natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Artikel 31, stk. 2, i forordning nr. 2730/79 udelukker muligheden for at indrømme yderligere frist for indgivelse af de i artikel 20, stk. 5, nævnte transportdokumenter.
Article 31 (2) of Regulation No. 2730/79 precludes the grant of an extension of time for the submission of the transport document referred to in Article 20 (5).
Dette påvirker dog ikke gyldigheden af artikel 31, stk. 2.
That is not, however, a factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 31 (2).
Gennemgangen af det syvende spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artiklerne 25 og 31 i forordning nr. 2730/79."
Examination of the seventh question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Articles 25 and 31 of Regulation No. 2730/79."
Den omhandlede licens, der var omfattet af en gruppefritagelse i henhold til Kommissionens forordning nr. 2349/84, drejer sig om en ny metode til emballering af langtidsholdbar mælk.
The exclusive licence in question, which qualified for block exemption under Commission Regulation No. 2349/84, related to a new process for packaging long-life milk.
Kommissionen traf den omtvistede beslutning efter at have modtaget en klage i 1986 fra den norske koncern Elopak, der, indtil Tetra Pak erhvervede Liquipak samarbejdede med Tetra Pak om indretningen af en ny emballeringsmaskine, der fungerede på grundlag af den af patentlicensen beskyttede metode.
The Commission took the decision at issue following a complaint made in 1986 by the Norwegian Elopak group, which, up until the time of Liquipak's acquisition by Tetra Pak, had been collaborating with Liquipak with a view to developing a new packaging machine incorporating the process protected by the exclusive licence.
Selv om Tetra Pak under den administrative procedure havde meddelt Kommissionen, at den gav afkald på enhver eneret i henhold til nævnte licens, fandt Kommissionen det hensigtsmæssigt i den anfægtede beslutning at konstatere, at der forelå en overtrædelse, bl.a. i den hensigt at fremlægge sit standpunkt vedrørende det omtvistede retsspørgsmål.
Although Tetra Pak informed the Commission in the course of the administrative procedure that it was abandoning all claims to exclusivity in the licence, the Commission considered that a finding of infringement should be made by formal decision with a view, inter alia, to clarifying its position on the relevant point of law.
Kommissionen var af den opfattelse, at dette spørgsmål aldrig havde foreligget før og pålagde derfor ikke Tetra Pak bøde.
Since the point raised was unprecedented, no fine was imposed on Tetra
Tetra Pak gjorde til støtte for annullationspåstanden for det første gældende, at en fritagelse i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 3, når henses til at artikler ne 85 og 86 tjener det samme formål, ikke kan falde under artikel 86, så længe Kommissionen ikke har tilbagekaldt fritagelsen.
Tetra Pak maintained in support of its application that, because Articles 85 and 86 both pursued the same objective, the Commission could not apply Article 86 to behaviour exempt under Article 85 (3) so long as the Commission had not withdrawn the benefit of the exemption.
Retten bemærkede i den forbindelse, at meddelelse af individuel fritagelse eller gruppefritagelse i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 3, ikke under nogen omstændighed efter den ved Traktaten etablerede ordning for beskyttelse af konkurrencen vil kunne betragtes som en dispensation fra forbudet ifølge artikel 86.
The Court of First Instance held that in the scheme for the protection of competition established by the Treaty the grant of exemption, whether individual or block exemption, under Article 85 (3) could not be such as to render inapplicable the prohibition set out in Article 86.
Dette resultat følger principielt både af ordlyden af artikel 85, stk. 3, og af den særlige ordning ifølge henholdsvis artikel 85 og artikel 86, der på én gang er selvstændige og indbyrdes samvirkende regler, der principielt skal regulere særskilte situationer på forskellig måde.
That principle followed both from the wording of Article 85 (3) and also from the general scheme of Articles 85 and 86 which were independent and complementary provisions designed, in general, to regulate distinct situations by different rules.
Hvis Kommissionen altid skulle træffe en beslutning om tilbagekaldelse af fritagelsen, før artikel 86 bringes i anvendelse, ville man efter Rettens opfattelse, når henses til at tilbagekaldelsen måtte ske uden tilbagevirkning, i realiteten anerkende, at fritagelsen i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 3, også er en fritagelse fra forbudet mod misbrug af dominerende stilling, og dette vil
If the Commission were required in e\tery case to take a decision withdrawing exemption before applying Article 86, this would be tantamount, in view of the non-retroactive nature of the withdrawal of exemption, to accepting that an exemption under Article 85 (3) operated in reality as a concurrent exemption from the prohibition of abuse of a dominant position; that would not be consistent with the very nature of the infringement prohibited by Article 86.
Retten fastslog i den forbindelse, at en gruppefritagelse navnlig skal garantere de virksomheder, der deltager i en aftale, sikkerhed for så vidt angår denne aftales retmæssighed netop efter artikel 85, så længe Kommissionen ikke har trukket gruppefritagelsen tilbage.
The Court of First Instance accepted that one of the main purposes of block exemption was to secure legal certainty for the parties to an agreement as regards the validity of that agreement under Article 85 so long as the Commission had not withdrawn the benefit of block exemption.
Gruppefritagelsen fritager ikke virksomheder, der indtager en dominerende stilling, fra forpligtelsen til at efterkomme artikel 86.
But that did not discharge undertakings in a dominant position from the obligation to comply with Article 86.
På baggrund heraf kan en virksomhed ikke - for at omgå forbudet i artikel 86 - påberåbe sig, at artiklens virkninger ikke kan forudberegnes.
Accordingly, an undertaking could not rely on the alleged unpredictability of the application of Article 86 in order to escape the prohibition there laid down.
Det sagsøgende selskab gjorde for det tredje gældende, at hvis artikel 86 kan anvendes på en adfærd, der omfattes af en gruppefritagelse, kan de nationale domstole i medfør af artikel 86's umiddelbare anvendelighed forbyde en adfærd, som Kommissionen har fritaget.
Thirdly, Tetra Pak argued if Article 86 were to apply to conduct enjoying block exemption then, applying the principle of the direct effect of Article 86, national courts would have jurisdiction to prohibit under that article conduct exempted by the Commission.
Denne situation ville betegne et brud med princippet om ensartet anvendelse af fællesskabsretten.
Such a situation would prejudice the uniform application of Community law.
Retten bemærkede i den forbindelse, at anvendelsen af artikel 86 for så vidt angår en handling, der er omfattet af en fritagelse i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 3, ikke sætter spørgsmålstegn ved fællesskabsrettens forrang og ensartede anvendelse.
In response, the Court of First Instance held that the application of Article 86 with respect to conduct covered by an exemption under Article 85 (3) did not call into question the principles of the primacy and uniformity of Community law.
De nationale retter virker tværtimod som instanser for pådømmelsen af almene fællesskabsretlige spørgsmål, når det gælder anvendelsen af artikel 86 på bl.a. en adfærd, der er fritaget i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 3.
On the contrary, when applying Article 86, in particular to conduct exempt under Article 85 (3), the national courts were acting as Community courts of general jurisdiction.
De bringer i realiteten blot de principper, der efter fællesskabsretten regulerer sammenhængen mellem artikel 85, stk. 3, og artikel 86 i anvendelse.
They would merely be applying the principles of Community law governing the relationship between Article 85 (3) and Article 86.
Under disse omstændigheder er der via adgangen til at anmode om en præjudiciel afgørelse, jfr. Traktatens aritkel 177, fuld sikkerhed for en ensartet anvendelse af fællesskabsretten ved den nationale rets anvendelse af artikel 86 på en adfærd, der er omfattet af en fritagelse i medfør af artikel 85, stk. 3.
Accordingly, where a national court applied Article 86 to conduct enjoying exemption under Article 85 (3), the uniform application of Community law was fully guaranteed by the procedure for reference of questions of Interpretation for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty.
Retten udtalte og bestemte:
The Court of First Instance ruled as follows:
Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger".
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs."
Heinrich Kirschner som generaladvokat fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 21. februar 1990.
Heinrich Kirschner, acting as Advocate General, delivered his Opinion at the sitting held on 21 February 1990.
Hans forslag til afgørelse gik ud på følgende:
In support of its application, the Commission claimed, inter alia, that the communication in question, that is to say the letter of 30 November 1988, could not be regarded as a final decision of the institution.
Sagsøgte frifindes.
The application is dismissed as inadmissible;
Sag T-64/89: Autoaec S.r.l. aod Komissionen for De Europaiske Fællesskaber
The Commission is ordered to pay its own costs and half the applicant's costs.
Sag T-125/89:_ Fi¡trona Española aod Komissionen for De Europaiske Fællesskaber
Case T-125/89:
"Konkurrence - formaliteten - søgsmålsfrist" (Retten i Første Instans - Anden Afdeling)
Filtrona Española v Commission of the European Communities - 10 July 1990 (Competition - Admissibility - Time-limit for bringing proceedings) (Court of the First Instance - Second Chamber)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 17. juli 1989, havde Filtrona Española SA anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af beslutning C(89)630, hvorved Kommissionen afviste Filtrona's klage, med hvilken selskabet havde ønsket statueret, at Tabacalera SA og dettes datterselskab Tabacanarias misbrugte deres dominerende stilling, jfr. Traktatens artikel 86.
By an application lodged on 17 July 1989, Filtrona Española brought an action seeking the annulment of Commission Decision C(89)630, by which the Commission rejected Filtrona's complaint seeking to establish the existence of an abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 86 of the Treaty on the part of Tabacalera S.A. and its subsidiary Tabacanarias S.A.
Kommissionen havde påstået sagen afvist, idet den var for sent anlagt, og Retten tiltrådte Kommissionens begæring om, at der toges stilling til afvisningspåstanden, uden at behandlingen af sagens realitet blev indledt.
The Commission raised an objection of inadmissibility on the ground that proceedings were brought outside the time-limit and the Court decided to grant the Commission's request for it to rule on that objection of inadmissibility without considering the substance of the case.
Sagsøgeren betaler sagens omkostninger, herunder intervenientens."
The applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including those of the Intervener."
II - KENDELSER
II - ORDERS
Sag C-195/90 R: Komissionen for De Europaiske Fællesskaber aod Forbundrepublikken Tyskland 12.7.1990
Case C-195/90 R: Commission of the European Communities ν Federal Republic of Germany - 12 July 1990 (Transport - Charges for the use of roads by heavy goods vehicles)
Ved stævning, indgivet den 23. juni 1990, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland med vedtagelsen af loven af 30. april 1990 om afgifter for kørsel med tunge lastbiler på forbundshovedlandevejene havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser efter EØF-Traktatens artikler 76, 95 og 5.
By an application lodged on 23 June 1990, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that by enacting the Law of 30 April 1990 on charges for the use of federal roads and motorways by heavy goods vehicles the Federal Republic of Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 76, 95 and 5 of the EEC Treaty.
I samme sag havde Kommissionen indgivet begæring om, at der blev iværksat foreløbige forholdsregler, hvorved Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland tilpligtedes at træffe de nødvendige foranstaltninger til at udsætte lovens gennemførelse, indtil Domstolen havde afsagt dom i hovedsagen.
On the same date the Commission requested the Court to order the Federal Republic of Germany to adopt the measures necessary to suspend the operation of that Law until the Court had delivered judgment in the main proceedings.
Ved loven af 30. april 1990, hvis ikrafttrædelsestidspunkt var fastsat til den 1. juli 1990, blev der indført en ny afgift for kørsel med tunge lastbiler på forbundsmotorveje og andre forbundshovedlandevej e uden for bymæssig bebyggelse, for hvilke den tilladte eller faktiske totalvægt overstiger 18 tons, uanset i hvilket land, lastbilen er indregistreret.
The Law of 30 April 1990, which was to enter into force on 1 July 1990, introduced a new tax on the use of roads payable for any heavy goods vehicle, wherever registered, whose total authorized load exceeded 18 tonnes using the federal roads and motorways outside built-up areas.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet, om det på baggrund af sagens faktiske og retlige omstændigheder umiddelbart forekom berettiget at iværksætte foreløbige foranstaltninger, gjorde Kommissionen bl.a. gældende, at der forelå en overtrædelse af EØF-Traktatens artikel 76.
With regard to the factual and legal grounds establishing a prima facie case for the interim measure applied for, the Commission relied inter alia on breach of Article 76 of the EEC Treaty.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at Kommissionen havde anført vægtige argumenter til støtte for den opfattelse, at EØF-Traktatens artikel 76 måtte fortolkes på den måde, at den indeholdt et forbud mod enhver ensidig national foranstaltning, der direkte eller indirekte til skade for de Øvrige medlemsstater kunne ændre ved de gældende betingelser for international transport til eller fra en medlemsstats område eller gennem en eller flere medlemsstaters områder.
In that respect the Court noted that the Commission had put forward serious reasons to support its argument that Article 76 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as prohibiting any unilateral national measure having the effect, either directly or Indirectly, of altering to the detriment of the other Member States the existing situation with regard to the conditions under which international transport was effected to or from the territory of a Member State or across the territory of one or several Member States.
Domstolen fandt, at en medlemsstats indførelse af en ny afgift for kørsel med tunge lastbiler kunne have en sådan virkning, når afgiftsbyrden for de inden landske transportvirksomheder udlignes væsentligt ved en nedsættelse af den afgift for motorkøretøjer, som transportvirksomhederne i de øvrige medlemsstater er fritaget for i kraft af bilaterale aftaler mellem den stat, hvor transportvirksomhederne er etableret, og den stat, som har indført afgiften.
Such could be the case of a new tax on the use of roads by heavy goods vehicles introduced by a Member State, where the charge for national transporters was substantially compensated for by a reduction in the tax on motor vehicles, which transporters from the other Member States did not have to pay pursuant to bilateral agreements concluded between the State where the transporters were established and the State which introduced the tax.
Hvad angår kravet om uopsættelighed anførte Kommissionen for det første, at opkrævningen af den omtvistede afgift indebar risiko for, at i det mindste visse transportvirksomheder i de andre medlemsstater påførtes et uopretteligt tab.
As far as the condition of urgency was concerned, the Commission submitted first that application of the tax at issue was likely to cause irreparable damage, to at least some transporters from the other Member States.
Tabet ville navnlig bestå i en forøgelse af transportomkostningerne, som enten kunne tvinge transportvirksomhederne til at forhøje deres tariffer, hvorved de risikerede at miste kunder, eller at nedsætte deres fortjeneste,
That damage consisted in particular of increased transport costs which were likely to force those transporters either to raise their rates
- 32 - hvorved de risikerede at måtte indstille deres virksomhed.
- 32 - and run the risk of losing customers, or to reduce their profit margin and run the risk of having to cease business.
Mere generelt anførte Kommissionen, at Forbundsrepublikken Tysklands ensidige indførelse af den pågældende vejafgift udgjorde en utålelig forstyrrelse af Fællesskabets offentlige orden.
More generally, the Commission maintained that the unilateral introduction of the road tax by the Federal Republic of Germany disturbed Community public policy in a way that could not be tolerated.
Der var navnlig fare for, at afgiften ville udløse gengældelsesforanstaltninger fra de andre medlemsstater, hvorved den ville Ødelægge ethvert håb om fremskridt inden for den fælles transportpolitik.
Since the introduction of the tax could give rise to retaliatory measures on the part of the other Member States, it made any progress towards realisation of the common transport policy illusory.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, at selv om et tab af økonomisk karakter principielt ikke kan betragtes som uopretteligt, kan der foreligge så usædvanlige omstændigheder, at en Økonomisk erstatning ikke vil kunne genindsætte skadelidte i samme situation, som han befandt sig i, før skaden skete.
In that respect the Court recalled that although in principle damage of a pecuniary nature cannot be considered irreparable, that might not be the case in exceptional situations where monetary compensation could not restore the person harmed to the position he was in before the damage arose.
På grund af de mange middelstore transportvirksomheders ringe fortjeneste, hvorom der var blevet givet oplysninger under retsforhandlingerne, var der fare for, at den omtvistede vejafgift kunne have en sådan virkning på rentabiliteten hos transportvirksomhederne i de øvrige medlemsstater, at den kunne tvinge dem til at indstille deres virksomhed.
In fact, having regard to the frequently very narrow profit margins of numerous average-size transport businesses of which mention was made at the hearing, the effect of the tax in question on the profitability of transporters from other Member States was likely to force many of them to give up their businesses.
Endvidere fandt Domstolen, at afgiften kunne tænkes at medføre uoprettelige ændringer i fordelingen af de tyske og de øvrige EF-transportvirksomheders markedsandele.
Secondly, application of the tax at issue was likely to cause irremediable alterations in the division of the market between German transporters and transporters from the other Member States.
Hertil kom, at en så pludselig og væsentlig ændring af de gældende vilkår på EF's marked for vejgodstransport, fremkaldt af en ensidig national foranstaltning, hvor det er udelukket senere at genskabe de samme vilkår som tidligere, såfremt foranstaltningen skulle vise sig at være traktatstridig, ville gøre det endnu vanskeligere at udvikle og gennemføre den fælles transportpolitik, som er foreskrevet i EØF-Traktatens artikel 74.
Such an abrupt and substantial change, provoked by a unilateral national measure, in the conditions existing at the present time on the road transport market in the Community, which could not subsequently be reconstituted in exactly the same way should the contested measure prove contrary to the Treaty, would also make more difficult the development and completion of the common transport policy provided for in Article 74 of the EEC Treaty.
For så vidt angår køretøjer, som er indregistreret i de Øvrige medlemsstater, udsætter Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland opkrævningen af den vejafgift, der er fastsat i loven af 30. april 1990 om afgifter for kørsel med tunge lastbiler på de tyske forbundshovedlandeveje, indtil der er afsagt dom i hovedsagen.
The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to suspend the charging of the road tax provided for in the Law on charges for the use of federal roads and motorways by heavy goods vehicles of 30 April 1990 in respect of vehicles registered in other Member States until the judgment in the main proceedings is delivered.
Afgørelsen om sagens omkostninger udsætter."
Costs are reserved."
Ved dokument, registreret på Domstolen den 8. august 1988, havde rechtercommissaris (kriminaldommeren) ved Arrondissementsrechtbank, Groningen, indgivet en retsanmodning til Domstolen.
In a document registered at the Court on 8 August 1988 the Rechtercommissaris [examining judge] of the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Groningen, requested "judicial co-operation" from the Court.
- 33 - undersøgelse ved kriminaldommeren vedrørende dokumentfalsk, som hævdedes at være begået i 1985 og 1986 af direktøren og medlemmerne af bestyrelsen for fiskeauktionen i Lauwersoog (Nederlandene), hvilket forholder strafbart ifølge den nederlandske straffelovs artikel 225.
- 33 the director and members of the management of the fish market of Lauwersoog (Netherlands), which fell under Article 225 of the Netherlands Penal Code.
Under henvisning til artiklerne 1 og 12 i Protokollen vedrørende De Europæiske Fælleskabers Privilegier og Immuniteter, sammenholdt med de gældende europæiske retsanmodningskonventioner, havde rechtercommissaris anmodet Domstolen om at pålægge Kommissionen at fremlægge de kontrolrapporter, som siden 1983 var udarbejdet af Kommissionens fiskeriinspektører, der havde udført kontrol i Nederlandene på havfiskeriområdet, samt at give tilladelse til, at de nævnte inspektører blev afhørt som vidner, om fornødent efter ophævelse af deres immunitet, vedrørende deres kontrolvirksomhed og de forhandlinger, de havde ført med nederlandske tjenestemænd om Nederlandenes fiskeripolitik.
On the basis of Articles 1 and 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges of the European Communities, in conjunction with the European Conventions on judicial co-operation, the Rechter-commissari s requested the Court to order the Commission to provide him with the reports drawn up since 1983 by the Commission's inspectors who carried out inspections in the Netherlands with regard to sea fisheries and to allow those inspectors to be examined as witnesses, if necessary by lifting their immunity, concerning the inspections they carried out and their discussions with Netherlands officials on Netherlands fisheries policy.
Ved et indlæg, indgivet til Domstolen 13. oktober 1988, påstod Kommissionen retsanmodningen afvist.
In its statement of case lodged on 13 October 1988 the Commission submitted that the Rechter-commissari s's request was inadmissible.
For så vidt angår indgivelsen af retsanmodningen til Domstolen, anførte Kommissionen, at de nationale retsinstansers mulighed for at indbringe spørgsmål for Domstolen er udtømmende reguleret af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177. Retsanmodningen vedrørte imidlertid ikke fortolkningen af bestemmelser i Traktaten eller den heraf afledte ret.
As far as the Court's jurisdiction was concerned, the Commission stated that the right of national legal authorities to bring a case before the Court was regulated exhaustively by Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.
Med hensyn til de grunde, retsanmodningen støttedes på, tilføjede Kommissionen, at protokollens artikel 1 ikke vedrører dokumenter af de af rechtercommissaris nævnte art. Protokollens artikel 2 bestemmer, at Fællesskabernes arkiver er ukrænkelige, men giver ikke Domstolen mulighed for at hæve denne ukrænkelighed.
As far as the legal issues were concerned, the Commission observed that Article 1 of the Protocol did not relate to documents such as those referred to by the Rechter-commissari s. Article 2 of the Protocol laid down that the archives of the Community were to be inviolable and did not mention any possibility that the Court might lift that inviolability.