natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sag C-288/89: Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda m.fl. mod Commissariaat voor de Hedía (Præjudiciel) 25.7.1991 "Fri bevægelighed for personer - fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser - betingelser for videreudsendelse af reklameindslag i radio- og TV-programmer fra andre medlemsstater" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-288/89: Stichting Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda and Others ν Commissariaat voor de Media (CM) - 25 July 1991 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom to provide services - Conditions imposed for the retransmission of advertisements contained in radio and television programmes broadcast from other Member States) (Full Court)
Ved mellemafgørelse af 30. august 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 19. september s.a., havde Raad van State, Afdelingen for Tvistemål, Nederlandene, stillet tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 59.
By decision of 30 August 1989, received at the Court on 19 September 1989, the judicial department of the Raad van State [Court of last instance in administrative matters] referred for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 59 of the EEC Treaty.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en tvist mellem lederne af ti fællesantenneanlæg og Commissariaat voor de Media - en institution, der skal føre til syn med drift af kabelanlæg - vedrørende de betingelser, som i den nederlandske medielov (Mediawet) opstilles for videreudsendelse af reklameindslag, der er rettet til det nederlandske publikum, i radio- og fjernsynsprogrammer udsendt fra udlandet.
The questions were raised in the context of proceedings between ten television network operators and the Commissariaat voor de Media, the institution supervising the management of cable television, concerning the conditions which the Mediawet [Netherlands Law controlling the provision of radio and television programmes] lays down for the transmission of advertisements in radio or television broadcasts from abroad.
Betingelser som dem, der opstilles i artikel 66, stk. 1, litra b), andet punktum, i den nederlandske medielov (Mediawet), udgdr begrænsninger af den i EØF-Traktatens artikel 59 omhandlede frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser. ydelser.
Conditions such as those laid down in the second sentence of Article 66 (1) (b) of the Mediawet constitute restrictions on the freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 59 of the EEC Treaty.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene således:
Restrictions of that kind are not justified relating to the public interest."
Forfølgelse af et kulturpolitisk formål söm f.eks. opretholdelse af et alsidigt udbud af radio- og fjernsynsprogrammer kan i princippet være et tvingende hensyn, som berettiger en restriktion âf den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The pursuit of a cultural policy aim such as the maintenance of a pluralistic broadcasting system may, in principle, constitute an imperative requirement justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services.
"Fri bevægelighed for personer - traktatbrud - fri Udveksling af tjenesteydelser - forpligtelse til at benytte en indenlandsk virksomhed med henblik på produktion af radio- og TV-programmer - betingelser for videreudsendelse af reklameindslag i radio- eller TV-programmer udsendt fra andre medlemsstater" (Domstolens plenum)
Article 59 of the Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the application of national legislation such as Article 66 of the Mediawet, even if universally applicable, which allows the cable transmission of programmes emanating from other Member States and containing advertisements specially Intended for the national audience subject only to the provisos that the transmitter shall have no profit-making motive and shall confer no benefits on third parties, and that the advertisements shall be administered by a legal person Independent of the transmitter; on the other hand, in the absence of harmonization, the condition that advertisements may be transmitted only if they are recognizable as such, if their transmission accounts for no more than 5% of transmission time, and if, further, they are not transmitted on Sundays, is justified by imperative requirements relating to the public interest."
Ved stævning indleveret dert 17. november Ì969 hävde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Kongeriget Nederlandene havde titsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 59, ved at forpligte de indenlandske radio- og fjernsynsorganisationer til at placere alle eller en del af deres ordrer hos en nederlandsk virksomhed og ved at begrænse adgangen til i Nederlandene at videreudsende programmer fra de øvrige medlemsstater, som indeholdt reklameindslag, der specielt henvendte sig til det nederlandske publikum.
Case C-353/89: Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of the Netherlands - 25 July 1991 (Infringement of Treaty obligations - Freedom to provide services -Obligation to commission radio and television programmes from a domestic undertaking - Conditions imposed on the retransmission of advertisements contained in radio or television programmes from other Member States) (Fall Court)
Domstolen bemærkede først, at den ved den nederlandske medielov (Mediawet) indførte ordning faktisk fører til en restriktion âf den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser i den i Traktatens artikel 59 forudsatte betydning.
By application lodged on 17 November 1989 the Commission brought an action for a declaration that, by obliging its national broadcasting organizations to commission all or part of their material from a Netherlands undertaking and by restricting the retransmission In the Netherlands of programmes from other Member States which contain
En forpligtelse for alle indenlandske radio- og TV-organisationer i en med lemsstat til helt eller delvis at anvende de tekniske hjælpemidler, som til bydes af en indenlandsk virksomhed, forhindrer organisationerne i, eller begrænser i hvert fald deres mulighed for, at gøre brug af tjenesteydelser fra virksomheder i andre medlemsstater.
The obligation laid on all national broadcasting organizations established in a Member State to obtain from a national undertaking all or part of their technical support prevented those organizations from consulting undertakings established in other Member States, or at least limited their opportunities for doing so.
Den har følgelig en beskyttende virkning til fordel for en virksomhed, der udfører tjenesteydelser, og som er etableret på det indenlandske område, og stiller i samme omfang de virksomheder af samme type ringere, som er etableret i andre medlemsstater helt bortset fra, at denne præferenceordning også har restriktive virkninger for tjenesteydelsesvirksomheder i Nederlandene.
The obligation thereby had the effect of protecting a service undertaking established in national territory, and prejudiced to the same extent the interests of similar undertakings established in other Member States; and that principle was not affected by the fact that this preferential scheme also produced restrictive effects as far as service undertakings established in the Netherlands were concerned.
Den nederlandske regering gjorde gældende, at disse restriktioner var berettiget af kulturpolitiske hensyn, navnlig bevarelse af ytringsfriheden for de forskellige sociale, kulturelle, religiøse eller filosofiske retninger i Nederlandene, således som den skal kunne finde udtryk i presse, radio eller fjernsyn.
The Netherlands Government contended that the restrictions were justified on grounds of cultural policy, in particular the preservation of freedom of speech for the various social, cultural, religious and philosophical components in the Netherlands, which should find expression in the Press, on the radio and on television.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at således forstået kan en kulturpolitik ganske vist være et tvingende alment hensyn, som berettiger en restriktion af den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The Court conceded that, in that sense, cultural policy might afford an imperative reason of public interest justifying a restriction on the freedom to provide services.
Den opretholdelse af alsidigheden, som denne nederlandske politik skal garantere, er knyttet til ytringsfriheden, således som den er beskyttet af artikel 10 i konventionen til beskyttelse af menneskerettigheder og grundlæggende frihedsrettigheder, som hører til de grundrettigheder, der sikres i Fællesskabets retsorden.
Indeed, the preservation of pluralism which the Netherlands policy sought to achieve was related to freedom of speech, as upheld by Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which was included amongst the fundamental rights guaranteed by the legal system of the Community.
Alsidigheden i en medlemsstats audiovisuelle sektor kan nemlig på ingen måde påvirkes af, at de forskellige indenlandske radio- og TV-organisationer får mulighed for at henvende sig til tjenesteydere i andre medlemsstater.
Pluralism in the audio-visual sector of a Member State could not in any way be affected by enabling the various national broadcasting organizations to call upon the services provided by persons established in other Member States.
Med hensyn til de betingelser, der stilles med hensyn til de udenlandske radio- og TV-institutioners struktur, bemærkede Domstolen, at der ikke er nogen nødvendig forbindelse mellem en sådan kulturpolitik og disse betingelser.
Turning to the conditions governing the structure of broadcasting organizations established in other Member States, the Court found that there was no necessary connexion between such conditions and the cultural policy in question.
For at sikre den alsidighed, som den Ønsker at bevare, kan den nederlandske regering meget vel begrænse sig til på passende måde at fastsætte regler for de nederlandske radio- og TV-organisationers struktur.
In order to guarantee pluralism in the audio-visual
Med hensyn til betingelserne vedrørende reklameindslagene konstaterede Domstolen, at den institution, som har monopol på udsendelse af disse indslag, ifølge den nationale lovgivning ikke længere forbeholdes samtlige indtægter fra reklameindslag, der specielt er rettet til det nederlandske publikum.
As far as the conditions governing advertisements were concerned, the Court found that the national legislation no longer reserved all the revenue derived from advertisements designed specially for the Netherlands audience for the foundation holding the monopoly on the broadcasting of such material.
Ved imidlertid at opstille regler for videreudsendelse af disse indslag begrænser lovgivningen den konkurrence, som institutionen kan blive udsat for på dette marked fra udenlandske radio- og TV-institutioners side, hvilket medfører en beskyttelse af dens indtægter.
However, by controlling the transmission of the advertisements, the legislation curtailed the competition from foreign broadcasting organizations to which that foundation could be exposed on that market, which had the effect of safeguarding its revenue.
Dette formål kan imidlertid ikke berettige restriktioner af den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
That objective could not, however, justify restrictions on the freedom to provide services.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Accordingly, the Court held as follows:
Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 59, ved at forpligte de organisationer, som har opnået sendetid i nederlandsk radio og TV, til med henblik på produktion af radioprogrammer at anvende samtlige de beløb, der stilles til deres rådighed, og med henblik på produktion af fjernsynsprogrammer en ved bekendtgørelse fastsat del af beløbene, hos Nederlands Omroepproductie Bedrijf, og ved at forbyde personer, der driver kabelanlæg i Nederlandene, at fremføre radio- eller fjernsynsprogrammer med reklameindslag, som specielt henvender sig til det nederlandske publikum, og som udsendes af en radio- eller fjernsynsinstitution på en anden medlemsstats område, når bestemte betingelser vedrørende disse institutioners struktur eller vedrør rende de reklameindslag, der indgår i deres programmer, og som er bestemt for det nederlandske publikum, ikke er opfyldt.
By obliging the national organizations which have obtained broadcasting time on the national radio network to use for purchases from the [Nederlandse Omroepproduktie] Bedrijf all the amounts made available to them for the making of radio programmes and a percentage fixed by decree in the case of television programmes and by prohibiting television distribution network managers established in its territory from broadcast i ng radio or television programmes from a broadcast!'ng organization established in the territory of another Member State and containing advertisements intended specially for the Netherlands public, where certain conditions are not fulfilled concerning the structure of those organizations or relating to the advertisements contained in their programmes and intended for the Netherlands public, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 59 of the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Nederlandene betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs."
Generatadvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 18. april 1991."
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 18 April 1991.
"- at statuere, at Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler det i henhold til Traktatens artikel 59, ved - helt eller delvis - at forbeholde en indenlandsk virksomhed at producere programmer for de indenlandske radio- og TV-organisationer, og ved at pålægge uden landske udsendere, for så vidt angår videreudsendelse af programmer med reklameindslag, der specielt er rettet til det nederlandske publikum, ikke at forfølge erhvervsmæssige formål, ikke at skaffe tredjemænd fortjeneste og at overlade forvaltningen af reklameindslagene til en uafhængig juridisk person;
He proposed that the Court should: declare that, by restricting to a national undertaking - in whole or in part - the production of programmes on behalf of national broadcasting organizations, and by requiring that foreign broadcasters retransmitting programmes containing advertisements specially designed for the Netherlands audience shall neither have
Ved dom af 4. oktober 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 9. november s.a., havde Tribunal de police d'Illkirch (Frankrig) forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF.
By judgment of 4 October 1989, received at the Court on 9 November 1989, the Tribunal de Police [local criminal court], 111kirch (France), referred a question on the interpretation of Article 5 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Spørgsmålet var stillet under en straffesag mod direktøren for SA Suma, Α. Stoeckel, som var tiltalt for at have beskæftiget 77 kvinder om natten, hvilket er strafbart i henhold til artikel L 213 i den franske code du travail (lov om arbejdsforhold).
The question arose in the course of criminal proceedings brought against Mr Stoeckel, the manager of Suma SA, who was charged with having employed 77 women on night-work, contrary to Article L-213 of the French Code du Travail [Labour Code]
For Tribunal de police havde A. Stoeckel gjort gældende, at artikel L 213 i den franske code du travail er i strid med artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207, og med dom af 25. oktober 1988, Kommissionen mod Frankrig (312/86), hvor Domstolen statuerede, at Den Franske Republik havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Traktaten, idet den ikke havde truffet alle de foranstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at ophæve de former for ulige behandling, der er forbudt efter direktivet.
In the proceedings before the Tribunal de Police Mr Stoeckel had maintained that Article L-213 of the Code du Travail contravened Article 5 of Directive 76/207 and the judgment of 25 October 1988 in Case 312/86 (Commission ν France), whereby the Court had held that the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations by failing to adopt all the measures, mentioned therein, which were needed for removing the inequalities prohibited under that directive.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at for så vidt angår hensynet til beskyt­telse af kvindelig arbejdskraft kunne det ­ bortset fra tilfælde af graviditet og moderskab ­ ikke antages, at de risici, kvinder er udsat for ved at arbejde om natten, efter deres art generelt adskiller sig fra de risici, som også mænd er udsat for.
The French Government argued that the prohibition of nightwork for women, qualified by numerous derogations, was in keeping with the general aims of protecting female employees and with special considerations of a social nature, such as the risks of assault and the greater burden of household work borne by women.
Med hensyn til risikoen for overfald ­ hvis den overhovedet er større om natten end om dagen ­ bemærkede Domstolen, at der kan træffes passende foran­staltninger for at imødegå den uden at tilsidesætte det grundlæggende princip om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder.
Turning to the aims of protecting female employees, the Court held that it was not evident that, except In cases of pregnancy and maternity, the risks incurred by women in such work were broadly different in kind from the risks incurred by men.
Domstolen bemærkede afslutningsvis, at de mange undtagelser fra forbudet mod, at kvinder arbejder om natten, som den franske regering havde henvist til, ikke var tilstrækkelige til, at direktivts formål var opfyldt, eftersom det efter direktivet er forbudt som et generelt princip at afskære kvinder fra at arbejde om natten, og sådanne undtagelser kan endvidere være en kilde til forskelsbehandling.
Turning to the numerous derogations from the prohibition on nightwork for women, to which the French Government had referred, the Court held that they were inadequate to give effect to Directive 76/207, since that directive did not allow any general principle excluding women from nightwork; the derogations could, indeed, be a source of discrimination.
"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 beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår er til strækkelig præcis til, at en medlemsstat ikke ved lov principielt kan forbyde, at kvinder arbejder om natten - selv om der er fastsat undtagelser - når det ikke er forbudt, at mænd arbejder om natten."
"Article 5 of Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions is sufficiently precise to impose on the Member States the obligation not to lay down by legislation the principle that night work by women is prohibited, even if that obligation is subject to exceptions, where night work for men is not prohibited."
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 24. januar 1991.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 24 January 1991.
"Artikel 5 i direktiv 76/207 er til hinder for en national retsforskrift, hvorefter det ved lov principielt forbydes, at kvinder arbejder om natten, og forbudet alene omfatter kvinder."
"Article 5 of Directive 76/207 precludes a national provision which sets up the legislative principle of prohibiting nightwork only for women."
Ved kendelse afsagt den 23. oktober 1989, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 17. november s.a., havde Pretura di Milano forlagt Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF.
By order of 23 October 1989, received at the Court on 17 November 1989, the Pretura di Milano [Milan Magistrates' Court] referred to the
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen, der tilhører sidstnævnte gruppe arbejdstagere, nedlagde under en ved Pretura di Milano anlagt sag påstand om, at det anerkendtes, at de var ansat hos erhververselskabet og henviste herved til bestemmelsen i artikel 2112, stk. 1, i codice civile.
The plaintiffs before the Pretura di Milano, who were amongst those 518 workers, applied to the court for a declaration that their employment had continued with the transferee, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 2112 of the Civil Code.
De sagsøgte selskaber påstod sig frifundet for denne påstand under henvisning til en italiensk lovbestemmelse, hvorefter nævnte bestemmelse i codice civile ikke ved overdragelse af en virksomhed, der er under særlig administration, finder anvendelse for det personale, der ikke samtidig overføres.
The defendants before the national court opposed that application, citing a provision of national law whereby, as far as undertakings in special receivership were concerned, the provisions of the Civil Code did not apply to staff not transferred at the time of the transfer.
Artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF af 14. februar 1977 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om varetagelse af arbejdstagernes rettigheder i forbindelse med overførsel af virksomheder, bedrifter eller dele af bedrifter, skal fortolkes således, at alle de på tidspunktet for en virksomheds overførsel mellem overdrageren og arbejdstagerne i vedkommende virksomhed bestående arbejdskontrakter eller arbejdsforhold automatisk overgår til erhververen alene på grund af overførselen.
Article 3 (JJ of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses must be interpreted as meaning that all contracts of employment or employment relationships existing on the date of the transfer of an undertaking between the transferor and the workers employed in the undertaking transferred are transferred to the transferee automatically simply as a result of the transfer.
Artikel 1, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 77/187/EØF af 14. februar 1977 finder ikke anvendelse på overførsel af en virksomhed, der sker inden for rammerne af en kreditorforfølgningsprocedure som den i italiensk lovgivning omhandlede tvungne administrative likvidation (liquidazione coata amministrativa), der er omhandlet i lov af 3. april 1979 om særlig administration af større kriseramte virksomheder.
Article 1 (1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 does not apply to transfers of undertakings made as part of a creditors' settlement of the kind provided for in the Italian legislation on compulsory administrative liquidation as referred to in the Law of 3 April 1979 on special administration for large undertakings in difficulties.
Derimod finder de samme bestemmelser i samme direktiv anvendelse, når det inden for rammerne af en i lovgivningen fastlagt ordning som ordningen om særlig administration af større kriseramte virksomheder er vedtaget at fortsætte en virksomheds drift, så længe vedtagelsen herom er i kraft".
However, that paragraph does apply when, in accordance with a body of legislation such as that governing special administration for large undertakings in difficulties, it has been decided that the undertaking is to continue trading and for as long as that decision remains in effect."
(Præjudicielle) "Frie varebevægelser - nationale bestemmelser om reklame for alkoholholdige drikkevarer" (Domstolens plenum)
Article 1 (1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 1s not applicable to the transfer of an undertaking, a business or part of a business in circumstances where the court has recorded the transferor's non-payment of debts, its insolvency or loss of credit facilities, or where the transferor is the subject of proceedings having, by analogy with bankruptcy proceedings, the following features: their purpose is to realize the assets held in receivership, even if it is advisable, when doing so, to continue running all or part of the business of the undertaking by opting for the realization of a set of assets forming the components of a going concern.