natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En person, hvis ægtefælle er beskæftiget i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, og hvis familiemedlemmer er bosiddende i en anden medlemsstat, kan i medfør af artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71 gøre krav på børnepasningsydelse.
A provision of national law which gives non-residents who are engaged in employment in the Federal Republic of Germany the right to claim child-care benefit thereunder only if their employment entails a significant number of working hours does not constitute discrimination on grounds of sex contrary to Article 5(1) of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 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 or Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security.
En ydelse som den tyske børnepasningsydelse er en social fordel i den forstand, udtrykket er anvendt i artikel 7, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet.
A benefit having the characteristics of German child-care benefit is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
Artikel 7, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 1612/68 finder ikke anvendelse, såfremt en arbejdstager, der er bosiddende i en anden medlemsstat, er statsborger i beskæftigelsesstaten.«
Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 is not applicable if the worker residing in another Member State is a national of the State where he is employed.
Præjudiciel •Bruxelles-konventionen —fortolkning af artikel 27, nr. 2 — anerkendelse af en retsafgørelse — begrebet udebleven sagsøgt* (Femte Afdeling)
(1) A benefit having the characteristics of German child-care benefit is a family benefit within the meaning of Article 4(l)(h) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community.
Domstolens fortolkning af konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, stillet tre præjudicielle
(2) The spouse of a person who is employed in the Federal Republic of Germany and whose family lives in another Member State, may claim payment of child-care benefit on the basis of Article 73 of Regulation No 1408/71.
spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 27, nr. 1 og 2, og artikel 29 i den nævnte konvention, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirlands tiltrædelse (herefter »konventionen«).
A benefit having the characteristics of German child-care benefit is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community.
Den forelæggende ret har kun anmodet Domstolen om at tage stilling til den anden af disse betingelser.
Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 is not applicable if the worker residing in another Member State is a national of the State where he is employed.
Endvidere bemærkes, at formålet med konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, efter fast praksis er at sikre, at en retsafgørelse ikke anerkendes eller fuldbyrdes på grundlag af konventionen, hvis sagsøgte ikke har haft mulighed for at varetage sine interesser under sagen for retten i domsstaten.
Case C-78/95 Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen ν Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH Convention on jurisdiction 10 October 1996 of a decision of Article 27(2) — Recognition appearance)
Med det tredje spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret i det væsentlige oplyst, om konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, finder anvendelse på retsafgørelser, der er truffet over for en sagsøgt, som ikke forskriftsmæssigt og rettidigt har fået forkyndt eller meddelt det indledende processkrift i sagen, og som ikke har været gyldigt repræsenteret under sagen, når afgørelserne som følge af, at en angivelig repræsentant for sagsøgte har givet møde for retten i domsstaten, ikke er truffet over for en udebleven sagsøgt.
By this question, the national court is essentially asking whether Article 27(2) of the Convention applies to judgments delivered against a defendant who was not duly served with, or notified of, the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who was not validly represented during those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not given in default of appearance, because someone purporting to represent the defendant appeared before the court first seised.
En sådan sagsøgt må derfor betragtes som udebleven i artikel 27, nr. 2's forstand, også selv om sagsbehandlingen for retten i domsstaten har været kontradiktorisk. Den ret, begæringen rettes til, skal efterprøve, om disse ekstraordinære omstændigheder foreligger.
Under Article 27(2), a court from which recognition is sought may decline to recognize a judgment only if certain conditions are satisfied: the document instituting proceedings was not duly served on, or notified to, the defendant in sufficient time and he failed to appear in the
»Artikel 27, nr. 2, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager, som ændret ved konventionen af 9. oktober 1978 om Kongeriget Danmarks, Irlands og Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordinands tiltrædelse, finder anvendelse på retsafgørelser, der er truffet overfor en sagsøgt, som ikke forskriftsmæssigt og rettidigt har fået forkyndt eller meddelt det indledende processkrift i sagen, og som ikke har været gyldigt repræsenteret under
Those questions arose in proceedings between Bernardus Hendrikman and Maria Feyen (hereinafter 'Mr and Mrs Hendrikman'), residing at The Hague, and Magenta Druck & Verlag GmbH, a German company whose seat is in Krefeld, Germany. Those proceedings concern the enforcement in the Netherlands of a judgment delivered on 2 April 1991 by the Landgericht (Regional Court), Krefeld, and of an order on taxation of costs made on 12 July 1991 10
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslap til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 4. juli 1996.
proceedings conducted before the court first seised. The national court inquires only about the second condition.
»Bruxelles-konventionens artikel 27, nr. 2, finder anvendelse, når sagsøgte, selv om der ikke er afsagt udeblivelsesdom over ham, ikke rettidigt har modtaget en forskriftsmæssig forkyndelse eller meddelelse, eller når han ikke har været lovligt repræsenteret under sagen.«
According to settled case-law, the purpose of Article 27(2) of the Convention is to ensure that a judgment is not recognized or enforced under the Convention if the defendant has not had an opportunity of defending himself before the court first seised.
Forenede sager T-24/93, T-25/93, T-26/93 og T-28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge SA m.fl. / Kommissionen Konkurrence
The German Government submits that the rights of the defence are observed even if a lawyer who is not authorized to act appears for the defendants because the court must rely on what is stated by that lawyer until such time as he is
»Konkurrence — international søtransport — linjekonferencer —forordning (EØF) nr. 4056/86 —påvirkning af samhandelen — kollektiv dominerende stilling — gennemførebe af en aftale indeholdende en eneret — 'fighting ships' — loyalitetsrabatter — bøder — kriterier for udmåling heraf* (Tredje Udvidede Afdeling)
'Article 27(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 relating to the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, applies to judgments given against a defendant who was not duly served with, or notified of, the document instituting proceedings in sufficient time and who was not validly represented during those proceedings, albeit the judgments given were not given in default of appearance because someone purporting to represent the defendant appeared before the court first seised.'
Sagsfremstilling der har regelmæssig linjetrafik mellem havne i Zaire og Angola og havne på nordsøkysten, bortset fra Det Forenede Kongerige.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 4 July 1996.
Efter at Kommissionen havde modtaget en klage i henhold til artikel 10 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 4056/86 af 22. december 1986 om fastsættelse af de nærmere retningslinjer for anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 85 og 86 på søtransport (herefter »forordning nr. 4056/86«), indledte den en undersøgelse af den praksis, der følges af de linjekonferencer, som driver trafik mellem Europa og Afrika.
He took the view that: in the light of the proposed answer to Question 3, there was no need to answer Questions 1 and 2; since the alleged circumstances which prompted the national court to seek a preliminary ruling had to be regarded at this stage as merely hypothetical, it was for the national court, before deciding the case before it in the light of the answer by the Court of Justice, to satisfy itself of the facts.
Dafra-Lines A/S (»Dafra-Lines«) er medlem af Cewal. Dafra-Lines har siden den 1. januar 1988 tilhørt CMB-koncernen.
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows on the questions put by the Hoge Raad:
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV (»Nedlloyd«) er ligeledes medlem af Cewal.
Joined Cases T-24/93, T-25/93, T-26/93 and T28/93 Compagnie Maritime Belge SA and Others ν Commission Competition
Efter afslutning af undersøgelsen vedtog Kommissionen beslutning 93/82/EØF af 23. december 1992 om en procedure i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 85 og EØF-traktatens artikel 86 (herefter »beslutningen«).
At the conclusion of its inquiry, the Commission adopted Decision 93/82/EEC of 23 December 1992 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty ('the Decision').
I beslutningen fastslås det, at de tre linjekonferencer har overtrådt artikel 85 og Cewal's medlemmer tillige artikel 86, og der pålægges visse af disse en bøde.
That decision finds that three shipping conferences infringed Article 85 and that the members of Cewal infringed Article 86, and consequently imposes a fine on some of them.
Ved stævning indleveret til Retten den 19. marts 1993 har CMB og Compagnie maritime beige transport SA anlagt sag med påstand principalt om annullation af beslutningen. Sagen er registret under nr. T-24/93.
Following complaints made to it on the basis of Article 10 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4056/86 of 22 December 1986 laying down detailed rules for the application of Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty to maritime transport, the Commission opened an inquiry into the practices of the shipping conferences operating on routes between Europe and West Africa.
Overtrædelserne af traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1
The infringements of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
Ved stævninger indleveret til Retten den 19. og 22. marts 1993 har Dafra-Lines, DAL og Nedlloyd anlagt sag.
Associated Central West Africa Lines ('Cewal') is a shipping conference whose secretariat is in Antwerp.
Sagerne, hvorunder sagsøgerne principalt har nedlagt påstand om annullation af beslutningen, er registreret under numrene T-25/93, T-26/93 og T-28/93.
It is made up of shipping companies operating a regular liner service between the ports of Zaïre and Angola and those of the North Sea, with the exception of the United Kingdom.
På det for sagen relevante tidspunkt var trafikken mellem havnene i Vest- og Nordeuropa og havnene i Østafrika fordelt mellem tre linjekonferencer: Cewal, Continent West Africa Conference (»Cowao) og United Kingdom West Africa Lines Joint Service, således at hver af konferencerne havde et særskilt rutenet.
At the material time, trade between ports in western and northern Europe and West Africa was distributed among three shipping conferences: Cewal, Continent West Africa Conference ('Cowac') and United Kingdom West Africa Lines Joint Service, with each conference operating a separate network of routes.
De principale påstande om annullation af beslutningen
Compagnie Maritime Belge SA ('CMB') is the holding company of the CMB group.
Det andet anbringende om, at der ikke foreligger en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk 1
The group's activities include shipowning and managing and operating shipping operations.
Rettens bemærkninger
Dafra­Lines A/S is a member of Cewal.
For at et rederi kan operere på en af de andre konferencers linjer må det først optages i denne konference.
Dafra­Lines has been a member of the CMB group of companies since 1 January 1988.
Det bemærkes indledningsvis, at aftalerne mellem konferencerne, hvorefter medlemmerne af én konference skal afstå fra som uafhængige rederier at trænge ind på en anden af de i aftalen deltagende konferencers aktivitetsområde, udtrykkeligt er nævnt i telexet af 6. oktober 1989 fra Cewal's præsident til Cowac, og i referatet af Zaïre Pool Committee's møde den 19. september 1989.
Deutsche Afrika­Linien GmbH & Co. ('DAL') is a member of the Cewal conference. In its Decision the Commission found that trade was shared out in that way as a result of certain agreements concluded between the three conferences, the purpose of which was to prohibit companies belonging to one conference from operating as independent shipping companies in ports in the area of activity of one of the other two conferences.
Overtrædelserne af traktatens artikel 86
In order to operate on a line of another conference, a company had first to join that conference.
Efter at have defineret det relevante marked fastslår Kommissionen, at Cewal's medlemmer i forening har en dominerende stilling.
Nedlloyd Lijnen BV ('Nedlloyd') is also a member of Cewal.
artikel 3 udgør en gruppefritagelse i henhold til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
activity of another conference party to the relevant agreement, are expressly mentioned in the telex message from the President of Cewal to Cowac of 6 October 1989 and in the minutes of the Zaïre Pool Committee of 19 September 1989.
Hvad dernæst angår en utilstrækkelig begrundelse bemærkes indledningsvis, at en bebyrdende afgørelses begrundelse skal gøre det muligt for den berørte at gøre sig bekendt med begrundelsen for den trufne foranstaltning med henblik på i givet fald at kunne gøre sine rettigheder gældende og afgøre, om afgørelsen er lovlig, og Fællesskabets retsinstanser at udøve deres legalitetskontrol.
The Commission concluded that those agreements partitioned the market contrary to Article 85(1) of the Treaty and did not qualify for exemption either under Article 3 of Regulation No 4056/86 or under Article 85(3) of the Treaty.
Retten finder i denne forbindelse, at sagsøgerne ikke kan gøre gældende, at den anfægtede praksis er omfattet af fritagelsen i henhold til artikel 3, litra c), i forordning nr. 4056/86 vedrørende samordning eller fordeling af afsejlingerne eller anløbene »mellem konferencens medlemmer«, idet der i dette tilfælde er tale om aftaler om fordeling mellem konferencerne.
After defining the relevant market, the Commission found that there was a dominant position held collectively by the members of the Cewal conference.
Endvidere vedrører fritagelsen i henhold til artikel 3 i første række aftaler om fastsættelse af tariffer, hvilket der ikke er tale om i dette tilfælde.
It held that three practices implemented by members of the conference with a view to eliminating its main competitor for the trade in question constituted abuses within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty.
Herudover finder Retten, at sagsøgernes argumenter ikke kan tillægges betydning.
The operative part of the Decision imposes the following fines in respect of the abuses of a dominant position:
Tredje anbringende om, at der ikke foreligger en overtrædelse af traktatens artikel 86
In this respect the Court first recalls that, having regard to the general principle of the prohibition of agreements restricting competition in Article 85(1) of the Treaty, provisions derogating therefrom in an exempting regulation must, by their nature, be strictly interpreted.
Anbringendets første del, der støttes på, at Cewal's medlemmer ikke har en kollektiv dominerende stilling
Dafra-Lines and Deutsche Afrika Linien-Woermann Linie: ECU 200 000 each;
På grundlag af oplysningerne i den anfægtede beslutning finder Retten, at rederierne har udgjort en fælles enhed, linjekonferencen Cewal. Cewal fremtræder på fællesmarkedet som én enhed.
By application received at the Court on 19 March 1993, CMB and Compagnie Maritime Beige Transports S.A brought an action, registered as Case T-24/93, which sought primarily to have the Decision annulled.
Det er ikke på nuværende tidspunkt nødvendigt at tage nærmere stilling til kvalifikationen af den adfærd, der er gjort gældende over for Cewal's medlemmer, og som er beskrevet i beslutningen, men det bemærkes, at denne adfærd har givet sig udslag i en vilje til at fastlægge en fælles markedspolitisk linje for at imødegå en udvikling, som man anså for uheldig, i konkurrencesituationen på det marked, hvor de var aktive.
Accordingly, the Court takes the view that the applicants cannot validly claim that the practices in question qualify for exemption under Article 3(c) of Regulation No 4056/86, relating to the coordination or allocation of sailings or calls 'among members of the conference', since what is at issue in this case is allocation agreements as between conferences.
Denne adfærd, der er præcist beskrevet i beslutningen, udgjorde en samlet strategi, og for at gennemføre denne måtte Cewal's medlemmer samarbejde.
What is more, the exemption under Article 3 applies to agreements which have as their primary objective the joint fixing of rates, which is not the case here.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Cewal's medlemmer har en kollektiv stilling på markedet
The Court considers that the remainder of the applicants' arguments are irrelevant.
— Rettens bemærkninger
The third plea, alleging that Article 86 of the Treaty has not been infringed
På grundlag af en gennemgang af hele beslutningen finder Retten derfor, at Kommissionen har ført tilstrækkeligt bevis for, at den stilling, Cewal's medlemmer indtog på det relevante marked, måtte vurderes samlet.
By applications received at the Court on 19 and 22 March 1993, Dafra-Lines, DAL and Nedlloyd each brought an action. The applications were registered as Cases T-25/93, T-26/93 and T28/93 and seek principally the annulment of the Decision.
Retten finder, at sagsøgernes argumentation består af to anbringender, dels at der er tale om en retlig vildfarelse, idet det er lagt til grund, at medlemmerne havde en kollektiv dominerende stilling på markedet, dels at beslutningen ikke er tilstrækkelig begrundet
The first limb of the plea, alleging that members of Cewal did not hold a collective dominant position
Kommissionen fandt derfor med rette, at artikel 86 vil kunne finde anvendelse, hvis de øvrige betingelser i bestemmelsen er opfyldt.
The principal pleas, for the annulment of the Decision
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Cewal's medlemmer indtog en dominerende stilling
The second plea, alleging that there was no infringement of Article 85(1) of the Treaty
— Rettens bemærkninger
Findings of the Court of First Instance
Dog udgør meget store markedsandele i sig selv, medmindre der
Findings of the Court of First Instance
Hvad først angår den påståede retlige vildfarelse, som består i, at begrebet kollektiv dominerende stilling ikke omfatter kollektivt misbrug begået af virksomheder, som hver især har en dominerende stilling, bemærkes, at ifølge retspraksis kan artikel 86 finde anvendelse i tilfælde, hvor flere virksomheder tilsammen indtager en dominerende stilling på det relevante marked.
The Court considers that the applicants' arguments involve two submissions: first, mistake of law in that issue was taken with the members'
Selv om det ikke i sig selv er forbudt efter traktatens artikel 86 at indtage en dominerende stilling, er dette argument uden betydning i dette tilfælde, idet Kommissionen har pålagt sanktioner for misbrug af den dominerende stilling og ikke for selve den dominerende stilling.
The Court first observes that the agreements between conferences, under which members of one conference have to refrain from acting as independent shipping companies in the area of
foreligger usædvanlige omstændigheder, et bevis for, at der foreligger en dominerende stilling.
collective position on the market and, secondly, an insufficient statement of reasons.
Retten finder derfor, at Kommissionen med rette fandt, at Cewal's medlemmer har tilsidesat traktatens artikel 86 ved aktivt at deltage i gennemførelsen af aftalen med Ogefrem og ved konsekvent at kræve aftalen nøje overholdt med henblik på at fortrænge det eneste uafhængige rederi, som med Ogefrem's accept kunne komme ind på markedet.
The Commission has sufficiently proved that, quite apart from the agreements concluded between the shipping companies creating the Cewal conference, which are not contested, there were links between the companies such that they adopted uniform conduct on the market. In those circumstances, the Commission was fully entitled to consider that Article 86 could apply, subject only to the other requirements laid down by that provision being met.
I forbindelse med første led i sagsøgernes argumentation vedrørende begrebet aktionsskibe har de fremført to anbringender, der støttes på en tilsidesættelse af retten til kontradiktion og af traktatens artikel 190.
As regards, in the first place, the alleged mistake of law to the effect that the concept of a collective dominant position refers only to collective abuse by undertakings each of which are in a dominant position, it is settled case-law that Article 86 is capable of applying to situations in which several undertakings together hold a dominant position on the relevant market.
I dette tilfælde bestrider parterne ikke, at Cewal's markedsandel i 1988 og 1989, der er den periode, som i det væsentlige er taget i betragtning ved bødeudmålingen, oversteg 90%. Den markedsandel på 64%, som sagsøgerne har henvist til, og som Kommissionen har bestridt, vedrører alene 1992, mens markedsandelene i 1990 og 1991 ifølge de af sagsøgerne fremlagte tal oversteg 80, hhv. 70%.
As for the determination of the dominant position properly so-called, it should be recalled that it has been consistently held that a dominant position may be the outcome of a number of factors which, considered separately, would not necessarily be determinative.
Heraf følger, at selv om Cewal's markedsandel i den pågældende periode har været faldende, har konferencen stadig en høj markedsandel.
However, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, extremely large market shares are in themselves evidence of the existence of a dominant position.
Retten finder, at selv om opretholdelsen af markedsandele kan være tegn på, at den dominerende stilling bevares, kan et endog betydeligt fald i markedsandele ikke i sig selv være bevis for, at der ikke foreligger en dominerende stilling.
Turning, in the second place, to the alleged insufficient statement of reasons, the Court points out in limine that the statement of reasons of a decision adversely affecting a person must be such as to enable the person concerned to identify the matters which justify the measure adopted so that he can if necessary defend his rights and verify whether or not the decision is well founded, and to enable the Community judicature to exercise its power of review.
Endvidere finder Retten, at Kommissionen ikke har baseret sin vurdering på Cewal's markedsandel.
In this case, the parties do not deny that in 1988 and 1989, the period which was essentially taken into account for the purpose of fixing the fines, Cewal's market share exceeded 90%.