natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Under henvisning til fast praksis bekræftede Domstolen, at artikel 36 udelukkende har til formål at beskytte den offentlige sundhed, og at den ikke kan påberåbes som støtte for økonomiske eller finansielle foranstaltninger af den art. som danner grundlaget for den nederlandske ordning.
In accordance with its consistent case-law,it emphasized that Article 36had to be restricted to the protection of public health and could not be relied uponto justify economic or financial measures, such as those on which the Netherlands legislation was based.
Kommissionen havde i en traktatbrudssag nedlagt påstand om. at det statueredes, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde overtrådt EØF-traktatens artikler 30 ff. som følge af en lovbestemmelse vedrørende lægemidler, hvorefter medicinske specialiteter kun må bringes i handelen af et midicinalfirma. som har hjemsted på tysk område.
The Commission brought an action against the Federal Republic of Germany for adeclaration that it had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 30 et seq. of the EEC Treaty by incorporating in its law on medicinal preparations a provision layingdown that proprietary medicinal products may be placed on the market only by apharmaceutical undertaking having its registeredoffice in Germany.
Ifølge Kommissionen må en sådan lovbestemmelse anses for en importrestriktion, der bevirker en forøgelse af udenlandske virksomheders omkostninger og et betydeligt indgreb i deres handlefrihed.
According tothe Commission, such legislation constituted a restriction on imports resulting inincreased costs for foreign undertakings and seriouslyjeopardizing their freedom of action.
Den tyske regering anførte heroverfor, at en importør under alle omstændigheder af kommercielle grunde er nødsaget til at oprette en filial på nationalt område eller udnævne en repræsentant. Yderligere er det vigtigt af hensyn til den offentlige sundhed at sikre, at der på nationalt område findes en ansvarlig repræsentant, som kan samarbejde med de tilsynsførende myndigheder, såfremt der markedsføres defekte lægemidler; den tyske regering understregede yderligere, at det er nødvendigt at have en repræsentant på tysk område for således at sikre, at de trufne foranstaltninger var effektive, når henses til medicinalfirmaets strafferetlige og civilretlige ansvar.
In its defence,the German Government arguedthat, in any event, an importer hadto establish a branch or representative in Germany for commercial reasons.Moreover, it was important, from the point of view of the protection of publichealth, to ensure the presence in Germany of a responsible person capable ofcooperating with the supervisory authorities in the event of the marketing ofdefective medicinal preparations.
Ifølge Domstolen kunne den tyske regerings argumenter principielt ikke bestrides, idet enhver medlemsstat lovligt kan træffe passende foranstaltninger med det formål at sikre beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed inden for sit område, når der ikke er gennemført en tilstrækkelig harmonisering på fællesskabsplan.
The German Government also insisted on theneed to ensure,through the presence of a representative established in the FederalRepublic , the effectiveness of the measures adopted in relation to the civil andcriminal liability of pharmaceutical undertakings.
den tyske lovgivning indførte art. Domstolen udtalte yderligere, at proceduren med meddelelse af salgstilladelser for medicinalvarer gør det muligt for de nationale myndigheder at træffe alle ønskelige foranstaltninger over for personer, som søger om tilladelse til at sælge bestemte produkter.
German Government, inasmuch as, in the absence of adequate harmonization at Community level',each Member State was entitled to take appropriate measures inorder to ensure the protection of public health in its territory. However, itconsidered that, in intra-Community trade, the requirement of a representativeestablishedin national territory was not a measure needed to ensure the properprotection of public health.
Skønt det ikke kan nægtes, at det strafferetlige eller civilretlige ansvar har en vis forebyggende virkning, udgør det ikke en reel garanti, for så vidt angår beskyttelsen af den offentlige sundhed, som kræver foranstaltninger og kontrol af en helt anden art.
As regards civil and criminal liability, although itmight have a deterrent effect, it did not provide an adequate safeguardfrom thepoint of view of the protection of public health, since such protection called forprecautions and controls of a different nature.
Herefter fastslog Domstolen, at Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland havde tilsidesat sine forpligtelser ifølge traktaten, idet den således bekræftede en allerede afsagt dom i en tilsvarende sag mod Belgien (dom af 2. marts 1983, 155/82, Sml. s. 531), vedrørende godkendelse af plantebeskyttelsesmidler.
In conclusion,therefore, the Court held that the Federal Republic of Germany hadfailed to fulfil its obligations, thereby confirming an earlier decision given in asimilar caseinvolving Belgium (judgment of 2 March 1983 in Case I55_BAR_BZ [1983]
Dom af 10. juli 1984, Campus OU m.fl. mod Irland (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af High Court of Ireland, 72/83, Sml. s. 2727).
Judgment of 10 July 1984 in Case 72183,Campus Oil and Others v lreland, [1984]ECR 2727 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland).
De af High Court of Ireland forelagte præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EØF-traktatens artikler 30 og 36 blev rejst under en usædvanlig sag.
The questions referred to the Court of Justice by the High Court of Dublin for apreliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treatyconcern an unusual case.
I 1982 erhvervede den irske stat det eneste olieraffinaderi i Irland, som var opført i Whitegate af fire olieselskaber, som samtidig kontrollerede størstedelen af det irske marked for raffinerede olieprodukter.
In 1982, the Irish State acquired the only petrol refinery in Ireland, which had been opened at Whitegate by four oil companies which alsocontrolled the greater part of the Irish market in refined petroleum products.
Beslutningen om at købe raffinaderiet i Whitegate blev truffet, efter at de fire selskaber, som ejede raffinaderiet, havde meddelt, at de ville indstille driften.
Thedecision to acquire the Whitegate refinery was taken after the four companieswhich owned it announcedtheir intention to close the refinery.
For at fortsætte raffinaderiets drift på rentabelt grundlag havde den irske regering ved »Fuels (Control of Supplies) Order« af 1982 forpligtet importører af olieprodukter til at aftage en vis procentdel af deres køb af olieprodukter hos det nationale selskab, som stod for driften af raffinaderiet, til priser fastsat af den kompetente minister.
In order to keep therefinery in operation on a profitable basis, the Irish Government had issued the Fuels (Control of Supplies) Order in I9B2 requiring importers of petroleumproducts to procure a certain proportion of their requirements at prices to bedetermined by the competent minister from the Irish National Petroleum Corporation which was responsible for operating the refinery.
En række olieimportører gjorde gældende, at disse bestemmelser var uforenelige med fællesskabsreglerne om frie varebevægelser.
A number of importers of petroleum products challenged the compatibility of thoseprovisions with the rules on the free movement of goods in the Community.
Heroverfor anførte den irske regering navnlig, at foranstaltningen var begrundet i hensynet til den offentlige sundhed, jfr. traktatens artikel 36, da der var tale om at opretholde driften af det eneste raffinaderi i Irland, som kunne sikre forsyningssikkerheden med olieprodukter i Irland, som var af afgørende betydning for den irske økonomi.
In itsdefence the Irish Government argued in particular that the measure adopted wasjustified by Article 36 of the Treaty on grounds of public security inasmuch as it wasintended to keep in operation Ireland's only refinery, which was capable ofguaranteeing relatively secure supplies of petroleum products for that countrywhich were essential to its economy.
Domstolen udtalte, at de irske foranstaltninger som sådanne er i strid med artikel 30, idet formålet er at beskytte den nationale produktion og til gengæld begrænse mulighederne for olieimport.
The Court acknowledged that in themselves the Irish measures were incompatiblewith Article 30 inasmuch as their purpose was to protect domestic production and,by the sametoken, to restrict the possibility of importing petroleum products.
Ifølge Domstolen kan reglerne vedrørende frie varebevægelser ikke fraviges blot fordi det hævdes, at en vare er af afgørende betydning for en medlemsstats eksistens eller økonomi.
In itsview, goods could not be considered exempt from the rules on the freemovementof goods merely because they were alleged to be of particular importance for theexistence or the economy of a Member State.
Domstolen fastslog imidlertid, at olieprodukter på grund af deres særlige betydning som energikilde i moderne økonomier, er af grundlæggende betydning for en stats eksistens, idet ikke alene samfundsøkonomien, men i første række samfundets institutioner og de livsvigtige offentlige tjenester samt endog befolkningens overlevelse er afhængig heraf.
However, it conceded that petroleumwas a special case in view of its exceptional importance as an energy source in themodern economy; the supply of petroleum products was of fundamentalimportance for the existence of a State since not only its economy but above all itsinstitutions, its essential public services and even the survival of its inhabitantsdepended upon it.
Domstolen anerkendte således, at en afbrydelse af forsyningen med olieprodukter og de risici, der herved opstår for statens eksistens, kan udgøre en alvorlig fare for den offentlige sikkerhed, som kan beskyttes med hjemmel i artikel 36.
The Court therefore recognized that an interruption of suppliesof petroleum products, with the resultant dangers for a State's existence, couldseriously affect the security interests which Article 36 allowed States to protect.
Efter denne rent principielle konstatering tilføjede Domstolen imidlertid, at en købsforpligtelse til priser fastsat af staten under ingen omstændigheder kan gå ud over. hvad der kræves for at sikre den pågældende stat en mindsteforsyning med olieprodukter og for at opretholde driften af det pågældende raffinaderi.
Having established the principle underlying its decision, the Court added howeverthat the application of a system of compulsory purchase at prices fixed by the Stateshould in no circumstances exceed the minimum supply rbquirements of the Stateconcerned and the quantities which were absolutely necessary to keep the refineryin operation.
Domstolen udtalte, at det tilkom den nationale ret at afgøre, om den irske ordning gik ud over disse grænser.
The Court remitted the assessmentof the question whether thoselimits had been exceeded bv the aforesaid svstem to the national court.
Sagsøgerne i denne sag. en flamsk og en nederlandsk forening af forelæggere og boghandlere, havde nedlagt påstand om annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 82/123/EØFaf 25. november 1981. hvori Kommissionen fastslog, at en aftale indgået mellem de to foreninger var i strid med traktatens konkurrenceregler. Ifølge aftalen skulle der ved handel mellem den flamsktalende del af Belgien og Nederlandene anvendes den prisbindingsordning, der gjaldt i henhold til de to foreningers nationale aftaler.
This action, brought by the Flemish and Dutch publishers' and booksellers' tradeassociations, sought the annulment of Commission Decision 82ll23lEEC of.25November 1981 which held to be incompatible with the rules of competition in the Treaty an agreement concluded between the two associations concerning theapplication, in the book trade between the Flemish part of Belgium and the Netherlands, of the resale price maintenance system provided for by theagreements in force within the two national associations.
Ud over en række formalitetsindsigelser, som Domstolen tilbageviste, fremsatte sagsøgeren en række anbringender, som skulle begrunde en prisbindingsordning for bøger.
Apart from a number of procedural objections, which were all rejected by the Court, the applicants put forward various arguments in support of resale pricemaintenance in the book trade.
Her kan navnlig nævnes følgende anbringender.
The following arguments are noteworthy:
a) På grund af den optimale organisation af distributionsnettet fremmer prisbindingsordningen alsidigheden af de titler, der udgives af forlagene, og sikrer således udgivelsen af værker, der er vanskelige at sælge, som for eksempel videnskabelige værker og poesi.
(a) The effect of the resale price maintenance system, owing to the optimalorganization of the distribution network, was to encourage a multiplicity oftitles issued by publishers and thus to ensure the publication of less readilysaleable works such as, for example, works of scienceand poetry.
Ved at erklære den mellem foreningerne indgåede aftale ulovlig havde Kommissionen derfor, ifølge sagsøgerne, handlet i strid med ytringsfriheden.
Accordingly,by finding that the agreement concluded between the associations wasunlawful, the Commission jeopardized freedom of expression.
b) Sagsøgerne anførte yderligere, at Kommissionens handling var i strid med den politik, som de fleste medlemsstater fører på dette område.
On that point, the Court acknowledged that although it was true that certain
anvendelsen af traktatens konkurrenceregler.
economic provisions might not be without effect from the point of view of freedomof expression,the applicants had not established in this case the existence of anyreal link betweenthe Commission's decision and freedom of expression.
Dette gælder så meget mere for private virksomheders praksis, selv om den tolereres eller godkendes af en medlemsstats offentlige myndigheder.
(b) The applicants also claimed that the Commission's conduct was in contradiction withthe policy pursued inthe matter by most ofthe Member States.Intheir view, the system of resale price maintenance for books was perrnitted inpractically all the Member States as a result of legislation or practicesrecognized as lawful by the courts.
c) Ifølge sagsøgernes centrale anbringende havde Kommissionen ikke taget bogmarkedets særlige struktur i betragtning.
In reply to that argument, the Court stated that national legislative or judicialpractices, even onthesupposition thatthey werecommontoallthe Member States, could not prevail in the application ofthe competition rules set out in the Treaty.
Imidlertid udgør hver bog, ifølge sagsøgerne, et marked for sig. og priselasticiteten for bøger som produkter er minimal, hvorfor andre konkurrencefaktorer har større betydning end prisen.
In itsdecision, the Commission had failed to take account of the specific nature ofthe book, having taken the view that price competition was the sole essentialelementin competition.
Sagsøgeren nævnede i denne forbindelse det vari erede udbud, alsidigheden i boghandlernes beholdninger, den hurtighed, hvormed bestillingerne efterkommes, og de tjenesteydelser, der tilbydes for brugerne i form af information og rådgivning.
Intheir view. each book constituted a market in itselfand price elasticity ofbooks, as goods, was minimal, so that other facets ofcompetition hadapredominantinterest incomparisonwithprice.Inthatconnection theapplicants mentioned the variety ofsupply, thediversity ofstock held by bookshops,the speed with which orders were executedand theservices offered to consumers by way of information and advice.
Forbrugeren har kun fordel af dette system, da han kan købe den samme bog alle steder til samme pris og som modstykke hertil drage fordel af et bredt udbud og optimal service.
They arguedthat the consumer derived only advantagesfrom that system as he could buythe same books in all places at the same price and in return enjoyed a widespread of titles available and the best possible service.
Domstolen bemærkede, at dette markeds særlige karakter ikke kunne begrunde, at de to foreninger i deres indbyrdes forhold indførte en restriktiv ordning, som bevirker, at forhandlerne afskæres fra at fastsætte salgsprisen helt ned i detailleddet.
In reply to that argument, the Court stated that the special features of the market inquestion did not permit the two associationsto set up, in their mutual relations, arestrictive system whose effect was to deprive distributors of all freedom of actionas regards the fixing of the selling price up to the level of the final price to theconsumer.
En sådan ordning er i strid med traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, hvis litra a) udtrykkeligt forbyder alle aftaler, som består i »direkte eller indirekte fastsættelse af købs- eller salgspriser«.
Such an arrangement was contrary to Article 85(1) (a), which expresslyprohibited all agreements which 'directly or indirectly fix purchase or sellingprices'.
Desuden kan hver af de to foreninger i henhold til den ved aftalen in dførte prisbindingsordning kontrollere afsætningen indtil sidste handelstrin og således gøre det umuligt at indføre salgsmetoder, som kan føre til, at forbrugerne for synes på mere fordelagtige økonomiske betingelser.
Furthermore the system of resale price maintenance laid down in theagreement allowed each of the two associations to control outlets as far as the laststage and thus to make impossible the introduction of salesmethods capable ofallowing consumers to be supplied in economically more favourable conditions.
d) Endelig gjorde sagsøgerne gældende, at Kommissionen ikke havde imødekommet deres ansøgning om at henføre prisbindingsordningen under undtagelsesbestemmelsen i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3.
application for the grant of an exemption, pursuant to Article 85 (3) of the Treaty, in favour of the system of resale price maintenance.
De anførte herved, at aftalen havde til formal at forbedre produktionen og distributionen af bøger gennem virkningen af den »interne kompensation«, som muliggøres af prisbindingsordningen. ordningen.
They claimed inthat regard that the agreement was intended to improve the production anddistribution of books as a result of the system of "cross-subsidization" madepossible by the resale price maintenance system.
De forklarede, at den faste pris gør det muligt for forlæggeren ved hjælp af fortjenester på bestsellers, som er lette at sælge og omsættes hurtigt, at dække omkostningerne og tage risikoen ved udgivelse af svært tilgængelige og mindre rentable værker.
They explained in thatconnection that the existence of the fixed price allowed the publisher, as aresult of the profit realized on his successfultitles, which met with a ready saleand a rapid turnover, to accept the responsibility and the risk of publishingmore difficult and less profitable works.
Forhandlerne kan opretholde større lagre og betjene kunderne bedre, og de fremmer således en større spredning af forskelligartede værker.
Distributors in their turn were in a position to maintain more extensive stocks and to servetheir customers betterby helping in this way to disseminatea greater number of varied works.
Derimod bevirker afskaffelsen af prisbindingen, ifølge sagsøgerne, en koncentration af handelen med værker, der er lette at sælge, med den konsekvens, at værker, som ikke er så let tilgængelige, opgives, samt at adskillige specialiserede boghandler må give op.
On the other hand, they alleged that the abolition of resale price maintenance wouldhave the effect of concentrating trade on works which sold rapidly with theresult that more difficult titles would be abandoned and numerous specialist bookshops would go out of business.
Domstolen fandt, at Kommissionen ikke havde overskredet grænserne for det skøn, den kan udøve i henhold til artikel 85. stk. 3.
In reply to that argument, the Court drew attention to the fact that Article 85 (3)conferred a discretion on the Commission the limits of which did not appear to have been exceeded in this case.
Domstolen udtalte, at dette spørgsmål kun kunne afgøres endeligt inden for rammerne af de nationale aftaler.
The Court held that, in any event, this question couldbe considered in detail only in connection with the national agreements which hadbeen concluded within the two associations and which were outside the scope of thedispute.
Derimod kunne det ikke fastslås, at den omtvistede aftale indgået mellem de to foreninger var en nødvendig forudsætning for. at de nationale aftaler kunne fungere.
Moreover, the contested agreement concluded between the two associations did not appear to be a precondition for the operation of the national agreements.
Kort sagt frifandt Domstolen sagsøgte, men tog ikke endelig stilling til spørgsmålet om en eventuel fravigelse af hovedreglen, som kun kan behandles hensigtsmæssigt, hvis det sættes i relation til de nationale aftaler, som Kommissionen bevidst havde undladt at tage stilling til.
In conclusion, the Court dismissed the application but left open the questionwhether an exemption should be granted, which could be purposefully consideredonly in relation to the national agreements which the Commission had of its ownaccord left outside the scope of its appraisal.
Dom af 14. november 1984. 5.4 Intermitís mod Kommissionen. (323/82, Sml. s. 3809).
Judgment of 14 November 1984 in Case 323182,SA Intermills v Commission,
Sagen, som var anlagt af en belgisk papirfabrik til prøvelse af en kommissionsbeslutning om statsstøtte, vedrørte et vigtigt problem i forbindelse med omstrukturering af virksomheder, men i virkeligheden tog Domstolen i sin dom kun stilling til visse formelle aspekter af beslutningen, som blev annulleret af mangel på be grundelse.
This action, brought by a paper-manufacturing undertaking against a Commissiondecision on aid, was concerned with an important problem raised by a plan for therestructuring of undertakings; in its judgment, however, the Court dealt only withcertain procedural aspects of the decision which was declared void because it didnot state the reasons on which it was based.
Kun den støtte, som blev ydet i form af lån, var ifølge Kommissionen økonomisk begrundet, for så vidt lånene skulle tilbagebetales med renter.
The Belgian State, acting through the Walloon Regional Executive, had granted asubstantial aid to a paper-manufacturing undertaking which was in difficulty.
Efter at have tilbagevist visse formalitetsindsigelser fastsatte Domstolen et udgangspunkt for fortolkningen af EØF-traktatens artikel 92 vedrørende statsstøtte. Bestemmelsen vedrører statsstøtte eller støtte, som ydes ved hjælp af stasmidler »under enhver tænkelig form«.
Theaid had been granted partly in the form of a holding acquired by the publicauthorities in the capital of the undertaking, which was at the same time subdividedinto three manufacturing companies the control of which was taken over by the State, and partly in the form of low-interest loans.
I lyset heraf fandt Domstolen, at den anfægtede beslutning var behæftet med selvmodsigelser, og at den på en række afgørende punkter ikke indeholdt nogen begrundelse for Kommissionens handling. Domstolen udtalte navnlig, at Kommis-
The Commission considered thatthe holding acquired in the undertaking's capital, which was intended to allow theundertaking to repay its accumulated debts, did not constitute a genuine
sionen ikke havde forklaret, hvorfor den principielt anser støtte ydet i form af lån som lovmedholdig og støtte ydet i form af kapitalindskud som retsstridig uden at undersøge, hvorledes den ydede støtte - af den ene eller den anden art - anvendtes.
restructuring aid and was capable of distorting competition within the commonmarket.
Følgelig annullerede Domstolen den anfægtede beslutning.
Only the aid granted in the form of repayable loans on which interest waspayable was economicallyjustified.
Dom af 10. juli 1984, Regina mod Kent Kirk (anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse indgivet af Crown Court, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 63/83, s. 2689).
After rejecting a number of procedural objections, the Court resolved apreliminary issue concerning the interpretation of Article 92 of the EEC Treatyrelating to the system of aid.