natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse afsagt den 3. november 1988, indgået til Domstolens Justitskontor den 23. december 1988, havde High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 forelagt Domstolen en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 25 i Rådets forordning nr. 804/68, som ændret ved Rådets forordning nr. 1421/78.
By an order of 3 November 1988, which was lodged at the Court Registry on 23 December 1988, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred a number of questions under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1421/78.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem en erhvervssammenslutning, Cricket St. Thomas Estate, der producerer malk og mejeriprodukter, og Milk Marketing Board of England and Wal*?.. .Sagen yar blevet anlagt af Milk Marketing Board med henblik på, at Cricket St. Thomas skal betale denne visse bidrag, der er skyldige i henhold til .Milk Marketing Scheme (den engelske markedsføringsordning for mælk), der fastlægger de nærmere regler for udøvelsen af de særrettigheder, som de pågældende nationale myndigheder har indrømmet de såkaldte Milk Marketing Boards i Henhold til Rådets forordning nr. 1422/78.
Those questions had arisen in the context of proceedings between the management of an agricultural estate which produced milk and milk products, Cricket St. Thomas Estate, and the Milk Marketing Board of England and Wales, concerning an action brought by the latter for the recovery of amounts which Cricket St. Thomas had failed to pay in respect of contributions due to the Board under the provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme. That scheme laid down the detailed rules governing the exercise of the special rights conferred on the Boards by the competent national authorities in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1422/78.
Cricket St. Thomas gjorde for High Court gældende, at Milk Marketing Board's eneret til opkøb af mælk efter forordning nr. 804/68 ikke omfatter mælk, som producenten har pasteuriseret.
Cricket St. Thomas had claimed before the High Court that the Board's exclusive purchasing right within the meaning of Regulation No. 804/68 did not extend to milk pasteurized by producers.
Endvidere gjorde Cricket St. Thomas gældende, at Milk Marketing Board ikke efter ÆF-rretten kan pålægge producenter, der nægter at levere mælk hertil, at beta-Le bidrag. Endelig gjordes det gældende, at de pålagte beløb er urimeligt store.
Cricket St. Thomas had further contended that the Board was not empowered under Community law to require producers who withheld their milk from the Board to pay contributions and that the sums demanded were in any event unreasonably 1 arge.
Med det første spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale domstol oplyst, om et Milk Marketing Board's stedlige eneret til at opkøbe malk fra producenterne omfatter pasteuriseret mælk, og i bekræftende fald under hvilke omstændigheder.
In its first question, the national court sought to ascertain whether the Board's exclusive right to buy milk from producers established in its
Domstolen bemærkede hertil indledningsvis, at efter fællesskabsretten afgrænses eneretten ved et kriterium, der bygger på det pågældende produkts væsentligste egenskaber og kommercielle anvendelse.
The Court first noted in that regard that the distinguishing criterion established by Community legislation with regard to the scope of the Board's exclusive purchasing right was based on the principal characteristics and the commercial destination of the product In question.
Det måtte derfor afgøres, om produktet stadig kan betegnes som malk, eller om det drejer sig om et andet produkt fremstillet på grundlag af malk.
It was therefore necessary to determine whether the product concerned could still be described as milk or whether It was a different product, derived from milk.
Endvidere bemærkes det, at pasteurisering, der sker ved en sårlig varmebehandling for at Øge mælkens holdbarhed, ikke væsentligt ændrer produktet, som stadig er konsummælk. Der skal derfor skelnes mellem pasteurisering og andre forarbejdningsmetoder, især sådanne, hvorved malken omdannes til et andet produkt.
The Court went on to rule that pasteurization, which involved treatment at a special temperature designed to Improve the preservative qualities of the milk, did not fundamentally alter the nature of the product, which remained milk intended for consumption, and for that reason had to be distinguished from other operations, in particular, processing operations by which the milk was changed Into a different product.
Dette resultat sås også at fremgå af målsætningerne for de fællesskabsretlige regler, der fastsætter de nærmere regler for driften af Milk Marketing Boards i Det Forenede Kongerige.
That conclusion was confirmed by the objectives of the Community legislation which laid down the detailed rules for the operation of the Milk Marketing Boards within the United Kingdom.
Hvis pasteuriseret mælk ikke var omfattet af Milk Marketing Board's eneret til opkøb af mælk, ville producenterne kunne nægte at levere deres malk hertil, selv pasteurisere mælken og sælge den direkte på markedet. Det ville indebære en yderligere tilgang af malk på markedet, som ville bringe effektiviteten ved den engelske markedsfØringsordning for malk i fare.
If the Board's exclusivepurchasing right did not extend to pasteurized milk, producers would have been In a position to refuse to supply their milk to the Board and to pasteurize and sell it directly on the market.
Domstolen tilføjede, at de forhold, hvorunder et Milk Marketing Board kan udøve sin eneret til opkøb af pasteuriseret mælk, er fastlagt i forordning nr. 1422/78 og 1565/79.
The Court added that the conditions under which the Board had to exercise its exclusive right to purchase pasteurized milk were laid down in Regulations No. 1422/78 and No. 1565/79.
Med sit andet, tredje og fjerde spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale ret oplyst, 1 hvilket omfang on under hvilke omstændigheder et Milk Marketing Board efter fællesskabsretten kan pålægge de producenter, der ikke sælger deres mælk hertil at betale bidrag fastsat 1 Milk Marketing Scheme - uanset om mælken er ubehandlet eller pasteuriseret - og som sælger mælken som detailsalg, under detailsalgslignende forhold eller ved engrossalg.
In its second, third and fourth questions, the national court sought to know to what extent and subject to what conditions Community law entitled the Board to impose the contributions provided for under the Milk Marketing Scheme on producers who did not sell the milk which they produced - whether untreated or pasteurized - to the Board, but rather sold it by retail, by semi-retail or by wholesale.
I den forbindelse bemærkede Domstolen, at de bidrag, der pålægges forarbejdningsproducenter og producenter med detailsalg, har til formål at udligne forskellen mellem den højere pris, som producenterne opnår ved direkte salg på markedet, og den lavere pris, som Milk Marketing Board udbetaler dem.
The Court pointed out in that regard that the contributions imposed on producer processors and producer retailers were designed to remove the discrepancy between the high price which those producers were able to receive by selling directly on the market and the lower price which would have been paid to them by the Board.
Bidragene skal sidestille forarbejdningsproducenterne og producenterne med detailsalg med andre producenter.
They were intended to put producer processors and producer retailers in the same position as other producers.
Formålet med bidragene er således at sikre over holdelsen af princippet om ligebehandling af alle producenter, der er under lagt Milk Marketing Scheme, og at undgå, at forarbejdningsproducenterne og producenterne med detailsalg har en fordel i forhold til andre producenter, der ikke har samme mulighed for at sælge deres mælk direkte på markedet og som derfor sælger til Milk Marketing Board.
The object of those contributions was therefore to ensure that all producers covered by the Milk Marketing Scheme were treated equally and to prevent producer processors and producer retailers from having an advantage over other producers who, being In less of a position to market directly, sold their milk to the Board.
Det måtte heraf følge, at forpligtelsen til at betale de omtvistede bidrag gælder såvel ubehandlet som pasteuriseret malk, der sælges direkte på markedet, uanset hvordan salget finder sted.
The obligation to pay the contested contributions consequently applied both to untreated milk and to pasteurized milk, sold directly on the market, Irrespective of the manner of sale.
Både bidragenes størrelse og måden, hvorpå et Milk Marketing Board hos producenten opkræver de skyldige bidrag, skal dog være i overensstemmelse med kravene om proportionalitet i artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1422/78.
The amount of the contributions payable by a producer, however, along with the arrangements for collection of those contributions by the Board, had to conform to the requirements of proportionality laid down by Article 5 (3) of Regulation No. 1422/78.
Med sit femte spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale ret oplyst, om Milk Marketing Board kan pålægge producenter, der sælger malk til andre, visse yderligere Økonomiske byrder, såsom afgifter, erstatning eller bøder i henhold til Milk
In Its fifth question, the national court asked whether Community law entitled the Board to Impose additional sums on producers who had decided not to sell their milk to the Board, in that case by way of capital levies, compensation payments and penalties under the Milk Marketing Scheme.
Domstolen bemærkede hertil, at ordningens bestemmelser, som nævnes af den forelæggende ret, henviser til de foranstaltninger, som Milk Marketing Board kan träffe i tilfalde af, at producenterne tilsidesætter deres forpligtelser i medfør af ordningen, især hvis de undlader at aflægge regnskab over de mængder mælk, der 1 en given regnskabsperiode er solgt til andre end Milk Marketing Board.
The Court first pointed out that the provisions of the scheme outlined by the national court related to the Inferences which the Board was authorized to draw from the failure to comply with certain obligations Imposed on producers by that scheme, and in particular the obligation to Inform the Board of the quantities of milk not sold to the Board over a specified accounting period.
Domstolen udtalte i den forbindelse, at forpligtelserne til at afgive oplysninger følger af den kontrolordning, der er foreskrevet i forordning nr. 1565/79 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til forordning nr. 1422/78. Domstolen bemærkede afslutningsvis, at det henhører under den nationale ret at träffe afgørelse om, hvorvidt disse bestemmelser 1 Milk Marketing Scheme, der har til formål at lette Milk Marketing Board udøvelsen af lovpåbudte funktioner med hensyn til kontrol og ordningens drift, er forenelige med fællesskabsrettens almindelige principper, især proportionalitetsprincippet.
It was noted in that connexion that the duty to provide such information derived from the supervisory arrangements provided under Regulation No. 1565/79 laying down rules for Implementing Regulation No. 1422/78 and that, in the light of the general principles of Community law and in particular the principle of proportionality, national courts had jurisdiction to decide on the validity in law of those provisions of the Milk Marketing Scheme which were designed to assist the Board in carrying out its statutory functions of supervising and operating that scheme.
Den eneret, der omhandles 1 artikel 25, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets forordning nr. 804/68 af 27. juni 1968 om den falles markedsordning for mælk og mejeriprodukter, som andret ved Rådets forordning nr. 1421/78, omfatter pasteuriseret malk på de betingeler, der er fast sat i Rådets forordning nr. 1422/78 af 20. juni 1978, om indrømmelse af visse særrettigheder til mælkeproducentorganisationer i Det Forenede Kongerige, og 1 Kommissionens forordning nr. 1565/79 af 25. juli 1979 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til forordning nr. 1422/78.
Regulation (EEC) No. 804/68 of the Council of 27 June 1968 on the common organization of the market in milk and milk products, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1421/78 of 20 June 1978, 1s exercisable in respect of pasteurized milk in the circumstances laid down in Council Regulation EEC No. 1422/78 of 20 June 1978 concerning the granting of certain special rights to milk producer organizations in the United Kingdom and Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1565/79 of 25 July 1979 laying down rules for Implementing Regulation No. 1422/78.
Et Milk Marketing Board kan 1 medför af fællesskabsretten pålægge producenter af pasteuriseret mælk 1 et bestemt område i Det Forenede Kongerige, som dér sælger mælken til andre end det navnte Milk Marketing Board, at betale bidrag, uanset om salget sker som detailsalg, under detailsalgs lignende forhold eller ved engrossalg, for så vidt som bidragene opfylder betingelserne om proportionalitet i artikel 5, stk. 3, i forordning nr. 1422/78.
A Milk Marketing Board 1s entitled as a matter of Community law to require a producer who produces pasteurized milk in a
Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for, at et Milk Marketing Board pålägger producenter af pasteuriseret malk i et bestemt ormåde 1 Det Forenede Kongerige, som dér salger mælken til andre end det navnte Milk Marketing Board, at betale bøder, hvis disse producenter overtrader bestemmelser 1 den gældende markedsføringsordnlng for malk, for så vidt som bøderne er forenelige med fællesskabsrettens almindelige principper, isar proportionalitetsprincippet."
Community law does not preclude a Milk Marketing Board from requiring producers who produce pasteurized milk in a specific area of the United Kingdom and sell it there otherwise than to that Milk Marketing Board to pay financial charges if those producers contravene the provisions of the relevant milk marketing scheme, provided that such charges are consistent with the general principles of Community law, in particular the principle of proportionality."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro-fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 11 i januar e vm:
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 11 January 1990
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Et Milk Marketing Board's eneret til opkøb af malk i henhold til artikel 25, stk. 1, litra a), 1 forordning nr. 804/68, som andret ved forordning nr. 1421/78 omfatter flydende malk, der i denne tilstand kan markedsføres som malk til drikkebrug, herunder malk, der er pasteuriseret eller behandlet på anden måde med henblik på mælkens konservering, uden at denne derved har fået ændret sine kommercielle egenskaber.
The exclusive right of purchase enjoyed by the MMBs under Article 25 (1) (a) of Regulation No. 804/68, as amended by Regulation No. 1421/78, applies to liquid milk which 1s capable of being marketed for human consumption in that form and therefore Includes milk which has been pasteurized or subjected to other preservation treatments which are not such as to change its commercial characteristics.
Sag C-113/89: Selskabet Rush Portuguesa Lda mod Office National d'laari gration on
Community law does not preclude the levying of contributions such as "capital contributions", "PP contributions" and "PR contributions" or the application of the remedies and penalties laid down for failure to pay the said contributions."
(Præjudiciel) "Fri bevægelighed for personer - tiltrædelsesakt - overgangsperiode -arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed - fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser" (Sjette Afdeling)
Case C-113/89: Rush Portuguesa Lda ν Office National d'Immigration - 27 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Freedom of movement of persons - Act of accession - Transitional period -Freedom of movement for workers - Freedom to provide services) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 2. marts 1989, der indgik til Domstolen den 7. april 1989, havde Tribunal administratif de Versailles forelagt tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 5 og 58-66 og artiklerne 2, 215, 216 og 221 i Akten vedrørende Kongerige Spaniens og Republikken Portugals Tiltrædelse og af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68.
By an order of 2 March 1989, which was received at the Court on 7 April 1989, the Tribunal Administratif [Administrative Court] Versailles referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling three questions relating to the interpretation of Articles 5 and 58 to 66 of the EEC Treaty and of Articles 2, 215, 216 and 221 of the Act of Accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic, and of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68.
På dette grundlag traf ONI's direktør afgørelse om, at sagsøgeren skulle betale et sar ligt bidrag, som påhviler arbejdsgivere, der i strid med code du travail har beskæftiget udenlandske arbejdstagere.
These questions were raised in the context of a dispute between Rush Portuguesa Lda, which is an undertaking engaged in construction and public works established in Portugal, and ONI.
Bidraget blev nærmere bestemt fastsat til 1,5 mio. ffr.
In the present case, that contribution was fixed at 1.5 million FF.
Det første spørgsmål fra den nationale retsinstans drejede sig om, hvorvidt en portugisisk virksomhed, der prasterer tjenesteydelser, på grundlag af Traktatens artikler 59 og 60 og tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 2 kan medbringe sit eget personale.
The first question raised by the national court was whether the Portuguese undertaking providing the services could rely upon Articles 59 and 60 of the EEC Treaty and Article 2 of the Act of Accession in order to claim the right to travel with its own staff.
Ved det andet spørgsmål Ønskedes det oplyst, hvorvidt myndighederne i den medlemsstat, på hvis område arbejderne skal udføres, kan forlange, at bestemte betingelser, for så vidt angår ansættelse af lokal arbejdskraft og opnåelse af arbejdstilladelse for det portugisiske personale, skal opfyldes.
The second question sought to ascertain whether the Member State on whose territory the works were to be carried out might impose conditions on the provider of services as regards the recruitment of staff on the spot and the obtaining of work permits for Portuguese staff.
Domstolen undersøgte de to spørgsmål under ét, idet de vedrørte sammenhangen mellem princippet om retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser, jfr. Traktatens artikler 59 og 60, og de undtagelser fra princippet om arbejdskraftens fri bevægelighed, der er fastsat i tiltrædelsesaktens artikler 215 ff.
It was appropriate to examine jointly these two questions which raised the problem of the relationship between the freedom to provide services, as guaranteed by Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty, and the derogations from freedom of movement for workers which are provided for in Articles 215 et seq. of the Act of Accession.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at Traktatens artikler 59 og 60 indeholder et forbud mod, at en medlemsstat opstiller hindringer for, at et selskab etableret i en anden medlemsstat, der præsterer tjenesteydelser, på medlemsstatens område medbringer hele sit personale, ligesom medlemsstaten ikke kan gøre dette personales indrejse betinget af, at der sker en overholdelse af bestemte restriktive betingelser, f.eks. for så vidt angår ansættelse af lokal arbejdskraft eller opnåelse af arbejdstilladelser.
In this respect, 1t had to be pointed out first of all that Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty preclude a Member State from prohibiting a provider of services established in another Member State from freely travelling within its territory with the whole of its staff, or from prohibiting that Member State from making the movement of the staff in question subject to restrictive conditions such as a requirement to carry out on the spot recruitment or to obtain work permits.
Såfremt det kræves af et selskab som omhandlet fra en anden medlemsstat, at det opfylder sådanne betingelser, sker der en forskelsbehandling af dette i forhold til konkurrenter etableret i selve medlemsstaten, der frit kan benytte deres eget personale, hvortil kommer, at sådanne betingelser påvirker det pågældende selskabs evne til at præstere tjenesteydelserne.
In fact to impose such conditions on the provider of services of another Member State was to discriminate against him in relation to his competitors established in the host country who are able to avail themselves of their own staff and, what is more, affects his capacity to provide the services.
Domstolen bemærkede herefter, at undtagelsesreglen i tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 216 vedrører spørgsmålet om portugisiske arbejdstageres adgang til arbejdsmarkedet i de andre medlemsstater og den ordning, der gælder indrejseog opholdstilladelse for portugisiske arbejdstagere, der Ønsker en sådan adgang til arbejdsmarkedet, samt for deres familiemedlemmer.
It also had to be remembered that the derogation provided for in Article 216 of the Act of Accession applied whenever the access, by Portuguese workers to the employment market of other Member States and the system governing the entry and residence of Portuguese workers requiring such access, together with the members of their families, were in issue.
Den pågældende undtagelse må antages at vare begrundet, for så vidt der i det nævnte omfang vil kunne opstå forstyrrelser på arbejdsmarkedet i den pågældende anden medlemsstat.
The application thereof was in fact justified since, in such circumstances the employment market in the host Member State ran the risk of disturbances.
Domstolen bemærkede herved, at da begrebet præstering af tjenesteydelser, jfr. Traktatens artikel 60, omfatter meget forskelligartede aktiviteter, gælder de samme betragtninger ikke i alle tilfalde.
It was, however, otherwise in the case of the dispute in the main proceedings where it was a question of the temporary movement of workers
­ 21 ­ til arbejdsmarkedet i den pågældende medlemsstat.
- 21 - returning to their country of origin after performing their duties without at any time gaining access to the employment market of the host Member State.
I sådanne tilfalde vil til­trædelsesaktens artikel 216 vare til hinder for, at det pågaldende selskab, der prasterer tjenesteydelser, stiller portugisiske arbejdstagere til rådig­hed.
In such a case, Article 216 of the Act of Accession precluded workers coming from Portugal from being made available through the Intermediary of an undertaking providing services.
Denne betragtning har Imidlertid ingen betydning for den ret, som en virksom­hed, der præsterer tjenesteydelser som led 1 offentlige bygge­ og anlægsar­bejder, har til at medbringe sit eget portugisiske personale, for så vidt angår den periode, hvori de pågaldende arbejder udføres.
That observation did not, however, in any way affect the right of an undertaking providing services in the construction and public works sector to travel with its own staff from Portugal for the duration of the work undertaken.
Medlemsstaterne har dog i sådanne tilfalde en kompetence til at sikre sig, at virksomheden ikke misbruger sin ret til at præstere tjenesteydelser, f.eks. i form af, at den medbringer sit personale med det formål i strid med tiltrædelsesaktens artikel 216 at lade de pågaldende arbejdstagere tage permanent ophold eller stille dem til rådighed for arbejdsmarkedet i den anden medlemsstat.
Nevertheless, Member States must, in such a case, be able to check whether such an undertaking Is not availing Itself of the freedom to provide services for another purpose, for example 1n order to enable its staff to travel for the purpose of engagement or recruitment of workers in breach of Article 216 of the Act of Accession.