natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sanktioner som følge af tilsidesættelse af ombytningspligten
The penalties provided for in the event of breach of the obligation to exchange
Den forelæggende ret fandt, at de tiltalte havde begået de overtrædelser, der var rejst tiltale for, af uagtsomhed, idet Sofia Skanavi havde undladt at ombytte sit kørekort inden et år, fra hun fik fast bopæl i Tyskland.
The national court took the view that the accused had committed the offences with which they were charged as a result of carelessness, Mrs Skanavi having neglected to exchange her licence within one year of taking up normal residence in Germany.
Ombytningspligt for et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat
The obligation to exchange a licence issued by another Member State
Den nationale ret har for det andet rejst spørgsmål om, hvorvidt traktatens artikel 52 er til hinder for, at kørsel med motorkøretøj, som foretages af en person, der kunne have ombyttet et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat med et kørekort udstedt af værtsmedlemsstaten, men som ikke har foretaget denne ombytning inden for den fastsatte frist, sidestilles med kørsel uden førerret, der straffes med frihedsstraf eller bøde.
Secondly, the national court asks whether Article 52 of the Treaty precludes the driving of a motor vehicle by a person who could have obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for the licence issued by another Member State but who did not make the exchange within the prescribed period from being treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine.
Den forelæggende ret ønsker med sit spørgsmål for det første oplyst, om traktatens artikel 52 på fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin, og inden direktiv 91/439 træder i kraft, er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat kræver, at indehaveren af et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat skal ombytte dette med et kørekort udstedt af værtsmedlemsstaten inden et år fra den pågældende har taget fast bopæl i denne stat for fortsat der at have ret til at føre motorkøretøj.
By its question, the national court seeks to determine first of all whether, as Community law stands at present and prior to the implementation of Directive 91/439, Article 52 of the Treaty precludes a Member State from requiring the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State to exchange that licence for a licence of the host Member State within one year of taking up normal residence in that State in order to remain entitled to drive a motor vehicle there.
Det bemærkes endvidere, at selvom der kan stilles krav om, at indehaveren ombytter sit kørekort for at bevare retten til at føre motorkøretøj i værtsmedlemsstaten, efter at fristen på et år er udløbet, er hans kørekort fortsat gyldigt i den medlemsstat, der har udstedt det, ligesom det fortsat anerkendes af de andre medlemsstater.
It follows that the issue of a driving licence by a Member State in exchange for a licence issued by another Member State does not constitute the basis of the right to drive a motor vehicle in the territory of the host State, which is directly conferred by Community law, but evidence of the existence of such a right.
Hvad angår artikel 52 har Domstolen allerede tidligere fastslået, at de nationale bestemmelser vedrørende medlemsstaternes udstedelse og gensidige anerkendelse af førerbeviser både har en direkte og indirekte indflydelse på udøvelsen af de rettigheder, som sikres ved traktatens bestemmelser om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, den frie etableringsret og den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
So far as Article 52 is concerned, the Court has already held, that national rules relating to the issue and mutual recognition of driving licences by the Member States exert an influence, both direct and indirect, on the exercise of the rights guaranteed by the provisions of the Treaty relating to freedom of movement for workers, to freedom of establishment and to the freedom to provide services.
Heraf følger, at et kørekort, som en medlemsstat udsteder i stedet for et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat, ikke udgør et grundlag for den pågældendes ret til at føre motorkøretøj på værtslandets område — hvilken ret direkte følger af fællesskabsretten — men alene er beviset for, at retten består.
The Court also stated that, mere recognition of driving licences could not be contemplated unless the requirements for the issue of those driving licences were harmonized to a sufficient extent.
Den ombytningspligt, som medlemsstaterne kan foreskrive i medfør af direktivet, opfylder således i det væsentlige kravet om hensigtsmæssig forvaltning.
without a licence, thereby causing criminal penalties, even if only financial in nature, such as those provided for in the national legislation in question in this case, to be applied, would also be disproportionate to the gravity of that infringement in view of the ensuing consequences.
som følger af den frie bevægelighed for personer, gør de samme betragtninger sig gældende for så vidt angår tilsidesættelse af ombytningspligten for kørekort.
case-law concerning non-compliance with formalities for establishing the right of residence of an individual enjoying the protection of Community law that Member States may not impose a penalty so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that this becomes an obstacle to the free movement of persons; this would be especially so if the penalty consisted of imprisonment.
Det bemærkes endvidere, at sidestilling af en person, som har undladt at ombytte sit kørekort, med en person, som kører uden at have førerret, idet der pålægges samme strafferetlige sanktioner herfor, selv i form af bøde, som fastsat i den omtvistede nationale lovgivning, ligeledes må anses for at stå i misforhold til overtrædelsens grovhed, når henses til konsekvenserne.
In view of the effect which the right to drive a motor vehicle has on the actual exercise of the rights relating to the free movement of persons, the same considerations must apply with regard to breach of the obligation to exchange driving licences.
Det fremgår imidlertid af Domstolens faste praksis vedrørende manglende iagttagelse af bestemmelserne om de formaliteter, som en af fællesskabsretten beskyttet arbejdstager skal opfylde, at medlemsstaterne ikke kan anvende en straf, der står i et sådant misforhold til lovovertrædelses grovhed, at den kommer til at udgøre en hindring for arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, samt at dette bl.a. vil være tilfældet, hvis straffen omfatter fængsel.
A criminal conviction may have consequences for the exercise of a trade or profession by an employed or self-employed person, particularly with regard to access to certain activities or certain offices, which would constitute a further, lasting restriction on freedom of movement.
På fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin, og inden Rådets direktiv 91/439/EØF af 29. juli 1991 om kørekort træder i kraft, er EF-traktatens artikel 52 ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat kræver, at indehaveren af et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat skal ombytte dette med et kørekort udstedt af værtsmedlemsstaten inden et år fra den pågældende har taget fast bopæl i denne stat f or fortsat der at have ret til at føre motorkøretøj.
As Community law stands at present and prior to the implementation of Council Directive 91/439IEEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, Article 52 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from requiring the holder of a driving licence issued by another Member State to exchange that licence for a licence of the host Member State within one year of taking up normal residence in that State in order to remain entitled to drive a motor vehicle there.
Traktatens artikel 52 er til hinder for, at kørsel med motorkøretøj, som foretages af en person, der kunne have ombyttet et kørekort udstedt af en anden medlemsstat med et kørekort udstedt af værtsstaten, men som ikke har foretaget denne ombytning inden f or den fastsatte frist, sidestilles med kørsel uden f ørerret, der straffes med frihedsstraf eller bøde, når henses til konsekvenserne heraf, således som disse er fastsat i den omtvistede nationale retsorden.*
In view of the resultant consequences, such as may arise in the national legal system in question, Article 52 of the Treaty precludes the driving of a motor vehicle by a person who could have obtained a licence from the host State in exchange for the licence issued by another Member State but who did not make that exchange within the prescribed period from being treated as driving without a licence and thus rendered punishable by imprisonment or a fine.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Plenum^ den 17. oktober 1995.
Advocate General Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 17 October 1995.
1) kræver, at et kørekort, der er udstedt i en anden medlemsstat, ombyttes til værtsmedlemsstatens kørekort senest et år efter, at kørekortindehaveren har taget sædvanlig bopæl på værtsmedlemsstatens område; et sådant krav kan imidlertid være en indirekte krænkelse af udøvelsen af den ret til fri
'Article 52 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding a host Member State, in principle, from: requiring that a driving licence issued by another Member State be exchanged for a national driving licence within one year of the holder's taking up normal residence within the territory of the host Member State; such a requirement may, however, indirectly affect the exercise of the right of free movement and the right of free establishment guaranteed by Article 52 of the Treaty if it appears that the conditions which the national legislation imposes on the holder of a foreign licence are not reasonably proportionate to the requirements of road traffic safety;
2) pålægger strafferetlige sanktioner, såfremt forpligtelsen til at ombytte kørekortet ikke overholdes, idet de pågældende sanktioner dog ikke må stå i misforhold til overtrædelsens grovhed. Det henhører under den nationale retsinstans kompetence at vurdere, om proportionalitetsprincippet er overholdt.«
making non-compliance with the obligation to exchange licences subject to criminal penalties, on condition that those penalties are not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence; it is for the national court to determine whether the principle of proportionality has been complied with.'
Sag C-300/94 Tirma SA / Administración General del Estado Frie varebevægelser
Case C-300/94
Præjudiciel »Protokol nr. 2 til tiltrædelsesakten vedrørende Spanien og Portugal — De Kanariske Øer — Fællesskabets toldområde — forarbejdede landbrugsprodukter — toldfritagelse — artikel 5 i forordning (EØF) nr. 3033/80 — variabelt element* (Første Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Protocol No 2 to the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal — Canary Islands — Customs territory of the Community — Processed agricultural products — Exemption from customs duties —Article 5 of Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 — Variable component) (First Chamber) an administrative appeal against those decisions before the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia.
Ved kendelse af 23. september 1994 har Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Andalucía forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3033/80 af 11. november 1980 om fastsættelse af en ordning for handelen med visse varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter (EFT L 323, s. 1) med hensyn til det variable element i afgiften for varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter.
By order of 23 September 1994, the Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Andalusia, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 of 11 November 1980 laying down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products.
Spørgsmålet er rejst under en tvist mellem Tirma SA (herefter »Tirma«) og toldmyndighederne i Cádiz vedrørende betalingen af det variable element i den told, som er indført ved forordning nr. 3033/80.
That question was raised in the course of proceedings between Tirma SA and the Cadiz customs authorities concerning payment of the variable component of the customs duties laid down by Regulation No 3033/80.
Det bemærkes, at det fremgår af protokollens artikel 1, stk. 1, 2 og 3, at medmindre andet er bestemt i selve protokollen, er samtlige varer med oprindelse på De Kanariske Øer, når de indføres på Fællesskabets toldområde, omfattet af Fællesskabets toldforskrifter vedrørende samhandelen med tredjelande og dermed også omfattet af forordning nr. 3033/80 om fastsættelse af en ordning for handelen med visse varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter.
Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Protocol provides that, except where otherwise provided for in the Protocol itself, all goods originating in the Canary Islands are to be subject, when released into the customs territory of the Community, to the Community customs arrangements applying to foreign trade, and thus to Regulation No 3033/80, which lays down the trade arrangements applicable to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products.
I 1989 indførte Tirma nogle partier »caramelos« (bolcher) fra De Kanariske Øer, som skulle bringes i fri omsætning på EFs toldområde, og for hvilke toldmyndighederne i Cádiz afkrævede firmaet afgiftens variable element som fastsat i forordning nr. 3033/80.
In 1989 Tirma imported from the Canary Islands various consignments of 'caramelos' (caramels) intended for release into free circulation in the Community customs territory, in respect of which the Cadiz customs authorities demanded payment of the variable component of the duties.
Da Tirma var af den opfattelse, at princippet om de frie varebevægelser finder anvendelse på De
Article 2(1) and (2) of the Protocol, being exceptions 'otherwise provided for' in the Protocol itself, provides for products originating in the Canary islands to be exempt from 'customs duties' when released for free circulation in that part of Spain which is included in the customs territory of the Community.
Ifølge protokollens artikel 2, stk. 1 og 2 — som er en bestemmelse, hvorved »andet er bestemt i denne protokol« — er varer med oprindelse på
The term 'customs duties', which is the subject of the exception to the general rule laid down in Article 1(1), (2) and (3) of the Protocol, must be strictly interpreted in the light of Article l(2)(d) of Regulation (EEC) No 2144/87 of 13 July 1987.
landbrugspolitik eller som led i de særlige ordninger, der anvendes på visse varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter.
therefore analogous to the agricultural levies referred to in Article l(2)(d) of Regulation No 2144/87, whose purpose in that sphere is, like that of previous regulations, to stabilize the markets.
De Kanariske Øer imidlertid fritaget for »told« ved overgang til fri omsætning inden for den del af Spanien, der er omfattet af Fællesskabets toldområde.
It follows that the exemption for 'customs duties' laid down by Article 2(1) and (2) of the Protocol does not cover the variable component of the charge provided for in Article 5 of Regulation No 3033/80.
Endvidere må det fremhæves, at det variable element, der omhandles i artikel 5 i forordning nr. 3033/80, må sidestilles med de landbrugsafgifter, der er nævnt i artikel 1, stk. 2, litra d), i forordning nr. 2144/87, der inden for dette område har til formål at stabilisere markederne.
Furthermore, the variable component provided for in Article 5 of Regulation No 3033/80 is
Begrebet »told«, som omfattes af undtagelsen fra hovedreglen i protokollens artikel 1, stk. 1, 2 og 3, skal fortolkes snævert på baggrund af artikel 1, stk. 2, litra d), i forordning nr. 2144/87 af 13. juli 1987 om toldskyld.
This variable component may not be considered a customs duty within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Protocol No 2. At the time the facts giving rise to the main proceedings occurred, the principles of Community law regarding the free movement of goods did not apply to trade between the Canary Islands and the customs territory of the Community in processed agricultural products covered by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3033/80 of 11 November 1980.'
Det fremgår klart af sidstnævnte bestemmelses ordlyd, at begrebet »told« er et underbegreb i forhold til »importafgifter«, som er det mere generelle begreb, der også omfatter »landbrugsafgifter« og de andre afgifter ved indførsel, der er fastsat inden for rammerne af den fælles
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 2 March 1993, the Kingdom of Belgium brought an action for annulment of the Commission's decision pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EEC Treaty, addressed on 29 December 1992 to other Member States and other parties concerned, regarding a preferential tariff system applied in the Netherlands for supplies of natural gas to Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers.
Følgelig omfatter bestemmelsen i protokollens artikel 2, stk. 1 og 2, om fritagelse for »told« ikke det variable afgiftselement, der omhandles i artikel 5 i forordning nr. 3033/80.
According to settled case-law, the charging by a Member State, or an entity on which it exerts influence, of a tariff fixed at a level lower than that which would normally be chosen may be regarded as aid for the purposes of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Kingdom of Belgium maintains that tariff F was not justified on commercial grounds but politically motivated, its purpose being to place Dutch ammonia producers at an advantage.
»Det variable element, der indgår i afgiften for forarbejdede landbrugsprodukter, og som er omhandlet i artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3033/80 af 11. november 1980 om fastsættelse af en ordning for handelen med visse varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter, er omfattet af ordningen i artikel 1, stk 1, 2 og 3, i protokol nr. 2 til tiltrædelsesakten vedrørende Kongeriget Spanien og Republikken Portugal og ikke af fritagelsesbestemmelsen i protokollens artikel Z*
On 25 October 1983 the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty in respect of a preferential tariff system for supplies of natural gas, applied in favour of Dutch nitrate fertilizer producers by NV Nederlandse Gasunie (hereinafter 'Gasunie'), an undertaking governed by private law, 50% of whose share capital is owned directly or indirectly by the Netherlands State.
Generaladvokat N. Fennelly fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Første Afdeling) den 14. december 1995.
On 17 April 1984 the Commission had decided to terminate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty on the ground that tariff F did not contain any element of State aid.
»Artikel 1, stk. 5, i protokol nr. 2 til akten vedrørende vilkårene for Kongeriget Spaniens og Republikken Portugals tiltrædelse og tilpasningerne af traktaterne af 12. juni 1985 skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen ikke finder anvendelse på det variable element af den told, som pålægges indførte varer, der er fremstillet af forarbejdede landbrugsprodukter, og som skal betales i medfør af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3033/80 af 11. november 1980 om fastsættelse af en ordning for handelen med visse varer fremstillet af landbrugsprodukter.
The Commission subsequently re-examined the compatibility of tariff F with Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty and found tariff F to be compatible with the common market and decided to terminate the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty.
Det variable element kan ikke betragtes som en told i den betydning, der er forudsat i artikel 2, stk. 1, i protokol nr. 2.
It is that decision against which the Kingdom of Belgium has brought the present proceedings.
På tidspunktet for de omstændigheder, som førte til hovedsagens anlæg, fandt fællesskabsrettens principper for varernes fri bevægelighed ikke anvendelse på handelen mellem De Kanariske Øer og Fællesskabets toldområde med de forarbejdede landbrugsprodukter, som er omhandlet i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3033/80 af 11. november 1980.«
However, as the Advocate General found his Opinion, the tables provided by the Commission indicate that tariff F tended to mirror fluctuations in the markets for natural gas and ammonia, certain time-lags being explicable in terms of occasional problems of acclimatization. Failing further information and evidence from the Kingdom of Belgium, it must be concluded that it has not been shown that, in finding that tariff F was necessary in order to withstand competition on the ammonia market from
Sag C-56/93 Kongeriget Belgien / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Statsstøtte
States are also failing to comply with that provision.
29.2.1996 for leverancer af naturgas til nederlandske fabrikanter af
imports from non-member countries and to retain important existing customers, the Commission exceeded its powers of appraisal in this context.
»Statsstøtte — favørpris kvælstofgødning* (Femte Afdeling)
The Commission's conclusion that tariff F did not favour Dutch ammonia producers in relation to their counterparts in other Member States
Efter en ny undersøgelse af F-prisens forenelighed med traktatens artikel 92 og 93 var Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at denne pris var forenelig med det fælles marked, og besluttede at afslutte proceduren i henhold til traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2.
On that point, the Kingdom of Belgium refers to the Commission's statement that ammonia producers in Italy, the United Kingdom and Ireland were able to purchase their gas requirements at supply prices well below the tariffs applying in the Netherlands, Belgium and France.
Kongeriget Belgien har anlagt nærværende sag til prøvelse af denne beslutning.
On the contrary, it expressly points out that the prices in question were justified commercially.
Ved stævning indleveret til Domstolens Justitskontor den 2. marts 1993 har Kongeriget Belgien anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning i henhold til EØF-traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, som den 29. december 1992 er meddelt de øvrige medlemsstater og andre interesserede parter, angående en nederlandsk favørpris for leverancer af naturgas til nederlandske fabrikanter af kvælstofgødning.
The method used to calculate the frontier price agreed between Gasunie and Distrigaz, the Belgian distribution company, was the 'netback' system, in accordance with which the purchase price was determined on the basis of the market value of natural gas according to the various uses to which it is put in the importing country, less Distrigaz's transport and distribution costs and its profit margin.
Anbringendet vedrørende en åbenbar fejl ved vurderingen af de faktiske omstændigheder
The plea of inadequate reasoning
Kommissionens konklusion om, at F-prisen var berettiget af økonomiske grunde
The parties also agree that the mechanism described above merely served as a basis for commercial negotiations between the parties, during which each sought to obtain from the other the most favourable price.
Den 25. oktober 1983 havde Kommissionen indledt proceduren i henhold til traktatens artikel 93, stk. 2, vedrørende en favørpris for leverancer af naturgas, som blev anvendt til fordel for nederlandske producenter af kvælstofgødning af NV Nederlandse Gasunie (herefter »Gasunie«), en privatretlig virksomhed, hvis kapital for 50% vedkommende besiddes direkte eller indirekte af den nederlandske stat.
Those negotiations culminated in the establishment of a global price for all sales of natural gas made by Gasunie to Distrigaz. That frontier price was renegotiated every three years.
Under denne procedure ændrede Gasunie strukturen i sin prisordning, bl.a. ved med tilbagevirkende gyldighed, med virkning fra 1. november 1983, at indføre en ny pris, den såkaldte »F-pris«.
In the present case, it must be borne in mind that the Commission's Decision was preceded by a decision of the Commission, a judgment of the Court annulling that decision and a communication from the Commission reopening the procedure under Article 93(2) of the Treaty and calling on interested parties to submit their observations, to which, moreover, reference was made.