natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
1) DENNE PUBLIKATION UDARBEJDES AF DOMSTOLENS INFORMATIONSTJENESTE HED HENBLIK PÄ EN HURTIG ORIENTERING OM ARBEJDET VED DOMSTOLEN OG RETTEN I FØRSTE INSTANS.
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.
DOMMENE OG DE FREMSATTE FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE OFFENTLIGGØRES SEHERE I "SAMLING AF AFGØRELSER", SOM ER ENESTE GYLDIGE UDGAVE.
HOWEVER, ONLY THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THE JUDGMENTS AND OPINIONS PUBLISHED LATER IN THE REPORTS OF CASES BEFORE THE COURT IS AUTHENTIC.
GENGIVELSE KAN SKE HED KILDEANGIVELSE.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS BULLETIN NAY BE REPRODUCED PROVIDED THAT THE SOURCE IS STATED.
Hepp GmbH S Co. KG Frie varebevægelser Sag C-202/90 Ayuntamiento de Sevilla mod Recaudadores de Las Zonas primera y segunda Afgifter Sag C-76/90 M. Säger mod Dennemeyer S Co. Ltd. Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-76/90 M. Säger ν Société Dennemever & Co. Ltd Freedom of movement for persons 15/91 Ch
Sag C-190/89:
Case C-190/89:
Marc Rich and Co. A6 »od Società Impianti pa (Præjudiciel) 25.7.1991 "Konvention om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser -Bruxelles-konventionen - artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 4 - voldgift" (Domstolens plenum)
Marc Rich & Co. AG ν Società Italiana Impianti pa - 25 July 1991 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments - Brussels Convention - Indent 4 of the second paragraph of Article 1 - Arbitration) (Full Court) By order of 26 January 1989, received at the Court on 31 May 1989, the Court of Appeal (London) referred for a preliminary ruling three questions on the interpretation of certain provisions of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Disse spørgsmål var rejst under en tvist mellem ovennævnte parter vedrørende opfyldelsen af en mellem parterne indgået aftale, som indeholdt en voldgiftsklausul.
The questions were raised in the context of proceedings between the companies cited above, concerning the enforcement of a contract concluded between them which contained an arbitration clause.
"Konventionens artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 4, skal fortolkes således, at den deri indeholdte undtagelse omfatter en sag for en national retsinstans, som vedrører udpegelsen af en voldgiftsmand, uanset om denne sag først angår spørgsmålet, om der foreligger en voldgiftsaftale, herunder om denne er gyldig."
"Article 1 (4) of the Convention must be interpreted as meaning that the exclusion provided for therein extends to litigation pending before a national court concerning the appointment of an arbitrator, even if the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement is a preliminary issue in that litigation."
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 19. februar 1991.
Mr Advocate General M. Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 19 February 1991.
Hans forslag til afgørelse lød således:
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows:
"Spørgsmålet, om der foreligger en voldgiftsaftale, som er rejst for en national retsinstans, som anmodes om at udpege en voldgiftsmand, er omfattet af undtagelsen i artikel 1, stk. 2, nr. 4, i konventionen af 27. september 1968 om retternes kompetence og om fuldbyrdelse af retsafgørelser i borgerlige sager, herunder handelssager."
"The issue as to the existence of an arbitration agreement, raised in proceedings before a court to which application has been made for the appointment of an arbitrator, falls within the exclusion under indent 4 of the second paragraph of Article 1 of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters.
Ved kendelse af 10. Marts 1989, indgået til Domstolen den 17. juli 1989, havde High Court of Justice of England and Wales forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser, navnlig vedrørende etableringsretten, proportionalitetsprincippet og princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling på grund af nationalitet, for at kunne afgøre, om den nationale lovgivning om betingelserne for registrering af fiskerfartøjer var forenelig med fællesskabsretten.
By order dated 10 March 1989, which was received at the Court on 17 July 1989, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a number of questions on the interpretation of provisions of Community law governing, in particular, the right of establishment and of the principles of proportionality and non­discrimination on grounds of nationality, with a view to determining the compatibility with Community law of national legislation laying down the conditions for the registration of fishing vessels.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag anlagt mod Secretary of State for Transport af Factortame Ltd og en rakke andre selskaber, som er stiftet i henhold til Det Forenede Kongeriges lovgivning, men i det væsentlige kontrol leres af spanske interesser, og som er ejere eller forestår driften af 95 fiskerfartøjer, der sejler under britisk flag.
The questions were raised in proceedings brought against the Secretary of State for Transport by Factortame Limited and other companies incorporated under the laws of the United Kingdom but basically controlled by Spanish Interests, being the owners or managers of 95 fishing vessels flying the British flag.
I 1988 var lovbestemmelserne om registrering af britiske fiskerfartøjer blevet ændret radikalt ved Merchant Shipping Aet.
The statutory system governing the registration of British fishing vessels was radically altered by the Merchant Shipping Act.
Undringen var sket for at satte en stopper for den såkaldte "quota hopping", en praksis, som ifølge Det Forenede Kongerige fØrer til, at dets fiskekvoter bliver "udplyndret" af fartøjer, der sejler under britisk flag, men som ikke har nogen reel tilknytning til Det Forenede Kongerige.
The alleged purpose of the amendment was to put a stop to the practice known as "quota hopping" whereby, according to the United Kingdom, Its fishing quotas were "plundered" by vessels flying the British flag but lacking any genuine link with the United Kingdom.
Da selskabernes 95 fiskerfartøjer ikke opfyldte en eller flere af betingelser ne for registrering i henhold til den ny* lovgivning, og disse fartøjer følgelig ville blive frataget retten til at fiske fra døn 1. april 1989, anfægtede selskaberne ved en begæring om domstolsprøvelse 1988-loven som varende uforenelig med fællesskabsretten.
Since, at the time of the Institution of the main proceedings, their 95 fishing vessels had failed to satisfy one or more of the conditions for registration under the new legislation and were consequently to be deprived of the right to engage in fishing as from 1 April 1989, the companies in question challenged the compatibility of the 1988 Act with Community law by means of an application for judicial review.
Domstolen bemærkede for det første, at nit* *t fartøj udgør et redskab til udøvelse af økonomisk virksomhed, der omfatter et fast driftssted i den pågældende stat, kan dets registrering ikke holdes adskilt fra udøvelsen af etableringsfriheden. ringsfriheden.
The Court held that, where a vessel constituted an instrument for pursuing an economic activity which involved a fixed establishment In the Member State concerned, the registration of that vessel could not be dissociated from the exercise of the freedom of establishment.
Følgelig skal enhver medlemsstat under udøvelsen af sin kompetence til at fastsætte betingelserne for at tildele et skib Sin "nationalitet" overholde forbudet mod forskelsbehandling af medlemsstaternes statsborgere på grundlag af deres nationalitet.
Consequently, in exercising its powers for the purposes of defining the conditions for the grant of its "nationality" to a ship, each Member State had to comply with the prohibition of discrimination against nationals of Member States on grounds of their nationality.
Domstolen udtalte, at Traktatens artikel 52 følgelig er til hinder for en betingeLse af den i hovedsagen omhandlede art, hvorefter fysiske personer, som
It followed from the foregoing that a condition of the type at issue in the main proceedings which stipulated that where a vessel was owned or
- 5 - er ejere eller befragtere af et fartøj, og - såfremt der er tale om et selskab - selskabsdeltagerne og bestyrelsesmedlemmerne skal have en bestemt nationalitet. litet.
- 5 chartered by natural persons they had to be of a particular nationality and where it was owned or chartered by a company the shareholders and directors had to be of that nationality was contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty.
Det samme gælder Traktatens artikel 221, hvorefter medlemsstaterne skal ind rømme de Øvrige medlemsstaters statsborgere national behandling for så vidt angår kapitalanbringelser i de i artikel 58 nævnte selskaber.
Such a condition was also contrary to Article 221 of the Treaty, under which Member States had to accord nationals of the other Member States the same treatment as their own nationals as regards participation in the capital of companies or firms within the meaning of Article 58.
Hvad angår betingelsen om, at fartøjets ejere, befragtere, bestyrere og de, der forestår driften af fartøjet, samt for selskabers vedkommende selskabsdeltagerne og bestyrelsesmedlemmerne skal have bopæl og hjemsted i registreringsstaten, fastslog Domstolen, at en sådan betingelse, som ikke er begrundet i de rettigheder og forpligtelser, der opstår ved, at en stat giver et fartøj ret til at føre dens flag, fører til forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet.
As for the requirement for the owners, charterers, managers and operators of the vessel and, in the case of a company, the shareholders and directors to be resident and domiciled in the Member State in which the vessel was to be registered, the Court held that such a requirement, which was not justified by the rights and obligations created by the grant of a national flag to a vessel, resulted in discrimination on grounds of nationality.
De fleste statsborgere i den pågældende stat vil nemlig have bopæl og hjemsted i denne stat og opfylder derfor automatisk betingelsen, mens stats borgere i andre medlemsstater i de fleste tilfælde må flytte deres bopæl og hjemsted til denne stat for at opfylde kravene i lovgivningen.
The great majority of nationals of the Member State in question were resident and domiciled in that State and therefore met that requirement automatically, whereas nationals of other Member States would, in most cases, have to move their residence and domicile to that State in order to comply with the requirements of its legislation.
Heraf følger, at artikel 52 er til hinder for en sådan betingelse.
It followed that such a requirement was contrary to Article 52.
Hvad angår betingelsen om, at fartøjet skal bestyres, og dets drift ledes og kontrolleres fra registreringsmedlemsstaten, bemærkede Domstolen blot, at denne betingelse i det væsentlige er sammenfaldende med selve begrebet etablering, jf. Traktatens artikel 52 ff., som forudsætter et fast driftssted.
As for the condition requiring a vessel to be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within the Member State in which it was to be registered, the Court found it sufficient to observe that it essentially coincided with the actual concept of establishment within the meaning of Article 52 et seq. of the Treaty, which implied a fixed establishment.
Heraf følger, at disse artikler, hvori selve begrebet etableringsfrihed er nedfældet, ikke kan fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en sådan betingelse, medmindre betingelsen må fortolkes således, at den udelukker registrering i tilfælde af en sekundær etablering, hvor det sted i registreringsstaten, hvorfra fartøjets drift ledes, handler efter instrukser fra et sted, hvor beslutningerne træffes, og som ligger i den medlemsstat, hvor den primære etablering har fundet sted.
It followed that those articles, which enshrined the very concept of freedom of establishment, could not be interpreted as precluding such a requirement, unless it was to be interpreted as precluding registration in the event that a secondary establishment or the centre for directing the operations of the vessel in the Member State of registration acted on instructions from a decision-taking centre located in the Member State of the principal establishment.
På fællesskabsrettens nuværende udviklingstrin tilkommer det medlemssta terne i overensstemmelse med folkerettens almindelige regler at fastsætte de betingelser, der skal være opfyldt, for at et fartøj kan registreres i deres registre, og for at fartøjet kan få ret til at føre deres flag, men medlemsstaterne skal under udøvelsen af denne kompetence overholde fælles skabsrettens regler.
As Community law stands at present, it is for the Member States to determine, in accordance with the general rules of international law, the conditions which must be fulfilled in order for a vessel to be registered in their registers and granted the right to fly their flag, but, in exercising that power, the Member States must comply with the rules of Community law.
Fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser, især EØF-Traktatens artikel 52, er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat som betingelse for at optage et fiskerfartøj i sit nationale register kræver, at a) fartøjets ejere (legal owners og beneficial owners), befragtere, bestyrere og de, der forestår driften af fartøjet, skal være statsborgere i medlemsstaten eller selskaber, der er
It is contrary to the provisions of Community law and, in particular, to Article 52 of the EEC Treaty for a Member State to stipulate as conditions for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register : (a) that the legal owners and beneficial owners and the charterers, managers and operators of the vessel must be nationals of
- 6 - stiftet i denne stat, og - i sidstnævnte tilfalde - at mindst 75% af selskabskapitalen i et sådant selskab skal være ejet af statsborgere i med lemsstaten eller af selskaber, der opfylder de samme betingelser, samt at 75% af bestyrelsesmedlemmerne i selskabet skal være statsborgere i med lemsstaten, og at b) de nævnte ejere (legal owners og beneficial owners), befragtere, bestyrere og de, der forestår driften af fartøjet, selskabsdeltagere og bestyrelsesmedlemmer, alt efter omstændighederne, har bopæl og hjemsted i medlemsstaten.
6 - that Member State or companies incorporated in that Member State, and that, in the latter case, at least 75% of the shares in the company must be owned by nationals of that Member State or by companies fulfilling the same requirements and 75% of the directors of the company must be nationals of that Member State; and (b) that the said legal owners and beneficial owners, charterers, managers, operators, shareholders and directors, as the case may be, must be resident and domiciled in that Member State.
Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat som betingelse for at optage et fiskerfartøj i sit nationale register kraver, at fartøjet bestyres, og dets drift Ledes og kontrolleres fra medlemsstatens område.
It is not contrary to Community law for a Member State to stipulate as a condition for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the vessel in cuestión must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that Member State.
Den omstændighed, at vedkommende ministerium i en medlemsstat kan meddele en person dispensation fra nationalitetskravet i betragtning af den tid, den pågældende har været bosat i medlemsstaten og været involveret i fiskerierhvervet i denne stat, kan ikke i forhold til fællesskabsretten begrunde reglen om, at registrering af et fiskerfartøj er betinget af, at nationalitetskravet og et krav om bopæl og hjemsted er opfyldt.
The fact that the competent minister of a Member State has the power to dispense with the nationality requirement in respect of an individual in view of the length of time such individual has resided in that Member State and has been involved in the fishing industry of that Member State cannot justify, in regard to Community law, the rule under which registration of a fishing vessel is subject to a nationality requirement and a requirement as to residence and domicile.
Den gældende ordning med nationale kvoter kan ikke føre til en anden besvarelse af spørgsmål 2."
The existence of the present system of national quotas does not affect the replies given to the second question."
Generaladvokat J. Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 13. marts 1991. " ~" ~ ~
Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 13 March 1991.
Selv om det på nuværende tidspunkt tilkommer vedkommende medlemsstat at afgøre, om et fartøj er berettiget til at blive registreret i medlemsstaten, skal den ikke desto mindre overholde de relevante principper og bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten.
Whilst at present it falls to the Member State concerned to determine whether a vessel is entitled to be registered in that State, the Member State in question is none the less bound to comply with the relevant principles and provisions of Community law.
b) Fællesskabsretten er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat som betingelse for registrering kræver, at ejerne, de, der forestår driften af fartøjet, selskabsdeltagerne og bestyrelsesmedlemmerne, alt efter omstændighederne, har bopæl og hjemsted i medlemsstaten, og, når der er tale om et selskab, at det har sit hovedforretningssted dér.
(a) It is contrary to Community law for a Member State to stipulate as a requirement for the registration of a fishing vessel in its national register that the owners and operators of the vessel, whether they be natural or legal persons, or 75% of the directors and shareholders of a company owning or operating the vessel must be nationals of that State, even if the competent national authority has the legal power to dispense with that requirement in the case of certain persons.
- 7 - c) Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat gør et fartøjs ret til at føre dens flag betinget af, at fartøjet bestyres, og dets drift ledes og kontrolleres fra denne medlemsstat.
(c) It is not contrary to Community law for a Member State to make the grant of Its flag subject to the requirement that the vessel must be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within that Member State.
Den omstændighed, at der gælder en ordning med nationale fangstkvoter, kan ikke føre til en anden besvarelse af spørgsmål 2.
The existence of the system of national quotas does not alter the answers given to the second question.
Sag C-252/89: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg
The matters adverted to in the fourth question do not affect the answers given to questions 2 and 3."
25.7.1991 "Forbrugere - traktatbrud - emballager til flydende levnedsmidler - manglende gennemførelse af et direktiv og meddelelse af programmer" (Domstolens pleneum)
Case C-252/89: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg - 25 July 1991 (Consumers - Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations -Containers of liquids for human consumption - Failure to Implement a directive or to communicate programmes) (Full Court)
Ved kendelse indgivet den 8. august 1989 havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueres, at Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF-Traktaten, idet det ikke har truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 85/339/EØF.
By application lodged on 8 August 1989 the Commission brought an action for a declaration that by failing to introduce the measures needed to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Council Directive 85/339/EEC the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF-Traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har opstillet og meddelt Kommissionen de programmer, love og administrative forskrifter, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre Rådets direktiv 85/339/EØF af 27. juni 1985 om emballager til flydende levnedsmidler.
By failing to introduce and communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period, the programmes and the laws, regulations and administrative measures needed to comply with the obligations imposed on it by Directive 85/339/EEC of 27 June J985 on containers of liquids for human consumption, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Hans forslag til afgørelse lød således:
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs. "
­ 8 ­ frist har opstillet og meddelt Kommissionen de programmer, love og administra­tive forpligtelser, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre Rådets direktiv 85/339/EØF om emballager til flydende levnedsmidler.
Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 2 July 1991.
I overensstemmelse med Kommissionens påstand bør sagsøgte også betale sagens omkostninger, da denne har tabt sagen."
He proposed that the Court should hold as follows:
Sag C­258/89: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Spanien
Since the defendant has failed in its submissions It must, as the Commission has requested, be ordered to pay the costs."
25.7.1991 "Landbrug ­ kontrolforanstaltninger ­ fangster, der er taget uden for Fælles­skabets fiskeriområde af en bestand, dér er undergivet én samlet tilladt fangstmængde (TAO eller ert kvote" (Domstolens plenum)
Case C-258/89: Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Spain - 25 July 1991 (Agriculture - Control measures - Catches of fish stocks subject to a TAC or quota outside the Community fishing zone) (Full Court)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 14. august 1989, havde Kommissionen anlagt sag med påstand om, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF­Traktaten, idet det ikke gennemfører de kontrolforanstaltninger, der er foreskrevet i Rådets forordninger (EØF) nr. 2057/82 og (EØF) nr. 2241/87.
By application lodged on 14 August 1989 the Commission brought an action for a declaration that by failing to apply the control measures laid down by Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 and Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87, the Kingdom of Spain had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Court held as follows
Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat de forpligtelser, der påhviler dét i henhold til EØF­Traktaten, idet det ikke för fangster, der er taget Uden for Fællesskabets fiskeriområde af ert bestand eller grupper af bestande, der er undergivet en samlet tilladt fangstmartgde (TAO eller ert kvote, gennemfører de kontrolforanstaltninger, der ef foreskrevet i Rådets for­ordning (EØF) nr. 2057/82 af 29. juni 1982 OW fastsættelse âf visse foranstaltninger tit kontrol med fiskeri fra fartøjer hjemmehørende i medlemsstaterne, særlig artiklerne 1, 6­9 og 10, såvel som i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2241/87 af 23. juli 1987 òrti fastsættelse af visse foranstaltninger til kontrol af fiskeri, sirlig artiklerne 1, 5­9 og 11.
By failing to apply the control measures laid down by Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 of 29 June 1982 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities by vessels of the Member States, particularly Articles 1, 6 to 9 and 10 thereof, and Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities, particularly Articles 1, 5 to 9 and 11 thereof, to catches made outside the Community fishing zone of stocks or groups of stocks to which a total allowable catch (TAC) or quota applies, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Kingdom of Spain is ordered to pay the costs."
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens plenum
Mr Advocate General Darmon delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the full Court on 29 May 1991♦