natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 17. maj 1990 ;
Having regard to the distinction drawn in Article 227 of the Treaty between overseas departments and overseas countries and territories, the United Kingdom argues that only the courts in the overseas departments may directly apply Community law and, consequently, refer questions to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
Det pålægges derfor Den Franske Republik at betale sagens omkostninger".
It also noted, secondly, that Part Four of the EEC Treaty, in particular Article 136, gives the Community institutions, and in particular the Council, the power to lay down provisions on the basis of the principles set out in the Treaty concerning overseas countries and territories and that Council Decision 86/283/EEC constitutes such a provision.
(Præj udi ciel) "Forbindelser udadtil - ret til ophold og til etablering - oversøiske lande og territorier - artikel 177 - Domstolens kompetence" (Domstolens plenum)
"The sphere of application of Article 176 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community does not extend to cover decisions taken by the competent authorities of the Member States in regard to entry and residence of nationals of the other Member States in an overseas territory, except where such decisions concern the nationals of the other Member States who exercise or seek to exercise the right of establishment or the freedom to provide services in such a territory.
Ved to domme af 21. marts 1989, der indgik til Domstolen den 29. marts 1989, havde Tribunal Administratif de Papeete (Fransk Polynesien) forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 176 i Rådets afgørelse 86/283/EØF.
The prohibition of discrimination laid down by Article 176 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC may be relied on before the competent authorities of a country or a territory by a national of a Member State, other than the one with which that country or territory maintains special relations, for the purpose of establishing himself or providing services there, once the person concerned satisfies the conditions required of nationals not established in that country or territory and if the Member State of which he is a national accords the same treatment to persons from the country or territory in question."
Kaefer og Procacci anlagde sag med påstand om annullation af de nævnte afgørelser under henvisning til, at de begge stred mod Rådets afgørelse 86/283/EØF.
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows to the question referred to it:
Traktatens Fjerde Del må anses som udtryk for en særordning gældende for de oversøiske lande og territorier, således at Traktatens øvrige bestemmelser ikke finder anvendelse, medmindre der er udtrykkeligt henvist til dem. Det Forenede Kongeriges regering gjorde på dette grundlag gældende, at artikel 177 ikke finder anvendelse i de oversøiske lande og territorier.
Neither Articles 132 (5) and 135 of the Treaty nor Article 176 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1976 on the association of overseas countries and territories with the EEC may be regarded as extending to cover decisions of whatever kind which may be taken by the competent authorities as regards the entry and residence of nationals of other Member States in an overseas territory.
For det andet bemærkede Domstolen, at EØF-Traktatens Fjerde Del, jfr. herved særlig artikel 136, indeholder en kompetence for Fællesskabets institutioner, og herunder navnlig Rådet, til på grundlag af Traktatens principper at fast lægge bestemmelser vedrørende de oversøiske lande og territorier, og at Rådets afgørelse 86/283/EØF er udtryk for sådanne bestemmelser.
In the overseas countries and territories the right to enter and reside may only be claimed by the nationals of other Member States for the purpose of carrying on an activity as a self-employed person under the conditions provided for in Article 176 mentioned above.
"Anvendelsesområdet for artikel 176 i Rådets afgørelse 86/283/EØF af 30. juni 1986 om de oversøiske landes og territoriers associering med Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab omfatter ikke afgørelser, som medlemsstaterne kompetente myndigheder træffer vedrørende indrejse til og
Article 176 of Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of overseas countries and territories to the EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the non-discrimination rule which it contains may be relied upon before the competent authorities
- 11 - ophold på et oversøisk territorium for statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater, medmindre afgørelserne vedrører statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater, som udøver eller søger at udøve etableringsretten eller retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser på et sådant territorium.
11 - of a country or territory by a national of a Member State other than that with which that country or territory maintains special relations, who wishes to carry on there a given activity as a self-employed person, or to go there to provide services of a specific type, and that a request to that effect must be granted, if the person in question satisfies all the conditions laid down, as regards the self-employed activity or the provision of services, for nationals of the Member State with which the country or territory maintains special relations who are not established in that country or territory, and if it is undisputed that in the Member State of which that person is a national the same treatment is guaranteed to persons hitherto established in the country or territory in question and having the nationality of the Member State with which that country or territory maintains special relations."
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 17. maj 1990.
By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 May 1989, Vandemoortele NV sought a declaration declaring void the Commission's decision, adopted on the basis of Regulation No. 2200/87 concerning the withholding at the time of final payment of an amount of ECU 56 463 from the amount due to the applicant in respect of 2 000 tonnes of refined rape seed oil to be delivered, as food aid, free-at-port-of-landing-landed which, because of a mechanical fault in the engine of the ship on which the oil was loaded, arrived 59 days late at its port of destination.
Statsborgere fra andre medlemsstater har kun krav på at kunne indrejse til og opholde sig i oversøiske lande og territorier med henbMk på at udøve en selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed på de i artikel 176 fastlagte vilkår.
It followed that the decision to withhold the contested amount was without legal foundation and should therefore be declared void.
Kommissionens beslutning, der blev meddelt pr. telex den 15. marts 1989, om at tilbageholde et beløb på 56.463 ECU i det beløb, som sagsøgeren havde krav på for levering af produkter som led i Fælles skabets fødevarehjælp, annulleres.
The Commission's decision concerning the withholding of payments in respect of food aid, notified by telex of 15 March 1989, is void;
Kommissionen betaler sagens omkostninger." eneraladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 12. juni 1990.
Mr Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 12 June 1990.
eneraladvokaten foreslog Domstolen, "at sagsøgte frifindes, og at sagsøgeren ilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger".
He proposed that the Court should "dismiss the application and order the applicant to pay the costs."
Ved kendelse af 12. juli 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 15. september s.a., havde College van Beroep voor het Bedrifjsleven, Haag, forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3 i Kommissionens forordning nr. 1371/84.
"The concept of "appropriation" within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 laying down detailed rules for the application of the additional levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation No. 804/68 (Official Journal 1984 No. L 132, p.
I 1982 meddelte sagsøgerne i hovedsagen, der driver en landbrugsbedrift, selskabet Gasunie ret til på den landbrugsjord, der hører til bedriften, at anlægge en underjordisk gasledning, som var erklæret af betydning for almenvellet, blandt andet under hensyntagen til en eventuel anvendelse af den nederlandske lov om pålæggelse af begrænsninger i rådigheden over fast ejendom i forbindelse med visse bygge- og anlægsarbejder. På grundlag af den af sag søgeren meddelte tilladelse rådede Gasunie i årene 1983 og 1984 over 7 hektar af bedriftens samlede landbrugsareal på 19 hektar; som modydelse herfor modtog sagsøgerne en erstatning.
11) covers the case in which a producer concludes an agreement with a public utility undertaking in order to avoid the unilateral imposition of an obligation to tolerate a public utility on his holding, if the agreement concerns a considerable part of the utilizable agricultural area of the holding and involves a temporary reduction in its fodder area."
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should decide as follows:
"Begrebet 'ekspropriering' i artikel 3 i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1371/84 af 16. maj 1984 om gennemførelsesbestemmelserne for den tillægsafgift, der er omhandlet i artikel 5c i forordning nr. 804/68 (EFT L 132, s. 11), omfatter den situation, at en producent har indgået en aftale med en virksomhed, der udfører offentlige anlægsarbejder, med det formål at undgå, at der ensidigt pålægges en rådighedsbegrænsning i forbindelse med offentlige anlægsarbejder på bedriften, når aftalen vedrører en betydelig del af bedriftens udnyttede landbrugsareal og medfører en midlertidig reduktion af dens foderareal."
"The concept of "appropriation" within the meaning of Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1371/84 of 16 May 1984 (repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation No. 1546/88 of 3 June 1988) covers the case in which an owner concludes an agreement with a public utility undertaking in order to avoid the unilateral imposition of an obligation to tolerate a public utility on the property concerned, if the agreement concerns a considerable part of the utilizable agricultural area of the holding and involves a temporary reduction in its fodder area."
Cour d'Appel de Paris havde ved dom af 9. april 1986, indgået til Domstolen den 5. november s.a. anmodet Domstolen om en præjudiciel afgørelse vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens bestemmelser.
By judgment of 9 April 1986, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 1986, the Cour d'Appel de Paris [Court of Appeal, Paris] referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of certain provisions of the EEC Treaty.
Spørgsmålet herom var rejst under en straffesag mod Cholay, der driver et diskotek i Barbizon og som \/ar domfældt for uden tilladelse at have fremført musikværker, der var omfattet af det af SACEM forvaltede repertoire og dermed for krænkelse af ophavsrettigheder.
Those questions were raised in criminal proceedings against Mr Cholay, who operates a discotheque in Barbizon and who had been convicted of performing or causing to be performed without permission musical works from the repertoire managed by SACEM and thereby committing an infringement of copyright.
Det måtte ifølge den forelæggende ret spørges, om den afgift på 8,25% af samt lige opnåede indtægter, som SACEM afkræver diskoteker for offentlig fremførelse i form af afspilning af indspilninger på lydbærere af ophavsretsbeskyttede værker var i overensstemmelse med EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36, i det omfang, afgiften repræsenterer ikke blot en afgift for fremførelse men også en "tillægsafgift for mekanisk gengivelse".
The national court had doubts as to whether the royalty of 8.25% of total receipts which SACEM requires discotheques to pay whenever there is a public performance by means of photograms of works covered by copyright was compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty inasmuch as the rate includes not only a right of performance but also a "supplementary mechanicalreproduction fee".
Denne afgift opkræves ikke i visse af Fællesskabets medlemsstater, og det af "Bizon's club" anvendte repertoire bestod netop i hovedsagen af udenlandske værker.
That fee is not charged in certain Member States of the Community and the repertoire used in Bizon's Club is essentially of foreign origin.
Domstolen kendte for > -et : "EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 skal fortolkes således, at de er ikke er til hinder for anvendelse af nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter et nationalt ophavsretsselskab i forbindelse med offentlig fremførelse på grundlag af lydbærere opkræver en såkaldt tillægsafgift for mekanisk gengivelse ud over afgiften for fremførelse, selv om en sådan tillægs-
"Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as not precluding the application of national legislation authorizing a national performing-rights society to collect, on account of the public performance of sound recordings, a supplementary mechanicalreproduction fee in addition to the royalties for the performing rights, even when such an additional fee is not provided for in the Member State in which those sound recordings have been lawfully marketed."
Generaladvokat Carl Otto Lenz fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 13. november 199CK
Mr Advocate General Carl Otto Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 13 November 1990.
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe afgørelse på grundlag af domskonklusionen i Domstolens dom i sag 402/85.
He proposed that the Court should reply in the same terms as in the operative part of the judgment in Case 402/85.
Hans forslag til afgørelse gik således ud på følgende:
His Opinion was therefore as follows:
EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 skal fortolkes således, at de er ikke er til hinder for anvendelse af nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter et nationalt ophavsretsselskab i forbindelse med offentlig fremførelse på grundlag af lydbærere opkræver en såkaldt tillægsafgift for mekanisk gengivelse ud over afgiften for fremførelse, selv om en sådan tillægsafgift ikke opkræves i den medlemsstat, hvor de pågældende lydbærere lovligt er bragt i omsætning.
Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty do not preclude the application of national legislation allowing a national copyright-management society to charge a royalty called a "supplementary mechanical reproduction fee", in addition to a performance royalty, on the public performance of sound recordings, even where such a supplementary fee is not provided for in the Member State where those sound recordings were lawfully placed on the market.
EØF-Traktatens artikel 86 skal fortolkes således, at dens forbudsbestemmelser ikke omfatter et nationalt ophavsretsselskab, alene fordi dette i forbindelse med offentlig fremførelse på grundlag af lydbærere opkræver en såkaldt tillægsafgift for mekanisk gengivelse ud over afgiften for fremførelse, selv om en sådan tillægsafgift ikke opkræves i den medlemsstat, hvor de pågældende lydbærere er bragt i omsætning".
Article 86 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that the prohibitions laid down therein do not apply to the conduct of a national copyright-management society simply because it charges a royalty called a "supplementary mechanical reproduction fee", in addition to a performance royalty, on the public performance of sound recordings, even where such a supplementary fee is not provided for in the Member State where those sound recordings were lawfully placed on the market."
Ved kendelse af 6. oktober 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 14. oktober s.a., havde Gerechtshof, Haag, forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende for tolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikel 34 med henblik på at afgøre, om en national ordning til gennemførelse af Rådets direktiv 68/414/EØF om forpligtelse for EØF's medlemsstater til at opretholde minimumslagre af mineralolie og/eller mineralolieprodukter er forenelig med denne traktatbestemmelse.
By order of 6 October 1988, which was received at the Court Registry on 14 October 1988, the Gerechtshof, [Regional Court of Appeal], The Hague, referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 34 of the EEC Treaty in order to determine the compatibility with that provision of national rules implementing Council Directive 68/414/EEC imposing an obligation on Member States of the EEC to maintain minimum stocks of crude oil and/or petroleum products.
- 16 tet ICOVA - en sammenslutning som overtager medlemmernes forpligtelse til at opretholde et lager af olieprodukter - havde, da selskabet ikke \/ar medlem af denne sammenslutning, ingen mulighed for at opnå tilbagebetaling af det gebyr, som disse virksomheder betaler sammenslutningen, og som overvæltes på salgsprisen for deres produkter.
When buying for export petroleum products placed on the Netherlands market by ICOVA, the body in charge of the stockpiling of petroleum products, it could not obtain from it, since it was not affiliated to that body, reimbursement of the contributions made by undertakings who buy from that body and passed on by them in the selling price of their products.
Hennen Olie anlagde sag mod ICOVA med krav om erstatning, idet selskabet gjorde gældende, at den forskelsbehandling, som det som ikke-medlem af ICOVA varudsat for, bl.a. \jar i strid med EØF-Traktatens artikel 34.
Hennen Olie brought an action for damages against ICOVA alleging that the discriminatory treatment it had suffered by virtue of its not being affiliated to ICOVA infringed, inter al ia. Article 34 of the Treaty.
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 34 skal fortolkes således, at den ikke er til hinder for en ordning, hvorefter virksomheder, som ikke er tilsluttet en institution oprettet med det formål at opfylde medlemmernes forpligtelser i henhold til den nederlandske lov til gennemførelse af Rådets direktiv 68/414/EØF af 20. december 1968, og som ønsker at eksportere produkter, der er indkøbt på det nationale marked, ikke - eller i det mindste kun på visse betingelser - kan opnå tilbagebetaling af gebyrer, der er indbetalt til institutionen, såfremt der ikke herved udøves forskelsbehandling mellem produkter bestemt til eksport og produkter, der sælges pa1 den pågældende medlemsstats hjemmemarked." ro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 6. juni
"Article 34 of the EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude traders who are not affiliated to an organization established for the purpose of performing the legal obligations imposed on its members under the Law implementing Council Directive 68/414/EEC of 20 December 1968 and who wish to export products purchased on the domestic market from not being able to obtain the refund of contributions made to that body or to do so only under certain conditions, provided that there is no difference in treatment between products intended for export and products placed on the domestic market of the Member State
(Præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - syntetiske sødemidler - mærkning - reklame" (Sjette Afdeling)
"The Netherlands legislation in force up to 1 January 1987, which implemented Council Directive 68/414, does not infringe Article 34 of the Treaty."
Spørgsmålet herom var opstået under en sag mellem de nævnte parter, efter at formanden for Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes på begæring af Chambre Syndicale havrie truffet afgørelse om, at de produkter, som SARPP havde bragt i handelen under navnet "Sucrandel", og hvis emballage ikke \iar i overensstemmelse med de relevante franske bestemmelser, skulle trækkes tilbage fra mar kedet.
That question arose in proceedings between the abovementioned parties concerning a decision of the President of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nantes, made upon the application of the Chambre Syndical, ordering the withdrawal from the market of products marketed by SARPP under the name "Sucrandel", the packaging of which did not comply with the French rules at issue.
På grundlag af denne afgørelse anlagde SARPP sag mod Chambre Syndicale ved Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris med påstand om, at disse bestemmelser og navnlig forbudet mod enhver anvendelse af ordet sukker eller enhver oplysning, der vækker forestillinger om sukkers fysiske eller kemiske egenskaber eller om dets næringsværdi i mærkningen af syntetiske sødemidler og reklamer herfor - må anses for foranstaltninger med tilsvarende virkning som kvantitative indførselsrestriktioner, som i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 30 er forbudt.
Following that decision, SARPP brought an action against the Chambre Syndical before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris for a declaration that those rules, and in particular, the prohibition of any statement in the labelling of artificial sweeteners and advertising in regard to them alluding to the physical, chemical or nutritional characteristics of sugar or the word sugar, constitute a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on imports prohibited by Article 30 of the EEC Treaty.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen indledningsvis, at Rådet i 1978 havde udstedt direktiv 79/112/EØF om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om mærkning af og præsentationsmåder for levnedsmidler bestemt til den endelige forbruger samt om reklame for sådanne levnedsmidler.
The Court first pointed out that in 1978, the Council adopted Directive 79/112/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer.
Domstolen fremhævede dernæst, at direktivets regler om mærkning på et væsentligt punkt afveg fra reglerne om reklame.
The Court also pointed out that the provisions of the directive on labelling differ in one essential point from those on advertising.
Ifølge direktivet kan medlemsstaterne opretholde eller udstede regler som supplement til direktivets bestemmelser.
The directive permits the Member States to maintain in force or adopt rules in addition to those which it lays down.
For så vidt angår mærkning, fremgår grænserne for den kompetence, der således er overladt medlemsstaterne, af selve direktivet, der i artikel 15, stk. 2, udtømmende opregner de hensyn, der kan begrunde anvendelsen af ikkeharmoniserede nationale regler, som forbyder handel med levnedsmidler, og som er i overensstemmelse med direktivet. Denne regel finder imidlertid ikke anvendelse på reklame.
In regard to labelling, the limits of the Member States powers in that regard are laid down in the directive itself, since Article 15 (2) sets out an exhaustive list of the grounds justifying the application of nonharmonized national provisions prohibiting the sale of foodstuffs complying with the directive.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt fællesskabsretten på dette område er til hinder for anvendelsen af nationale bestemmelser som supplement til direktivet, må derimod bedømmes i lyset af Traktatens bestemmelser om frie varebevægelser, navnlig artiklerne 30 og 36.
Consequently, the question whether in that domain Community law prohibits the application of national rules going beyond the requirements of the rules laid down in the directive must be considered, in particular, in the light of the provision of the Treaty on the free movement of goods, in particular, Articles 30 to 36.
Denne forskel er ifølge Domstolen af væsentlig betydning.
That difference had an important consequence.
Domstolen udtalte under henvisning til tidligere praksis, at direktivet har indført forpligtelser med hensyn til mærkning af levnedsmidler, der sælges i hele Fællesskabet, og at rier ikke kan sondres på grundlag af levnedsmidlernes oprindelse.
The Court pointed out that as it had already decided, Directive 79/112/EEC created obligations concerning the labelling and presentation of foodstuffs marketed in the entire Community without permitting any distinction to be drawn according to the origin of those foodstuffs.
Såfremt nationale bestemmelser om reklame strider mod Traktatens artikel 30 og 36, er anvendelsen af disse bestemmelser derimod kun forbudt, for så vidt angår importerede produkter, ikke for så vidt angår produkter af national oprindelse.
Consequently, if the directive prohibited the application of national rules concerning the labelling of foodstuffs, those