, dvs. Rådet og Kommissionen.
It was in those circumstances that on 22 July 1993 the Council adopted Regulation No 2187/93 which provides for an offer of flat-rate compensation to certain producers of milk and milk products temporarily prevented from carrying on their trade and lays down the detailed rules and conditions for the grant of that compensation.
Rettens præsident udtalte indledningsvis, at det måtte vurderes, om det valg, som sagsøgerne skal træffe om accept eller afvisning af tilbuddet om det forudfastsatte erstatningsbeløb, nødvendigvis medfører de alvorlige og uoprettelige konsekvenser, som sagsøgerne har anført.
A certain number of producers affected, including the applicants, considering that they were adversely affected by certain provisions of that regulation, in particular those concerning the limitation period, brought actions before the Court of First Instance for the partial annulment of Regulation No 2187/93, and also the present applications for interim measures.
Vedrørende for det andet den situation, at de accepterer tilbuddet om det forudfastsatte erstatningsbeløb, bemærkede præsidenten, at erstatningen gør det muligt at undgå, at de respektive kreditorer overtager sagsøgernes bedrifter.
Under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2187/93, the flat-rate compensation is offered only for the period for which the right to compensation is not time-barred.
Deres tab vil således bestå i, at de skal give afkald på deres ret til erstatning for den periode, som ifølge artikel 8 i forordning nr. 2187/93 er omfattet af forældelsen.
Article 8(2)(a) provides that the five-year time bar set by Article 43 of the Statute for proceedings against the Community arising from its non-contractual liability is considered to have been interrupted, either on the date of an application addressed to a Community producer who considers that he has suffered damage or on the date on which the application is entered in the Register of the Court of Justice or on the date of the communication of 5 August 1992, cited above.
Hertil bemærkede præsidenten, at Rådet og Kommissionen i deres skriftlige indlæg havde erklæret, at det forhold, at sagsøgerne accepterer tilbuddet om det forudfastsatte erstatningsbeløb og således giver afkald på ethvert retsskridt over for fællesskabsinstitutionerne vedrørende deres tab, ikke nødvendigvis indebærer, at de mister enhver ret til erstatning for hele den periode, for hvilken de mener at have ret til erstatning, hvis Retten eller Domstolen senere skulle erklære forældelsesbestemmelserne i artikel 8 i forordning nr. 2187/93 ugyldige i en af de verserende sager.
Under Article 10(1) and (2) of Regulation No 2187/93, the application for compensation had to be addressed to the competent authority designated for that purpose in each Member State by 30 September 1993 at the latest.
Under disse omstændigheder ville der efter de sagsøgte institutioners opfattelse foreligge en fuldstændig ny situation, og erstatningen ville derfor i princippet skulle betales for hele perioden, idet beregningen af erstatningen dog skulle ske på grundlag af de faktiske tab og ikke et forudfastsat overslag som det, der fremgår af forordning nr. 2187/93.
Under the first paragraph of Article 14 that authority then had a maximum period of four months from receipt of the application to make, in the name and on behalf of the Council and the Commission, an offer of compensation to the producer, accompanied by a receipt in full and final settlement.
På dette grundlag fastslog præsidenten, at såfremt Retten eller i givet fald Domstolen i de søgsmål, hvor der er nedlagt påstand om annui lati on af visse bestemmelser i forordning nr. 2187/93 - og hvoraf et vist antal, som parterne har erkendt under den mundtlige forhandling, principielt ikke bliver hævet - erklærer bestemmelserne vedrørende forældelsesfristen i forordningens artikel 8 ugyldige, medfører det forhold, at de berørte producenter accepterer tilbuddet om det forudfastsatte erstatningsbeløb og derefter hæver de sager, de har anlagt ved Retten, ikke, at de endeligt mister deres ret til at opnå erstatning for den samlede periode, hvor de mener at have ret til erstatning.
According to the third paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation No 2187/93, failure to accept the offer within two months of its receipt means that it is not binding in the future on the Community institutions concerned, that is to say the Council and the Commission. In addition, under the fourth paragraph of Article 14, acceptance of the offer, by the return to the competent national authority within the two-month period of the duly approved and signed receipt, implies the relinquishment of any claim of whatever nature against the Community in respect of the loss which is the subject of the offer of compensation. · . .
Rettens præsident afsagde følgende kendelse:
Appraisal of the application
Traktatbrud - EØF-traktatens artikel 5, 7 og 128 - forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet - opkrævning af en supplerende studieafgift (minerval) for studerende, der som EF-statsborgere rejser til Belgien for at søge universitetsuddannelse - ret til at nægte indskrivning på universitetet af studerende, der er EF-statsborgere - begrænsning af retten til at opnå tilbagebetaling af studieafgifter, der er betalt med urette.
In that respect it was necessary to point out that the Council and the Commission had stated in their written observations that acceptance by the applicant of the offer of flat-rate compensation, and therefore their relinquishment of any claim of whatever nature against the Community institutions in respect of their losses, did not necessarily entail the loss of all their rights to compensation for the whole period for which they considered themselves to be entitled, in the event that the Court of First Instance or the Court of Justice were to find, in one of the cases still pending before them, that the time-bar provisions in Article 8 of Regulation 2187/93 were illegal.
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (plenum) den 2. februar 1994.
In those circumstances, the defendants considered that an entirely new situation would arise and that compensation would then be payable, in principle, for the whole period, although that compensation might be calculated on the basis of actual losses, rather than on the basis of a flat-rate assessment such as that provided for in Regulation No 2187/93.
"at Kommissionen gives medhold i, at Kongeriget Belgien som beskrevet i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens berigtigede påstand har krænket sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 5 og 7, og at Kongeriget Belgien tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger."
In those circumstances it was to be concluded that if, in the actions for annulment of certain provisions of Regulation No 2187/93 - it having been accepted by the parties at the hearing that a certain number of those actions would, in principle, not be withdrawn - the Court of First Instance and, as the case might be, the Court of Justice were to declare the time-bar provisions in Article 8 of that regulation to be illegal, the acceptance of the offer of flat-rate compensation by the producers concerned and the consequent withdrawal of their actions before the Court of First Instance could not signify the permanent loss of their right to obtain compensation for the whole of the period for which they considered themselves to be entitled.
Fortolkning af artikel 1, litra a), nr. i), artikel 2, stk. 3, artikel 13, stk. 2, litra c), og artikel 14c i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet - læge der udøver lægegerning i to medlemsstater, dels i egenskab af tjenestemand i Belgien, dels i egenskab af selvstændig erhvervsdrivende i Nederlandene - lovvalg.
Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 5, 7 and 128 of the EEC Treaty - Discrimination on grounds of nationality - Levying of a supplementary charge (minerval) to be paid by students who are Community nationals coming to Belgium for the purpose of pursuing university studies -Right to refuse enrolment at a university of students who are Community nationals - Restriction on right to obtain repayment of minerval paid in error.
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 2. februar 1994.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 2 February 1994.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålet således:
He proposed that the Court should: