natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at Kommissionen ifølge fællesskabsbestemmelserne hverken var forpligtet til eller i øvrigt havde mulighed for at kontrollere rigtigheden af de fortegnelser eller oplysninger, der blev meddelt den af med lemsstaternes myndigheder, samt at Kommissionen ikke selv foretog tildeling eller en fornyet fordeling af de resterende mængder mellem de berettigede og navnlig ikke havde hjemmel til at træde i de nationale myndigheders sted ved udstedelse af importlicenser, da Kommissionen alene havde kompetence til at afgøre, i hvilket omfang de ansøgninger, der var godkendt af de nationale myndigheder, kunne imødekommes.
The Court observed, in that regard, that, under the Community legislation, the Commission was neither under a duty nor indeed empowered to check the correctness of the lists or information notified to it by the Member States' authorities and that, since it was responsible only for determining the extent to which applications admitted by the national authorities might be accepted, the Commission itself did not allocate or reallocate the quantities thus determined to the persons entitled, and in particular did not have the power to substitute itself for the national authorities for the purposes of the issue of import licences.
Emerald Meats gjorde endvidere gældende, at Kommissionen havde tilsidesat artikel 3 i forordning nr. 3889/89, ved at acceptere, at der efter den 16. september 1990 - dvs. efter fristen for medlemsstaternes underretning af Kommissionen om de mængder, der ikke var udnyttet pr. 31. august samme år - blev tilbageført mængder med henblik på en fornyet fordeling.
Emerald Meats claimed next that the Commission had infringed Article 3 of Regulation No 3889/89 by accepting that certain quantities should be returned to it for reallocation after 16 September 1990, that is to say after the date by which the Member States had to notify to the Commission the quantities not applied for by 31 August 1990.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at de mængder, som medlemsstaterne skulle give Kommissionen underretning om, var de mængder, der ikke var ansøgt om pr. 31. august, samt at datoen, den 16. september, alene var fastsat som frist for underretning af Kommissionen om forholdene i hver enkelt medlemsstat pr. 31. august.
In that regard, the Court observed that the quantities which the Member States had to notify to the Commission were those for which no application had been submitted by 31 August and that the date of 16 September was simply the last date for notifying to the Commission the situation existing in each Member State at 31 August.
En underretning, der fandt sted efter den 16. september, kunne således
Consequently, notification after 16 September could not affect the situation on 31 August of the year in question and was not capable of adversely affecting traders' interests.
Sagsøgeren gjorde endelig gældende, at kravet om, at der blev stillet garanti for at undgå, at indførsel fandt sted to gange på grundlag af samme referencemængder, dels var ulovligt - da Kommissionen var forpligtet til selv at kontrollere, om der forelå ansøgninger, der kunne give anledning til dobbeltindførsler, og til at forkaste ansøgninger, der ikke var gyldige - dels var urimeligt.
Lastly, Emerald Meats argued that the requirement for a guarantee to be lodged in order to avoid imports being carried out twice on the basis of the same reference quantities was both unlawful, because the Commission was under a duty itself to check whether there were applications likely to give rise to dual imports and to reject those which were not valid, and unreasonable.
Hertil bemærkede Domstolen, at Kommissionen ikke kunne forkaste samtlige ansøgninger.
The Court pointed out that the Commission could not declare all the applications in question inadmissible.
Den kunne heller ikke træde i stedet for medlemsstaternes myndigheder og berigtige de fortegnelser, som disse havde meddelt den, ligesom den ikke uden videre kunne godkende samme referencemængder to gange, da dette på retsstridig måde ville reducere de mængder, der kunne tildeles andre erhvervsdrivende i Fællesskabet på grundlag af referencemængder, som disse havde ført bevis for at have indført i løbet af referenceårene.
Neither could it substitute itself for the Member States' authorities and correct the lists which they had notified to it or admit the same reference quantities as they stood twice, for that would have unlawfully reduced the quantities available for allocation to other operators in the Community on the basis of the quantities which they had imported during the reference years.
Under disse omstændigheder fandt Domstolen, at det ikke var urimeligt, at Kommissionen havde indført en garantiordning for at undgå, at der blev foretaget indførsel to gange på grundlag af samme referencemængder.
In those circumstances, it did not appear unreasonable that the Commission should have introduced a guarantee system in order to ensure that imports were not effected twice on the basis of the same reference quantities.
Domstolen fandt heller ikke, at garantiens størrelse var urimelig, da den svarede til basisimportafgiften for det pågældende kød, og den erhvervsdrivende under alle om stændigheder skulle betale denne afgift, såfremt hans ansøgninger i sidste ende blev afslået.
Neither did it appear that the amount of the guarantee was unreasonable, since it was equal to the basic import levy for the meat in question, which would in any event have to be paid by an operator whose applications were ultimately rejected.
Af det anførte fremgik, at Kommissionen ikke kunne anses for at have handlet retsstridigt på en sådan måde, at det medførte erstatningsansvar uden for kontrakt for Fællesskabet på grund af udstedelsen af de anfægtede retsakter.
It followed that the Commission could not be held to have acted unlawfully so as to give rise to non-contractual liability on the part of the Community in connection with the adoption of the contested measures.
Da Kommissionen i flere tilfælde havde grebet ind overfor de irske myndigheder, og da den havde foretaget forskellige ændringer i sine egne retsakter under hensyn til forløbet af de retssager, Emerald Meats havde anlagt for de irske domstole, fandt Domstolen, at Kommissionen havde ydet Emerald Meats en bistand, der var langt mere omfattende, end den, den havde været forpligtet til, i henhold til de pågældende bestemmelser.
On the contrary, by intervening with the Irish authorities on several occasions and making various amendments to its own measures to take account of the progress of the proceedings brought by Emerald Meats in the Irish courts, the Commission afforded Emerald Meats much more extensive assistance than it was under an obligation to give under the legislation at issue.
Hver part bærer sine egne omkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i forbindelse med sagen om foreløbige forholdsregler, C-106/90 R."
Each party is ordered to bear its own costs, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures in Case C-106/90 R."
Generaladvokat Claus Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 18. november 1992.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Court on 18 November 1992.
Han foreslog Domstolen at træffe afgørelse om, at:
He proposed that the Court should:
"- afvise sagsøgers annullationspåstande,
Rule that there was no need to give a decision on the applicant's claim for annulment;
21.1.1993 "Annullationssøgsmål - kommissionsbeslutning om en procedure i henhold til Euratom-Traktatens artikel 83" (Sjette Afdeling)
(Action for annulment -- Commission decision relating to a procedure in application of Article 83 of the Euratom Treaty) (Sixth Chamber)
Ved stævning, indleveret den 6. oktober 1990, havde selskabet ANF-Lingen, Lingen, Tyskland, anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 90/413/Euratom om en procedure i henhold til Euratom-Traktatens artikel 83, hvorved Kommissionen traf bestemmelse om, at ANF-Lingen skulle sættes under administration, for så vidt angår sikkerhedskontrol, og af Kommissionens beslutning 90/465/Euratom, hvorved Kommissionen udpegede den persongruppe, som skulle gennemføre denne beslutning.
By an application lodged on 6 October 1990, Advanced Nuclear Fuels GmbH (ANF), a company established in Lingen, Germany, sought the annulment of Commission Decision 90/413/Euratom and Commission Decision 90/465/Euratom relating to a procedure in application of Article 83 of the Treaty by which the Commission placed ANF under administration as regards matters relating to control of security and proceeded to appoint the persons responsible for that administration.
Kommissionen havde truffet disse beslutninger efter at være blevet underrettet om, at sagsøgeren havde udført nukleart materiale til USA uden at udførslen forinden var blevet anmeldt eller bogførings- og driftsmæssigt registreret.
The Commission adopted those decisions after having been informed that ANF had exported nuclear material to the United States, without the exportation either having been declared beforehand or mentioned in the undertaking's accounts or records.
Sagsøgeren gjorde under sagen i første række gældende, at når udførslen havde fundet sted, skyldtes dette en simpel fejl i forbindelse med håndteringen af de pågældende transportbeholdere, hvilket ikke kunne anses som en alvorlig over trædelse af de i Traktatens artikel 79 omhandlede forpligtelser.
ANF maintained, first, that the exportation in question was due to a simple error during the handling of transport containers, which could not be treated as a serious breach of the obligations laid down in Article 79 of the Treaty.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at beholdningsændringerne som følge af udførslen først var blevet registreret, da det blev opdaget, at udførslen havde fundet sted.
In that regard, the Court observed that the stock variations due to the exportation in question were not recorded until they were discovered.
Som følge heraf var Kommissionen i tre dage blevet forhindret i at udføre sine kontrolopgaver, hvilket stred mod forpligtelserne i henhold til artikel 10 og 11 i forordning nr. 3227/76.
Thus, for three days the Commission was hindered in its task of control, in disregard of the obligations laid down in Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation No 3227/76.
Endvidere var udførslen sket, uden at Kommissionen som krævet efter artikel 24 i nævnte forordning forinden var blevet underrettet, og det måtte i denne forbindelse være uden betydning, at udførslen ikke var blevet foretaget forsætligt.
Moreover, the exportation in question took place without the Commission being informed of it beforehand, as was required by Article 24 of the regulation. The fact that the exportation took place involuntarily was irrelevant.
Sagsøgeren gjorde endvidere gældende, at det var med urette, at Kommissionen iværksatte den omtvistede foranstaltning over for selskabet, da enhver form for overtrædelse af de gældende bestemmelser var ophørt.
ANF next accused the Commission of having imposed the contested sanction when the infringement, if any, had ceased.
Domstolen bemærkede herom blot, at Euratom-Traktatens artikel 83 opregner de foranstaltninger, som Kommissionen kan træffe bestemmelse om på grundlag af den pågældende overtrædelses grovhed, idet det herved måtte være uden betydning, om overtrædelsen er blevet bragt til ophør.
In that regard, the Court stated that it was sufficient to observe that Article 83 listed the sanctions which the Commission could impose according to the seriousness of the infringement observed, regardless of whether the infringement had come to an end.
Endelig gjorde sagsøgeren gældende, at foranstaltningen var unødvendig, at den stod i misforhold til overtrædelsen, og at Domstolen burde træffe bestemmelse om en anden og mindre indgribende foranstaltning, nemlig en advarsel.
Lastly, ANF considered that the sanction was not necessary, that it was disproportionate, and that the Court should substitute for it the less serious one of a warning.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at de bestemmelser, som har til formål at sikre, at nukleart materialet ikke anvendes til andre formål end dem, som brugerne har angivet, er af afgørende betydning for, at Euratom kan udføre de opgaver, som
In that regard, the Court stated that the rules concerned with avoiding the diversion of nuclear material to purposes other than those for which their users had declared them as intended was fundamental to achieving the task of Euratom.
Endelig bemærkede Domstolen, at den omtvistede foranstaltnings nødvendige karakter fremgik af, at den gjorde det muligt at forhindre, at lignende overtrædelser ville kunne ske i fremtiden.
Moreover, the need for the contested sanction was demonstrated by the fact that it allowed measures to be applied so as to avoid the possibility of similar infringements being committed in future.
ANF-Lingen betaler samtlige sagsomkostninger, herunder omkostningerne i forbindelse med begæringerne om øjeblikkelig fuldbyrdelse af de anfægtede beslutninger og om oversendelse af evalueringsrapporten fra de personer, som blev udpeget til at gennemføre beslutningen om at sætte ANF-Lingen under administration."
ANF-Lingen is ordered to pay the costs, including those incurred in respect of the applications for the immediate implementation of the contested decisions and the forwarding of the report of the persons responsible for its administration."
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens Sjette Afdeling den 19. november 1992.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 19 November 1992.
at frifinde sagsøgte. og at pålægge sagsøgeren at betale sagens omkostninger."
Order the applicant to pay the costs."
Ved kendelse af 3. maj 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 25. juli 1991, havde Finanzgericht Hamburg forelagt Domstolen fire præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af konventionen mellem EFTA-landene og EØF om en fælles forsendelsesprocedure. Konventionen blev godkendt ved Rådets afgørelse 87/415/EØF.
By an order of 3 May 1991 which reached the Court on 25 July 1991, the Finanzgericht (Finance Court) Hamburg referred for a preliminary ruling four questions on the interpretation of the Convention on a common transit procedure between the EFTA and EEC states, approved by Council Decision 87/415/EEC.
Spørgsmålene var blevet rejst under en sag mellem ovennævnte parter på baggrund af en afgørelse fra Hauptzollamt, hvorefter Shell ikke længere havde tilladelse til at foretage identificeringen af varer, som transporteres med flod- og kanalskibe, alene ved beskrivelse, hvilket medførte, at Shell skulle anbringe adskillige plomber på hvert skib, der blev anvendt til transport af selskabets olieprodukter. Dette indebar adskillige arbejdstimer og gjorde det umuligt at automatisere arbejdet med at fylde produkterne på tønder i raffinaderierne.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between the abovementioned parties over the decision of the Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) to no longer authorize Shell to identify its goods transported by river boat by a simple description, which had the consequence that Shell had to affix several lead seals on each boat used for transporting its petroleum products, which involved several hours' work and excluded automating the procedure of filling the barrels in the refinery.
Hauptzollamts afgørelse blev truffet på grundlag af en instruks fra Forbundsfinansministeriet, som igen var baseret på nogle "vedtagelser" fra Den Blandede Kommission, der skal varetage administrationen af konventionen og sikre, at den anvendes korrekt. Ifølge vedtagelserne skal konventionens bestemmelser om for segling anvendes strengt og efter nærmere fastsatte regler.
The Hauptzoll amt's decision was taken on the basis of an instruction from the Federal Minister of Finance, based itself on "arrangements" adopted by the Joint Committee responsible for the management and proper implementation of the Convention, which provided that the provisions of the Convention regarding sealing should be strictly applied in accordance with the arrangements laid down.
Med hensyn til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt Domstolen har kompetence til at for tolke de pågældende vedtagelser, bemærkede Domstolen, at afgørelser, der er truffet af et organ, som er oprettet i henhold til en international aftale
As regards the question of whether the Court had jurisdiction to interpret those arrangements, the Court observed that, by virtue of their direct connection with the agreement which they were implementing, measures adopted by bodies established under an international agreement entered into by the Community and responsible for implementing it formed part of the Community legal order. The Joint Committee's arrangements must be regarded
Følgelig er Den Blandede Kommissions vedtagelser en del af fællesskabsretten.
Consequently, the Joint Committee's arrangements formed part of Community law.
Den omstændighed, at en fællesskabsretsakt ikke har bindende virkning, er ikke til hinder for, at Domstolen under en præjudiciel sag i medfør af artikel 177 kan træffe afgørelse om fortolkningen af retsakten.
The fact that a Community legal measure lacked compulsory effect did not prevent the Court giving a ruling, in the context of proceedings under Article 177 for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the measure.
Også selv om Den Blandede Kommissions henstillinger ikke skaber rettigheder for borgerne, som disse kan gøre gældende for de nationale domstole, har domstolene dog pligt til at tage hensyn til henstillingerne ved afgørelsen af retssager, navnlig når de som i hovedsagen kan bidrage til fortolkningen af konventionens bestemmelser.
Although the Joint Committee's recommendations could not confer rights on the parties which they could seek to enforce in the national courts, those courts were nonetheless bound to take account of them for the purpose of resolving disputes brought before them, in particular when they were, as in the present case, useful for interpreting the provisions of the Convention.
Domstolen bemærkede dernæst, at identificeringen af varerne ved beskrivelse førte til en forøget toldkontrol fra de schweiziske og østrigske myndigheders side.
The Court observed next that the identification of goods by description had led to the customs controls by the Swiss and Austrian authorities being intensified.
I betragtning af formålet med konventionen, som er at skabe mulighed for en hurtigere grænseovergang, og nødvendigheden af at sikre en ensartet toldpraksis ved gennemførelsen af konventionen, har Den Blandede Kommission under disse omstændigheder ikke overskredet grænserne for sin opgave ved at henlede opmærksomheden på de almindelige rammebestemmelser, inden for hvilke der kan gives tilladelse til at fravige hovedreglen om forsegling.
Under those circumstances, given that the purpose of the Convention was to enable a more rapid passage across frontiers and that it was necessary to guarantee uniform customs practice in applying the Convention, the Joint Committee had not exceeded the limits of its remit when it re-affirmed the general framework within which the derogations from the general principle of sealing could be authorized.
Domstolen har kompetence til at træffe præjudiciel afgørelse om for tolkningen af vedtagelser fra Den Blandede Kommission, der er nedsat i henhold til konventionen af 20. maj 1987 mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab, Republikken Østrig, Republikken Finland, Republikken Island, Kongeriget Norge, Kongeriget Sverige og Schweiz om en fælles forsendelsesprocedure.
The Court of Justice has jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the Arrangements adopted by the Joint Committee established by the Convention on a common transit procedure concluded on 20 May 1987 between the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland, the Republic of Iceland, the Kingdom of Norway, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation and the European Economic Community.
Konventionens artikel 11, stk. 4, og artikel 15, stk. 2, er ikke til hinder for, at Den Blandede Kommission henstiller, at varernes identitet skal sikres ved forsegling, såfremt EFTA-statens indgangstoldsted ikke er bestemmelsestoldsted.
Articles 11(4) and 15(2) of the Convention do not preclude the Joint Committee from making a recommendation that goods must be identified by sealing where the customs office at the point of entry into an EFTA country is not the customs office of destination.
Konventionens artikel 11, stk. 4, og artikel 15, stk. 2, litra b), sammenholdt med artikel 65, litra d), i tillæg II til konventionen, er ikke til hinder for, at en overordnet toldmyndighed i en medlemsstat fastsætter de almindelige rammebestemmelser, inden for hvilke den beføjelse, som er givet afgangstoldstedet til at dispensere fra kravet om forsegling, skal udøves.
Articles 11(4) and 15(2)(b) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 65(d) of Appendix II to the Convention, do not preclude a higher customs authority of a Member State from establishing the general framework within which the power conferred on the customs office of departure to dispense with sealing must be exercised.
Domstolen kan under en sag i henhold til EØF-Traktatens artikel 177 ikke træffe afgørelse om, hvorvidt en national foranstaltning er forenelig med fællesskabsretten."
In proceedings instituted under Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court does not have jurisdiction to give a ruling on the compatibility of a national measure with Community law."
De administrative regler i dokument XXI/1367/87-EFTA 2 af 21. januar 1988, der er vedtaget af Den Blandede Kommission, som blev oprettet i medfør af artikel 14 i konventionen af 20. maj 1987 om en fælles for sendelsesprocedure, er henstillinger, som medlemsstaterne - uden at være bundet af dem - skal tage i betragtning, for så vidt som de ikke er uforenelige med konventionen eller trinhøjere retlige principper, såsom proportionalitetsprineippet.
Committee established under Article 14 of the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure, are recommendations which are not binding on the Member States but which must be taken into account by them in so far as they are not incompatible with the Convention or with higher principles of law, in particular the principle of proportionality.
Konventionens artikel 11, stk. 4, og artikel 15, stk. 2, litra b), sammenholdt med artikel 63 og artikel 65, litra d), i tillæg II til konventionen, er ikke til hinder for, at en overordnet toldmyndighed i en medlemsstat fastsætter de almindelige rammebestemmelser, i den for hvilke den beføjelse, som er givet afgangstoldstedet til at dispensere fra kravet om forsegling, skal udøves.
Articles 11(4) and 15(2)(b) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 63 and 65(d) of Appendix II to the Convention, do not preclude a higher customs authority of a Member State from establishing the general framework within which the power conferred on the office of departure to dispense with sealing has to be exercised.
De er heller ikke til hinder for, at Den Blandede Kommission - som i de ovennævnte administrative regler - nærmere fastlægger denne beføjelse, således at konventionens kontraherende parter udøver den på ensartet måde i over ensstemmelse med konventionens karakter og rækkevidde.
Nor do those provisions preclude the Joint Committee from defining that power in the aforesaid arrangements, in accordance with the meaning and purpose of the Convention, with a view to the uniform application of the power by the Contracting Parties.
De nævnte regler er ikke uforenelige med proportionalitetsprincippet." princippet."
There is no evidence that the aforesaid arrangements are contrary to the principle of proportionality."
Fortolkningen af Kommissionens forordninger (EØF) nr. 1371/81 og nr. 900/84 -anvendelse på et landbrugsprodukt med oprindelse uden for Fællesskabet og ind ført uden anvendelse af monetære udligningsbeløb, når produktet efterfølgende udføres til en anden medlemsstat.
Interpretation of Commission Regulations (EEC) No 1371/81 and No 900/84 Applied to an agricultural product of extra-Community origin imported without application of an MCA upon subsequent exportation to a second Member State.