natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
PLATBROOD nedsættelse, inddragelse eller bortfald af en alderspension, som en belgier er tilkendt af Belgien, og som delvis beregnes på grundlag af formodede eller fiktive ydelser efter krigsformodningsreglen i artikel 32, stk. 1, i den kongelige anordning af 21. december 1967 (med den undtagelse, som følger af bestem melsen og hvorefter den pågældende ikke kan gøre krav på en pension fra en udenlandsk ordning for disse beskæftigelsesår) suppleret af en alderspension fra Tyskland beregnet på grundlag af faktiske ydelser for samme periode, eller om den ved artikel 32, stk. 1, i den kongelige anordning af 21. december 1967 indførte undtagelse (hvorefter krigsformodningsreglen ikke finder anvendelse, hvis den pågældende kan gøre krav på en pension i henhold til en udenlandsk ordning for de samme beskæftigelsesår) ikke tværtimod udgør en bestemmelse om nedsættelse, midlertidig inddragelse eller bortfald, som er uanvendelig i henhold til de nye bestemmelser i forordning (EØF) nr. 1248/92.«
PLATBROOD V ONP drawal, of a retirement pension awarded to a Belgian national, payable by Belgium and calculated on the basis of presumed or notional contributions by virtue of the principle that there is a legal presumption in respect of the war years, as laid down by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (subject to the reservation contained in that provision whereby the person concerned may not, however, claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of employment) with a retirement pension payable by Germany calculated on the basis of actual contributions covering the same period or, on the contrary, does the exception provided for by Article 32(1) of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1967 (no legal presumption in respect of the war years if the person concerned can claim a pension under a foreign scheme for those periods of employment) not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal declared inapplicable by the new provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92?'
19 Med spørgsmålet ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om en national bestemmelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede — hvorefter en arbejdstager, der i perioden mellem den 1. januar 1938 og den 31. december 1944 var erhvervsmæssigt beskæftiget anses for at have fortsat denne beskæftigelse på samme betingelser for varighed i hele perioden mellem det tidspunkt, hvor den godtgjorte beskæftigelse ophørte, og den 31. december 1945, idet denne formodning dog ikke finder anvendelse på de beskæftigelsesperioder, hvor den pågældende har modtaget pension i henhold til en ordning i en anden stat — udgør en bestemmelse om nedsættelse, midlertidig inddragelse eller bortfald af ydelser i forordning nr. 1408/71's forstand.
19 By its question the national court asks in substance whether a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and 31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed to have continued to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards duration throughout the period between the date on which his employ ment ceased and 31 December 1945, but under which that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State, constitutes a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71.
Ifølge ONP og Kommissionen bør spørgsmålet besvares benægtende.
20 The ONP and the Commission take the view that that question should be answered in the negative.
21 ONP har navnlig gjort gældende, at det er nødvendigt at sondre mellem de bestemmelser, som vedrører nedsættelsen af en ydelse, og de bestemmelser,
21 The ONP contends, in particular, that a distinction should be drawn between provisions on reduction of a benefit and provisions conferring entitlement to that
Nedsættelse af en ydelse i tilfælde af kumulation med en udenlandsk ydelse forudsætter således, at denne ydelse kvalificeres i overensstemmelse med den relevante nationale lovgivning.
In order for there to be a reduction of a benefit in a case of overlapping with a foreign benefit, it is necessary first to determine that benefit in accordance with the national legislation applicable.
Den i hovedsagen omhandlede bestemmelse vedrører bevisbedømmelsen, som foretages på grundlag af en fravigelig formodning.
The national provision at issue in the main proceedings governs the way in which evidence is to be adduced by means of a rebuttable presumption.
Med henblik på at undgå tildeling af dobbeltpension for samme periode anses denne formodning imidlertid for afkræftet, såfremt den omstændighed, at der tildeles en pension fra en anden stat bekræfter, at den pågældende ikke har været beskæftiget som arbejdstager i Belgien i den pågældende periode.
In order to avoid the award of two pensions in respect of the same period, that presumption is deemed to be rebutted if the award of a pension payable by another State in respect of the same period shows that the person concerned did not work in Belgium under the employed persons' scheme during the said period.
Det er således ikke muligt at være omfattet af to lovgivninger for »samme periode«. I den foreliggende sag er formodningen imidlertid knyttet til en bestemt periode (Anden Verdenskrig), og kan afkræftes ved bevis. Efter
There was no question, therefore, of double application of two sets of legislation during 'the same period'.
Kommissionens opfattelse udgør den i hovedsagen omhandlede bestemmelse således ikke en bestemmelse om nedsættelse.
The provision at issue here in the main proceedings does not, therefore, according to the Commission, constitute a provision on reduction.
25 Indledningsvis bemærkes, at Domstolen har fastslået, at en national regel må kvalificeres som en bestemmelse om nedsættelse, når den beregning, den fastlægger, har til virkning, at det pensionsbeløb, den pågældende har krav på som følge af, at han har krav på en ydelse i en anden medlemsstat, nedsættes (jf. Conti-dommen, præmis 25).
It should be recalled first of all that the Court has held that a national rule must be regarded as a provision for reduction of benefit if the calculation which it requires to be made has the effect of reducing the amount of pension which the person concerned may claim because he receives a benefit from another Member State {ONP v Conti, paragraph 25).
26 I samme dom understregede Domstolen, at det ikke er muligt at undtage de nationale bestemmelser om nedsættelse fra de betingelser og begrænsninger for deres anvendelse, som er fastsat i forordning nr. 1408/71, ved at kvalificere dem som beregningsklausuler (jf. Conti-dommen, præmis 24).
In that same judgment, the Court stressed that provisions for reduction of benefits cannot be rendered exempt from the conditions and limits of application laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 by categorising them as rules for calculating the amount payable (ONP v Conti, paragraph 24).
Sådanne bestemmelser kan heller ikke undtages fra de betingelser og begrænsninger for deres anvendelse, der er fastsat i forordning nr. 1408/71, ved at kvalificere dem som bevisregler.
Such national provisions cannot, furthermore, be exempt from the conditions and limits of application laid down in Regulation No 1408/71 by categorising them as rules of evidence.
Den i hovedsagen omhandlede krigsformodningsregel er imidlertid en del af en lovgivning, hvis formål er at begrænse Anden Verdenskrigs negative virkninger på pensionsrettighederne for arbejdstagere, som er omfattet af den belgiske lovgivning.
However, in the present case, the war years presumption is part of legislation whose purpose is to reduce the damaging effects of the Second World War on the pension rights of workers subject to Belgian legislation.
Med henblik herpå anses en arbejdstager, der i perioden mellem den 1. januar 1938 og den 31. december 1944 var erhvervsmæssigt beskæftiget i Belgien for at have fortsat denne beskæftigelse på samme betingelser for varighed i hele
To that end, an employed person who was in employment in Belgium during the period between 1 January 1938 and 31 December 1944 is deemed to have continued to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards
30 Denne formodning kommer navnlig arbejdstagere til gode, der har været beskæftiget i Belgien, men ikke er i stand til at godtgøre, at de har indbetalt tilstrækkelige bidrag i alle de relevante år som følge af, at dokumenter er blevet destrueret eller er bortkommet, ligesom formodningen begunstiger personer, der på grund af krigen ikke kunne fortsætte deres beskæftigelse i Belgien.
30 That presumption operates, in particular, in favour of a worker who, having worked in Belgium, is not in a position to provide evidence of having paid sufficient contributions during all the years at issue because of the destruction or loss of documents and of a person who, as a result of the events of the War, could not continue his employment record in Belgium.
I et tilfælde som sagsøgerens kunne formodningen ikke afkræftes, blot fordi det var ubestridt, at han havde haft beskæftigelse i Tyskland i et vist tidsrum.
In a case such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings, the presumption could not therefore be rebutted by the mere fact that he had worked in Germany for a certain time.
Herefter skal det præjudicielle spørgsmål besvares således, at en national bestemmelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede — hvorefter en arbejdstager, der i perioden mellem den 1. januar 1938 og den 31. december 1944 var
The answer to the question must therefore be that a national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and 31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed
PLATBROOD erhvervsmæssigt beskæftiget må anses for at have fortsat denne beskæftigelse på samme betingelser for varighed i hele perioden mellem det tidspunkt, hvor den godtgjorte beskæftigelse ophørte, og den 31. december 1945, idet denne formodning dog ikke finder anvendelse på de beskæftigelsesperioder, hvor den pågældende har modtaget pension i henhold til en ordning i en anden stat — ikke udgør en bestemmelse om nedsættelse, midlertidig inddragelse eller bortfald af ydelser i forordning nr. 1408/71's forstand.
PLATBROOD V ONP to have continued to be an employed person under the same conditions as regards duration throughout the period between the date on which his employment ceased and 31 December 1945, but under which that presumption is not applicable to periods of employment for which the person concerned receives a pension under a scheme of another State, does not constitute a provision on reduction, suspension or withdrawal within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71.
DOMSTOLEN (Femte Afdeling) vedrørende det spørgsmål, der er forelagt af Tribunal du travail de Mons ved afgørelse af 21. april 1998, for ret:
THE COURT (Fifth Chamber), in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunal du Travail, Mons, by judgment of 21 April 1998, hereby rules:
En national bestemmelse som den i hovedsagen omhandlede — hvorefter en arbejdstager, der i perioden mellem den 1. januar 1938 og den 31. december 1944 var erhvervsmæssigt beskæftiget må anses for at have fortsat denne
A national provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings under which an employed person who, between 1 January 1938 and 31 December 1944, was in employment is deemed to have continued to be an employed person under the
Sag C-191/98 P
Case C-191/98 P
Georges Tzoanos mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Georges Tzoanos v Commission of the European Communities
»Appel — frifindelse for en påstand om annullation af en afgørelse om fjernelse fra tjenesten — sideløbende disciplinærsag og straffesag (tjenestemandsvedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5)«
(Appeal — Dismissal of application for annulment of a decision ordering removal from post — Concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings (Fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations))
Forslag til afgørelse fra generaladvokat S. Alber fremsat den 9. marts 1999 . 1-8225 Domstolens dom (Første Afdeling) af 18. november 1999 1-8244
Opinion of Advocate General Alber delivered on 9 March 1999 Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 18 November 1999
Tjenestemænd — disciplinærordning — disciplinærsag — sideløbende disciplinærsag og straffesag — tjenestemandens forpligtelse til at fremlægge beviser — Rettens vurdering — faktisk konstatering — prøvelse under appel — udelukket (Tjenestemandsvedtægten, art. 88, stk. 5)
(Staff Regulations, Art. 88, fifth para.)
Tjenestemænd — disciplinærordning — disciplinærsag — overholdelse af retten til kontradiktion — dokumenter, som den pågældende tjenestemand ikke har taget stilling til — udelukket som bevismidler — grænser
Officials — Disciplinary measures — Disciplinary proceedings — Rights of the defence must be observed — Where the official has had no opportunity to comment on certain documents — Undisclosed documents inadmissible as evidence — Limits
Det påhviler den tjenestemand, mod hvem der er rejst disciplinærsag, og som gør gældende, at der er rejst straffesag mod ham for de samme forhold i den forstand, hvori dette udtryk anvendes i vedtægtens arti kel 88, stk. 5, at fremlægge de nød vendige oplysninger for ansættelses myndigheden — og i påkommende til fælde for Retten — til godtgørelse af, at der er rejst såvel disciplinær- som straffesag mod ham for de samme forhold.
In the context of disciplinary proceed ings against an official who maintains that, for the purposes of the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, criminal proceedings have been initiated against him in respect of the same acts, it is for that official to provide the appointing authority and, where appropriate, the Court of First Instance with sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that he was subject at one and the same time to disciplinary proceedings and to criminal proceedings relating to the same matters.
Rettens konstatering af, at tjeneste manden ikke har fremlagt de nødvendige oplysninger i så henseende, er en faktisk konstatering, som Retten har
A finding by the Court of First Instance that the official had not provided the necessary evidence in that regard con stitutes a finding of fact which comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Ifølge det generelle princip om ret til kontradiktion skal tjenestemanden have mulighed for at tage stilling til ethvert dokument, som institutionen vil gøre gældende mod ham.
According to the principle that the rights of the defence must be observed, an official must have the opportunity, in the context of disciplinary proceed ings, to comment on every document which the institution intends to use against him.
Hvis der ikke er givet ham mulighed herfor, kan de dokumenter, der ikke er blevet gjort tilgængelige, ikke tages i betragtning som bevismidler.
Where an official is not given such an opportunity, the undisclosed documents must not be taken into consideration as evidence.
Den omstændighed, at bestemte dokumenter, der er benyttet af institutionen, er udelukket som bevismiddel, har imidlertid kun betydning, såfremt det af institutionen frem førte klagepunkt alene kan bevises ved hjælp af disse dokumenter.
How ever, the fact that certain documents used by the institution concerned are inadmissible as evidence is of no significance except to the extent to which the institution's case can be proved only by reference to those documents.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT SIEGBERT ALBER fremsat den 9. marts 1999 *
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL ALBER delivered on 9 March 1999 *
Klagepunkterne mod appellanten var følgende:
The complaints made against the appellant were as follows:
Nærværende appel, som er iværksat af en tjenestemand, der er fjernet fra tjenesten (herefter »appellanten«), angår en dom afsagt af Retten i Første Instans 1, hvorved tjenestemandens påstand om annullation af en afgørelse om fjernelse fra tjenesten ikke blev taget til følge.
In the present appeal, an official who has been removed from his post (hereinafter 'the appellant' or 'Mr Tzoanos') is request ing the Court to set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance1dismissing his application for annulment of the Commission's decision removing him from his post.
Appellanten er den tidligere chef for enhed 3, »Turisme«, ved direktorat A »Forbedring af virksomhedspolitik« ved Generaldirektoratet for Erhvervspolitik, Handel, Turisme og Erhvervsdrivende For eninger (GD XXIII) (enhed XXIII.A.3).
The appellant is the former head of Unit 3 'Tourism' in Directorate A 'Business development and improvement of the business environment' of the Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Distributive Trades, Tourism and Cooperatives (DG XXIII) (Unit XXIII.A.3).
Ansættelsesmyndigheden, dvs. Kommissionen, besluttede den 22. juni 1995 at opretholde den disciplinærsanktion, som Disciplinærrådet havde anbefalet, og som bestod i fjernelse fra tjenesten uden nedsættelse eller frakendelse af retten til alderspension.
By decision of 22 June 1995 the appointing authority, namely the Commission, decided to impose the disciplinary measure recommended by the Disciplinary Board, that is to say removal from post without withdrawal of entitlement to retirement pension.
For det femte »... at have begået administrative ulovligheder og fejl i den budgetmæssige og finansielle forvaltning
1 — Judgment of 19 March 1998 in Case T-74/96 Tzoanos v Commission [1998] ECR-SC II-343.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE FRA GENERALADVOKAT ALBER — SAG C-191/98 P anlagde appellanten sag, men fik ikke medhold ved dom af 19. marts 1998.
OPINION OF MR ALBER — CASE C-191/98 P mance of his duties as head of the "Tourism" Unit'.2
under udøvelsen af sine funktioner som chef for enheden 'Turisme'«2.
On 17 May 1996 the applicant brought an action, which was dismissed by judgment of 19 March 1998.
Den 3. august 1994 blev appellanten suspenderet fra tjenesten, idet et beløb svarende til halvdelen af hans grundløn blev tilbageholdt.
On 3 August 1994 the appellant was suspended from his post and an amount equal to half of his basic salary was with held.
4. december 1994 — under opretholdelse af suspensionen — igen ret til sin løn. Den del af hans løn, der var blevet tilbageholdt, blev udbetalt.
Since no final decision had been taken within the prescribed period, his full salary was reinstated on 4 December 1994, although he continued to be suspended, and the sums withheld from his salary were repaid to him.
I denne dom nåede Retten bl.a. til den konklusion, at det i henhold til vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, ikke var nødvendigt at udsætte disciplinærsagen indtil afslutningen af straffesagen mod appellanten — dengang sagsøgeren — hvilket sidstnævnte havde anmodet om.
In that judgment the Court of First Instance concluded, inter alia, that there had been no need to suspend the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the fifth para graph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations pending the close of the criminal proceed ings against the appellant (or the applicant, as he then was), as he had requested.
Retten fandt endvidere, at de administrative uregelmæssigheder og fejl i budgetmæssig og finansiel henseende hørte under appellantens ansvarsområde, og at denne ikke kunne gøre gældende ikke at have haft aktindsigt i de for hans forsvar nødvendige dokumenter. ter.
The Court of First Instance further held that the administrative irregularities and budgetary and financial mismanagement related to matters falling within the appellant's responsibilities and, finally, that he could not claim that he did not have access to certain documents necessary for his defence.
Efter afslutning af sagen for Disciplinær rådet besluttede ansættelsesmyndigheden den 22. juni 1995 at afskedige appellanten med virkning fra den 1. august 1995 uden frakendelse af retten til pension.
Following the close of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Board, the appoint ing authority decided on 22 June 1995 to remove the appellant from his post without loss of entitlement to a retirement pension, with effect from 1 August 1995.
Beslutningen blev truffet i henhold til artikel 86, stk. 2, litra f), i tjenestemandsvedtægten (herefter »vedtægten« — øvrige nævnte artikler uden anden henvisning hidrører ligeledes fra denne vedtægt).
The decision was taken pursuant to Article 86(2)(f) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (hereinafter 'the Staff Regulations' — any articles cited without a particular reference are also from those Regulations).
Appellanten indgav klage over ansættelsesmyndighedens afgørelse, som blev udtrykkeligt afvist ved afgørelse af 19. februar 1996. Den 17. maj 1996
The appellant lodged a complaint against the decision of the appointing authority; that complaint was expressly rejected by decision of 19 February 1996.
Den 19. maj 1998 har appellanten iværksat appel af denne dom og bl.a. gjort gældende, at Retten foretog en fejlagtig fortolkning af vedtægtens artikel 88, stk. 5, og holdt ham ansvarlig for uregelmæssigheder, som ikke henhørte under hans ansvarsområde.
On 19 May 1998 the appellant appealed against that judgment; he claimed, inter alia, that the Court of First Instance had misinterpreted the fifth paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations and held him responsible for irregularities relating to matters which were outside the scope of his duties.
Appellanten har endvidere gjort gældende — som i sagen for Ret ten — at hans ret til kontradiktion ikke var blevet overholdt på grund af en utilstrækkelig begrundelse af klagepunkterne mod ham.
He further claimed, as he had already done at first instance, that there had been a breach of his rights of defence, since the statement of reasons for the complaints made against him was inadequate.
Han har endvidere påberåbt sig en tilsidesættelse af princippet om parternes ligestilling med den begrundelse, at han ikke havde aktindsigt i de dokumenter, som kunne have bekræftet hans anbringender.
He also pleaded a breach of the principle of equality of arms, on the ground that he had not had access to documents which would have confirmed his claims.
Appellanten har herefter nedlagt følgende påstande for Domstolen: at appellen ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling. behandling.
The applicant therefore claims that the Court of Justice should:
1) Den appellerede dom ophæves.
(1) set aside the contested judgment;
2) Domstolen træffer selv afgørelse i sagen, og appellantens påstande ved Retten i Første Instans tages til følge, således at
(2) itself adjudicate on the dispute and allow his initial application, in the following terms:
— Kommissionens afgørelse af 22. juni 1995, hvorved appellanten blev fjernet fra tjenesten uden at fortabe sine pensionsrettigheder, annulleres, tillige med afgørelsen af 19. februar 1996 om udtrykke lig afvisning af den klage, som appellanten indgav den 21. september 1995 over den anfægtede afgørelse a) afvises, idet den ikke kan antages til realitetsbehandling hvad angår det andet klagepunkt, da appellanten anfægter Rettens konstateringer vedrørende indholdet og omfanget af de opgaver, der var pålagt ham, og hvad angår det tredje klagepunkt, da det vedrører argumenterne, der er gentaget i appelskriftets punkt 23, s. 17 og 18
(a) as inadmissible, as regards the second ground of appeal, in that it seeks to call in question the findings of the Court of First Instance concerning the subjectmatter and scope of the tasks which had been assigned to the applicant and, as regards the third ground, in that point 23, pages 17 and 18, of the appeal relates to arguments already raised;
3) Kommissionen tilpligtes at betale sags omkostningerne ved begge instanser.
(b) order the Commission to bear the costs of both sets of proceedings.
b) forkastes under alle omstændighe der som ubegrundet i sin helhed.
(b) in any event, as unfounded in its entirety;
Ifølge Kommissionen er appellen ikke begrundet og kan i øvrigt af to årsager ikke antages til realitetsbehandling.
The Commission contends that the appeal is unfounded, and in fact inadmis sible on two points.