natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
•1) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter Rådets direktiv 94/56/EF af 21. november 1994 om fastlæggelse af de grundlæggende principper for undersøgelse af flyvehavarier og flyvehændelser inden for civil luftfart, da det ikke har vedtaget de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser for at efterkomme direktivet inden for den fastsatte frist.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 94/56/EC — Air transport Civil aviation — Investigation of accidents and incidents - Transposition) (Third Chamber) necessary to comply with the Directive not later than 21 November 1996, and immediately to inform the Commission thereof.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 14. oktober 1999.
Under Article 12(1) of the Directive, Member States were required to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
Ved kendelse af 6. maj 1998 har Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3 i Rådets direktiv 80/987/EØF af 20. oktober 1980.
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Third Chamber on 14 October 1999.
spørgsmål.
Case C-198/98 G. Everson, TJ.
Det drev virksomhed som shipping-agent, navnlig fra forskellige forretningsadresser i Det Forenede Kongerige, hvor det havde 209 ansatte. Såvel selskabet som hver enkelt ansat betalte socialsikringsbidrag til National Insurance Fund.
Preliminary ruling (Social policy — Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Directive 80/987I EEC — Employees residing and employed in a State other than that in which the employer has its principal establishment — Guarantee institution) (Fifth Chamber)
Med sit spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, hvilken garantiinstitution der i medfør af direktivets artikel 3 er kompetent til at sikre betaling af ubetalte løntilgodehavender, når de pågældende arbejdstagere udøvede deres beskæftigelse i en medlemsstat for filialen af et selskab, der er stiftet i en anden medlemsstat, hvor selskabet har sit hjemsted, og hvor det er under likvidation.
By order of 6 May 1998, the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980.
I juli 1997 traf High Court (Irland) afgørelse om, at Bell skulle afvikles ved likvidation som følge af selskabets insolvens og udpegede en likvidator.
In July 1997 the High Court of Ireland made an order that Bell be wound up on grounds of insolvency and appointed a liquidator.
High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division, anerkendte denne udpegelse inden for rammerne af et retsligt samarbejde i spørgsmål vedrørende insolvens, og udpegede særlige bestyrere til i fællesskab at bistå ved afviklingen af selskabets bo i Det Forenede Kongerige. Indledningsvis bemærkes, at direktivet har til formål at sikre en minimumsbeskyttelse for arbejdstagere, der er berørt af deres arbejdsgivers insolvens.
The High Court of Justice (England and Wales), Queen's Bench Division, recognised the appointment of the liquidator within the context of judicial cooperation in matters of insolvency and appointed joint special managers to assist in the winding up of Bell's affairs in the United Kingdom.
Når arbejdsgiveren har hjemsted i en medlemsstat, bestemmer direktivet, at den garantiinstitution, der har kompetence med hensyn til betalingen af arbejdstagernes ubetalte krav, er garantiinstitutionen i den medlemsstat, hvor arbejdsgiverens virksomhed er beliggende.
That question has arisen in a dispute between Messrs Everson and Barrass, on the one hand, and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the other, concerning payment of outstanding claims following the insolvency of their employer, Bell Lines Ltd.
Bell's ansatte i Det Forenede Kongerige blev afskediget.
Bell's employees in the United Kingdom were dismissed.
Flertallet af disse har anmeldt krav over for Secretary of State om betaling af løntilgodehavender, ikke betalte feriepenge og erstatning for manglende overholdelse af opsigelsesvarsel. Disse krav blev afvist under henvisning til, at der i henhold til 1996-loven, som fortolket ud fra dommen af 17. september 1997 i Mosbæk-sagen, ikke bestod nogen forpligtelse til at foretage udbetalinger.
Most of them applied to the Secretary of State under Part XII of the 1996 Act for payment in respect of arrears of pay, outstanding holiday pay and compensatory payments in lieu of notice.
Sagsøgerne i hovedsagen arbejdede ved Bell's filial i Avonmouth. Denne filial var registreret i Registar of Companies for England «fe Wales i henhold til section 690A i Companies Act 1985 og schedule 21A til denne lov.
Bell is a company incorporated under Irish law with its registered office in Dublin.
Da den forelæggende ret på grundlag af dommen af 13. november 1990 i sagen Marleasing er af den opfattelse, at 1996-loven efter en fortolkning i henhold til national ret ikke pålægger Secretary of State nogen pligt til at betale sagsøgerne i hovedsagen, har den besluttet at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen et præjudicielt
It carried on business as a shipping agent, in particular from various business addresses in the United Kingdom, and employed 209 persons in the United Kingdom for whom employer's and employees' social security contributions were paid into the National Insurance Fund.
I sådanne tilfælde påhviler det garantiinstitutionen i den medlemsstat, på hvis område filialen er beliggende, at betale tilgodehavenderne.
The applicants in the main proceedings worked for Bell's branch at Avonmouth.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling") den 9. september 1999.
Those rules implement, within the domestic law of the United Kingdom, the branch registration requirements laid down in Eleventh Council Directive 89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989.
Sag C-239/98 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Franske Republik Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
The national tribunal held, in the light of the judgment in Marleasing ν La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación that, applying the principles of interpretation of national law, the 1996 Act did not impose an obligation on the Secretary of State to indemnify the applicants in the main proceedings.
»Traktatbrud — manglende gennemførelse af direktiv 92/49/EØF og 92/961EØF — direfoe forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring og direkte livsforsikring« (Femte Afdeling) gennemføre det indre marked for direkte forsikringsvirksomhed på grundlag af både reglerne om fri etableringsret og reglerne om fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser for at gøre det lettere for forsikringsselskaber med hjemsted i Fællesskabet at påtage sig forpligtelser og dække risici, der består inden for hele Fællesskabet.
By its question, the referring tribunal is in substance asking which is the competent guarantee institution, under Article 3 of the Directive, for ensuring payment of outstanding wage claims in the case where the employees in question were employed in a Member State by the branch of a company incorporated under the laws of another Member State, in which that company has its registered office and in which it was placed in liquidation.
Ved stævning indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 7. juli 1998 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EF-traktaten og Rådets direktiv 92/49/EØF af 18. juni 1992 samt Rådets direktiv 92/96/EØF af 10. november 1992, idet den ikke ved lov eller administrativt har vedtaget (og sat i kraft) eller givet underretning om alle de bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for fuldstændig at gennemføre de nævnte direktiver og navnlig ikke har gennemført disse for så vidt angår de af loven om gensidig forsikring omfattede selskaber.
In the main proceedings here, in contrast to the position in Mosbæk, where the insolvent employer did not have any establishment in the territory of the Member State in which the employee was working, the employer concerned was established within the territory of the United Kingdom, since it had a branch in Avonmouth employing more than 200 persons, including the applicants in the main proceedings. In such a case, the institution which must settle any outstanding claims is that of the Member State within whose territory the branch is established.
Den franske regering har i svarskriftet for det første anført, at sagen skal afvises i det omfang,
Advocate General D. Ruiz­Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 9 September 1999.
har udstedt eller i hvert fald ikke givet underretning om de ved lov eller administrativt udstedte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre direktiv 92/49 og 92/96 for så vidt angår de af loven om gensidig forsikring omfattede selskaber.
He suggested that the Court give the following answer to the question submitted by the Industrial Tribunal, Bristol:
Kommissionen har i replikken og igen under den mundtlige forhandling anført, at det klagepunkt, der blev fremsat i åbningsskrivelsen, i den begrundede udtalelse og i stævningen, hele tiden har været det samme, og at den under hele den administrative procedure og i påstandene stedse har understreget, at Den Franske Republik ikke
'Where workers employed in one Member State by a branch of a company incorporated in another Member State, where it had its registered office and where insolvency proceedings were commenced, under Article 3 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the guarantee institution which must accept responsibility for outstanding claims is that of the State in which the workers are employed and in which the employer pays, or ought to pay, contributions to the financing of the institution.'
Det bemærkes, at den franske regering ikke har bestridt, at de nødvendige bestemmelser for at gennemføre direktiv 92/49 og 92/96 i national ret for så vidt angår gensidige forsikringsselskaber endnu ikke er blevet vedtaget.
Case C-239/98 Commission of the European Communities ν French Republic Freedom to provide services
•1) Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 92/49/EØF af 18. juni 1992 om samordning af love og administrative bestemmelser vedrørende direkte forsikringsvirksomhed bortset fra livsforsikring og om ændring af direktiv 73/239/EØF og 88/357/EØF (tredje skadesforsikrmgsdirektiv) (EFTL 228, s. 1) samt Rådets direktiv 92/96/EØF af 10. november 1992 om samordning af tove og administrative bestemmelser vedrørende direkte livsforsikrmgsvirksomhed og om ændring af direktiv 79/267¡EØF og 90/619/EØF (tredje tivsforsikringsdirektiv), idet den ikke ved lov eller administrativt har vedtaget alle de bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for fuldstændigt at gennemføre de nævnte direktiver og navnlig ikke har gennemført disse for så vidt angår de af loven om gensidig forsikring omfattede selskaber.
(Failure to fulfil obligations — Non-transposition of Directives 92/491EEC and 92/961 EEC Direct insurance other than life assurance and direct life assurance) (Fifth Chamber) undertakings with head offices in the Community to cover risks and commitments situated within the Community.
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet íFemte Afdeling') den 29. september 1999.
According to the first recital in their preamble, Directives 92/49 and 92/96 have as their purpose to complete the internal market in the insurance sector as regards both the right of establishment and the freedom to provide services, in order to make it easier for insurance and assurance
»Traktatbrud — direktiv 94/33/EF — manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist« (Femte Afdeling) idet det ikke har givet Kommissionen meddelelse herom.
In addition, contrary to its erroneous statement in the application, the Commission acknowledged at the hearing that the failure to transpose Directives 92/49 and 92/96 into national law does not affect reinsurance, since the Community obligations imposed on Member States in that area derive not from those directives but from Directive 64/225, which was not referred to at all by the Commission in its application.
Den luxembourgske regering har ikke bestridt, at direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført inden for den fastsatte frist.
Suffice it to note that the French Government does not deny that the provisions necessary to transpose Directives 92/49 and 92/96 with regard to mutual societies have not yet been adopted.
Det af Kommissionen påberåbte traktatbrud skal anses for godtgjort, da direktivet ikke er blevet gennemført inden for den fastsatte frist.
The Commission stated in the reply and again at the hearing that the complaint contained in the letter of formal notice, the reasoned opinion and the application had remained unchanged and that both the entire pre­litigation procedure and the operative part of the application had always related to the French Republic's failure to adopt, or in any event to communicate, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directives 92/49 and 92/96
•1) Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 94/33/EF af 22. juni 1994 om beskyttelse af unge på arbejdspladsen, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har vedtaget alle de love og administrative bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktivet
Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary in order to comply fully with Council Directive 92/49/EEC of 18 June 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than tife assurance and amending Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (third non-ufe insurance Directive) and with Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct tife assurance and amending Directives 79/267¡EEC and 90 1619I EEC (third tife assurance Directive) and, in particular, by not transposing those directives with regard to mutual societies governed by the Code de la Mutualité, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and under those directives;
Generaladvokat A Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 14. oktober 1999.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 29 September 1999.
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke.
Case C-47/99 Commission of the European Communities ν Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Ved kendelse af 5. marts 1998 har Bundesgerichtshof forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1898/87 af 2. juli 1987 og af artikel 3, stk. 2, i Rådets direktiv 89/398/EØF af 3. maj 1989.
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations transpose within the prescribed period) (Fifth Chamber) of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and the said directive.
Tvisten drejer sig om den benævnelse, som UDL anvender ved salget af to af sine produkter.
The Luxembourg Government does not dispute that the Directive has not been transposed within the period allowed.
Da Schutzverband fandt, at de nye benævnelser og varedeklarationer, som UDL ønsker at anvende for de to produkter af mærket Becel, er ulovlige, fordi ost er et mejeriprodukt, hvorimod der helt og holdent anvendes plantefedt i de to produkter i stedet for mælkefedt, anlagde Schutzverband sag mod UDL ved Landgericht Hamburg for at få nedlagt forbud mod, at UDL dels betegner sine produkter som »ost«, dels forsyner dem med de nævnte deklarationer på emballagen.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 16 February 1999, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission, within the prescribed period the laws regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 (hereinafter 'the Directive'), the Grand Duchy
Landgericht frifandt UDL, hvorimod appelretten tog Schutzverband's påstand til følge.
Since the directive was not transposed within the period allowed, the Commission's action for failure to fulfil obligations is well founded.
Før dette spørgsmål besvares, skal det undersøges, om forordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, finder anvendelse på levnedsmidler bestemt til særlig ernæring.
Advocate General A. Saggio delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 14 October 1999.
Den tyske retsinstans ønsker oplyst, om benævnelsen »ost« kan anvendes for at betegne et produkt, hvori der anvendes plante- i stedet for mælkefedt.
Preliminary ruling (Protection of designations used in marketing of milk and milk products — Regulation (EEC) No 1898187 — Directive 89/398/EEC — Use of the designation cheese to describe a dietary product in which the natural fat has been replaced by vegetable fat) (Sixth Chamber) cheese is rich in poly unsaturated fats) and, for the second, 'Dieser Diät-Kase ist ideal für eine cholesterinbewußte Lebensweise' (This dietary cheese is ideal for a cholesterol-conscious lifestyle).
Domstolen fastslog, at et mejeriprodukt, hvori en mælkebestanddel er erstattet med en anden bestanddel, selv om det kun er delvist, ikke kan betegnes med nogen af de benævnelser, der er nævnt i forordningens artikel 2, stk. 2, andet afsnit, første led.
Those questions have been raised in proceedings between Union Deutsche Lebensmittelwerke GmbH (hereinafter 'UDL'), a food-processing undertaking, and Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV, a registered association for protection against unfair business practices (hereinafter 'the Schutzverband'), concerning the designation under which UDL plans to sell two of its products.
Det må derfor fastslås, at det nævnte forbud mod at anvende benævnelsen »diætetisk ost« som betegnelse for produkter, hvori én af mælkebestanddelene er erstattet med et andet stof, ikke påvirkes af, at der påsættes sådanne varedeklarationer.
The Schutzverband took the view that the new designations and descriptions which UDL plans to put on the two 'Becel' products are unlawful on the ground that cheese is a milk product whereas, in the composition of the 'Becel' products, the milk fat is entirely replaced by vegetable fat.
Produkter, der er afledt af mælk såsom de i hovedsagen omhandlede, hvoraf en mælkebestanddel — i den foreliggende sag animalsk fedt — er blevet fuldstændig erstattet med et andet stof, nemlig plantefedt, henhører derfor ikke under kategorien »mejeriprodukt«, som denne defineres i forordningens artikel 2, stk. 2, og kan ikke ifølge forordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, betegnes som en »ost«.
It therefore brought proceedings against UDL in the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg for an order restraining that undertaking from using the designation 'cheese' for those products and from putting those descriptions on their packaging. Its application was dismissed by the Landgericht but upheld by the appeal court.
Denne konstatering ændres ikke af UDL's argument om, at det strider mod proportionalitetsprincippet at forbyde anvendelsen af udtrykket »ost« som betegnelse for produkter, der er afledt af mælk, og hvori en naturlig bestanddel er erstattet med et fremmed stof, selv om varedeklarationerne figurerer på emballagen.
UDL appealed on a point of law to the Bundesgerichtshof, which, considering that the case raised questions of interpretation of Community law, decided to stay proceedings and to refer two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
Dette spørgsmål omhandler de varedeklarationer, som UDL har foreslået.
UDL is an undertaking belonging to the foodmanufacturing industry which makes in particular cheese and products derived from cheese, including products intended for a particular nutritional or dietary use.
Ifølge Domstolen udgør et forbud mod at anvende benævnelsen »ost« som betegnelse for produkter afledt af mælk, hvori en naturlig mælkebestanddel er erstattet med et fremmed stof, selv om emballagen er forsynet med varedeklarationer herom, ikke en foranstaltning, som er åbenbart uegnet til at opfylde det tilsigtede formål, hvorfor et sådant forbud ikke strider mod proportionalitetsprincippet.
It markets under the brand name 'Becel' foods in which the original animal fats containing saturated fatty acids have been replaced by vegetable fats rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids, which have the property of lowering cholesterol levels.
•1) Artikel 3, stk 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1898/87 af Ζ juli 1987 om beskyttelse af benævnelserne for mælk og mejeriprodukter i forbindelse med afsætning sammenholdt med artikel 3, stk 2, i Rådets direktiv 89/398/EØF af 3. maj 1989 om indbyrdes tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om levnedsmidler bestemt til særlig ernæring, skal fortolkes således, at et mejeriprodukt, hvori der af diætetiske grunde anvendes plante- i stedet for mælkefedt, ikke kan betegnes som en 'osf.
Since the beginning of the 1990s, UDL has been marketing under the designation 'dietary spread' two products bearing the brand name Becel which in the future it intends to sell under the designations 'Holländisches Appetitstück — Diät-Käse mit Pflanzenöl für die fettmodifizierte Ernährung' (Dutch appertiser — Dietary cheese containing vegetable oil for a fat-modified diet) and 'Diät Weichkäse mit Pflanzenöl für die fettmodifizierte Ernährung' (Dietary soft cheese containing vegetable oil for a fat-modified diet).
Det er ikke lovligt f or produkter, der er afledt af mælk, og hvori en naturlig bestanddel er erstattet med et fremmed stof, at benytte en benævnelse såsom 'diætost (hhv. blød diætost) med planteolie til en fedtreduceret ernæring', selv om denne angivelse suppleres med en række varedeklarationer på emballagen såsom 'denne diætost er rig på forskellige slags umættede fedtsyrer' eller 'denne diætost er ideel til en kolesterolbevidst ernæring'.«
Those descriptions not only do not clearly indicate that the milk fat has been entirely replaced by vegetable fat but they even increase the risk of confusion in the consumer's mind in that, in breach of Article 3(2) of the Regulation, they suggest, by the unlawful use of the term 'cheese', that those products are milk products.
Generaladvokat A. Saggio fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Sjette Afdeling') den 10. juni 1999.
The Court states that a milk product, in which one or other constituent of milk has been replaced, if only partially, may not be designated by one of the designations referred to in the first indent of the second subparagraph of Article 2(2) of the Regulation.
Præjudiciel »Direktiv 79/7/EØF — ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring tildeling af en ydelse i form af brændselshjælp — tilknytning til pensionistens alder« (Sjette Afdeling)
That conclusion is not shaken by UDL's argument that the prohibition of use of the term 'cheese' for products derived from milk in which a natural constituent has been replaced by a foreign substance, even where descriptions appear on the packaging, is contrary to the principle of proportionality.
Det står fast, at en kvinde på samme alder ville have fået tildelt ydelsen under de samme omstændigheder.
This question concerns the descriptions proposed by UDL.
Den 6. april 1998 indbragte Taylor sagen for High Court of Justice, hvorunder han har anfægtet afslaget på at tildele ham brændselshjælp.
The Court points out that the use of the designation 'dietary cheese' for products such as those in question in the main proceedings may give the consumer the impression that those products are covered by the designation 'milk products' within the meaning of the Regulation when that is not the case, and the descriptions which UDL plans to place on their packaging are