natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Nöplan er ubestrideligt en ordregivende myndighed som omhandlet i artikel 1, litra b), i direktiv 93/37, og den østrigske regering, som den selv har erkendt i svarskriftet, har ikke bestridt den udførlige analyse, Kommissionen foretog i den begrundede udtalelse af forholdet mellem Land Niederösterreich og Nöplan, og hvorefter Land Niederösterreich kontrollerer og finansierer alle aktiviteter som led i opførelsen af forvaltningscenteret.
Nöplan is a contracting authority within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37 and that, as the Austrian Government itself admits in its defence, it has not contested the detailed analysis made by the Commission in the reasoned opinion of the relationship between the Land of Lower Austria and Nöplan whereby the Land of Lower Austria controls and finances all activities regarding the construction of the administrative centre.
Under disse omstændigheder var Nöplan forpligtet til at overholde fællesskabsbestemmelserne om indgåelse af kontrakter, uafhængigt af, om de berørte erhvervsdrivende eventuelt havde mulighed for over for Nöplan at påberåbe sig de bestemmelser af de nævnte, som har direkte vfrkning.
In those circumstances, Nöplan was under an obligation to respect the Community provisions governing the awarding of contracts, irrespective of any possibility for the operators concerned to invoke against it provisions governing the awarding of contracts which have direct effect.
Fællesskabsbestemmelserne om indgåelse af offentlige kontrakter ville miste deres tilsigtede vfrkning, hvis handlinger foretaget af en ordregivende myndighed som Nöplan ikke kunne tilskrives den pågældende medlemsstat.
The Commission, taking the view that those contracts had been awarded in breach of Community law and that the conduct of the Republic of Austria was not justified, decided to bring this action.
Den østrigske regering har fremført fem formalitetsindsigelser, nemlig henholdsvis at det klagepunkt, der er sagens genstand, må afvises, at de overtrædelser, som påtales i den begrundede udtalelse, er ophørt, at der er fastsat for korte frister under den administrative procedure, at påstanden i sagen er upræcis, og at de påtalte overtrædelser ikke kan redresseres.
The Community directives governing the award of public contracts would be deprived of their effectiveness if the actions of a contracting authority such as Nöplan were not imputable to the Member State concerned.
I betragtning af, at værdien af de kontrakter, der endnu skulle indgås, fra den 1. januar 1995, datoen for Republikken Østrigs tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union, overskred den tærskel, der er fastsat i direktiv 93/37, skulle denne medlemsstat overholde fællesskabsbestemmelserne om indgåelse af kontrakter.
The Austrian Government raises five objections of admissibility to the action. They are (i) that the complaint on which the action is based is inadmissible, (ii) that the infringements alleged in the reasoned opinion have ceased, (iii) that the time-limits set during the pre-litigation procedure were too short, (iv) that the form of order sought is too imprecise and (v) that the alleged infringements are irreparable.
Kommissionens klagepunkt må afvises, for så vidt som det kan fortolkes som et krav om at få fastslået, at Republikken Østrig under alle omstændigheder skulle have ophævet kontrakter, der blev indgået før den 6. februar 1996 i strid med fællesskabsrettens bestemmelser.
Having regard to the fact that the value of the contracts still to be awarded, from 1 January 1995, the date on which the Republic of Austria acceded to the European Union, exceeded the threshold laid down in Directive 93/37, that Member State had to comply with the Community provisions on the award of public contracts.
Skønt Republikken Østrig fra den 12. december 1995 ændrede AAVB på den af Kommissionen
The Austrian Government has not contested the substance of the infringements of which it is accused.
Den østrigske regering har ikke bestridt rigtigheden af de traktatbrud, som gøres gældende.
This Court finds that the Commission's complaint, in so far as it could be interpreted as seeking a declaration that the Republic of Austria ought, in any event, to have cancelled the
2) Republikken Østrig betaler sagens omkostninger.*
The Republic of Austria is ordered to pay the costs.1
Sag C-253/97 Den Italienske Republik / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Landbrug
Case C-253/97 Italian Republic ν Commission of the European Communities Agriculture
•EUGFL — afslutning af regnskaber — regnskabsåret 1993* (Femte Afdeling)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial year 1993) (Fifth Chamber)
Dansk tekst foreligger endnu ikke. Offentliggøres på et senere tidspunkt i denne publikation.
Application by the Italian Republic for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 97/333/EC of 23 April 1997 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the expenditure of the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund for 1993 in so far as, in relation to Italy, it declared not chargeable to the EAGGF sums relating to:
Generaladvokat S. Alber fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling') den 6. maj 1999.
Advocate General S. Alber delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 6 May 1999.
Præjudiciel »Tv-udsendelser — begrænsning af den sendetid, der kan benyttes til reklamer* (Sjette Afdeling)
Limitation on transmission time allocated to advertising)
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem på den ene side Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Rundfunkanstalten (herefter »ARD«) og på den anden side PRO Sieben Media AG (herefter »PRO Sieben«), støttet af SAT 1 Satellitenfernsehen GmbH og Kabel 1, K 1 Fernsehen GmbH (herefter »SAT 1 og Kabel 1«).
By order of 17 December 1997, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Higher Regional Court, Stuttgart) referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities, as amended by Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997.
ARD består afelleve offentligretlige radio- og tvinstitutioner i delstaterne, som i fællesskab er ansvarlige for ARD's tv-program.
ARD consists of 11 public-law broadcasting organisations of the German Länder which are jointly responsible for the television programming of ARD.
PRO Sieben, SAT 1 og Kabel 1 er private tv-foretagender.
PRO Sieben is a private television broadcasting company, as are SAT 1 and Kabel 1.
måtte være gældende efter tysk ret, var dette princip i strid med direktiv 89/552 og med den primære fællesskabsret.
The Court of Justice concluded that the wording of Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552, as amended, was ambiguous.
Den forelæggende ret har anført, at den kan tilslutte sig Landgericht Stuttgart's fortolkning af national ret, men den har dog fundet, at sagens udfald må afhænge af fortolkningen af direktiv 89/552.
According to the gross principle, which is supported by PRO Sieben, SAT 1 and Kabel 1, the duration of advertisements must be included in the period of time in relation to which the permissible number of interruptions is calculated.
Med den første del af det andet spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om bestemmelserne i artikel 11, stk. 3, sammenholdt med artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 89/552, som ændret ved direktiv 97/36, giver medlemsstaterne adgang til at bestemme, at nettoprincippet skal gælde.
The main purpose of Directive 89/552, which was adopted on the basis of Article 57(2) (now, after amendment, Article 47(2) EC) and Article 66 (now Article 55 EC) of the EEC Treaty, is to ensure freedom to provide television broadcasting services.
Med det første spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst, om artikel 11, stk. 3, i direktiv 89/552, som ændret ved direktiv 97/36, foreskriver et bruttoprincip eller et nettoprincip.
A provision which imposes a restriction, in the matter of the provision of services, on an activity involving the exercise of a fundamental freedom such as the freedom to provide television broadcasting services must express that restriction in clear terms.
Det fremgår hverken af betragtningerne til direktiv 89/552 eller af direktivets formål, at artikel 20 skal fortolkes således, at medlemsstaterne derved fratages adgangen til at benytte den mulighed, der er tillagt dem ved direktivets artikel 3, stk. 1.
A further interruption, the Landesgericht ruled, would be permissible if the programme, calculated according to the net principle, lasted at least 20 minutes longer than two or more complete periods of 45 minutes.
Det må konstateres, at det ikke klart fremgår af ordlyden af artikel 11, stk. 3, i direktiv 89/552, som ændret, hvorledes bestemmelsen skal forstås.
Since Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552, as amended, imposes a restriction as regards the possibility of interrupting the transmission of audiovisual works by advertising, that restriction must be interpreted in the strictest possible sense.
Medlemsstaternes adgang til i henhold til artikel 20 i direktiv 89/552 at fastsætte andre betingelser omhandles i 28. betragtning til direktivet, hvor der henvises til medlemsstaternes mulighed for at fastsætte andre betingelser for reklameindslag og andre begrænsninger af reklametiden med henblik på at fremme udsendelser af den omhandlede karakter, på betingelse af at de udelukkende er bestemt til det nationale område og hverken direkte eller indirekte kan modtages i en eller flere andre medlemsstater.
On appeal against that decision to the Oberlandesgericht, PRO Sieben argued that, even though the net principle had to be applied under German legislation, this was contrary to Directive 89/552 and to primary Community law.
Det påvirker ikke gennemførelsen af formålet med direktiv 89/552 — som er at sikre fri adgang til udsendelse af fjernsyn i overensstemmelse med de mindsteregler, direktivet opstiller - såfremt medlemsstaterne opstiller strengere regler for reklamer.
While it agreed with the interpretation of national law given by the Landesgericht Stuttgart, the Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart none the less considered that the resolution of the dispute depended on the interpretation of Directive 89/552.
Hovedformålet med direktiv 89/552, som er udstedt med hjemmel i EF-traktatens artikel 57, stk. 2 (efter ændring nu artikel 47, stk. 2, EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 66 (nu artikel 55), er at sikre fri udveksling af fjernsynsudsendelser.
By the first part of its second question, the national court essentially asked whether Article 11(3), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36, authorised Member States to prescribe the net principle.
Med den anden del af det andet spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret oplyst, om EF-traktatens artikel 5 (nu artikel 10 EF), EF-traktatens artikel 6, 30 og 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF, 28 EF og 49 EF) og EF-traktatens artikel 85 (nu artikel 81 EF) samt det almindelige ligebehandlingsprincip er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat i medfør af artikel 3, stk. 1, i direktiv 89/552 bestemmer, at nettoprincippet skal gælde.
Neither the recitals in its preamble nor the objective of Directive 89/552 suggest that Article 20 must be construed as depriving Member States of the right which Article 3(1) of that directive allows them.
Eftersom der i artikel 11, stk. 3, i direktiv 89/552, som ændret, opstilles en restriktion med hensyn til adgangen til at afbryde transmission af audiovisuelle værker ved udsendelse af reklamer,
By its first question, the national court essentially asked whether Article 11(3) of Directive 89/552, as amended by Directive 97/36, prescribed the gross principle or the net principle.
Hensynet til at beskytte forbrugerne mod alt for mange kommercielle reklamer eller til, ud fra en kulturpolitisk målsætning, at sikre, at programmerne er af en vis kvalitet, er tvingende almene hensyn, som kan retfærdiggøre restriktioner i den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
manner, in law and in fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States.
Traktatens artikel 5, ligebehandlingsprincippet
The attainment of the objective of Directive 89/552, which is to ensure freedom to provide television broadcasting services in accordance with the minimum rules which it lays down, is not affected in any way if Member States impose stricter rules on advertising.
Sådanne bestemmelser begrænser muligheden for, at tv-spredningsinstitutioner, der er etableret i udsendelsesmedlemsstaten, udsender reklame for annoncører, der er hjemmehørende i andre medlemsstater, og at bestemmelserne dermed indebærer en restriktion for fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser.
The protection of consumers against abuses of advertising or, as an aim of cultural policy, the maintenance of a certain level of programme quality constitute overriding reasons relating to the general interest which may justify restrictions on freedom to provide services.
Hverken traktatens artikel 5, 6 og 85 eller ligebehandlingsprincippet er relevante i en situation som den, den forelæggende ret har beskrevet.
By the second part of its second question, the national court asked whether Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Articles 6, 30, 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 28 EC and 49 EC), Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and the general principle of equality precluded a Member State from prescribing, under Article 3(1) of Directive 89/552, application of the net principle.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
Article 30 of the Treaty
»1) Artikel 11, sik 3, i Rådets direktiv 89/552/EØF af 3. oktober 1989 om samordning af visse love og administrative bestemmelser i medlemsstaterne vedrørende udøvelse aftvspredningsvirksomhed, som ændret ved Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets direktiv 97/36/EF af 30. juni 1997, skal fortolkes således, at bruttoprincippet gælder, således at man ved beregningen af tidsrummet på 45 minutter med henblik på at opgøre antallet af tilladte reklameafbrydelser i transmissioner af audiovisuelle værker, herunder spillefilm og tv-fdm, skal medregne reklamernes varighed i tidsrummet.
As regards the proportionality of the restriction at issue, it is settled caselaw that requirements imposed on the providers of services must be appropriate to ensure achievement of the intended aim and must not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve that aim.
Bestemmelserne i artikel 11, stk 3, sammenholdt med artikel 3, stk 1, i direktiv 891552, som ændret, giver medlemsstaterne adgang tiL for de tv-spredningsforetagender, som hører under deres jurisdiktion, at bestemme, at nettoprincippet skal gælde for reklamer, der kan placeres inde i udsendelserne, dvs. at bestemme, at man ved beregningen af tidsrummet ikke skal medregne reklamer, dog på betingelse af, at de fastsatte regler er forenelige med andre relevante fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser.
National provisions restricting or prohibiting certain selling arrangements are not caught by Article 30 of the Treaty so long as they apply to all relevant traders operating within the national territory and so long as they affect in the same
EF-traktatens artikel 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 49 EF) er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat i medfør af artikel 3, stk 1, i direktiv 89/552 bestemmer, at nettoprincippet skal gælde.*
Article 11(3), in conjunction with Article 3(1), of Directive 89/552, as amended, authorises Member States to prescribe, for television broadcasters under their jurisdiction, the net principle f or advertisements which may be inserted during programmes, and thus to provide that, in order to calculate that period, the duration of the advertisements must be excluded, on condition, however, that those rules are compatible with other relevant provisions of Community law.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet ("Sjette Afdeling) den 24. juni 1999.
Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC), Articles 6 and 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 28 EC), Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) and the general principle of equal treatment do not apply to national rules which prescribe the application of the net principle f or television broadcasters under theirjurisdiction. jurisdiction.
Sag C-55/98 Skatteministeriet / Bent Vestergaard Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser
Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) does not preclude a Member State from prescribing, under Article 3(1) of Directive 89/552, the application of the net principle*
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser — indkomstbeskatning —skattepligtig indkomst —fradrag for udgifter til faglige kurser — sondring på grundlag af, i hvilket land kurserne afholdes* (Sjette Afdeling)
Advocate General F.G. Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 24 June 1999.
Det er i administrativ praksis og retspraksis fastlagt, hvilke driftsomkostninger der kan fradrages i medfør af lovens § 6, stk. 1, litra a).
He proposed that the Court should answer as follows:
Ved kendelse af 18. februar 1998 har Højesteret forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 6 og 59 (efter ændring nu artikel 12 EF og 49 EF).
'(1) Article 11(3) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities in its original version and as amended by Article 1(13) of Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 must be interpreted as prescribing the gross principle, that is to say that in calculating the period of 45 minutes for the purpose of determining permissible interruptions by advertisements in the transmission of audiovisual works such as feature films and films made for television, the duration of the advertisements should be included in that period.
Bent Vestergaard er registreret revisor og ansat i selskabet Bent Vestergaard A/S, der driver revisionsvirksomhed. Bent Vestergaard ejer den fulde aktiekapital i selskabet.
Such interruptions are however permissible only on condition that the integrity and value of the work are respected and that the rights of those holding rights in the work are not prejudiced.
Sagen drejer sig om Skatteministeriets nægtelse af at anerkende nogle udgifter til Bent Vestergaards deltagelse i et fagligt kursus, der blev afholdt i udlandet, som en fradragsberettiget driftsomkostning i den skattepligtige indkomst for selskabet Bent Vestergaard A/S, hvori Bent Vestergaard er eneaktionær.
(2) Subject to the same conditions Member States are free, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the directive, to provide with regard to broadcasters under their jurisdiction for the net principle, that is, to provide that, in calculating that period, the duration of the advertisements should be excluded.'
Fra den 3. til den 10. oktober 1998 deltog Bent Vestergaard i et skattekursus, der blev afholdt på Kreta.
Case C-55/98 Skatteministeriet ν Bent Vestergaard Freedom to provide services
For så vidt angår fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser er princippet imidlertid blevet iværksat og konkretiseret ved traktatens artikel 59.
Income tax — Taxable income — Deduction of expenses for Distinction according to the location of the courses)
Der er derfor ikke anledning til at træffe afgørelse om fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 6.
Preliminary ruling (Freedom to provide services professional training courses (Sixth Chamber)
Den 29. juni 1993 afsagde Landsskatteretten — den øverste administrative skattemyndighed — kendelse om, at udgifterne til Bent Vestergaards deltagelse i kurset på Kreta skulle anses for løntillæg for Bent Vestergaard i hans egenskab af eneaktionær i selskabet Bent Vestergaard A/S og dermed ikke kunne fradrages i selskabets skattepligtige indkomst i henhold til lovens § 6, stk. 1, litra a).
By order of 18 February 1998, the Højesteret (Supreme Court), Denmark, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Articles 6 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 49 EC).
For at tjenesteydelser som afholdelse af faglige kurser falder ind under anvendelsesområdet for traktatens artikel 59, er det tilstrækkeligt, at de udføres for statsborgere i en medlemsstat på en anden medlemsstats område, uafhængigt af, hvor tjenesteyderen eller modtageren af tjenesteydelsen er etableret.
By decision of 29 June 1993, the Landsskatteretten (National Tax Tribunal) decided that the expenses relating to Mr Vestergaard's participation in the course on Crete should be treated as a salary bonus paid to him as sole shareholder in the company Bent Vestergaard A/S and could not therefore be deducted from his taxable income under Article 6(l)(a) of the 1922 Law.
Traktatens artikel 59 finder ikke blot anvendelse, når yderen og modtageren af tjenesteydelsen er etableret i forskellige medlemsstater, men også i alle tilfælde, hvor en tjenesteyder tilbyder tjenesteydelser i en anden medlemsstat end den, hvor han er etableret.
The questions were raised in proceedings between the Danish Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Fiscal Affairs) and Mr Vestergaard concerning the refusal of the Ministry to allow expenses incurred by Mr Vestergaard in taking part in professional training courses held abroad to be deducted as operating costs from the taxable income of the company Bent Vestergaard A/S, of which Mr Vestergaard is the sole shareholder.
Bent Vestergaard indbragte afgørelsen for Vestre Landsret, som ved dom af 3. maj 1995 fandt, at han havde afkræftet formodningen for, at kurset var forbundet med et så betydeligt turistmæssigt islæt, at udgifterne ved deltagelsen i kurset ikke kunne anses som en fradragsberettiget kursusudgift, og at ligningsmyndighederne derfor havde været uberettigede til at anse kursusudgiften som et løntillæg for Bent Vestergaard.
Mr Vestergaard instituted proceedings against this decision before the Vestre Landsret (Western Regional Court), which, by judgment of 3 May 1995, found that he had succeeded in overturning the presumption that the course had such a significant tourism element that the costs could not be regarded as deductible operating costs and that, consequently, the tax administration was wrong in treating the costs of the course as a salary bonus for Mr Vestergaard.
Skatteministeriet ankede Vestre Landsrets dom til Højesteret, som har besluttet at udsætte sagen og forelægge to præjudicielle spørgsmål for Domstolen.
In Denmark, Article 4 of the Statsskatteloven (State Law Tax) No 149 of 10 April 1922 (hereinafter the 1922 Law*) provides that income, in the form of money or goods évaluable in money, is liable to tax.
Retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser indebærer en frihed for modtagere af tjenesteydelser til at rejse til en anden medlemsstat for dér at modtage en tjenesteydelse uden at blive mødt af restriktioner.
The Skatteministeriet appealed against the judgment of the Vestre Landsret to the Højesteret which decided to stay proceedings and to submit two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling.