natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I det foreliggende tilfælde kunne hverken den pris, som Mita Europe havde betalt til Mita Japan, eller den pris, som Gestetner havde betalt til Mita Europe, lægges til grund, i betragtning af forbindelsen mellem den eksporterende fabrikant og dennes datterselskab, henholdsvis sidstnævntes virksomhed med henblik på salg. Omkostningerne ved en sådan virksomhed reducerer effektivt det beløb, som den eksporterende fabrikant opkræver, 1 det omfang, hvori de normalt bæres af importøren.
The Court concluded from the foregoing that there was no need to define the applicant as an importer or as an exporter; in the light of its business dealings with Mita, Gestetner was concerned by the findings relating to the existence of the dumping complained of, and the provisions of the contested regulation regarding Mita's dumping practices were therefore of direct and individual concern to it.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen først, at det fremgik af sagen, at institutionerne havde taget hensyn til forskellen mellem omkostningerne og fortjenesten ved salg til OEM-selskaber og ved andre salg.
Gestetner claimed that since it was independent of Mita the Council should have taken as the export price the price that it had paid to Mita through Mita Europe, instead of taking account of that price in order to construct an export price.
Domstolen bemærkede dernæst, at det påhviler den part, som kræver justering, at bevise, at denne er nødvendig, men at Gestetner ikke havde fØrt et sådant bevis.
In following that procedure, the Council had correctly applied Article 2 (8) (b) of Regulation No. 2176/84.
Gestetner gjorde først gældende, at institutionerne havde fraveget deres tidligere praksis, hvorefter en producent, når han har forbindelser med eksportørerne eller importørerne eller selv er importør af det produkt, som formodes at være genstand for dumping eller subvention, automatisk skal udelukkes fra de producenter, der udgør "fællesskabsproduktionen" i den i forordning nr. 2176/84 forudsatte betydning.
In this case, neither the price paid by Mita Europe to Mita Japan nor the price paid by Gestetner to Mita Europe could have served as a point of reference, on account of the association between the exporting manufacturer and its subsidiary and the sales activities pursued by that subsidiary. The costs entailed by such activities effectively reduced the amount received by the exporting manufacturer inasmuch as they were normally borne by the importer.
Den praksis fra institutionernes side, som Gestetner påberåbte sig, eksisterede følgelig ikke.
Incorrect comparison of the normal value and the export price
Gestetner gjorde dernæst gældende, at selv hvis det anerkendes, at institutionerne ikke skal udelukke visse producenter fra fællesskabsproduktionen, når de konstaterer sådanne forbindelser, havde det i dette tilfælde været berettiget at udelukke såvel Olivetti, Océ og Tetras som Rank Xerox.
Gestetner maintained that the difference in level of trade between the products sold by Mita to Gestetner and those sold by Mita to distributors and retailers in Japan required due allowance to be made, which the Council and the Commission had failed to do.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil med hensyn til Olivetti og Océ, at det måtte antages, at de nævnte producenter ved deres indførsler af PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner med oprindelse 1 Japan ikke havde påført sig selv tab ved at fremkalde en mindre udnyttelse af deres produktionskapacitet, et fald i egne priser eller ved at opgive planer om forøget produktion eller om produktion af nye produkter.
It was apparent from the documents before the Court that the institutions had taken into consideration the difference between the costs and profits associated with sales to OEMs and the equivalent figures for other sales.
Følgelig havde institutionerne ved at indbefatte Olivetti og Océ i fællesskabsproduktionen ikke overskredet grænserne for deres skøn.
Indeed, it was for that purpose, and because the institutions had found 1t impossible to gauge that difference accurately, that in constructing the normal value they had set the profit margin at 5% instead of its average rate, estimated at 14.6%.
Med hensyn til Tetras fandt Domstolen det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke - således som det fremgår af den anfægtede forordnings betragtninger 81 og 107 - at denne producent hverken var blevet taget 1 betragtning ved vurderingen af skaden eller ved fastsatteisen af satsen for antidumpingtolden.
Furthermore, it was the party claiming an allowance that had to prove the need for the allowance, and Gestetner has not adduced any evidence to that effect.
Med hensyn til Rank Xerox bemærkede Domstolen først, at selv om merværdien for PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner med ringe kapacitet fremstillet af virksomheden i Det Forenede Kongerige var lavere end for andre modeller, stod det dog fast, som Rådet med rette har anført 1 den 58. betragtning til den anfægtede forord-
Gestetner argued that the Council and the Commission had departed from their previous practice whereby a producer who was related to exporters or importers or was himself an importer of the product alleged to be dumped or subsidized had automatically to be excluded from the set of producers constituting the "Community industry" for the purposes of Article 4 (5) of Regulation No. 2176/84.
Domstolen bemærkede for det andet med hensyn til de PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner, der hidrørte fra Japan og blev leveret af Fuji Xerox, at omfanget af importen af PPC-fotokoperingsmaskiner hidrørende fra Japan, som blev leveret af Fuji Xerox, var ganske lille i forhold til det samlede antal PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner, som fremstilles af Rank Xerox i Fællesskabet, samt i forhold til hele fællesmarkedet (1%), og videresalgspriserne var identiske med priserne for tilsvarende apparater produceret af Rank Xerox.
The Court held that, according to the documents submitted and the oral arguments made to the Court it was by the exercise of that discretion that a Community producer had been excluded from the "Community Industry" in each of the cases referred to by the applicant. The practice of the institutions relied on by Gestetner thus did not exist.
Domstolen bemærkede endvidere, at selv om Rank Xerox ved at videresælge PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner importeret fra Japan til dumpingpriser, som var lavere end andre fællesskabsproducenters priser, havde påført disse tab, kunne virksomheden ikke for så vidt udelukkes fra fællesskabsproducenternes tal og derved berøves den beskyttelse, som fællesskabsbestemmelserne giver mod det tab, dette selskab selv havde lidt.
Gestetner went on to argue that even if it were accepted that the institutions were not obliged to exclude certain producers from the category of "Community industry" on discovering such relationships, the exclusion of Olivetti, Océ and Tetras on the one hand and of Rank Xerox on the other would have been justified In the circumstances.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen, at Rank Xerox ifølge Rådet havde forpligtet sig til selv at fremstille eller hos andre fællesskabsproducenter at erhverve dele bestemt til at erstatte dem, der hidrørte fra Japan.
With regard to Olivetti and Océ, Court held that those producers had not, by their imports, caused injury to themselves by reducing the use of their production capacity, lowering their own prices or abandoning projects designed to increase production or to produce new products.
Det ville imidlertid have været yderst vanskeligt at opfylde denne forpligtelse uden antidumpingforanstaltninger. staltninger.
Therefore, by including Olivetti and Océ in the category of "Community industry" the Council and the Commission had not exceeded the margin of discretion which they enjoyed.
Det måtte derfor konkluderes, at institutionerne ved at inkludere Rank Xerox i fællesskabsproduktionen Ikke havde overskredet grxnserne for deres skøn.
As far as Tetras was concerned, the Court merely observed that, as paragraphs (81) and (107) of the contested regulation showed, this producer had not been taken into consideration either in assessing the Injury suffered or in determining the rate of antidumping duty.
Gestetner gjorde gældende, at Fællesskabets interesser i betragtning af markedets struktur og navnlig graden af dets koncentration ikke nødvendig gjorde indførelse af antidumpingtold. Tolden havde faktisk forstærket Rank Xerox' dominerende stilling, begrænset konkurrencen og skadet forbrugerne.
Secondly, with regard to imports of plain paper photocopiers supplied by Fuji Xerox from Japan, the volume of those imports had been minimal in relation to the entire range of plain paper photocopiers produced by Rank Xerox within the Community and in relation to the Community market as a whole (1%), and the resale prices were the same as the prices of equivalent machines produced by Rank Xerox.
Gestetner anførte, at Kommissionen i strid med kravene i Traktatens artikel 190 havde begrænset sig til at henvise til sin sædvanlige praksis om ikke at
Lastly, the Court noted that, according to the Council, Rank Xerox had committed itself to manufacturing some components to replace components of Japanese origin, or to obtaining them from other Community producers.
Kommissionens praksis fandtes både baseret på GATT's antidumpingregler og på artikel 10 i forordning nr. 2176/84, og den var berettiget af to grunde.
The performance of that commitment would have become extremely onerous in the absence of antidumping measures.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen, at spørgsmålet, om Gestetner var den fysiske eksportør af PPC-fotokopieringsmaskiner eller importør, ikke havde nogen betydning.
The Court concluded that by including Rank Xerox in the "Community industry" the Council and the Commission had not exceeded the margin of discretion which they enjoyed.
Domstolen udtalte og bestemte:
Incorrect assessment of the Interests of the Community
Generaladvokat Jean Mischp fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 5. juli 1989
The Court held that the Council and the Commission had not committed a manifest error of appraisal.
"- Den af Gestetner anlagte sag afvises, for så vidt som den er anlagt mod Kommissionen, og i det omfang, hvori der er nedlagt påstand om annullation af Rådets forordning nr. 535/87 i dens helhed;
Gestetner maintained that, contrary to the requirements of Article 190 of the Treaty, the Commission had simply referred to its traditional practice of not accepting undertakings from importers, without explaining the reasons for that practice or the way 1n which it was applied in this case, when the applicant should have been regarded as an exporter.
- i Øvrigt admitteres sagen, men de sagsøgte frifindes.
The Court rejected Gestetner's submission.
Selv om sagsøgerens subsidiære påstand bør admitteres, står det dog fast, at sagsøgeren i det væsentlige har tabt sagen.
The Commission's practice of not accepting undertakings from importers was based both on the rules of the GATT Anti-Dumping Code and on Article 10 of Regulation No. 2176/84, and was justified on two lines of reasoning.
Derfor foreslår jeg Domstolen at dømme sagsøgeren til at betale sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenienten CECOM's omkostninger. Med hensyn til intervenienten Mita, som er indtrådt i sagen til støtte for Gestetners påstande, bør denne betale sine egne omkostninger."
First, acceptance of the undertaking offered by an importer would have had the effect of encouraging him to continue to obtain supplies from outside the Community at dumped prices.
Ved stævning, indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 20. april 1989, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber i medfør af EØF­Traktatens artikel 169 anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat forpligtelser, som påhviler den i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikel 12 ff..
Since the photocopiers were purchased for importation into the Community, and therefore the reasons justifying the refusal to accept undertakings offered by Importers were applicable, Gestetner could not have been regarded as an exporter for that purpose.
Domskonklusionen lød således:
Accordingly, the Court held as follows:
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz havde fremsat forslag til afgørelse den 13. februar 199ΠΤ
Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 5 July
Han foreslog følgende: "Kommissionens påstande tages til følge, og sagsøgte betaler sagens omkostninger."
" Dismiss Gestetner's application as Inadmissible in so far as it is directed against the Commission and in so far as it seeks the annulment of Council Regulation No. 535/87 in Its entirety;
Sag C­339/87: Kommissionen for De Europeiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Nederlandene
For the rest, declare it to be admissible but dismiss it as unfounded.
15.3.1990 "Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne ­ undladelse af at gennemføre et direktiv ­beskyttelse af vilde fugle" (Domstolens Plenum)
I therefore propose that the Court order it to pay the costs, including those of the Interveners, CECOM. As for the Intervener Mita, which intervened in support of Gestetner's conclusions, it must bear Its own costs. "
­ de fuglearter, der kan gøres til genstand for jagt, ­ undtagelser for visse fuglearter, ­ søgning efter samt indsamling og opbevaring af ag af visse fuglearter, ­ undtagelser vedrørende forebyggelse af skader, ­ jagt fra flyvemaskiner og ­ undtagelser i forbindelse med konkurrencer for jagthunde,
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 20 April 1989, the Commission of the European Communities, pursuant to Article 169 of the EEC Treaty, brought an action for a declaration that the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 et seg of the EEC Treaty.
- 15 - ikke var helt i overensstemmelse med direktiv 79/409/EØF om beskyttelse af vilde fugle, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber den 28. oktober 1987 anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Kongeriget Nederlandene har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Traktaten.
- 15 - legislation, veterinary Inspectors at customs posts send to the competent national veterinary and health authorities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 12 et seg of the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Nederlandene betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs. "
Generaladvokat Walter Van 6erven fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 16. januar 1990.
Mr Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 13 February 1990
Generaladvokaten foreslog følgende:
He concluded in the following terms:
Det statueres, at Kongeriget Nederlandene har undladt at opfylde de forpligtelser, der påhviler det, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har truffet alle de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at bringe Jachtwet eller de retsakter, der udstedes med hjemmel i Jachtwet, i overensstemmelse med Rådets direktiv 79/409/EØF af 2. april 1979 om beskyttelse af vilde fugle.
By not adopting within the prescribed periods all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Nederlandene tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger".
The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs. "
Sag C-10/89 CNL-Sucal mod Hag 6F
Case C­10/89
Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Bundesgerichtshof Fortolkning af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30, 36 og 222 -foreneligheden af udøvelsen af mærkeretten med bestemmelserne om frie varebevægelser - den oprindelige indehaver af et mærke, som under påberåbelse af sin ret - der har forrang, da den er af tidligere dato - til mærket, modsætter sig indførsel af varer ved indehaveren af et tilsvarende mærke. Generaladvokat: Jacobs.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) Bundesgerichtshof Interpretation of Articles 30, 36 and 222 of the EEC Treaty ­ Compatibility of the exercise of trade mark rights with the provisions on the free movement of goods ­Original holder of a trademark who, relying on his prior trademark rights, opposes the importation of goods by the holder of the same derived trademark.
Processprog: tysk.
Case C­27/89
Sag C-6/89
Case C-6/89
13.3.1990 Traktatbrud - tilsidesættelse af EØF-Traktatens artikel 5 -artikel 2 i kongelig anordning nr. 471 af 24. oktober 1986 om nedsættelse af ventepenge til lærere, som af Undervisningsministeriet udstationeres ved Europa-Skolerne. Generaladvokat: Mischo. Processprog: fransk.
Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to comply with Article 5 of the EEC Treaty - Article 2 of Royal Decree No. 471 of 24 October 1986 dealing with reduction of the pay granted to teaching staff seconded to European schools by the Ministry for National Education.
Forenede sager C-100/89 og C-101/89 P. Kaefer a.fl. mod Den Franske Republiks højkommissær i fransk Polynesien
Joined Cases C-100/89 and C-101/89
14.3.1990 Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra Tribunal Administratif de Papeete
Polynesia) - 14 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) Tribunal Administratif, Papeete Interpretation of Article 176 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community - Infringement of the right of establishment of Community nationals in French Polynesia.
Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse fra House of Lords Fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder, for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse, erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår - direktivets umiddelbare anvendelighed på en nationaliseret industri- og handelsvirksomhed - politik med forskellig pensionsalder - 60 år som lovpligtig pensionsalder for kvindelige arbejdstagere ansat ved British Gas Corporation.
Interpretation 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 - Whether the directive may be directly relied upon against a nationalized industrial and commercial corporation - Retirement policy which distinguishes between men and women -Compulsory retirement at 60 for female employees of the British Gas Corporation.
B. For Retten i Férste Instans
IL Before the Court of First Instance
Sag T-43/89 Tjenestemandssag.
Case T-43/89
Udgivet af Informationstjenesten for De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol L-2925 Luxembourg.
Published by the Information Service of the Court of Justice of the European Communities, L-2925 Luxembourg.
Oversættelse
Week of 19 to 23 March 1990
INDHOLD
SUMMARY page
Sag C-21 /88
JUDGMENTS
Statsstøtte Sag C-199/88
Belgium ν Commission State aids
G. Cabras mod Inami Social sikring
Case C-199/88 G. Cabras ν INAMI Social security
DENNE PUBLIKATION UDARBEJDES AF DOMSTOLENS INFORMATIONSTJENESTE MED HENBLIK PR EN HURTIG ORIENTERING OM ARBEJDET VED DOMSTOLEN.
THIS BULLETIN IS PREPARED BY THE INFORMATION SERVICE OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN ORDER TO SUPPLY READERS WITH RAPID INFORMATION ON THE WORK OF THE INSTITUTION.
(Præjudiciel) "Virksomhedernes retsstilling - offentlige indkøbsaftaler - regel om andel på 30% af offentlige indkøb forbeholdt virksomheder, der er beliggende i et bestemt område" (Domstolens plenum)
Du Pont de Nemours Italiana Spa ν Unità Sanitaria Locale No. 2 di Carrara (USL) - 20 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Company law - Public supply contracts - Reservation of 30% of such contracts to undertakings situated in a particular region) (Full Court)
Tribunale amministrativo regionale della Toscana havde ved kendelse afsagt den 1. april 1987, indgiet til Domstolen den 20. januar 1988, anmodet Domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse af tre spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30, 92 og 93.
By an order of 1 April 1987, received at the Court on 20 January 1988, the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Toscana referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of Articles 30, 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty.
Disse spørgsmål var rejst under en tvist mellem Du Pont de Nemours og USL vedrørende udbudsbetingelserne i forbindelse med et indkøb af radiologiske film og væsker, navnlig i forbindelse med, at USL i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i lov nr. 64 af 1. marts 1984 i den særlige udbudsbekendtgørelse for indkøbet havde opdelt dette i to partier, hvoraf det ene vedrørende 30% af de samlede udbudsbelØb var forbeholdt virksomheder, der er beliggende i Mezzogiorno.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between Du Pont de Nemours and the USL with regard to the conditions for the award of a contract for the supply of films and radiography fluids and because in particular, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 64 of 1 March 1989, the USL had distinguished in the special terms annexed two consignments of supplies, one of which representing 30% of the total amount was reserved to undertakings located in the Mezzogiorno.
Den nationale ret ønskede med det første spørgsmål en afgørelse af, om EØF-Traktatens artikel 30, hvorefter kvantitative importrestriktioner og foranstaltninger med tilsvarende virkning er forbudt, er til hinder for nationale regler om, at en vis procentandel af offentlige indkøb forbeholdes virksomheder, der har produktionsanlæg i bestemte dele af det nationale område.
By its first question the national court sought to ascertain whether Article 30 of the EEC Treaty, which prohibited quantitative restrictions on imports and any measure having equivalent effect, precluded national rules reserving to undertakings established in certain regions of the national territory a percentage of public supply contracts.
Domstolen bemærkede i den forbindelse, at en ordning som den omhandlede, der er til fordel for varer, der er forarbejdet i et bestemt område i en medlemsstat afskærer de berørte forvaltninger og offentlige organisationer fra at foretage en del af deres indkøb hos virksomheder, der ligger i andre medlemsstater.
The Court observed in that respect that such a system which favoured goods processed 1n a particular region of a Member State prevented the authorities and public bodies concerned from obtaining supplies for part of their needs from undertakings situated 1n other Member States.
På baggrund heraf måtte det erkendes, at varer hidrørende fra andre medlemsstater forskelsbehandles i forhold til varer, der er produceret i den omhandlede medlemsstat, og at der dermed foreligger en hindring for en normalt forløbende handel inden for Fællesskabet.
In those circumstances it had to be recognised that products originating from other Member States were discriminated against in relation to products manufactured in the Member State in question and that there was thus an obstacle to the normal pattern of intra-Communlty trade.
Dette resultat afsvækkedes ifølge Domstolen ikke ved, at en sådan præferenceordning i samme omfang virker begrænsende såvel for varer, der er fremstillet i virksomheder i vedkommende medlemsstat, der ikke er beliggende i det af præferenceordningen omfattede område som for varer, der er produceret af virksomheder, der er beliggende i de Øvrige medlemsstater.
That conclusion was not invalidated by the fact that the restrictive effects of such a preferential system affected to the same extent products manufactured by undertakings of the Member State in question which were not situated in the region covered by the preferential system and products manufactured by undertakings established in other Member States.