natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, i direktiv 91/156 skal medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 1. april 1993 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom. Direktiv
However, the Court has consistently held that a Member State may not plead provisions, practices or circumstances existing in its internal legal system in order to justify a failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive.
•1) Kongerigel Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 om ændring af direktiv 75/442/EØF om affald, idel det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget og sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet
Declares that, by failing to adopt and bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) ofthat directive;
Generaladvokat P. Lé¡gcr fremsatte forslat; til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 20. marts 1997.
Advocate General M. P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 20 March 1997.
»1) Det fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 om ændring af direktiv 75/442/EØF om affald, ikke har overholdt sine forpligtelser i henhold til direktivets artikel 2, stk. 1.
(1) declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;
Sag C-223/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Miljø- og forbrugerbeskyttelse
Case C-223/96 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Environment and consumers
•Traktatbrud - direktiv (Femte Afdeling)
(Failure to fulfil (Fifth Chamber) to fulfil its
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolen den 26. juni 1996 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at del fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 om ændring af direktiv 75/442/EØF om affald, idet den ikke har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet eller ikke har underrettet Kommissionen herom.
By application lodged at the Court on 26 June 1996, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste or by not communicating those measures, the
Formålet med direktiv 91/156 er at sørge for bortskaffelse og nyttiggørelse af affald, og at der træffes foranstaltninger til begrænsning af affaldsproduktionen især ved at fremme renere teknologier og produkter, der kan genvindes og genbruges.
The purpose of Directive 91/156 is to ensure the removal and recovery of waste and to encourage the adoption of measures to restrict the production of waste, particularly by promoting clean technologies and products which can be recycled and re-used.
Det fremgår af ordlyden af den begrundede udtalelse, der er blevet fremlagt, at den overholder kravene i henhold til retspraksis.
action brought in that respect by the Commission must therefore be regarded as well founded.
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 1, i direktiv 91/156 skal medlemsstaterne sætte de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme direktivet senest den 1. april 1993 og straks underrette Kommissionen herom.
Artide 2(1) of Directive 91/156 provides that the Member States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with the directive not later than 1 April 1993 and are to inform the Commission thereof forthwith.
Direktiv 91/156 blev meddelt medlemsstaterne den 25. marts 1991.
Directive 91/156 was notified on 25 March 1991.
Hvad angår stævningen bemærkes, at en ved Domstolen indleveret stævning bl.a. skal indeholde en angivelse af søgsmålets genstand, påstandene og en kort fremstilling af søgsmålsgrundene.
The French Republic contended, principally, that the application was inadmissible because the complaints against it were imprecisely formulated, both during the pre-litigation procedure and in the application.
Stævningen er efter sin ordlyd i overensstemmelse med Domstolens retspraksis.
In that connection, it should be noted that, according to the Court's case-law, the reasoned opinion must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which persuaded the Commission that the State concerned had failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaty.
Det er ubestridt, at gennemførelsen af direktiv 91/156 ikke har fundet sted inden for den fastsatte frist.
The Commission has set out the legal background and the facts which persuaded it that the French Government had failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 91/156, namely transposition of the directive in full and communication of the measures by which it was transposed.
Den Franske Republik har principalt gjort gældende, at sagen skal afvises på grund af den upræcise formulering af Kommissionens klagepunkter såvel under den administrative procedure som i stævningen.
As regards the originating application, it should be pointed out that provide that the application in a case brought before the Court must contain, among other things, the subject-matter of the dispute, the form of order sought and a brief statement of the grounds on which the application is based.
Ifølge Den Franske Republik burde Kommissionen have præciseret, hvilke bestemmelser i direktiv 91/156 der ikke var gennemført i fransk ret eller ikke var gennemført korrekt.
It is not disputed that Directive 91/156 was not transposed within the period prescribed. The
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslap til afpørclse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 20. marts 1997.
Advocate General M. P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 20 March 1997.
»1) Det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik ved ikke inden for den fastsatte frist at have vedtaget de love og administrative bestemmelser, som er nødvendige for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 91/156/EØF af 18. marts 1991 om ændring af direktiv 75/442/EØF om affald, eller ved ikke at have givet meddelelse herom, har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 2 i dette direktiv.
(1) declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed time the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, or by not communicating those measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;
Sag C-285/95 Suat Kol / Land Berlin Forbindelserne udadtil
Case C-285/95 Suat Kol ν Land Berlin External relations
Præjudiciel •Associeringsaftalen EØF-Tyrkiel — associeringsrådets afgørelse — arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed lovlig beskæftigelse beskæftigelsesperioder tilbagelagt på grundlag af opholdstilladelse opnået ved svig* (Sjette Afdeling) blev oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, som blev undertegnet den 12. september 1963 i Ankara dels af Republikken Tyrkiet, dels af EØFs medlemsstater og Fællesskabet, og som blev indgået, godkendt og bekræftet på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets afgørelse 64/732/EØF af 23. december 1963.
Preliminary ruling (EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Decision of the Council of Association Free movement of workers — Legal employment — Periods of employment under a residence permit fraudulently obtained) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 11. august 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 28. august 1995, har Obcrvcrwaltungsgcricht Berlin forelagt lo præjudicicllespørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 6, stk. 1, og artikel 14, stk 1, i associeringsrådets afgørelse nr. 1/S0 af 19. september 1980 om udvikling af associeringen (herefter »afgørelse nr. 1/80«). Associeringsrådet
By order of 11 August 1995, which was received at the Court on 28 August 1995, the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions concerning the interpretation of Articles 6(1) and 14(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association (hereinafter
opholdsretten, havde opnået ret til ophold og beskæftigelse.
the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem en tyrkisk statsborger, Suat Kol, og Land Berlin angående en beslutning om udvisning.
The questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Kol, a Turkish national, and the Land Berlin concerning a decision expelling him from German territory.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, at det fremgår af akterne i hovedsagen, at Suat Kol er blevet dømt for at have afgivet urigtig erklæring i den hensigt at opnå opholdstilladelse i Tyskland.
It should be noted at the outset that, according to the file on the case in the main proceedings, Mr Kol has been convicted of having made a false declaration in order to obtain a German residence permit.
Domstolen fandt således, at de beskæftigelsesperioder, som den pågældende havde tilbagelagt, ikke kunne anses for perioder med lovlig beskæftigelse i den betydning, hvori udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, så længe det ikke er endeligt fastslået, at vedkommende i den pågældende periode har haft opholdsret ifølge loven, idet en retsafgørelse, hvorved han endeligt nægtes denne ret, i modsal fald ville blive meningsløs og gøre det muligt for ham at få de i artikel 6, stk. 1, fastsalte rettigheder i en periode, hvor han ikke opfylder betingelserne i denne bestemmelse.
The Court considered that it was not possible to regard as legal, within the meaning of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, periods in which the worker was employed so long as it was not definitively established that during that period the worker had a legal right of residence. Otherwise, a judicial decision finally refusing him that right would be rendered nugatory, and he would thus have been enabled to acquire the rights provided for in Article 6(1) during a period when he did not fulfil the conditions laid down in that provision.
Det første spørgsmål skal herefter forstås således, at det reelt hermed ønskes oplyst, om artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 skal fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager opfylder betingelsen om lovlig beskæftigelse i værtsmedlemsstaten i bestemmelsens forstand, når han har udøvet denne beskæftigelse under dække af en opholdstilladelse, som han alene har opnået ved svig, hvilket forhold han er blevet dømt for.
In those circumstances, the first question must be understood as seeking to ascertain essentially whether Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker satisfies the condition of having been in legal employment, within the meaning of that provision, in the host Member State, where he has been employed there under a residence permit which was issued to him only as a result of fraudulent conduct in respect of which he has been convicted.
Denne fortolkning må så meget desto mere gælde for en situation som den, der foreligger i hovedsagen, hvor den vandrende tyrkiske arbejdstager alene har opnået varig opholdstilladelse i værtsmedlemsstaten på grundlag af urigtige erklæringer, og hvor han følgelig er blevet dømt for svig.
A fortiori that interpretation must apply in a situation such as that in the main proceedings where the Turkish migrant worker obtained a residence permit of unlimited duration in the host Member State only by means of inaccurate declarations in respect of which he was convicted of fraud.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes, at del fremgår af fast retspraksis, at lovlig beskæftigelse i artikel 6, stk. l's forstand forudsætter, al den pågældende arbejdstagers situation på arbejdsmarkedet er permanent og ikke kun foreløbig, og dermed eksistensen af en ikke anfægtet opholdsret.
In that connection, the Court has consistently held that legal employment within the meaning of the first indent of Article 6(1) presupposes a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force of a Member State and, by virtue of this, implies the existence of an undisputed right of residence.
Beskæftigelsesperioder, der er tilbagelagt efter, at den pågældende har opnået en opholdstilladelse alene som følge af en svigagtig adfærd, som han er blevet dømt for, kan ikke anses for lovlige med henblik på anvendelsen af artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, idet den tyrkiske statsborger ikke opfyldte betingelserne for en sådan tilladelse, der derfor kan anfægtes, når svigen opdages.
Periods of employment after a residence permit has been obtained only by means of fraudulent conduct which has led to a conviction cannot be regarded as legal for the purposes of application of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, since the Turkish national did not fulfil the conditions for the grant of such a permit which was, accordingly, liable to be rescinded when the fraud was discovered.
I dom af 20. scplcmbcr 1990, Sevincc, antog Domstolen ikke, at en tyrkisk arbejdstagers situation på en medlemsstats arbejdsmarked havde været permanent og ikke kun foreløbig i en periode, i hvilken han — i kraft af at et søgsmål, som han havde anlagt til prøvelse af en afgørelse om afslag på opholdstilladelse, og som havde haft opsættende virkning - midlertidigt, inden der blev truffet endelig afgørelse i sagen, var meddelt tilladelse til al opholde sig i den pågældende medlemsstat og udøve en beskæftigelse dér.
In the Sevince judgment, the Court stated that a Turkish worker was not in a stable and secure situation as a member of the labour force of a Member State during the period in which he benefited from the suspensory effect of an appeal he had lodged against a decision refusing him a residence permit and had obtained authorization, on a provisional basis, pending the outcome of the dispute, to reside and be employed in the Member State in question.
Beskæftigelsesperioder, som en tyrkisk statsborger har tilbagelagt under dække af en opholdstilladelse, som han opnået under sådanne omstændigheder, vedrører ikke en permanent situation og kan derfor kun anses for foreløbige, idet den pågældende ikke i de pågældende perioder havde opholdsret i henhold til loven.
Consequently, the periods in which the Turkish national was employed under a residence permit obtained in those circumstances were not based on a stable situation and such employment cannot be regarded as having been secure in view of the fact that, during the periods in question, the person concerned was not legally entitled to a residence permit.
I overensstemmelse hermed fastslog Domstolen i dom af 16. december 1992, Kus, al en tyrkisk arbejdstager, som alene havde opholdsret i henhold til nationale bestemmelser, der gav ret til ophold i værtslandet, mens ansøgningen om opholdstilladelse behandledes, heller ikke opfyldte denne betingelse, under henvisning til, al den pågældende kun midlertidigt, indtil der forelå en endelig afgørelse med hensyn til
Similarly, in Kus, the Court held that a Turkish worker did not fulfil that requirement where a right of residence was conferred on him only by the operation of national legislation permitting residence in the host country pending completion
Det er endvidere udelukket, at udøvelse af en beskæftigelse under dække af en opholdstilladelse, der er udstedt som følge af en af svigagtig adfærd, der fører til en straffedom, kan sikre den tyrkiske arbejdstager rettigheder eller give anledning til en berettiget forventning hos ham.
Furthermore, employment under a residence permit issued as a result of fraudulent conduct which has led to a conviction cannot give rise to any rights in favour of the Turkish worker, or arouse any legitimate expectation on his part.
•Artikel 6, stk 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80, som det associeringsråd, der er oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Del Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, traf den af 19. september 1980 om udvikling af associeringen skal fortolkes således, at en tyrkisk arbejdstager ikke opfylder betingelsen om lovlig beskæftigehe i værtsmedlemsstaten i bestemmelsens forstand, når han har udøvet denne beskæftigelse under dække af en opholdstilladelse, som han alene har opnået ved svig hvilket forhold han er blevet dømt for.·
'Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Council of Association established by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, is to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker does not satisfy the condition of having been in legal employment, within the meaning of that provision, in the host Member State, where he has been employed there under a residence permit which was issued to him only as a result of fraudulent conduct in respect of which he has been convicted.'
Generaladvokat M.B. Elmer fremsatte forslat; til afgørelse i reismødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 6. marts 1997.
Advocate General M. M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 6 March 1997.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål på følgende måde:
He proposed that the Court reply as follows:
»Artikel 6, stk. 1, i afgørelse nr. 1/80 af 19. september 1980 fra det associeringsråd, som blev oprettet ved aftalen om oprettelse af en associering mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Tyrkiet, undertegnet i Ankara den 12. september 1963 og godkendt på Fællesskabets vegne ved Rådets afgørelse 64/732/EØF af 23. december 1963, skal fortolkes således, at beskæftigelsesperioder, som en tyrkisk arbejdstager har tilbagelagt i en medlemsstat på grundlag af en opholdstilladelse, som er opnået ved svig, ikke kan anses for 'lovlig beskæftigelse'.«
Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Council of Association, established by the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed on 12 September 1963 in Ankara and concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963 must be interpreted as meaning that periods of employment completed by a Turkish worker on the basis of a fraudulently obtained residence permit cannot be regarded as 'legal employment'.'
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser« (Sjette Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide services) (Sixth Chamber)
10505/1988 (Græsk Lovtidende 68/5.2.1988, bind B).
Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by Syndesmos ton en Elladi Touristikon Grafeion (Association of Tourist and Travel Agencies in Greece for the annulment of Order
Det første spørgsmål
Ν υ lUJUJ/lvoö ui inc
Det første spørgsmål skal forstås således, at det reelt går ud på, om der foreligger en hindring som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 59 i forbindelse med bestemmelser i en medlemsstat, der, ved at stille krav om en obligatorisk, formelig arbejdskontrakt mellem parterne,
By order of 7 November 1995, received at the Court on 18 December 1995, the Symvoulio Epikrateias (Council of State) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty.
sådant tilfælde finder bestemmelserne anvendelse på dem.
In those circumstances, the rules in question apply to them.
hindrer turist- og rejsebureauerne, uanset hvor de er etableret, i som led i gennemførelsen af de rejseprogrammer, de iværksætter i denne medlemsstat, at indgå en kontrakt om tjenesteydelser med en turistfører, som er autoriseret til at udøve erhvervet dér.
The first question must be construed as seeking in substance to ascertain whether the rules of a Member State which, by prescribing a mandatory legal form of employment relationship between the parties, prevent tourist and travel agencies, wherever they are established, from concluding, in connection with the operation of tourist programmes organized by them in that Member State, a contract for the provision of services with a tourist guide licensed to pursue the profession of guide in that State constitute a barrier for the purposes of Article 59 of the Treaty.
Det følger heraf, at sådanne bestemmelser kan påvirke retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser for selvstændige turistførere, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat, når de er indehavere af en autorisation til at udøve erhvervet i den første medlemsstat, og når de tilbyder deres tjenesteydelser med henblik på gennemførelse af de rejseprogrammer, der organiseres i denne stal af lurist- eller rejsebureauer, uanset hvor disse bureauer er etableret inden for Fællesskabet.
It follows that such rules may affect the right of selfemployed tourist guides from another Member State freely to provide services where they are licensed to pursue the profession in the first State and offer their services in connection with the operation of tourist programmes organized in that State by tourist or travel agencies, wherever those agencies are established within the Community.
Indledningsvis bemærkes, al en turistførers virksomhed kan antage to forskellige former.
The next point to consider is whether rules of the kind at issue in the main proceedings constitute a barrier to the freedom of selfemployed tourist guides from other Member States to provide services.
Et rejsebureau kan benytte turistførere, som er ansat i bureauet selv, men det kan også beskæftige selvstændige turistførere.
It should be pointed out at the outset that the activities of a tourist guide may be subject to two distinct sets of rules. A tourist agency may itself employ guides but it may also engage selfemployed tourist guides.
I sidstnævnte tilfælde udfører turistføreren tjenesteydelsen for rejsebureauet, og ydelsen er virksomhed, der udføres mod betaling, jf. traktatens artikel 60.
In the latter case, the service is provided by the tourist guide to the tourist agency and constitutes an activity carried on for remuneration within the meaning of Article 60 of the Treaty.
Det står fast, at disse bestemmelser gælder uden forskel for alle autoriserede turistførere.
It is common ground that such rules apply without distinction to all licensed tourist guides.
Det bemærkes ligeledes, at traktatens artikel 59 ikke blot finder anvendelse, når yderen og modtageren af tjenesteydelsen er etableret i forskellige medlemsstater, men også i alle tilfælde, hvor en tjenesteyder tilbyder tjenesteydelser i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor han er etableret, uanset hvor modtagerne af tjenesteydelserne er hjemmehørende.
Furthermore, Article 59 of the Treaty applies not only where a person providing services and the recipient thereof are established in different Member States, but also in all cases where the person providing services offers those services in a Member State other than that in which he is established, wherever the recipients of those services may be established.
Det må derfor først undersøges, om bestemmelser som de i hovedsagen omhandlede i de i artikel 59 nævnte tilfælde kan påvirke retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser for selvstændige turistførere, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat.
However, Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination against a person providing services on the ground of his nationality but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to nationals providing services and to those of other Member States, when it is liable to prohibit or otherwise impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services.