natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
(Den øvrige del af sagen svarer til sagerne T-l/89, T-2/89 og T-3/89 - se Arbejdet ved De Europæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og Ret i Første Instans, nr. 18/91 - og T-4/89, T-6/89 og T-8/89).
The agreement contained provisions under which the EFTA States may authorize their courts and tribunals to ask the Court of Justice to express itself on the interpretation of a provision of the agreement.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Lastly, the agreement provided for a right for EFTA States to intervene in cases brought before the Court of Justice.
Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger."
An international treaty was to be interpreted not only on the basis of its wording, but also in the light of its objectives.
Sag T-8/89: DSM N. V. mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
In that regard, the Court observed that the agreement was concerned with the application of rules on free trade and competition in economic and commercial relations between the Contracting Parties.
"Konkurrence - aftale og samordnet praksis - kollektivt ansvar" (Første Afdeling)
In contrast, the objectives of the Community legal order went beyond that of the agreement.
(Se om tilsvarende sager T-l/89, T-2/89 og T-3/89 i Arbejdet ved De Euro pæiske Fællesskabers Domstol og Ret i Første Instans, nr. 18/91, og T-4/89, T-6/89 og T-7/89).
The Court stated that it followed inter alia from Articles 2, 8a and 102a of the EEC Treaty that that treaty aimed to achieve economic integration leading to the establishment of an internal market and economic and monetary union.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The context in which the objective of the agreement was situated also differed from that in which the Community aims were pursued.
14.12.1991 Udtalelse i medfør af Traktatens artikel 228, stk. 1, andet afsnit, om udkastet til aftale mellem Fællesskabet på den ene side og landene i Den Europæiske Frihandelssammenslutning på den anden side om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde
In contrast, the EEC Treaty, albeit concluded in the form of an international agreement, none the less constituted the constitutional charter of a Community based on the rule of law.
Ved begæring, indgået den 14. august 1991, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anmodet Domstolen om en udtalelse i medfør af artikel 228, stk. 1, andet afsnit, i EØF-Traktaten.
The Community treaties established a new legal order for the benefit of which the States had limited their sovereign rights, in ever wider fields, and the subjects of which comprised not only Member States but also their nationals.
Kommissionen havde med denne begæring anmodet Domstolen om en udtalelse vedrørende spørgsmålet, om et udkast til en aftale om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde (EØS), og især den domstolsordning, som skal tilvejebringes ifølge aftalen, er forenelig med EØF-Traktatens bestemmelser.
The essential characteristics of the Community legal order which had thus been established were in particular its primacy over the law of the Member States and the direct effect of a whole series of provisions which were applicable to their nationals and to the Member States themselves.
Aftalen er blevet gjort til genstand for forhandlinger mellem Kommissionen - der har handlet på Fællesskabets vegne - og landene i Dan Europæiske Frihandelssammenslutning samt Fyrstendømmet Liechtenstein, der den 1. marts 1991 officielt har indgivet ansøgning om tilslutning til FFÏA.
It followed from those considerations that homogeneity of the rules of law throughout the EEA was not secured by the fact that the provisions of Community law and those of the corresponding provisions of the agreement were identical in their content or wording and it must therefore be considered whether the agreement provided for other means of guaranteeing that homogeneity.
De regler, som skal anvendes i forholdet mellem de stater, der deltager i EØS, er i det væsentlige de samme som de tilsvarende bestemmelser i EØF- c EKSF-Traktaterne og de retsakter, der er udstedt i medfør af disse Traktater.
The Court stated that it followed that compliance with the caselaw of the Court of Justice, as laid down by the agreement, did not extend to essential elements of that caselaw which were irreconcilable with the characteristics of the agreement. Consequently, Article 6 as such could not secure the objective of homogeneity of the law throughout the EEA, either as regards the past or for the future.
En ensartet fortolkning og retsanvendelse inden for EØS er et foi^ål, der søges gennemført ved anvendelse af bestemmelser, der i deres affattelse er identiske med de tilsvarende bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten, og ved indførelse af en domstolsordning.
The Court observed that it must be considered next whether the proposed system of courts may undermine the autonomy of the Community legal order in pursuing its own particular objectives.
Ved aftalen skal der således oprettes en domstol, EØS-Domstolen, til hvilken der knyttes en ret i første instans. EØS-Domstolens kompetence omfatter afgørelse af tvister mellem de kontraherende parter, tvister der måtte opstå i forbindelse med til synsproceduren over for EFTA-staterne, og, i konkurrencesager, sager anlagt til efterprøvelse af beslutninger, der træffes af EFTA's Tilsynsmyndighed.
When a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of one or more provisions of the agreement was brought before it, the EEA Court may be called upon to interpret the expression "Contracting Party", within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the agreement, in order to determine whether, for the purposes of the provision at issue, the expression "Contracting Party" meant the Community, the Community and the Member States, or simply the Member States.
Domstolen, EØS-Domstolen, EF-Retten i Første Instans, EØS-Retten i Første Instans og EFTA-staternes retsinstanser skal ved deres anvendelse eller fortolkning af aftalens bestemmelser tage behørigt hensyn til de principper, der følger af afgørelser truffet af de øvrige domstole eller retter.
The Court stated that it followed that the jurisdiction conferred on the EEA Court was likely adversely to affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the Treaties and, hence, the autonomy of the Community legal order, respect for which must be assured by the Court of Justice pursuant to Article 164 of the EEC Treaty.
EØS-Domstolen består af otte dommere, heraf fem fra Domstolen. EØS-Retten i Første Instans består af fem dommere, hvoraf tre udnævnes af EFTA-staterne, og to er dommere ved EF-Retten i Første Instans.
The Court pointed out that that exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Justice was confirmed by Article 219 of the EEC Treaty, under which Member States undertook not to submit a dispute concerning the Interpretation or application of that treaty to any method of settlement other than those provided for in the Treaty.
Endelig skal EFTA-staterne have ret til at medvirke i sager for Domstolen.
Consequently, to confer that jurisdiction on the EEA Court was incompatible with Community law.
Domstolen bemærkede, at henholdsvis aftalens og fællesskabsrettens formål og kontekst bør sammenholdes.
As for the effect of the caselaw of the EEA Court on Community law, the Court observed in limine that international agreements concluded by means of the procedure set out in Article 228 of the Treaty were binding on the institutions of the Community and its Member States and the provisions of such agreements and the measures adopted by institutions set up by such agreements were an integral part of the Community legal order.
Selv om bestemmelser i aftalen og fællesskabsretten er enslydende, er dette ikke ensbetydende med, at de også nødvendigvis skal fortolkes ens.
In this connection, the court pointed out that the Court had jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on its interpretation.
En international aftale skal nemlig ikke udelukkende fortolkes efter sin ordlyd, men også i lyset af sine formål.
It also had jurisdiction to rule on the agreement in the event that Member States of the Community failed to fulfil their obligations under the agreement.
Aftalens formål er at bringe en frihandelsordning og regler om fri konkurrence i anvendelse på de økonomiske og handelsmæssige forbindelser mellem de kontraherende parter.
Where, however, an international agreement provided for Its own judicial system, including a court, the decisions of that court would be binding on the Community institutions, including the Court of Justice.
Derimod rækker formålene med Fællesskabets retsorden videre end aftalens.
An international agreement providing for such a system of courts was in principle compatible with Community law.
Også den kontekst, hvori aftalens formål indgår, afviger fra den, hvori Fællesskabets formål søges gennemført.
Moreover, the objective of uniform application of the agreement necessarily covered the interpretation both of the provisions of the agreement and of the corresponding provisions of the Community legal order.
Således skal Det Europæiske Økonomiske Samarbejdsområde oprettes på grundlag af en international aftale, som i alt væsentligt kun skaber rettigheder og pligter for de kontraherende parter, mens der ikke overføres suverænitet til de mellemstatslige organer, der oprettes.
Although, under the agreement, the EEA Court was under a duty to interpret the provisions of the agreement in the light of the relevant rulings of the Court of Justice given prior to the date of signature of the agreement, the EEA Court would no longer be subject to any such obligation in the case of decisions given by the Court of Justice after that date.
Skønt EØF-Traktaten også er indgået i form af en international aftale, udgør den ikke desto mindre det forfatningsmæssige grundlag for et
Consequently, the agreement's objective of ensuring homogeneity of the law throughout the EEA would determine not only the interpretation of the
28 retsfællesskab. Der er ved EF's Traktater indført en ny retsorden, i forhold til hvilken medlemsstaterne på stadigt større områder har begrænset deres nationale beføjelser, og hvis retssubjekter ikke blot er staterne, men også disses borgere.
- 28 rules of the agreement itself but also the interpretation of the corresponding rules of Community law.
Heraf følger, at det ikke er nogen garanti for retlig ensartethed i hele EØS, at fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser og de tilsvarende bestemmelser i aftalen har samme indhold og affattelse, og det må derfor undersøges, om aftalen på anden måde sikrer denne ensartethed.
The Court stated that It followed that in so far as it conditioned the future interpretation of the Community rules on free movement and competition the machinery of courts provided for in the agreement conflicted with Article 164 of the EEC Treaty and, more generally, with the ^ery foundations of the Community.
Denne artikel vedrører imidlertid kun Domstolens retspraksis forud for aftalens undertegnelse, og hertil kommer, at uanset at det ikke klart fremgår af aftalens artikel 6, om der sigtes til samtlige afgørelser fra Domstolen, herunder afgørelser om fællesskabsrettens direkte virkning og forrang, følger det af aftalen, at de kontraherende parter kun forpligter sig til at skabe en national lovhjemmel for at give aftalens bestemmelser forrang for modstående lovbestemmelser uden derved at anerkende fællesskabsrettens direkte virkning og forrang, som den følger af de nævnte afgørelser.
The Court observed that the threat posed by the court system set up by the agreement to the autonomy of the Community legal order was not reduced by the fact that Articles 95 and 101 of the agreement sought to create organic links between the EEA Court and the Court of Justice by providing that judges from the Court of Justice were to sit on the EEA Court and in its chambers and that judges from the Community's Court of First Instance were to sit on the EEA Court of First Instance.
Heraf følger, at den overholdelse af Domstolens praksis, som foreskrives i aftalen, ikke kommer til at omfatte væsentlige elementer i denne retspraksis, fordi disse ikke kan forenes med aftalens karakter.
Depending on whether they were sitting on the Court of Justice or on the EEA Court, the judges of the Court of Justice who were members of the EEA Court would have to apply and interpret the same provisions but using different approaches, methods and concepts in order to take account of the nature of each treaty and of its particular objectives.
Følgelig er aftalen ikke i sig selv tilstrækkelig til at garantere retlig ensartethed i hele EØS, hverken for den allerede forløbne tid eller for fremtiden.
In those circumstances, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for those judges, when sitting in the Court of Justice, to tackle questions with completely open minds where they had taken part in determining those questions as members of the EEA Court.
Domstolen undersøgte herefter, om den påtænkte domstolsordning - i sit forsøg på at opnå sine egne formål - vil kunne gribe ind i fæl 1esskabsretsordenens autonomi.
The Court stated that it was necessary to examine whether the machinery provided for in the agreement for the interpretation of its provisions was compatible with Community law.
EØS-Domstolen må, når den får forelagt en tvist om fortolkningen eller anvendelsen af en eller flere bestemmelser i aftalen, fortolke begrebet "kontraherende part" i aftalen, således at den kan afgøre, om begrebet henviser til Fællesskabet, til Fællesskabet og dettes medlemsstater eller kun til medlemsstaterne.
The agreement allowed the EFTA States to authorize their courts or tribunals to ask the Court of Justice to express itself on the interpretation of the agreement.
EØS-Domstolen skal hermed træffe afgørelse vedrørende Fællesskabets og dettes medlemsstaters respektive beføjelse inden for de områder, der omfattes af aftalens bestemmelser.
Admittedly, there was no provision of the EEC Treaty which prevented an international agreement from conferring on the Court of Justice jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of such an agreement for the purposes of its application in nonmember countries.
Heraf følger, at EØS-Domstolens kompetence vil kunne gribe ind i det ved Traktaterne fastlagte kompetencesystem og dermed i autonomien for den fællesskabsret, som Domstolen ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 164 skal værne
In contrast, it was unacceptable that the answers which the Court of Justice gave to the courts and tribunals in the EFTA States were to be purely advisory and without any binding effects. Such a situation would change the nature of the function of the Court of Justice as it was conceived by the EEC Treaty, namely that of a court whose judgments were binding.
Det er følgelig uforeneligt med fællesskabsretten at tillægge EØS-Domstolen den nævnte kompetence.
The Court further observed that the interpretation of the agreement provided by the Court of Justice in response to questions put by courts and tribunals in EFTA States also had to be taken into account by courts In Member States of the Community when they had to rule on the application of the agreement.
Vedrørende spørgsmålet om betydningen af EØS-Domstolens retspraksis for fortolkningen af fællesskabsretten bemærkede Domstolen indledningsvis, at internationale aftaler, der er indgået efter proceduren i Traktatens artikel 228, binder Fællesskabets institutioner og medlemsstater, og at bestemmelserne i sådanne aftaler indgår som en integrerende del af Fællesskabets retsorden.
However, the fact that the answers were not binding on the EFTA courts may give rise to uncertainty about their legal value for courts in Member States of the Community.
Domstolen kan endvidere komme til at tage stilling til aftalen, såfremt EF-medlemsstaterne tilsidesætter de forpligtelser, der påhviler dem i henhold til den.
To that extent, the machinery in question would have an adverse impact on legal certainty, which was essential for the proper operation of the preliminary rulings procedure.
En international aftale, der foreskriver en sådan domstolsordning, er som udgangspunkt forenelig med fællesskabsretten.
As for the right provided for EFTA States to intervene in cases pending before the Court of Justice, the agreement provided that Articles 20 and 37 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice would have to be amended so as to authorize such a right of intervention.
I den her omhandlede aftale indgår imidlertid en væsentlig del af de grundlæggende bestemmelser i fællesskabsretten, og aftalen medfører således, at der i fællesskabsretten indføjes et omfattende regelsæt side om side med en kategori af fællesskabsbestemmelser med samme indhold.
It was sufficient to observe in that connection that according to the second paragraph of Article 188 of the EEC Treaty, the Council may amend, acting unanimously at the request of the Court of Justice and after consulting the Commission and the European Parliament the provisions In question and that it was not necessary to amend the EEC Treaty, pursuant to Article 236 thereof.
Endvidere bemærkes, at målet vedrørende ensartet anvendelse nødvendigvis tager sigte på fortolkningen såvel af bestemmelserne i aftalen som af de tilsvarende bestemmelser inden for fællesskabsretten.
The Court pointed out that in its last question, the Commission asked whether Article 238 of the EEC Treaty authorized the establishment of a system of courts as provided for in the agreement.
EØS-Domstolen skal ganske vist i henhold til aftalen fortolke dennes bestemmelser i lyset af Domstolens relevante praksis fra tiden forud for aftalens undertegnelse, men en sådan forpligtelse vil ikke påhvile EØS-Domstolen, for så vidt angår de afgørelser, som Domstolen træffer efter dette tidspunkt.
For the same reasons, an amendment of Article 238 in the way indicated by the Commission could not cure the incompatibility with Community law of the system of courts to be set up by the agreement.
Heraf følger, at den domstolsordning, der påtænkes indført ved aftalen -for så vidt som den vil være bestemmende for den fremtidige fortolkning af
The system of judicial supervision which the agreement proposes to set up is incompatible with the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community.
Domstolens dommere vil nemlig, alt efter om de virker som medlemmer af Domstolen eller EØS-Domstolen, skulle anvende og fortolke de samme bestemmelser, men ud fra synspunkter, fremgangsmåder og begreber, der er forskellige under hensyn til hver traktats karakter og særlige mål.
Preliminary ruling - Bundesfinanzhof - Interpretation of Article 10(4) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 798/80 laying down the general rules on the advance payment of export refunds and positive monetary compensatory amounts in respect of agricultural products, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3445/85 - Product actually exported not consistent with the declaration of payment -Consequences - Validity of Commission Regulation (EEC) 1633/80 fixing the export refunds on cereals and on wheat or rye flour, groats and meal -Principle of proportionality.
Ifølge aftalen kan EFTA-staterne lade deres retsinstanser anmode Domstolen om at udtale sig om fortolkningen af aftalen.
I propose that the Court should reply to the question, common to the two cases, relating to the interpretation of Regulation No 798/80, as amended by Regulation No 3445/80, as follows:
Ingen af EØF-Traktatens bestemmelser er imidlertid til hinder for, at åer ved en international aftale gives Domstolen kompetence til at fortolke bestemmelser i en sådan aftale med henblik på dens anvendelse i tredjelande.
(a) If an exporter, in a declaration of payment pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation 798/80, undertook to export flour with an ash content of 0 to 520 mg/100g and if, on the basis of that undertaking, he received an advance payment which was greater than the amount which would have been due had the ash stated in the declaration of payment corresponded to the ash content of the flour actually exported subsequently, which had an ash content of 521 to 600 mg/100 g, that exporter must - if the minimum increase is applied - repay the amount provided for in Article 10(4)(c) of Regulation No 798/80, as amended by Regulation 3445/80.
Det kan derimod ikke accepteres, at de svar, Domstolen giver EFTA strternes retsinstanser, kun er vejledende og helt uden bindende virkning, üst ville bevirke en fuldstændig ændring af Domstolens rolle i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, nemlig som en retsinstans, hvis domme er bindende.
(b) If giving an ash content which was lower that the actual ash content of the flour exported did not involve payment of an amount greater than that which was due as part of the advance payment transaction or the payment of an amount greater than the total amount due by way of export refund, the export is not required to repay either in full or in part the amounts granted.
Dertil kommer, at retterne i Fællesskabets medlemsstater også skal tage hensyn til den fortolkning af aftalen, Domstolen giver som svar på spørgsmål, der forelægges af retterne i EFTA-staterne, n?r de skal træff afgørelse om anvendelsen af aftalen.
(c) If giving an ash content lower than the ash content of the flour exported did not involve payment of an amount greater than the amount due as part of the advance payment transaction, but nevertheless involved payment of an amount greater than the total amount due by way of export refund, the exporter must repay the amount not due to him on the basis of the national rules on the recovery of undue payments.
Den omhandlede procedure kan således skade den retssikkerhed, som er uomgængelig nødvendig for, at den præjudicielle procedure kan fungere efter sin hensigt.
In the alternative - should the Court not agree with the opinion summarized under 1 - I propose that the court should give the following reply to the question referred by the Bundesfinanzhof in Case C-5/90:
For så vidt angår EFTA-staternes ret ifølge aftalen til at medvirke i sager, der verserer for Domstolen, bestemmer aftalen, at artiklerne 20 og 37 i protokollen vedrørende statutten for Domstolen skal ændres for at åbne en sådan mulighed.
Consideration of the second question raised in Case C-5/90 has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Regulation No 1633/80 in so far as it fixes the rate of export refunds for exports to the USSR at Ecu 0".
I denne forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen blot, at Rådet ifølge EØF-Traktatens artikel 188, stk. 2, med enstemmighed på anmodning fra Domstolen og efter høring af Kommissionen og Europa-Parlamentet kan ændre bestemmelser i dette afsnit, uden at der kræves en ændring af EØF-Traktaten i henhold til dennes artikel 236.
Preliminary ruling - Landgericht Köln - Interpretation of Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention - Property leases - Contract concluded in a Contracting State between a travel organizer and a client relating to the use, for a few weeks, of holiday accommodation which is the property of the travel organizer and to the insurance of the reservation.
Herom fastslog Domstolen, at EØF-Traktatens artikel 238 ikke giver hjemmel til at indføre en domstolsordning, som gør indgreb i Traktatens artikel 164 og - mere generelt - i selve Fællesskabets grundlag.
Article 16(1) of the Brussels Convention should be interpreted as not applicable to a contract concluded In a Contracting State between a travel organizer and a client, both of whom are domiciled in that State, which obliges the travel organizer, amongst other services provided, to procure for the use of the client for a few weeks holiday accommodation - whether or not the travel organizer owns the accommodation - situated in another Contracting State;
Af samme grunde kan en ændring af bestemmelsen i den af Kommissionen angivne retning ikke råde bod på, at aftalens domstolssystem er uforeneligt med fællesskabsretten.
In the alternative, if Article 16 of the Convention did apply to such a contract, it must also apply to the claim for a reduction in the cost linked to a shortcoming in the holiday home, to the claim for damages for having had to rent an additional room and to the claim for compensation for a disturbed holiday".