natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Sagsøgeren i hovedsagen, der oprindelig var tysk statsborger og havde erhvervet italiensk statsborgerskab ved ægteskab, havde anlagt sag til
The plaintiff in the main proceedings, who is of German origin and acquired Italian nationality by marriage, brought an action challenging her place on the list drawn up following the aforesaid competition, in which she alleged that it was unlawful for the selection board to refuse to take into account,
- 5 - efterprøvelse af sin placering på listen over egnede ansøgere i henhold til udvælgelsesprøven.
- 5 in accordance with the notice of competition, her previous employment in the German post office before her marriage.
I henhold til meddelelsen om udvælgelsesprøven ville der med henblik på ansøgernes endelige placering på listen, blive tildelt et antal points for eksamensbeviser og tidligere beskæftigelsesperioder.
The notice of competition provided, in particular, for the award, with a view to drawing up the list of successful candidates, of a number of points in respect of qualifications and experience.
Meddelelsen indeholdt dog ikke nærmere oplysninger om, hvilken form for erhvervserfaring der ville blive lagt vægt på.
It did not contain any details as to what type of previous experience was relevant.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at den omstændighed, at sagsøgeren havde erhvervet italiensk statsborgerskab, ikke havde betydning for anvendelsen af princippet om forbud mod forskelsbehandling.
The Court noted first of all that the fact that the plaintiff in the main proceedings has acquired Italian nationality has no bearing on the application of the principle of non-discrimination.
Domstolen fastslog, at enhver statsborger i en medlemsstat, som har gjort brug af sin ret i henhold til arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed, og som har haft beskæftigelse i en anden medlemsstat, er omfattet af de nævnte bestemmelsers anvendelsesområde uanset sin bopæl og sit statsborgerskab.
Any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who has been employed in another Member State, falls within the scope of the aforesaid provisions.
Endvidere bemærkede Domstolen, at der ifølge reglerne for den pågældende udvælgelsesprøve - med henblik på placeringen på listen over egnede ansøgere - skulle tages hensyn til tidligere beskæftigelsesperioder inden for det offentlige, uden at det var nærmere angivet, at beskæftigelsesperioderne skulle have sammenhæng med arbejdet som kantinemedhjælper.
Next, the Court noted that the rules governing the competition in question made provision for taking account, in drawing up the list of successful candidates, of previous periods of employment completed in the public service, without specifying that such employment had to be connected with the duties of canteen staff.
Endelig bemærkede den, at afslaget på - ved tildelingen af ekstra points med henblik på placeringen på listen over egnede ansøgere - at tage hensyn til den beskæftigelsesperiode, sagsøgeren i hovedsagen havde haft inden for det offentlige i en anden medlemsstat, udgjorde en uberettiget, indirekte forskelsbehandling.
Finally, it stated that the refusal to take into consideration the plaintiff's employment in the public service of another Member State, for the purposes of the award of the additional points provided for, in order to determine her place on the list, constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination.
"EØF-traktatens artikel 48 skal fortolkes således, at en offentlig institution i en medlemsstat, når den i forbindelse med ansættelser i stillinger, der ikke er omfattet af traktatens artikel 48, stk. 4, vil tage hensyn til ansøgernes tidligere beskæftigelse inden for det offentlige, ikke har adgang til, for så vidt angår statsborgere i Fællesskabets medlemsstater, at sondre mellem, om beskæftigelsen er udøvet inden for det offentlige i den pågældende medlemsstat eller i en anden medlemsstat."
"Article 48 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that, where a public body of a Member State, in recruiting staff for posts which do not fall within the scope of Article 48(4) of the Treaty, provides for account to be taken of candidates' previous employment in the public service, that body may not, in relation to Community nationals, make a distinction according to whether such employment was in the public service of that particular State or in the public service of another Member State."
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 15. december 1993.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 15 December 1993.
"Traktatens artikel 48, sammenholdt med artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1612/68 af 15. oktober 1968 om arbejdskraftens frie bevægelighed inden for Fællesskabet, skal fortolkes således, at en offentlig institution i en medlemsstat, som i forbindelse med ansættelser i stillinger, der ikke falder ind under traktatens artikel 48, stk. 4, ønsker at tage
"Article 48 of the Treaty, in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, must be interpreted as meaning that, where a public body of a Member State, in recruiting staff for posts which do not fall within the terms of Article 48(4) of the Treaty,
- 6 - hensyn til ansøgernes tidligere beskæftigelse inden for det offentlige, ikke har adgang til, for så vidt angår statsborgere i Fællesskabets med lemsstater, at sondre mellem beskæftigelse inden for det offentlige i den pågældende medlemsstat og beskæftigelse inden for det offentlige i en anden medlemsstat."
- 6 - provides for account to be taken of candidates' previous employment in the public service, that body may not, in relation to Community nationals, differentiate between employment in the public service of that State and employment in the public service of another Member State."
Ved stævning indgivet den 17. maj 1993 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-trak-taten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har udstedt de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 88/599/EØF og/eller ikke i overensstemmelse med nævnte direktivs artikel 7 har meddelt disse til Kommissionen.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 May 1993, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 85/599/EEC and/or by failing to communicate them to the Commission in accordance with Article 7 of the said directive, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
Den Italienske Republik har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har udstedt de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 88/599/EØF af 23. november 1988 om standardkontrolprocedurer for gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85 om harmonisering af visse bestemmelser på det sociale område inden for vejtransport og af forordning (EØF) nr. 3821/85 om kontrolapparatet inden for vejtransport.
Declares that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Generaladvokaten foreslog følgende domskonklusion:
He proposed that the Court should
"Det fastslås, at Den Italienske Republik har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har udstedt de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktiv 88/599/EØF.
Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 88/599/EEC, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
Den Italienske Republik tilpligtes - i overensstemmelse med sagsøgerens påstand -at betale sagens omkostninger."
Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs in accordance with the applicant's claim."
Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Belgien 23.2.1994 "Traktatbrud - manglende gennemførelse af et direktiv - vejtransport" (Domstolens plenum)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose a directive - Road transport) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indgivet den 29. juni 1993 har Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det fastslås, at Kongeriget Belgien har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 7 i Rådets direktiv 88/599/EØF og EØF-traktatens artikel 5 og 189, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser i kraft, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme ovennævnte direktiv, og/eller ikke har meddelt disse til Kommissionen.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 June 1993, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 85/599/EEC and/or by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the said directive and Articles 5 and 189 of the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Belgien har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i hen hold til EØF-traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser i kraft, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme Rådets direktiv 88/599/EØF af 23. november 1988 om standardkontrolprocedurer for gennemførelse af forordning (EØF) nr. 3820/85 om harmonisering af visse bestemmelser på det sociale område inden for vejtransport og af forordning (EØF) nr. 3821/85 om kontrolapparatet inden for vejtransport.
Declares that, by not bringing into force within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 88/599/EEC of 23 November 1988 on standard checking procedures for the implementation of Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 on the harmonization of certain social legislation relating to road transport and Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 on recording equipment in road transport, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger."
Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs."
"Det fastslås, at Kongeriget Belgien har undladt at opfylde sine for pligtelser i henhold til traktaten, idet det ikke inden for den fast satte frist har udstedt de ved lov eller administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme direktiv 88/599/EØF.
Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed period all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 88/599/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty;
Ved afgørelse af 6. februar 1992, indgået til Domstolen den 27. marts s.a., havde Consiglio di Stato forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen og gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF.
By a decision of 6 February 1992, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 March 1992, the Consiglio di Stato referred questions to the Court on the interpretation and validity of Commission Decision No 83/396/ECSC.
Disse spørgsmål var blevet rejst under sager, som de italienske selskaber Terni SpA og Italsider SpA havde anlagt med påstand om annullation af beslutninger, hvorved Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico (udligningskassen for elektricitetssektoren) under henvisning til nævnte kommissionsbeslutning afslog at yde dem statsstøtte.
The questions arose in the course of actions for annulment brought by the Italian companies Terni SpA and Italsider SpA against the decisions by which the Cassa Conguaglio per il Settore Elettrico (Compensation Fund for the Electricity Sector) refused to allow them State aid, on the basis of the abovementioned Commission decision.
Artikel 1 i Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF af 29. juni 1983 om støtte, som den italienske regering påtænker at yde til visse jernog stålproducenter, tillader ikke, at selskaberne Terni og Italsider tildeles støtte i form af godtgørelse af forhøjelser af sovrapprezzo termico.
Article 1 of Commission Decision No 83/396/EEC of 29 June 1983 concerning the aids that the Italian Government proposes to grant to certain steel undertakings does not authorize the grant of aid consisting in the reimbursement of increases in the electricity surcharge to Terni and Italsider.
Gennemgangen af det andet spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF."
Consideration of the second question has disclosed no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Commission Decision No 83/396/ECSC."
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 15. juli 1993.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 15 July 1993.
Artikel 1 i Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF skal fortolkes så ledes, at virksomheder, der indgår i Finsider-koncernen, ikke kan anses som 'private producenter' omfattet af artiklens nr. 3.
Article 1 of Commission Decision No 83/396/ECSC must be interpreted as meaning that undertakings belonging to the Finsider group may not be considered "private producers" within the meaning of Article 1(3); there are no factors to indicate in the present case that the Commission decision constitutes unlawful discrimination between private undertakings and public undertakings."
Der er efter det foreliggende intet, der tyder på, at Kommissionens beslutning indebærer en ulovlig forskelsbehandling mellem private og offentlige virksomheder."
By a decision of 6 February 1992, which was received at the Court Registry on 27 March 1992, the Consiglio di Stato referred a question to the Court on the interpretation of Commission Decision No 83/396/ECSC.
Dette spørgsmål var blevet rejst under en sag, som den italienske stålvirk­somhed Fonderia Α. SpA havde anlagt med påstand om annullation af den be­slutning, hvorved Cassa conguaglio per il settore elettrico (udligningskas­sen for elektricitetssektoren) under henvisning til nævnte kommissionsbe­slutning afslog at yde den statsstøtte.
The question arose in the course of an action for annulment brought by the Italian steel undertaking Fonderia A. SpA refused to allow it State aid, on the basis of the abovementioned Commission decision.
Artikel 1 i Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF af 29. juni 1983 om støtte, som den italienske regering påtænker at yde til visse jern­og stålproducenter, er ikke til hinder for anvendelsen af artikel 1 i lovdekret nr. 495 af 4. september 1981 om hasteforanstaltninger til fordel for jern­ og stålindustrien og vedrørende forureningsbekæmpel­se, som ændret ved lov nr. 617 af 4. november 1981, i det omfang, det deri er bestemt, at der skal ske godtgørelse af de forhøjelser af sovrapprezzo termico, der vedrører el­forbruget i jern­ og stålvirk­somhederne i perioden mellem den 1. januar og den 30. juni 1983."
"Article 1 of Commission Decision No 83/396/ECSC of 29 June 1983 concerning the aids that the Italian Government proposes to grant to certain steel undertakings does not preclude application of Article 1 of Decree-law No 495 of 4 September 1981 on urgent measures to assist the steel industry and on pollution abatement plants, as amended by Conversion Law No 617 of 4 November 1981, in so far as it provides for the reimbursement of increases in the electricity surcharge on electricity consumed by steel undertakings between 1 January and 30 June 1983."
Generaladvokat C. Gulmann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdeling) den 15. iuli 1993.
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 15 July 1993.
"Artikel 1, nr. 3, i Kommissionens beslutning 83/396/EKSF skal fortolkes således, at statskassens overtagelse af forhøjelserne af sovrapprezzo termico er godkendt også for så vidt angår tidsrummet fra den 1. januar til den 30. juni 1983."
"Article 1(3) of Commission Decision 83/396/ECSC must be interpreted as meaning that the defrayal by the Treasury of the increases in the electricity surcharge was also authorized as regards the period between 1 January and 30 June 1983."
(Præjudiciel) "Den generelle toldpræferenceordning ­ oprindelsescertifikat" (Femte Afdeling)
In the course of 1987 and 1988 Société Bonnieux, a customs agent, submitted 20 declarations to the French Customs Office for the purpose of releasing for consumption in France leather clothing originating from India.
Ved dom af 7. marts 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 23. september 1992, havde Cour d'appel de Toulouse forelagt et spørgsmål om fortolkningen af bestemmelserne i Kommissionens forordninger (EØF) nr. 3749/83 og nr. 693/88.
In order to benefit from full exemption from customs duties pursuant to the generalized system of tariff preferences granted by the Community to certain products originating from developing countries, Société Bonnieux produced, in support of its customs declarations, certificates of origin Form A drawn up by the Indian authorities, on which box 12 indicated that the goods were to be exported to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic or the Polish People's Republic.
I årene 1987 og 1988 indleverede Bonnieux, som er en speditionsvirksomhed, tyve toldangivelser til det franske toldvæsen med henblik på, at beklædningsgenstande fremstillet af læder og med oprindelse i Indien kunne overgå til frit forbrug i Frankrig.
Société Bonnieux informed the French authorities, however, that the certificates in question indicated those destinations because the goods to which they referred were the subject of compensatory purchases between the East European countries and India.
Med henblik på at opnå fuld toldfritagelse i henhold til Fællesskabets generelle toldpræferenceordning for visse varer med oprindelse i udviklingslande fremlagde Bonnieux til støtte for toldangivelserne oprindelsescertifikater, formular A, som var udstedt af de indiske myndigheder, og hvori det i rubrik 12 var anført, at varerne skulle eksporteres til "Czechoslovak Socialist Republic" og "Polish People's Republic".
The French Customs Authorities did not contest the origin of the goods, but nevertheless considered that the products imported by Société Bonnieux were not entitled to benefit from the preference system, since box 12 on the certificates produced by that company referred neither to the European Community nor to a Member State as is required by the abovementioned regulations.
Bonnieux meddelte imidlertid de franske myndigheder, at man i certifikaterne havde anført disse bestemmelseslande, fordi de varer, certifikaterne vedrørte, indgik i modkøbsforretninger mellem Østlandene og Indien.
The indication ' European Economic Community' or a specific Member State in box 12 of the certificate of origin is, alongside the data comprised in the certificate, a substantive condition for the grant of the tariff preferences provided for by the Community regulations.
De franske toldmyndigheder fandt imidlertid - uden at bestride varernes oprindelse - at der ikke kunne opnås toldfritagelse for de af Bonnieux ind førte varer i medfør af præferenceordningen, da der i rubrik 12 i de af selskabet fremlagte certifikater hverken var angivet Det Europæiske Fælles skab eller en medlemsstat som krævet i henhold til de nævnte forordninger.
Accordingly, if, as in this case, the certificate of origin Form A is drawn up so as to indicate a country of destination other than a Member State of the European Community or the European Community itself, it cannot be taken into account for the purposes of the application of the tariff preference system in the Community.
Domstolen bemærkede, at det blandt de oplysninger, oprindelsescertifikatet skal indeholde, er en væsentlig betingelse for, at der kan indrømmes toldpræferencer i henhold til fællesskabsforordningerne, at der i rubrik 12 i certifikatet er angivet "Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab" eller en medlemsstat. En sådan angivelse er nemlig den eneste mulighed, medlemsstaternes toldmyndigheder har for at sikre sig, at eksportøren har overholdt reglerne i EF's toldpræferenceordning vedrørende varernes oprindelse.
The final question to be examined was whether, in a case such as this, the competent authorities of the exporting State - in the event the Indian authorities - could not, pursuant to Article 23 of those regulations, issue retrospectively a fresh certificate of origin by which they would confirm that the goods in question also complied with the origin rules of the Community or of one of the Member States of the European Community.
Såfremt oprindelsescertifikatet, formular A - som i det foreliggende til fælde - er udfærdiget med et andet land end en EF-medlemsstat som bestemmelsesland eller EF selv, kan det derfor ikke danne grundlag for en anvendelse af toldpræferenceordningen inden for Fællesskabet.
That article restricts the retrospective issue of a certificate of origin to situations of an exceptional nature.
Det skulle endelig undersøges, om de kompetente myndigheder i eksportlandet i et tilfælde som det foreliggende - konkret de indiske myndigheder - i medfør af artikel 23 i de nævnte forordninger nr. 3749/83 og nr. 693/88 ikke efterfølgende kan udstede et nyt oprindelsescertifikat, hvori de bekræfter, at de pågældende varer også opfylder oprindelsesreglerne i Fælles skabet eller i en af EF's medlemsstater.
Compensation operations such as those taking place in this case between India and East European countries fulfil that condition. They are characterized by the fact that goods are exchanged in another State not for a sum of money but for other goods and, if the country of destination has no need of those goods, they are subsequently resold on other markets.
Der kan i henhold til artikel 23 kun ske efterfølgende udstedelse af et oprindelsescertifikat i undtagelsestilfælde.
That explained why the certificates of origin first mention the country of the operator who is party to the compensatory purchase, in view of the fact that,
"Retten til toldfritagelse i medfør af præferenceordningen, der af Fællesskabet indrømmes visse varer fra udviklingslande, fortabes, når der i det oprindelsescertifikat, formular A, der er udstedt ved ud førslen af varerne i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 3749/83 af 23. december 1983 og Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 693/88 af 4. marts 1988 om definitionen af begrebet varer med oprindelsesstatus til brug ved anvendelsen af de toldpræferencer, der af Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab indrømmes visse varer fra udviklingslande, som bestemmelsesland er angivet et andet land end en EF-medlemsstat.
"Entitlement to benefit from the system of tariff preferences granted by the Community to certain products from developing countries is lost if the certificate of origin Form A issued when products are exported pursuant to Commission Regulations (EEC) Nos 3749/83 of 23 December 1983 and 693/88 of 4 March 1988 on the definition of the concept of originating products for purposes of the application of tariff preferences granted by the European Economic Community in respect of certain products from developing countries states the country of destination to be a country other than a Member State of the European Community.