natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen fandt at måtte fremhæve, at det forhold, at det beløb i told, som importørerne skulle betale, bl.a. afhang af en faktor angivet i en valuta, hvis kurs er udsat for svingninger, der unddrager sig Fællesskabets institutioners kontrol, ikke i og for sig kunne give anledning til at underkende forordning nr. 551/83.
The Court stressed that the fact that the level of the duty charged to the importers depended in particular on a parameter expressed in a currency subject to fluctuations beyond the control of the Community institutions could not, in itself, warrant a declaration that Regulation No. 551/83 was invalid.
Ifølge Domstolen måtte det på baggrund af tvisten i hovedsagen spørges, om gyldigheden af den omtvistede forordning kunne anfægtes under henvisning til den omstændighed - om denne ellers kunne anses for godtgjort - at svingende valutakurser efter forordningens ikrafttræden bevirkede ændringer af den i denne forordning fastsatte tærskelpris' kursværdi udtrykt i indførselsmedlemsstaternes nationale valutaer under sådanne forhold, at antidumpingtolden på et vist tidspunkt ikke længere kunne anses for at være en velbegrundet foranstaltning eller at være fastsat med en korrekt sats.
It was, however, appropriate to ask whether the validity of the contested regulation could be challenged by virtue of the fact - if established - that, after its entry into force, fluctuations in the exchange rates would have the effect of changing the value, after conversion Into the national currencies of the Member States of importation, of the threshold price laid down in Regulation No. 551/83, in circumstances such that at some stage either the existence or the level of the antidumping duty was no longer justified.
Domstolen udtalte herom, at de erhvervsdrivende 1 grundforordningerne om antidumpingtold har et grundlag for at anfægte gyldigheden af antidumpingtold, der helt eller delvist har mistet sin begrundelse.
In that connexion the Court observed that the basic legislation on antidumping duty offered traders facilities for challenging any duties which had become unjustified, in whole or in part.
Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 551/83 af 8. marts 1983 - om indførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold på kraft liner med oprindelse i Amerikas Forenede Stater og om godtagelse af tilsagn afgivet i forbindelse med den fornyede undersøgelse af antidumpingproceduren vedrørende kraftliner med oprindelse i Canada, Finland, Portugal, Sovjetunionen, Sverige og Østrig - skal fortolkes således, at den valutakurs, der skal anvendes ved omveksling til indførselsmedlemsstatens valuta af den i artikel 2 i nævnte forordning fastsatte tærskelpris, er den kurs, der er gældende ikke på datoen for forordningens ikrafttræden men på den dato, som skal benyttes ved fastlæggelsen af de indførte varers toldværdi.
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 551/83 of 8 March 1983 imposing a definitive antidumping duty on kraftliner paper and board originating in the United States of America and accepting undertakings given in connection with the review of the antidumping proceeding on kraftliner paper and board originating in Austria, Canada, Finland, Portugal, the Soviet Union and Sweden must be interpreted as meaning that the rate of exchange to be used for converting the threshold price laid down by Article 2 thereof into the currency of the Member State of importation is the rate applicable at the date to which reference would be had for the determination of the customs value of the imported goods, and not the rate at the date of the entry into force of the regulation;
Gennemgangen af spørgsmålene fra den nationale ret har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om ved gyldigheden af Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 551/83 af 8. marts 1983."
Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 551/83 of 8 March 1983."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse 1 retsmødet den 8. februar 1990.
Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 8 February 1990.
Hans forslag til Domstolen lød som følger: "Gennemgangen af spørgsmålene fra den nationale ret har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af Rådets (EØF) forordning nr. 551/83, der skal fortolkes således, at de i for ordningens artikel 2 angivne mindstepriser i US$ skal omregnes til indførselsmedlemsstatens valuta med anvendelse af den valutakurs, som var gældende på tidspunktet for varens overgang til fri omsætning".
He proposed that the Court should rule as follows: "Consideration of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation No. 551/83, which must be interpreted as meaning that the minimum prices expressed in U.S. dollars by Article 2 thereof must be converted into the currency of the Member State of importation at the exchange rate applicable at the moment at which the product is put in free circulation".
Sag C­315/88: Anklagemyndigheden mod A. Bagli Pennacchiotti, bestyrelsesformand 1 vindyrk­ningsfirmaet Monte Porzio
Case C-315/88: Criminal proceedings against Angelo Bagli Pennacchiotti, President of the Cantina Sociale di Monte Porzio [Wine Growers' Co-operative of Monte Porzio] - 27 March 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Agriculture - Rules concerning quality wines psr and quality sparkling wines psr) (Third Chamber)
Ved kendelse af 21. september 1988, indgået til Domstolen den 27. oktober s.a., havde Pretura di Frascati forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af visse bestemmelser 1 EF's ordning om de 1 visse dyrkningsom­råder fremstillede kvalitetsvine og betingelserne for, at medlemsstaterne kan give tilladelse til, at disse vine under fremstillingen overflyttes til andre områder end det pågældende dyrkningsområde.
By order of 21 September 1988, which was received at the Court on 27 October 1988, the Pretura di Frascati [Frascati Magistrate's Court] referred a question to the Court on the Interpretation of the Community rules concerning quality wines produced In specified regions dealing with the conditions under which the Member States may authorise the transfer of such wines outside the region of production during the winemaking process.
Spørgsmålet blev forelagt under en straffesag mod A. Bagli Pennacchiotti, da det vindyrkningsfirma, han er leder af, havde fremstillet 1.495 hl Frascati­vin i et depot uden for denne vins dyrkningsområde.
That question arose in the context of criminal proceedings brought against A. Bagli Pennacchiotti arising out of the fact that his undertaking had made 1 495 hectolitres of Frascati wine in a warehouse situated outside the region specified for the production of that wine.
Domskonklusionen lød således:
The Court held that:
"Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 823/87 af 16. marts 1987 om fastlæggelse af særlige regler for kvalitetsvine fra bestemte dyrkningsområder, samt Rådets tidligere forordning (EØF) nr. 338/79 af 5. februar 1979, skal fortolkes således, at enhver operation eller enhver oplagring vedrøren­de produkter, som er under vinfremstilling, men endnu Ikke har opnået betegnelsen "kvbd" eller "mkvbd", skal foregå Inden for et bestemt dyrkningsområde. Denne regel må medlemsstaterne kun fravige, såfremt det sker inden for de grænser og under overholdelse af de betingelser, der er fastsat 1 nævnte forordningers artikler 6, stk. 2, og Kommissio­nens forordning (EØF) nr. 1698/70 af 25. august 1970 om visse undtagel­ser i forbindelse med fremstillingen af kvalitetsvine fra bestemte dyrkningsområder."
"Council Regulation (EEC) No. 823/87 of 16 March 1987 laying down special provisions relating to quality wines produced in specified regions, and Its predecessor, Council Regulation (EEC) No. 338/79 of 5 February 1979, must be interpreted as requiring all operations concerning, or storage of, products in the course of vinification which have not yet become quality wine psr or quality sparkling wine psr to be carried out in the specified region of production and the Member States may derogate from that rule only within the limits laid down in Article 6 (2) of the abovementloned regulations and in Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1698/70 of 25 August 1970 on certain derogations concerning the production of quality wines produced in specified regions."
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 7. februar
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 7 February 1990.
Han foreslog Domstolen at afsige følgende dom: "Fællesskabsretten, nærmere betegnet artikel 6, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 823/87 indeholder en betingelse om, at den forarbejdning af druer til druemost og af druemost til vin, som finder sted med henblik på fremstilling af mousserende eller ikke­mousserende kvalitetsvine fra et bestemt dyrkningsområde, og at fremstillingen af mousserende vin helt og holdent skal finde sted Inden for det pågældende dyrkningsområde, medmindre der i overensstemmelse med forordning nr. 1698/70 for det pågældende dyrkningsområdes vedkommende er fastsat en undtagelse fra denne regel i den medlemsstats lovgivning, pS hvis område druerne er høstet".
"Community law, in this case, Article 6 (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 823/87, provides that for the production of quality wines, including sparkling wines, produced in specified regions the processing of grapes into must and of must into wine and the preparation of sparkling wine must be carried out only within the specified region except where a derogation has been provided for in respect of that region in the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the grapes were harvested, as is provided for in Regulation No. 1689/70."
Sag C-229/88: Cargill BV m.fI. mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case C-229/88: Cargill BV and Others ν Commission of the European Communities - 27 March 1990 (Agriculture - Regulation suspending advance fixing of a subsidy -Admissibility of an action for annulment) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved stævning, indleveret den 10. august 1988, havde Cargill BV og 22 andre selskaber, hvis virksomhed 1 det væsentlige består i forarbejdning af olieholdige frø, anlagt sag i medfør af EØF-Traktatens artikel 173, stk. 2, med påstand om, at Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 1587/88 af 7. juni 1988 - om suspension af forudfastsættelsen af støtten for raps-, rybs- og solsikkefrø -blev annulleret for så vidt angår de attester, hvorom der var indgivet ansøgning mellem den 7. og 11. juni 1988.
By an application lodged on 10 August 1988, Cargill BV and 22 other companies, whose activities consisted, in particular, in the processing of oil seeds, sought a declaration under the second paragraph of Article 173 of the EEC Treaty that Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 1587/88 of 7 June 1988 suspending advance fixing of the subsidy for colza, rape and sunflower seed was void in so far as it applied to applications lodged between 7 and 11 June 1988.
Ved særskilt dokument, Indgivet den 28. oktober 1988, havde Kommissionen rejst formalitetsindsigelse og anmodet Domstolen om at tage stilling dertil før behandlingen af sagens realitet.
The Commission, in a document relating to a procedural Issue lodged on 28 October 1988, raised an objection of inadmissibility and requested the Court to rule on that objection without addressing the substance of the case.
Sagsøgerne gjorde gældende, at sagen måtte fremmes til realitetsbehandling, da antallet af og navnene på de importører, som havde indgivet ansøgning om forudfastsættelse, var kendt og kunne efterprøves på tidspunktet for ikrafttrædelsen af forordning nr. 1587/88.
The applicants claimed that their action was admissible since, at the date on which Regulation No. 1587/88 entered into force, the number and identity of those importers who had lodged an application for advance fixing was already established and could be checked.
Den anfægtede forordning berørte derfor retsstillingen hos den begrænsede kreds af erhvervsdrivende, som havde for pligtet sig over for Fællesskabet ved at indgive ansøgning om forudfastsættelse den 7. juni 1988.
The contested regulation was therefore intended to affect the legal position of a closed circle of traders who had engaged themselves vis-à-vis the Community by applying for advance fixing on 7 June 1988.
Domstolen afviste disse argumenter og bemærkede for det første, at den anfægtede forordning var blevet vedtaget i løbet af dagen den 7. juni 1988 og offentliggjort i EF-Tidende dagen efter.
The Court was unable to accept that contention. In the first place, it was necessary to bear 1n mind that the contested regulation had been adopted in the course of 7 June 1988 and published the following day In the Official Journal.
Sagsøgerne havde indgivet deres ansøgninger om støttens forudfastsættelse den 7. juni 1988.
The applicants had applied for advance fixing of aid on 7 June 1988.
Den anfægtede forordning blev altså vedtaget samme dag som datoen for indgivelse af ansøgningerne. ningerne.
It was therefore clear that the contested regulation had been adopted on the same date as that on which the applications had been lodged.
Domstolen fandt endvidere, at de relevante betingelser i den anfægtede forordning var objektivt bestemt og Ikke gjorde det muligt at individualisere sagsøgerne, hvorfor Kommissionen ikke kunne kende antallet af eller navnene på de erhvervsdrivende, som var berørt af suspensionen.
The Court went on to point out that the circumstances leading to the adoption of the contested regulation had been determined objectively and did not make 1t possible to Identify the Individual applicants since the Commission was not in a position to know the identity or even the number of operators affected by the suspension measure.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen i overensstemmelse med hidtidig praksis, at en forordning, der suspenderer forudfastsattelsen vedrører såvel de ansøgninger, der er indgivet på tidspunktet for suspensionen, som de ansøgninger, der indgives under suspensionsperioden.
Finally, it was important to remember, as the Court had already ruled, that a regulation suspending advance fixing affected applications made at the time when the suspension came into force, as well as those lodged during the period of suspension.
Heraf konkluderede Domstolen, at den anfægtede forordning fandt anvendelse på objektivt beskrevne situaioner og havde retsvirkninger for en rakke abstrakt afgrænsede personkredse.
The Court therefore concluded that the contested regulation applied to objectively determined situations and that it produced legal effects with respect to categories of persons defined in the abstract.
Forordningen var derfor almengyldig i Traktatens artikel 189, stk. 2's forstand, og berørte ikke sagsøgerne individuelt efter Traktatens artikel 173, stk. 2.
It was therefore of general application within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty and could not be of individual concern to the
Generaladvokat Jean Miseho fremsatte forslag til afgøreIse den 6. februar vm:
The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Han foreslog Domstolen at afsige følgende dom: "Sagen afvises og sagsøgerne tilpligtes at betale sagens omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler".
The applicants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the costs, including those of the application for interim measures."
Sag C­308/87 A. Grifoni mod Det Europæiske Atomenergifællesskab (Euratom)
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 6 February 1990
"Institutionernes retsforhold ­ erstatning uden for kontraktforhold ­ styrt fra en bygning" (Sjette Afdeling)
A. Grifoni ν European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC) - 27 March 1990 (Institutional law - Non-contractual liability - Fall from a building) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stavning indgivet den 9. oktober 1987 havde Alfredo Grifoni i medfør af Euratom­Traktatens artikel 151 og artikel 188, stk. 2, anlagt en erstatnings­sag mod Euratom ved Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber.
By application lodged on 9 October 1987, Mr. Alfredo Grifoni brought an action for damages under Article 151 and the second paragraph of Article 188 of the Euratom Treaty against the EAEC represented by the Commission of the European Communities.
Grifoni på­stod Kommissionen kendt ansvarlig for den skade, han havde lidt ved en ulykke i bygningerne på Kommissionens Falles Forskningscenter i Ispra og kravede er­statning for den skade, han herved havde Udt.
The application was for a declaration that the Commission was liable for the damage which the applicant suffered as the result of an accident which took place on the premises of the Commission's Joint Research Centre at Ispra and, consequently, for an order requiring it to pay compensation for the aforesaid damage.
Grifoni anførte, at han i forbindelse med en licitation havde fået kontrakt på udførelsen af forskellige blikkenslagerarbejder på centret, og at han i den forbindelse var gået op på meteorologistationens tagterrasse for at foretage forskellige opmålinger.
Mr Grifoni stated that, as the successful bidder in a tendering procedure for the performance of certain tin-plating and ironwork to be carried out at the Centre, he went up to the flat roof of the meteorological station in order to take measurements.
Han styrtede ned herfra og pådrog sig alvorlige las­Ioner.
He fell and suffered serious Injury.
Grifoni gjorde gældende, at Kommissonenivar ansvarlig for ulykken, idet den ikke havde truffet de sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, der var nødvendige for at hindre den.
Mr Grifoni maintained that the Commission was Hable for the accident because it failed to take the necessary safety measures to prevent it.
Domstolen henviste i den forbindelse til sin faste praksis, hvorefter Falles­skabets ansvar uden for kqntrakt og gennemførelse af et hermed sammenhængende erstatningskrav forudsatter, at en række betingelser vedrørende retsstridig­heden af den adfærd, som institutionerne havdes at have udvist, er opfyldt, nemlig at der foreligger en skade, og at der er årsagsforbindelse mellem adfærden og den påberåbte skade.
The Court pointed out in that regard that it had consistently held that the involvement of the non-contractual liability of the Community and the assertion of the right to compensation for damage suffered depended on the satisfaction of a number of requirements relating to the unlawfulness of the conduct of which the Community institutions were accused, the reality of the damage and the existence of a causal connexion between that conduct and the damage in question.
Kommissionen havde derfor Ifølge Domstolen for de arbejder, der blev udført på centret 1 Ispra, haft pligt til at overholde de relevante Italienske betemmelser, og denne pligt var 1 Øvrigt udtrykkeligt fastsat 1 artikel 31 i bilag F 1 over enskomsten af 22. juli 1959 mellem Den Italienske Republik og Euratom.
Thus, with regard to the work carried out at the Ispra Centre, the Commission was required to observe the relevant provisions of Italian law, as expressly provided for under Article 31 of Annex F to the agreement of 22 July 1959 between the Italian Republic and the European Atomic Energy Community.
I det foreliggende tilfalde stod det ifølge Domstolen fast, at Kommissionen havde undladt at træffe de sikkerhedsforanstaltninger, der var påkravet ifølge Italiensk lovgivning, herunder foranstaltninger til sikring af, at der opstilles et passende sikkerhedsbælte omkring arbejdende personer, hvorved der består en risiko for nedstyrtning, og til at forsyne arbejdspladser 1 højden med et brystværn.
The Court stated that in the present case it was common ground that the Commission had failed to implement the safety measures laid down by Italian law and in particular the provisions requiring persons who carried out work involving the risk of falling to be provided with a suitable safety harness and parapets to be installed at elevated working places.
Det måtte derfor fastslås, at Kommissionen havde handlet retsstridigt. stridigt.
It must therefore be concluded that the Commission's conduct was unlawful.
Om årsagsforbindelsen mellem Kommissionens undladelser og sagsøgerens styrt bemarkede Domstolen, at sagsøgeren på sin side ikke havde udvist fornøden omhu for at beskytte sig selv.
As for the causal connexion between the Commission's failure to act and the applicant's fall, the Court observed that the applicant had also failed to exhibit the diligence necessary for his own protection.
Grifoni var ekspert på området og burde derfor have udvist den nødvendige omhu ved eventuelt at nægte at foretage opmålinger, før sikkerhedsforholdene var 1 orden.
As Mr Grifoni was a specialist in the field, he should have taken the necessary precautions, refusing, 1f necessary, to carry out the measurements before the safety measures had been implemented.
Det kunne herefter ifølge Domstolen ikke antages, at den indtrufne skade ude lukkende skyldtes Kommissionens adfærd, for sagsøgeren havde kunnet undgå ulykken ved at udvise tilstrækkelig påpasselighed, hvilket han imidlertid und lod, således at ulykken også skyldtes hans egen adfærd.
Under those circumstances, the damage suffered was not caused exclusively by the Commission's conduct, but also by that of the applicant who, even though he could have prevented the accident by exercising the diligence required of him, did not do so, and thus contributed in part to its occurrence.
Ansvaret for ulykken må derfor i Uge grad lagges på begge parter.
The Court stated that, consequently, liability was to be shared equally between the two parties.
Kommissionen erstatter halvdelen af den skade, sagsøgeren har lidt som følge af styrtet fra tagterrassen på den meteorologiske station ved Det Falles Forskningscenter 1 Ispra.
The Commission is ordered to pay compensation, to the amount of 50%, for the damage suffered by the applicant as the result of his fall from the flat roof of the meteorological station of the Joint Research Centre at Ispra;
I Øvrigt frifindes sagsøgte.
The remainder of the application 1s dismissed;
Parterne meddeler Inden tre måneder fra dommens afsigelse Domstolen en opgørelse af erstatningen, således som den har kunnet fast lagges efter overenskomst mellem parterne.
The parties shall submit to the Court within six months of the delivery of the Judgment, a detailed calculation of the amount of compensation established by common accord;
Opnås der ingen overenskomst om erstatningens størrelse, tilstiller parterne inden for samme frist Domstolen deres respektive opgørelser af erstatningens beløb.
In the event that agreement is not reached, the parties shall submit to the Court, within the same period, their own assessments, with supporting figures;
Afgørelsen vedrørende sagens omkostninger udsættes."
The costs are reserved."
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 12. december 1989i
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on the 12 December 1989.
Hans forslag havde følgende indhold:
He proposed that the Court should:
"- Kommissionen (Euratom) kendes ansvarlig for den ulykke, der indtraf den den 24. oktober 1985, og hvorved Grifoni led skade.
declare that the Commission of the EAEC is liable for the accident which occurred on the 24th October 1985 and of which Mr Grifoni was the victim;
- Parterne opfordres til inden seks måneder efter dommens afsigelse at indgå overenskomst om erstatningen, hvorved det forudsættes, at Domstolen, så fremt overenskomst ikke opnås, fastsætter erstatningen med tillæg af ren ter.
request the parties to agree - within six months of the judgment being delivered - on the amount of compensation, on the understanding that, if agreement is not reached, the Court will settle the damages;
- Kommissionen tilpligtes at afholde sagens omkostninger."
order the Commission to pay the costs."