natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Et af direktivets formål er nemlig at begunstige nationale foranstaltninger, der vil kunne modvirke affaldsdannelser, og en begrænsning af eller et forbud mod salg eller anvendelse af varer som beholdere, der ikke kan nedbrydes biologisk, vil kunne bidrage til gennemførelsen af dette mål.
' I would conclude, therefore, by proposing that the Court dismiss the applications brought against the Commission of the European Communities by Hoechst AG... and order the applicant to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures in Case 46/87. '
Domstolen fastslog herom, at det hverken på grundlag af ordlyden eller formålet med nævnte direktivbestemmelse kan antages, at medlemsstaternes undladelse af at opfylde forpligtelsen til forudgående underretning i og for sig kan medføre, at regler vedtaget på denne måde er retsstridige.
The Tribunal Administratif [Administrative Court], Strasbourg, requested a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 37 of the EAEC Treaty under Article 150 of that Treaty.
Af det anførte følger, at den nævnte direktivbestemmelse vedrører forholdet mellem medlemsstaterne og Kommissionen og omvendt ikke skaber nogen ret for private, der vil kunne være krænket, såfremt en medlemsstat tilsidesætter sin pligt til på forhånd at underrette Kommissionen om de udkast til regler, den har udarbejdet.
The question was raised in proceedings brought by Saarland, a number of German local authorities, French and Luxembourg associations for the protection of the Moselle valley and of the environment, and certain private individuals, against certain French interministerial orders of 21 February 1986 authorizing the discharge of, on the one hand, liquid radioactive waste and, on the other, gaseous radioactive waste from the four units of the Cattenom power station, in the Department of the Moselle.
»I. Direktiv 75/442 skal fortolkes således, at der ikke ved direktivet tillægges privatpersoner ret til at sælge eller anvende plasticposer og andre beholdere af vanskeligt nedbrydeligt materiale.
Those orders were adopted on conclusion of an administrative procedure which started on 11 October 1978 with a declaration as to the public utility of the works necessary in order to construct at Cattenom a nuclear power station with two 900 megawatt units and two 1 300 megawatt units ; subsequently, between 6 July 1979 and 31 March 1982 building permits were issued for those units, and between 24 June 1982 and 29 February 1984 decrees were issued authorizing the establishment at Cattenom of four units of 1 300 megawatts each.
Pretura di Bolzano havde forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 for at kunne tage stilling til, om italienske bestemmelser, hvorefter det er forbudt at sælge dejvarer fremstillet af blød hvede eller af en blanding af blød og hård hvede, er forenelige med fællesskabsretten.
However, Article 37 had to be interpreted in context and by reference to its purpose within the scheme of the EAEC Treaty.
Spørgsmålene var stillet som led i en tvist mellem Unità Sanitaria Locale (USL) på den ene side og en tysk fabrikant, Drei Glocken, og en italiensk detailhandler, Kritzinger, på den anden.
It was significant that that article appeared in Chapter III of the EAEC Treaty, entitled 'Health and Safety'.
Drei Glocken havde til Italien eksporteret dejvarer, som var fremstillet af en blanding af blød og hård hvede, og som Kritzinger havde videresolgt.
Article 37 was, in the opinion of the Court, a provision to be relied upon in order to preclude the possibility of radioactive waste, whereas other provisions, such as Article 38, were applicable where a risk of contamination was imminent or even where contamination had already occurred.
Ordlyden af dommen i sag 90/86 af samme dato. Anklagemyndigheden mod G. Zoni, er den samme som i dom 407/85.
That being the purpose of Article 37. the guidance which the Commission, assisted by highly-qualified groups of experts, might give to the Member State concerned was of very great importance, by virtue in particular of the overall view available only to the Commission regarding the development of activity in the nuclear sector in the territory of the Community as a whole.
USL idømte Drei Glocken og Kritzinger en bøde for overtrædelse af artikel 29 i den italienske Lov nr. 580 af 4. juli 1967; de anlagde herefter sag ved Pretura di Bolzano.
Where a Member State made the disposal of waste subject to authorization, it had to be recognized that, to render the Commission's opinion fully effective, that opinion had to be brought to the notice of the Member State concerned before any such authorization was issued.
Artikel 29 i den italienske lov om dejvarer bestemmer, at der udelukkende må anvendes hård hvede ved industriel fremstilling af tørrede dejvarer. I henhold til samme lovs artikler 33 og 50 kan der dog anvendes blød hvede ved fremstilling af friske dejvarer samt af tørrede dejvarer, der er bestemt til eksport.
Moreover, the Commission's opinion could not realistically be studied in detail and effectively influence the attitude of the Member State concerned unless it was given before the adoption of a final decision authorizing disposal, which, a fortiori, implied that the opinion should be sought before any such decision was taken.
Ifølge lovens artikel 36 er det forbudt at sælge dejvarer i Italien, der ikke er fremstillet som foreskrevet i loven, og i artikel 50 understreges det, at forbuddet også omfatter indførte dejvarer.
The Court took the view that the only interpretation of Article 37 which enabled that purpose to be achieved was that it imposed the requirement that the Commission had to be provided with general data relating to any plan for disposal of radioactive waste before definitive authorization for such disposal was given.
Den nationale retsinstans forelagde herefter to spørgsmål for Domstolen. De drejer sig i det væsentlige om, hvorvidt en udvidelse af det i den italienske lov om dejvarer indeholdte forbud mod at sælge dejvarer, fremstillet af blød hvede eller af en blanding af blød og hård hvede, til også at omfatte indførte varer, er forenelig med Traktatens artikler 30 og 36.
'Article 37 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Atomic Energy Community must be interpreted as meaning that the Commission of the European Communities must be provided with general data relating to any plan for the disposal of radioactive waste before such disposal is authorized by the competent authorities of the Member State concerned. '
a) Er der tale om en hindring for de frie varebevægelser?
Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 June 1988.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det fremgår af dens faste praksis, at når der ikke findes fælles regler, må hindringer for samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, som beror på forskelle i de nationale lovgivninger vedrørende sammensætningen af et produkt, accepteres i det omfang, hvori de bestemmelser, der skal gælde uden forskel for indenlandske og indførte produkter, er uomgængeligt nødvendige ud fra f.eks. forbrugerbeskyttelseshensyn eller hensynet til god handelsskik.
He proposed an answer in the following terms: 'Article 37 of the Treaty of 25 March 1957 establishing the European Atomic Energy Community requires that the Commission be notified and its opinion be given and considered before the competent authorities of the Member States authorize the disposal of radioactive effluent by a nuclear installation. '
Den italienske regering henledte Domstolens opmærksomhed på problemet med hensyn til anvendelse af kemiske tilsætningsstoffer og farvestoffer, som kunne
The Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Lombardia referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling several questions on the interpretation of Council Directives 75/442 on waste, 76/403 on the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated terphenyls, and 78/319 on toxic and dangerous waste, and on the determination of the principles applicable to compensation for loss caused by an administrative act contrary to Community law.
Domstolen fastslog, at et generelt forbud mod at markedsføre indførte dejvarer fremstillet af blød hvede eller af en blanding af blød og hård hvede herefter under alle omstændigheder var i strid med proportionalitetsprincippet og ikke begrundet i hensynet til beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed som omhandlet i Traktatens artikel 36.
Those questions arose in a dispute between the aforesaid undertakings, which produced plastic containers, packages and bags, and the Municipality of Cinisello Balsamo, concerning the annulment of the decision of the mayor of that municipality by which it was prohibited from 1 September 1987 to provide customers with non-biodegradable bags or other non-biodegradable containers in which to carry away their purchases, or to sell or otherwise distribute plastic bags, with the exception of those intended for the disposal of rubbish.
c) Kan den pågældende hindring begrundes i bestemte tvingende hensyn?
The Court stated that the first question should be understood as asking whether Directive 75/442 conferred on individuals the right to sell or to use plastic bags and other non-biodegradable containers.
Den italienske regering gjorde gældende, at et forbud mod at sælge dejvarer fremstillet af blød hvede eller af en blanding af blød og hård hvede er nødvendigt ud fra forbrugerbeskyttelseshensyn, ud fra hensynet til god handelsskik og endelig for at sikre den fulde virkning af den fælles markedsordning inden for kornsektoren. toren.
In this regard the Court stated that Directive 75/442 did not prohibit the sale or use of any product, but it could not be inferred from that that it precluded the Member States from laying down such a prohibition for the protection of the environment.
Domstolen bemærkede, at den allerede tidligere har fastslået, at hensynet til forbrugerbeskyttelse kan varetages ved hjælp af midler, som ikke hindrer importen af produkter, der er lovligt fremstillet og bragt i omsætning i andre medlemsstater, f. eks. »ved krav om en passende etikettering, der angiver arten af det solgte produkt«.
The Court stated that a different interpretation could not be founded on the wording of the directive and would in any event be contrary to its objectives.
Domstolen fastslog endvidere, at intet er til hinder for, at det ved lov kan fastsættes, at betegnelsen »dejvarer fremstillet af gryn af hård hvede« udelukkende må anvendes med hensyn til dejvarer fremstillet af hård hvede.
Since the directive was designed inter alia to encourage national measures for the prevention of waste, the restriction or prohibition of the selling or use of products such as non-biodegradable containers were likely to help to attain that aim.
Den italienske regering anførte, at en passende etikettering med hensyn til arten af det solgte produkt ikke ville være tilstrækkelig til, at de italienske forbrugere var opmærksomme nok med hensyn til, hvilke dejvarer de køber, idet »dejvarer« for en italiener er et produkt, der udelukkende er fremstillet af hård hvede.
The second question asked essentially whether Article 3 (2) of Directive 75/442 imposed on Member States an obligation to communicate to the Commission any draft rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings before they were finally adopted.
Den italienske regering anførte endvidere, at for så vidt angår dejvarer fremstillet af blød hvede eller af en blanding af blød og hård hvede, ville en angivelse af, hvad produkterne indeholder, ikke tilgodese hensynet til god handelsskik.
In this regard, it had been argued that the national rules in question were not within the scope of this provision because they did not concern products which might be a source of technical difficulties as regards disposal or lead to excessive disposal costs.
Hvis den således forbeholder betegnelsen »dejvarer fremstillet af gryn af hård hvede« for dejvarer, der udelukkende er fremstillet af hård hvede, giver den de italienske forbrugere mulighed for at vælge det produkt, de er vant til, og en garanti for, at prisforskellen også er udtryk for en kvalitetsforskel.
The third question asked whether Article 3 (2) of Directive 75/442 conferred on individuals a right upon which they could rely before the national courts in order to obtain the annulment or suspension of national rules covered by that provision on the ground that such rules had been adopted without the Commission of the European Communities first having been informed.
Den italienske regering anførte endelig, at den italienske lov om dejvarer supplerer den fælles landbrugspolitik inden for kornsektoren, idet landbrugerne herved sikres afsætning af deres produktion. Således har den fælles landbrugspolitik til
In this regard the Court stated that it could not be concluded from the wording or the aim ofthat provision that failure on the part of the Member States to comply
formål at sikre en vis indkomst for de landbrugere, der dyrker hård hvede, idet interventionsprisen for hård hvede er langt højere end interventionsprisen for blød hvede, og endvidere tilskyndes landbrugerne til at dyrke hård hvede, idet de i så fald modtager direkte produktionsstøtte.
with their obligations to inform the Commission before adopting the rules would in itself result in the illegality of the rules thus adopted.
Domstolen fastslog i den forbindelse først, at det spørgsmål, der var omtvistet, vedrørte det forhold, at loven om dejvarer også omfatter indførte produkter, og at det ikke ifølge fællesskabsretten kan kræves, at den italienske lovgiver ændrer loven for så vidt angår italienske dejvareproducenter.
It followed from the foregoing that the aforesaid provision concerned the relations between the Member States and the Commission but did not confer on individuals any right which might be breached if a Member State failed to comply with its obligation to inform the Commission of its draft rules before they were adopted.
Generaladvokat G. Federico Mancini fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 26. april 1988.
He proposed that the questions should be answered as follows :
Dom 302/86 af 20. september 1988, Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fælles skaber mod Kongeriget Danmark se under Traktatbrud
Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations, Action for a declaration of
Dom C-145/88 af 23. november 1989, Torfaen Borough Council mod B & Q PLC, tidligere B & Q (Retail) »Frie varebevægelser — fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 — forbud mod handel om søndagen« — Sjette Afdeling —
Germany — 25 February 1988 (Lawyers' freedom to provide services — Transposition into national law of Directive 77/249/EEC) (Full Court)
Cwmbran Magistrates' Court, Det Forenede Kongerige, havde stillet tre præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 med henblik på at kunne bedømme, om en national lovgivning, der forbyder handel om søndagen er forenelig med de nævnte bestemmelser.
The Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declara­tion that the Federal Republic of Germany had failed, in regard to the exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services, to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty and under Council Directive 77/249/EEC to facilitate the effective exercise by lawyers of freedom to provide services.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en retssag mellem kommunalbestyrelsen for Torfaen og virksomheden B & Q PLC, der driver en række byggemarkeder og havecentre.
The Commission's complaints were directed against the manner in which German legislation gave effect to Directive 77/249 as regards the duty of 'cooperation' imposed on a lawyer established in another Member State who pursued activities on German territory by way of provision of services.
B & Q havde for den nationale domstol gjort gældende, at Section 47 i Shops Aet er en foranstaltning med tilsvarende virkning som en kvantitativ restriktion, og at den ikke er begrundet i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 36 eller i noget »tvingende hensyn«.
Under the German Law of 1980 the obligation to work in conjunction with a lawyer established in the Federal Republic of Germany arose when a lawyer providing services proposed to 'represent or defend a client' in legal proceedings or certain administrative proceedings.
Kommunalbestyrelsen havde bestridt dette anbringende under henvisning til, at det omtvistede forbud finder anvendelse uden forskel på indenlandske og importerede produkter og ikke stiller importerede produkter ringere.
According to the Commission, that provision defined too broadly the extent of compulsory cooperation with a German lawyer, by embracing not only activities in judicial proceedings but also activities before administrative authorities and contact with persons held in custody.
Den nationale domstol havde først fastslået, at forbuddet mod at drive forretning om søndagen i den foreliggende sag førte til en nedgang i virksomhedens samlede omsætning, at ca. 10% af de af virksomheden solgte varer indførtes fra andre medlemsstater, og at der følgelig måtte forventes en tilsvarende nedgang i indførslerne fra andre medlemsstater.
The Commission argued that, as far as activities in judicial proceedings were concerned, in all cases in which representation by a lawyer was not mandatory under national legislation and in which, therefore, the party concerned could defend his own interests or indeed entrust their defence to a person other than a lawyer who provided services should have the option of representing or defending his client without working in conjunction with a German lawyer.
Med det første spørgsmål ønskede den nationale domstol klarlagt, om begrebet foranstaltninger med tilsvarende virkninger som kvantitative restriktioner, jf. Traktatens artikel 30, også omfatter bestemmelser, hvorefter detailforretninger ikke må holdes åbne om søndagen, for så vidt dette forbud medfører en reel nedgang i omsætningen i de berørte forretninger, herunder i omsætningen af varer importeret fra andre medlemsstater.
The Court held that, as the German Government rightly observed, the wording of Article 5 of the directive drew no distinction between those activities of lawyers which did, and those which did not, fall within the ambit of mandatory representation.
Domstolen fastslog indledningsvis, at nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter detailforretninger ikke må holde åbent om søndagen, finder anvendelse uden forskel på importerede og indenlandske produkter. Principielt gøres det derfor ikke herved vanskeligere at sælge produkter, der er indført fra andre medlemsstater, end indenlandske produkter.
A study of the principles of Community law showed the Court that there was no consideration of general interest which could, in relation to those judicial proceedings for which representation by a lawyer was not mandatory, justify the obligation imposed on a lawyer enrolled at the Bar of another Member State and providing his professional services to work in conjunction with a German lawyer.
Domstolen bemærkede endvidere, at den i en sag vedrørende et forbud mod udlejning af videokassetter, der uden forskel omfattede indenlandske og indførte produkter, havde statueret, at et sådant forbud kun er i overensstemmelse med Traktatens grundsætning om frie varebevægelser, såfremt de af forbuddet følgende hindringer for samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet ikke er mere vidtgående end nødvendigt af hensyn til gennemførelsen af det tilsigtede mål, der må være begrundet i henhold til fællesskabsretten.
In so far as the German Law of 1980, by the generality of its wording, extended that obligation to such legal proceedings it was contrary to the directive and to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty.
Det måtte herefter for det første undersøges, om bestemmelser som de omhandlede forfølger et i fællesskabsretten anerkendt mål. I så henseende havde Domstolen allerede fastslået, at nationale forskrifter om arbejdstid samt udbringning og salg inden for bageri- og konditorivirksomhed hviler på legitime hensyn, der tilgodeses som led i den økonomiske og sociale politik, og som er forenelige med de almene hensyn, der forfølges med Traktaten.
(i) With regard to the activities of lawyers providing services in proceedings before administrative authorities, the Court found that the considerations set out above in connection with activities in judicial proceedings were fully applicable.
Synspunktet måtte være det samme, for så vidt angår nationale bestemmelser om åbningstider for detailhandelen.
(ii) With regard to contact with persons in custody, the German Government set out a series of arguments concerning the lawyers' being answerable to the courts or tribunals involved.
Hertil kommer, at sådanne bestemmelser ikke har til formål at regulere samhandelen mellem medlemsstaterne. terne.
The Court decided to consider those arguments below, when examining the detailed rules for cooperation.
Det måtte for det andet fastslås, om virkningerne af sådanne nationale bestemmelser ikke går videre end nødvendigt af hensyn til gennemførelsen af det tilsigtede mål.
The Commission criticized the Federal Republic of Germany for defining, in its Law of 1980, the meaning of 'cooperation' in such a way as to exceed the limits set by the directive and by Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty.
Nationale foranstaltninger, der regulerer afsætningen af varer, omfattes således af forbuddet i artikel 30, såfremt deres restriktive virkninger på den frie omsætning af varer går ud over, hvad der er karakteristisk for bestemmelser for handelen.
Its criticisms were particularly directed at the requirements governing (a) evidence of cooperation, (b) the role assigned to the German lawyer with whom there had to be cooperation and (c) contacts between the lawyer providing services and persons held in custody.
Domstolen bemærkede, at spørgsmålet, om virkningerne af en konkret national regulering faktisk holder sig inden for disse rammer, henhører under de faktiske omstændigheder, som det tilkommer den nationale domstol at tage stilling til.
In the first place, the German Government contended that only a German lawyer could be answerable for the conduct of proceedings before German courts or tribunals.
Under hensyn til besvarelsen af spørgsmål 1 fandt Domstolen det ikke nødvendigt at besvare spørgsmål 2 og 3.
Secondly, the German Government argued that the freedom to provide services should not adversely affect the proper administration of justice.
»Traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at det heri fastsatte forbud ikke finder anvendelse på nationale bestemmelser, hvorefter detailforretninger ikke må holdes åbne om søndagen, såfremt de begrænsninger af samhandelen inden for Fællesskabet, der måtte følge heraf, ikke går ud over, hvad der er karakteristisk for bestemmelser af denne art.«
With regard to the first argument the Court held that the lawyer providing services and the German lawyer, both of whom were governed by the code of professional conduct which applied in the host State, had to be considered capable of defining jointly, in accordance with that code of conduct and in the exercise of their professional autonomy, the detailed rules for cooperation which were appropriate to the terms of their appointment.