natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Den nationale rets spørgsmål gik for det første ud på, om Traktatens artikel 52 og 58 samt dens artikel 5 og 7 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstats lovgivning indrømmer tillæg til tilbagebetaling af urigtigt erlagt skat til selskaber, som har skattemæssigt hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat, og for det andet om en sådan ordning også er udtryk for forskelsbehandling, når den fritagelse for skat, som har givet anledning til tilbagebetalingen, kun gælder for selskaber, som ikke har skattemæssigt hjemsted i denne medlemsstat.
The national court's question is designed to ascertain, first, whether Articles 52 and 58 and Articles 5 and 7 of the Treaty prevent the legislation of a Member State from granting repayment supplement on overpaid tax to companies resident for tax purposes in that State whilst refusing that supplement to companies which are resident for tax purposes in another Member State and, secondly, whether such a rule is still discriminatory where the exemption from tax which gave rise to the refund applies only to companies which are not resident for tax purposes in that Member State.
Domstolen bemærkede, at kriteriet om skattemæssigt hjemsted på indenlandsk om råde som betingelse for en eventuel forhøjelse af tilbagebetalingen af urigtigt erlagt skat - selv om dette gælder uafhængigt af selskabernes hjemsted - kan være til særlig skade for selskaber med hjemsted i andre medlemsstater.
Although it applies independently of a company's seat, the Court noted that the use of the criterion of fiscal residence within national territory for the purpose of granting repayment supplement on overpaid tax is liable to work more particularly to the disadvantage of companies having their seat in other Member States.
Det er nemlig som oftest disse, der har etableret deres skattemæssige hjemsted uden for den pågældende medlemsstats område.
Indeed, it is most often those companies which are resident for tax purposes outside the territory of the Member State in question.
Den omstændighed, at den skattefritagelse, som har givet anledning til tilbage betalingen, er forbeholdt selskaber, der ikke har hjemsted i indlandet, kunne ikke berettige en udelukkelse af generel karakter.
The fact that the exemption from tax which gave rise to the refund was available only to non-resident companies cannot justify a rule of a general nature withholding the benefit.
Denne regel var derfor ud tryk for forskelsbehandling.
That rule is therefore discriminatory.
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 17. marts 1993.
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 17 March 1993.
Han foreslog Domstolen at kende følgende for ret:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
"Traktatens artikel 52 og 58 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstats lov givning forbeholder udbetaling af et tillæg til tilbagebetalingen af urigtigt erlagt skat for selskaber, der har skattemæssigt hjemsted i denne stat, og nægter selskaber, der ikke har hjemsted i denne stat, et sådant tillæg, selv når disse er registreret i en anden medlemsstat, hvor de har deres skattemæssige hjemsted.
"Articles 52 and 58 of the Treaty preclude the legislation of a Member State from reserving the payment of repayment supplement, following the payment of tax that was not due, to companies which are resident for tax purposes in that State and from refusing it to non-resident companies, even where those companies are registered in another Member State where they are resident for tax purposes.
Den omstændighed, at de sidstnævnte ikke ville have været fritaget for skat, hvis de havde haft hjemsted i den førstnævnte stat, er herved uden betydning."
The fact that the companies would not have been exempt from tax if they had been resident in the Member State is of no importance in that regard."
Ved dom afsagt den 17. marts 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 17. april 1992, havde Cour d'appel de Chambéry stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 5, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968.
By judgment of 17 March 1992, which was received at the Court on 17 April 1992, the Cour d'Appel, Chambéry (France), referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 5(1) of the Brussels Convention.
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag, som førtes mellem Mulox IBC Limited, London, og en af selskabets tidligere ansatte, Hendrick Geels, en nederlandsk statsborger med bopæl i Aix-les-Bains (Frankrig), i anledning af at Mulox havde ophævet arbejdsforholdet.
The question was raised in connection with a dispute between Mulox IBC Limited, a company incorporated under English law with its registered office in London, and a former employee, Hendrick Geels, a Netherlands national resident in Aix-les-Bains (France), following termination of his employment contract by his employer.
Hendrick Geels havde anlagt sag mod sin tidligere arbejdsgiver ved Conseil de prud-hommes (voldgiftsretten) i Aix-les-Bains med påstand om betaling af løn i opsigelsesperioden samt erstatning.
Mr Geels brought an action against his former employer before the Conseil des Prud'hommes, Aix-les-Bains, for compensation in lieu of notice plus damages.
Mulox indbragte voldgiftsrettens afgørelse for Cour d'appel de Chambéry. Selskabet gjorde gældende, at de franske domstole ikke havde kompetence til at pådømme sagen, da opfyldelsesstedet for arbejdskontrakten ikke kun omfattede Frankrig, og da Mulox havde hjemsted i Det Forenede Kongerige.
Mulox appealed against that judgment to the Cour d'Appel, Chambéry, arguing that the French courts had no jurisdiction because the place of performance
Med henblik på fastlæggelsen af dette sted - som skal foretages af vedkommende nationale retsinstans - må der tages hensyn til den omstændighed - som foreligger i hovedsagen - at udførelsen af arbejdstagerens opgaver er sket fra et kontor i en kontraherende stat, som arbejdstageren havde taget bopæl i, som han udførte sine arbejdsopgaver fra, og som han vendte tilbage til efter hver for retningsrejse.
In order to determine that place, which is a matter for the national court, account should be taken of the fact, referred to in the main proceedings, that the performance of the duties entrusted to the employee was carried out from an office situated in a Contracting State where the employee had established his residence, from where he carried out his activities and to which he returned after each business trip.
Endvidere vil den nationale retsinstans kunne tage i betragtning, at arbejdstageren på det tidspunkt, hvor den for retten verserende sag opstod, udelukkende udførte sit arbejde på den pågældende kontraherende stats område.
Moreover, the national court could take into account the fact that when the dispute was brought before it, the employee was carrying out his work exclusively within that Contracting State.
Såfremt der ikke foreligger andre afgørende forhold, må det relevante sted med henblik på anvendelsen af konventionens artikel 5, nr. 1, antages at være det sted, hvor den forpligtelse, der ligger til grund for et krav ifølge en arbejdskontrakt, skal opfyldes.
In the absence of other connecting factors, that place must be deemed to be, for the purposes of Article 5(1) of the Convention, the place of performance of the obligation on which is grounded a complaint on the basis of an employment contract.
"Artikel 5, nr. 1, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, skal - i det tilfælde at en arbejdstager til opfyldelse af en arbejdskontrakt må arbejde i mere end én kontraherende stat - fortolkes således, at det sted, hvor den forpligtelse, som er karakteristisk for kontrakten, er opfyldt eller skal opfyldes, i bestemmelsens forstand er det sted, hvor eller hvorfra arbejdstageren i første række opfylder sine forpligtelser over for arbejdsgiveren."
"Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an employment contract under which the employee carries out his activities in more than one Contracting State, the place where the obligations which characterizes the contract has been or must been performed, within the meaning of that provision is where, or from where the employer principally performed his obligations on behalf of his employer."
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 26. ma.i 1993.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 26 May 1993.
Det tilkommer den nationale retsinstans at afgøre, hvor dette sted befinder sig, og denne afgørelse skal træffes ud fra alle relevante forhold.
"Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters must be interpreted as meaning that in disputes arising from a contract of
Præjudiciel "Etableringsfrihed - udøvelse af offentlig myndighed" (Femte Afdeling)
Case C-42/92 A. Thijssen ν Controledienst voor de Verzekeringen (Preliminary ruling) (Freedom of establishment - Exercise of official authority) (Fifth Chamber)
Ved dom af 21. januar 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 17. februar s.a., havde Belgiens Raad van State forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål om fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 55, stk. 1.
By judgment of 21 January 1992, which was received at the Court on 17 February 1992, the Raad van State van België referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 55 of the EEC Treaty.
Thijssen ansøgte om en stilling som godkendt bestyrelsesmedlem efter en indkaldelse af ansøgninger fra Controledienst voor de Verzekeringen (herefter benævnt'Xontroledienst").
Mr Thijssen applied for the post of Approved Commissioner in reply to the advertisement published by the Office de Contrôle des Assurances (hereinafter referred to as the "OCA").
Det fremgik af bilagene til Thijssen's skrivelse, at han er nederlandsk statsborger.
It appeared from the documents attached to Mr Thijssen's letter that he was of Netherlands nationality.
Ved skrivelse af 6. november 1986 svarede Controledienst's formand Thijssen, at hans ansøgning var blevet afslået, fordi han ikke opfyldte nationalitetsbetingelsen i artikel 2, stk. 1, nr. 1, i Controledienst's bekendtgørelse nr. 6.
By letter of 6 November 1986 the president of the OCA told Mr Thijssen that his application had been rejected because he did not satisfy the condition of nationality laid down by Article 2(l)(i) of OCA Regulation No 6.
Thijssen anlagde sag ved Raad van State med påstand om annullation af denne afgørelse og gjorde herunder gældende som eneste anbringende, at afslaget på hans ansøgning med den begrundelse, at han ikke er belgisk statsborger, måtte være en tilsidesættelse af Traktatens artikel 52 og 55.
Mr Thijssen brought an action for the annulment of that decision before the Raad van State maintaining, as a single plea in law, that the rejection of his application on the ground that he did not have Belgian nationality infringed Articles 52 and 55 of the Treaty.
Det forelagte spørgsmål gik ud på, om en virksomhed som den, der udøves af et godkendt bestyrelsesmedlem i henhold til lov af 9. juli 1975 om kontrol med forsikringsselskaber, er en direkte og specifik deltagelse i udøvelse af of fentlig myndighed.
The question referred to the Court concerns whether an activity such as that carried out by an approved commissioner, in accordance with the Law of 9 July 1975 concerning the monitoring of insurance undertakings, includes direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority.
Ifølge Domstolen måtte der ved besvarelsen af dette spørgsmål tages hensyn til arten af de funktioner, som det godkendte bestyrelsesmedlem udøver i henhold til denne lov, således som den er beskrevet af den nationale domstol.
In order to reply to that question the Court considered that it ought to take into account the nature of the duties carried out by the approved commissioner within the meaning of that law as described by the national court.
De godkendte bestyrelsesmedlemmer udpeges frit og aflønnes af forsikringsselskaberne blandt de bestyrelsesmedlemmer, der er godkendt af Controledienst.
Insurance undertakings pay and are free to appoint approved commissioners from amongst the commissioners approved by the OCA.
De nyder såvel forsikringsselskabets som kontrolmyndighedernes tillid.
They have the trust of both insurance undertakings and the monitoring authorities.
- 8 - som altså på ingen måde er bundet af det godkendte bestyrelsesmedlems veto, og som inden for grænserne af sin kompetence træffer alle de foranstaltninger, som situationen kræver.
The same applies in particular to credit and financial institutions which are obliged to inform the authorities of any fact which might be an indication of money laundering.
Heraf fulgte, at den bistående og forberedende rolle, som er tillagt det god kendte bestyrelsesmedlem i forhold til OCA - som udøver offentlig myndighed ved at træffe den endelige beslutning - ikke kan anses for at være direkte og specifik deltagelse i udøvelse af offentlig myndighed som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 55, stk. 1.
In so far as concerns the veto which the approved commissioner may have over the implementation of a decision of the undertaking where that implementation would infringe the penal code, the Court pointed out that the approved commissioner is under an obligation to refer the matter urgently to the OCA.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
Although his veto has a suspensive effect of eight days, the definitive decision on the issue is a matter exclusively for the OCA, which is thus in no way fettered by the approved commissioner's veto and may take, within the limits of its powers, any measure which the situation demands.
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 55, stk. 1, skal fortolkes således, at undtagelsen fra etableringsretten i henhold til denne bestemmelse ikke finder anvendelse på hvervet som godkendt bestyrelsesmedlem som beskrevet i forelæggelsesdommen."
It followed that the auxiliary and preparatory role delegated to the approved commissioner vis-à-vis the OCA, which itself exercise official authority in taking the final decision, cannot be considered direct and specific participation in the exercise of official authority within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 55 of the Treaty.
Han foreslog at besvare spørgsmålet således:
The Court ruled as follows:
"Undtagelsen fra etableringsretten i EØF-Traktatens artikel 55 gælder ikke for det hverv som godkendt bestyrelsesmedlem, der er indført ved artikel 38-40 i den belgiske lov af 9. juli 1975 om kontrol med forsi kri ngsselskaber."
"The first paragraph of Article 55 of the EEC Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the derogation from the principle of freedom of establishment provided for therein does not apply to the office of approved commissioner as described in the judgment making the reference."
Sag C-56/90: Kommissionen mod Det Forenede Kongerige
Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 24 March 1993.
"Direktiv 76/160/EØF - badevand" (Domstolens plenum)
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Ved stævning indleveret den 7. marts 1990 havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Det Forenede Kongerige har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 76/160/EØF om kvaliteten af badevand og i henhold til artikel 5 og 189 i EØF-Traktaten, da det ikke har truffet alle nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre, at badevandskvaliteten for badeområdet i Blackpool og ved Formby og Southport bringes i overensstemmelse med de grænseværdier, der er fastsat i medfør af direktivets artikel 3.
"The derogation from the principle of freedom of establishment provided for in Article 55 of the EEC Treaty does not apply to the office of approved Commissioner as provided for in Articles 38 to 40 of the Belgian Law of 9 July 1975 on the regulation of insurance undertakings."
Kommissionen blev underrettet herom ved skrivelse af 18. december 1979.
Case C-56/90 Commission ν United Kingdom (Directive 76/160/EEC - Bathing water)
Domstolen bemærkede, at det forhold, at Kommissionen til at begynde med for holdt sig passiv, ikke berettigede Det Forenede Kongerige til at drage den slutning, at Kommissionen godkendte de kriterier, som den havde fået under retning om, og den måde, kriterierne var anvendt på.
The United Kingdom said that on 19 October 1979 it advised the Commission of the precise criteria which were essential for the identification of bathing waters falling within the scope of the directive.
Kommissionen havde nemlig hverken efter Traktatens artikel 5 eller direktivets bestemmelser pligt til inden for en bestemt frist at tage stilling til den måde, hvorpå Det Forenede Kongerige havde gennemført direktivets artikel 1.
On the basis of that communication 27 areas were identified as falling within the scope of the directive and were notified to the Commission by a letter of 18 December 1979.
Forpligtelser ifølge direktivet
The United Kingdom replied to the Commission by letter of 18 September 1980.
Ifølge Det Forenede Kongerige forpligter direktivet kun medlemsstaterne til at træffe rimelige foranstaltninger for at opfylde grænseværdierne i direktivets artikel 3.
The United Kingdom maintained that, since the Commission raised no objection following that reply, it was entitled to take the view that the Commission was satisfied with the manner in which the directive was being implemented.
I Det Forenede Kongerige var de nødvendige undersøgelser foretaget, og der var iværksat arbejder, som ville gøre det muligt at bringe badevandene i overensstemmelse med direktivet i 1995.
By raising objections only much later concerning the exclusion of the bathing waters at issue from the scope of the directive, the Commission created a situation of legal uncertainty and infringed Article 5 of the Treaty, which imposes on it a duty of cooperation with the Member States.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det klart fremgår af direktivets artikel 4, stk. 1, at medlemsstatene skal træffe alle nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre, at badevandskvaliteten inden ti år efter direktivets meddelelse bringes i overensstemmelse med de grænseværdier, der er fastsat i medfør af artikel 3.
The United Kingdom was not entitled to draw from the Commission's initial inaction the inference that the Commission approved the criteria notified and the manner in which they had been applied.
Medlemsstaternes frist til at opfylde det nævnte krav er længere end den, der gælder for direktivets gennemførelse, nemlig 2 år fra dets meddelelse.
Neither Article 5 of the Treaty nor the provisions of the directive obliged the Commission to express a view within a given period on the manner in which the United Kingdom was implementing Article 1 of the directive.
Ifølge Domstolen fulgte det heraf, at direktivet pålægger medlemsstaterne at opnå visse resultater, uden at de kan påberåbe sig særlige omstændigheder som begrundelse for ikke at opfylde denne forpligtelse.
The Commission was therefore entitled to formulate its objections at such time as it deemed appropriate, and there was nothing to prevent it from subsequently instituting these proceedings under Article 169 of the EEC Treaty.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at selv hvis det lægges til grund, at det forhold, at det er en absolut fysisk umulighed, kunne begrunde en undladelse af at op fylde de i direktivet indeholdte forpligtelser, måtte det konstateres, at Det Forenede Kongerige ikke havde godtgjort, at der forelå en sådan umulighed i denne sag.
According to the United Kingdom, the directive merely requires the Member States to take all practicable steps to comply with the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of the directive. In the United Kingdom, the necessary studies in this connection have been carried out and works are in hand which will enable the bathing waters at issue to be brought into conformity with the directive in 1995.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
That argument could not be upheld by the Court.
Det Forenede Kongerige har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, da det ikke har truffet alle nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre, at badevandskvaliteten for badeområderne i Blackpool og ved Southport bringes i overensstemmelse med de grænseværdier, der er fastsat i medfør af artikel 3 i Rådets direktiv 76/160/EØF af 8. december 1975 om kvaliteten af badevand.
It was clear from Article 4(1) of the directive that the Member States are to take all necessary measures to ensure that, within 10 years following the notification of the directive, bathing water conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3. This period is longer than that laid down for the implementation of the directive, namely two years from the date of notification, in order to enable the Member States to comply with the aforementioned requirement.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
The Court
Det Forenede Kongerige har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 4 i Rådets direktiv 76/160/EØF af 8. december 1975 om kvaliteten af badevand og i henhold til artikel 5 og 189 i EØF-Traktaten, da det ikke har truffet alle nødvendige foranstaltninger for at sikre, at badevandskvaliteten for badeområderne i Blackpool og ved Southport er i over ensstemmelse med de grænseværdier, der er fastsat i medfør af direktivets artikel 3.
Declares that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of the bathing waters in Blackpool and of those adjacent to Southport conforms to the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Det Forenede Kongerige betaler sagens omkostninger."
Dismisses the remainder of the application;
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag vedrørende et krav om tilbage betaling af eksportrestitutioner, som var udbetalt til GruSa.
Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 16 December 1992.
Den forelæggende ret fandt det dog tvivlsomt, om udelukkelsen i Tyskland af dette stykke fra eksportrestitution var forenelig med kravet om en ensartet fortolkning af fællesskabsretten og overholdelsen af lighedsprincippet. Det fulgte nemlig af en sammenligning med andre sproglige versioner af de pågældende bestemmelser, at det stykke kød, der var udelukket fra restitution, i de øvrige medlemsstater i det væsentlige svarede til "Fleischdünnung".
Declare that, by failing to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the quality of the bathing water of the bathing area of Blackpool and at Southport conforms the limit values set in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of that directive and under Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty;
Domstolen udtalte, at så længe man ikke har harmoniseret eller ensrettet de metoder, der anvendes til udskæring og udbening i de forskellige medlemsstater, kan indholdet af ordene i de forskellige sproglige versioner af den pågældende lovgivning variere fra medlemsstat til medlemsstat, når disse forskelle, som her, kun er af mindre betydning.
Case C-34/92 GruSa Fleisch GmbH & Co KG, Import-Export ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas 15 July 1993 (Preliminary ruling) (Common organization of the market in the beef and veal sector - Export refunds) (Third Chamber) By order of 10 December 1991, which was received at the Court o 10 February 1992, the Finanzgericht Hamburg referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation and validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2773/82, replaced by Regulation (EEC) No 1315/84, and on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2891/84 which replaced Regulation No 1315/84.