natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
»Gennemgangen af det forelagte spørgsmål har intet frembragt, der kan rejse tvivl om gyldigheden af artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3093194 af 15. december 1994 om stoffer, der nedbryder ozonlaget.*
1 Consideration of the question submitted has not disclosed any factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Council Regulation (EC) No 3093/94 of 15 December 1994 on substances that deplete the ozone layer.'
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum1) den 3. februar 1998.
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 3 February 1998.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
He found no factor of such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 5 of the Regulation.
»Artikel 5 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3093/94 af 15. december 1994 om stoffer, der nedbryder ozonlaget har intet frembragt, der kan skabe tvivl om forordningens gyldighed.«
Case C-172/96 Commissioners of Customs & Excise ν First National Bank of Chicago Taxation 14 July 1998
Ved kendelse af 13. maj 1996 har High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, stillet to præjudicielle spørgsmål om fortolkningen af Rådets sjette direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 (herefter »sjette direktiv«).
By order of 13 May 1996, the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 (hereinafter 'the Sixth Directive').
fra antallet af udførte valutatransaktioner, og den udgøres af en brøk, hvori tælleren er antallet af transaktioner med kontrahenter uden for Den Europæiske Union, og nævneren er det samlede antal transaktioner.
By decision of 26 September 1994, the Commissioners reduced the input tax credit which the Bank was claiming by disallowing the portion corresponding to the foreign exchange transactions concluded with those counterparties.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem First National Bank of Chicago (herefter »banken«) og Commissioners of Customs & Excise (herefter »Commissioners«) vedrørende fradrag for indgående afgift i forbindelse med visse valutatransaktioner. I momsangivelsen for tiden fra 1. maj 1994 til 31. juli 1994, som omfattede den årlige berigtigelse for perioden fra april 1993 til april 1994, medregnede banken ved beregningen af brøkens tæller og nævner de valutatransaktioner, den havde udført fra april 1993 til juli 1994.
Those questions were raised in proceedings between First National Bank of Chicago ('the Bank') and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise ('the Commissioners') concerning deduction of input tax on certain foreign exchange transactions.
Banken tilstræber at opnå et overskud på sine valutatransaktioner ved hjælp af forskellen mellem de købs- og salgskurser, den stiller.
The Bank seeks to make a profit out of its foreign exchange dealings as a result of the spread between its bid and offer quotes.
Hver dealer i banken vil have bestemte valutaer »på sin bog«, og det forventes, at han eller hun indtjener et overskud over et givet tidsrum.
Each of its traders will have his or her book of particular currencies and will be expected to make a profit over appropriate periods.
Overskuddet udgøres af resultatet af alle valutatransaktioneme gennem det pågældende tidsrum.
This profit is a result of all of their dealings over a particular period.
Ved Commissioners' afgørelse af 26. september 1994 blev den godskrivning af indgående afgift, banken havde stillet krav om, nedsat, idet Commissioners afslog at anerkende den del af godskrivningen, der svarede til valutatransaktioner med kunder i lande uden for Fællesskabet.
Taking the view that resolution of the case depended on an interpretation of the Sixth Directive, the High Court of Justice decided to stay proceedings and refer two questions to the Court:
Efter aftale mellem parterne blev sagens genstand begrænset til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt der ved de pågældende valutatransaktioner i afgiftsmæssig forstand var tale om tjenesteydelser eller om levering af goder. I sin afgørelse af 12. september 1995 gav Value Added Tax Tribunal banken medhold.
It does, however, have the right to deduct input tax corresponding to transactions completed with counterparties established outside the Community.
Banken er delvis momsfritaget Den foretager dog et fradrag af indgående afgift svarende til antallet af transaktioner med kunder, der er hjemmehørende uden for Fællesskabet Med henblik på beregningen af fradragsbeløbet har banken i henhold til Regulation 31 i Value Added Tax (General) Regulations 1985 indgået en aftale med Commissioners om en særlig, delvis fritagelsesmetode.
By its first question, the High Court of Justice is asking essentially whether transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of goods or services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
Den fradragsberettigede del af den indgående afgift, som banken kan gøre gældende efter den aftalte metode, fastsættes ud
Foreign exchange transactions are thus supplies of services within the meaning of Article 6 of the Sixth Directive.
High Court of Justice fandt at sagens afgørelse måtte bero på en fortolkning af sjette direktiv, og besluttede derfor at udsætte sagen og at forelægge Domstolen to præjudicielle spørgsmål.
therefore be understood as seeking to determine the taxable amount.
Ud over selve omvekslingstransaktionen består bankens ydelse i, at den er villig til at indgå sådanne transaktioner i de valutaer, den har specialiseret sig i.
It should be borne in mind that Article HA(l)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides that the taxable amount is, in respect of supplies of services, that which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser for such supplies.
Den omstændighed, at banken ikke opkræver gebyr eller kommission for en bestemt valutahandel, kan ikke i sig selv føre til, at det antages, at der ikke ydes vederlag.
While they are the subject of a supply, the currencies transferred to a trader by his counterparty in the course of a foreign exchange transaction cannot be regarded as constituting remuneration for the service of exchanging currencies for other currencies or consequently as constituting consideration for that service.
Det fremgår af oplysningerne i sagens akter, at de kurser, banken tilbyder at sælge eller købe valutaer til, adskiller sig fra hinanden ved et såkaldt »spread«.
In the present case, it cannot be disputed that a bilateral legal relationship exists between the Bank and its counterparty under which the two parties to the transaction give reciprocal undertakings to transfer amounts in a given currency and to receive the countervalue in another currency.
Det må heraf udledes, at banken opnår en indtjening på sin tjenesteydelse gennem et vederlag, som den indregner i købsog salgskurserne.
Determining the consideration therefore comes down to determining what the Bank receives for foreign exchange transactions, that is to say the remuneration on foreign exchange transactions which it can actually take for itself.
Det må herefter antages, at valutatransaktioner, selv hvis de udføres uden betaling af kommission eller direkte gebyrer, er tjenesteydelser, der udføres mod erlæggelse af et vederlag, dvs. tjenesteydelser, der leveres »mod vederlag« i den forstand, hvori udtrykket benyttes i sjette direktivs artikel 2, nr. 1.
Thus the consideration, namely the amount which the Bank can actually apply to its own use, must be regarded as consisting of the net result of its transactions over a given period of time.
Det bemærkes for det første, at de valutabeløb, som ved en valutatransaktion udveksles mod andre valutabeløb, ikke kan betegnes som et »materielt gode« i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er benyttet i sjette direktivs artikel 5, idet der er tale om pengebeløb, der er lovlige betalingsmidler. Valutatransaktioner er således tjenesteydelser i den forstand, hvori udtrykket er benyttet i sjette direktivs artikel 6.
It should be borne in mind in this regard that, in the case of transactions which are effected for consideration but the actual consideration for which depends on future factors such as passage of time, the Court has already ruled that the taxable amount must be defined on the basis of, in particular, the interest accrued over a deferred payment period, which was not yet known when the taxable transaction was concluded.
Med det andet spørgsmål ønsker High Court of Justice nærmere bestemt oplyst, hvorledes vederlaget skal karakteriseres.
In addition, it is apparent from the case-file that the rates at which the Bank is prepared to sell or purchase currencies are different and are separated by a spread.
Spørgsmålet må dermed forstås således, at det ønskes oplyst, hvorledes beskatningsgrundlaget skal fastsættes.
The conclusion must therefore be that, in return for the service which it provides, the Bank takes for itself a consideration which it includes in the calculation of those rates.
Det bemærkes, at beskatningsgrundlaget ved levering af tjenesteydelser i henhold til sjette direktivs artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1, litra a), er den modværdi, som tjenesteyderen modtager eller vil modtage af aftageren for de pågældende transaktioner.
It must therefore be held that foreign exchange transactions, performed even without commission or direct fees, are supplies of services provided in return for consideration, that is to say supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
De valutabeløb, som en erhvervsdrivende modtager fra sin medkontrahent som led i en valutatransaktion, udgør transaktionens genstand, men kan ikke betragtes som vederlaget for den tjenesteydelse, der består i, at valuta omveksles til en anden valuta, og de kan således heller ikke udgøre modværdien.
Nor is it necessary for either the taxable person supplying the goods or performing the service or the other party to the transaction to know the exact amount of the consideration serving as the taxable amount in order for it to be possible to tax a particular type of transaction.
I det foreliggende tilfælde er det ubestrideligt, at der mellem banken og dens medkontrahent består et gensidigt bebyrdende retsforhold, i henhold til hvilket de to parter indbyrdes har forpligtet sig til at overdrage beløb i en bestemt valuta og at modtage modværdien i en anden valuta.
Consequently, it does not matter that when the transaction is concluded the parties do not know the basis on which VAT will be charged and that it remains unknown, even afterwards, to the recipient of the service.
Fastlæggelsen af modværdien består således i at opgøre, hvilket beløb banken oppebærer for udførelse af valutatransaktioner, dvs. den modydelse for udførelse af valutatransaktioner, som banken reelt selv kan råde over.
By its second question, the High Court of Justice essentially seeks to ascertain the precise nature of the consideration. The question must
Ved at udføre vekseltransaktioner som defineret af British Banker's Association leverer banken en tjenesteydelse mod vederlag efter betydningen i sjette momsdirektiv, også selv om tjenesteydelsen ikke betales med en kommission, men en margin mellem salgs- og købskursen.
Transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: umform basis of assessment.
Modydelsen for leveringen af tjenesteydelsen er det som banken tjener på marginen mellem salgsog købskursen.«
(2) The consideration for the service is what the Bank receives by way of spread between the bid and offer rates.
Sag C-385/96 Hermann Josef Goerres Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne
Such legislation does not impose a stricter obligation than that of using a language that is easily understood.
Præjudiciel »Tilnærmelse af lovgivningerne — mærkning af og præsentationsmåder for levnedsmidler — direktiv 79/112/EØF —forbrugerbeskyttelse — sprog* (Femte Afdeling)
By order of 6 November 1996, the Amtsgericht Aachen (Aachen Local Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 ('the directive').
Ved kendelse af 6. november 1996 har Amtsgericht Aachen forelagt to præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 14 i Rådets direktiv 79/112/EØF af 18. december 1978 (herefter »direktivet«).
It follows that, so far as language requirements are concerned, Article 14 of the directive does not preclude such legislation.
til hinder for, at der i henhold til nationale regler udelukkende skal anvendes et bestemt sprog ved mærkning af levnedsmidler, uden at der gives mulighed for anvendelse af et andet sprog, der let forstås af køberne, eller for, at køberne sikres de nødvendige oplysninger på anden måde.
The questions were raised in criminal proceedings brought against Mr Goerres by the Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Aachen (the Chief Executive for the administrative district of Aachen; hereinafter 'the Oberkreisdirektor') for offering for sale in his shop in Germany various foodstuffs that were not labelled in German but only in French, Italian or English, contrary to Paragraph 3(3) of the Verordnung über die Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln (Regulations of the labelling of foodstuffs; 'LMKV').
Domstolen har endvidere, i dom af 12. oktober 1995, Piageme ntfl., herefter »Piageme Ildommen«) fastslået, at direktivets artikel 14 er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat for at sikre anvendelsen af et for køberen let forståeligt sprog stiller krav om anvendelse af et sprog, som overvejende tales i det område, hvor produktet udbydes til salg, selv om samtidig anvendelse af et andet sprog ikke derved udelukkes.
In that respect, it is for the national court to assess, in the light of all the circumstances of each individual case, the ease with which the information supplied can be understood.
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst i en straffesag, som Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Aachen (herefter »Oberkreisdirektor«) har anlagt mod H.J. Goerres, der er sat under tiltale for — i strid med bestemmelserne i § 3, stk. 3, i Verordnung über die Kennzeichnungvon Lebensmitteln (den tyske bekendtgørelse om mærkning af levnedsmidler, herefter »LMKV«) — i sin forretning i Tyskland at have udbudt forskellige fødevarer til salg, som ikke var mærket på tysk, men udelukkende på fransk, italiensk eller engelsk.
That assessment must be made in respect of each of the particulars required by the directive and must take account of the fact that the directive provides for the possibility of stating the required particulars not only by using a language but also by means of other measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms.
I modsætning til de regler, de nævnte sager drejede sig om, er der i den foreliggende sag tale om nationale bestemmelser, som, samtidig med at de påbyder anvendelse af et bestemt sprog ved mærkning af levnedsmidler, også tillader, at der anvendes et andet for køberne let forståeligt sprog.
In its second question, the national court essentially asks whether the placing in the shop, adjacent to the product in question, of a supplementary sign containing the prescribed particulars in a language which is easily understood, is sufficient to ensure that the consumer is informed.
Sådanne bestemmelser pålægger ikke en strengere forpligtelse end anvendelse af et let forståeligt sprog.
On that point, it is sufficient to recall that, at paragraph 26 of its judgment in Piageme II, the Court of Justice held that consumer protection is not ensured by measures other than labelling such as, for example, information supplied at the sales point or as part of wide-ranging advertising campaigns.
Den 6. juli 1995 traf Oberkreisdirektor en afgørelse, hvorved han pålagde H.J. Goerres en administrativ bøde på 2 000 DEM for overtrædelse af LMKVs § 3, stk. 3.
The Court has ruled in Case C-369/89 Piageme ν Peeters [1991] ECR 1-2971 that Article 30 of the EEC Treaty and Article 14 of the directive preclude a national law from requiring the exclusive use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs, without allowing for the possibility of using another language easily understood by purchasers or of ensuring that the purchaser is informed by other means.
Det følger heraf, at direktivets artikel 14, for så vidt angår de sproglige krav, ikke er til hinder for sådanne bestemmelser.
The Court reached that conclusion on the view that the aim of Article 14 of the directive, which is to inform and protect consumers, would not be attained if they did not always have access to the compulsory particulars specified in the directive, not only at the time of purchase, but also at that of consumption.
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 18. juni 1991, Piageme m.fl., har fastslået, at EØF-Traktatens artikel 30 og direktivets artikel 14 er
The Court has further held in Case C-85/94 Piageme ν Peeters [1995] ECR 1-2955 ('Piageme ΙΓ) that Article 14 of the directive precludes a Member State, having regard to the requirement of a language easily understood by purchasers, from requiring the use of the language most widely spoken in the area in which the product is offered for sale, even if the use at the same time of another language is not excluded.
I den forbindelse bemærkes, at det tilkommer den nationale ret i lyset af samtlige omstændigheder i hver enkelt sag at afgøre, om
Unlike the legislation at issue in those cases, this case concerns national legislation which, whilst
fornødne oplysninger.
The Court ruled:
Denne bedømmelse skal foretages for hver af de i direktivet påbudte oplysninger og under hensyn til, at direktivet giver mulighed for at angive de påbudte oplysninger ikke blot ved anvendelse af et sprog, men også ved hjælp af andre midler som tegninger, symboler euer piktogrammer.
Article 14 of Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the ultimate consumer does not preclude national legislation which, as regards language requirements, prescribes the use of a specific language for the labelling of foodstuffs but which also permits, as an alternative, the use of another language easily understood by purchasers.
Med det andet spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret nærmere bestemt oplyst om det forhold, at der på det sted i forretningen, hvor det pågældende produkt befinder sig, anbringes et ekstra skilt (»Zusatzschild«), som indeholder de krævede oplysninger i et let forståeligt sprog, kan sikre forbrugerne de
AU the compulsory particulars specified in Directive 79/112 must appear on the labelling either in a language easily understood by consumers of the State or the region in question, or by means of other measures such as designs, symbols or pictograms.
Domstolen nåede til dette resultat ud fra den betragtning, at formålet med direktivets artikel 14, som er at sikre forbrugeroplysningen og forbrugerbeskyttelsen, ikke ville blive nået, hvis ikke forbrugerne til enhver tid kunne få kendskab til alle de i direktivet påbudte oplysninger, ikke alene ved køb af varen, men også når den forbruges.
The placing in the shop of a supplementary sign adjacent to the product in question is not sufficient to ensure that the ultimate consumer is informed and protected'
Desuden udtalte Domstolen, at den endelige forbruger ikke nødvendigvis er den samme, som har købt levnedsmidlerne.
Case C-389/96 Aher-Waggon GmbH ν Bundesrepublik Deutschland Free movement of goods
»1) Artikel 14 i Rådets direktiv 79/112/EØF af 18. december 1978 om tilnærmelse af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om mærkning af og præsentationsmåder for levnedsmidler bestemt til den endelige forbruger samt om reklame for sådanne levnedsmidler er ikke til hinder for nationale bestemmelser, som, for så vidt angår de sproglige krav, påbyder anvendelse af et bestemt sprog til mærkning af levnedsmidler, men som også giver adgang til at anvende et andetfor køberne letforståeligt sprog
Preliminary ruhng (Measures having equivalent effect — Directives on noise emissions from aircraft — Stricter domestic limits — Barrier to the importation of an aircraft — Environmental protection) (Fifth Chamber)
Et ekstra skät ('Zusatzschild'), som anbringespå det sted i forretningen, hvor det pågældende produkt befinder sig, er ikke en tilstrækkelig foranstaltning med henblik på at sikre den endelige forbruger den fornødne information og beskyttelse.*
'the Bundesamt') following the refusal by the Bundesamt to grant Aher-Waggon registration for a propeller-driven aircraft previously registered in Denmark.
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Femte Afdelingl den 19. februar 1998.
By order of 25 September 1996, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 30 of the Treaty.
»1) Artikel 14 i direktiv 79/112/EØF er ikke til binder for, at en medlemsstat foreskriver, at de obligatoriske oplysninger vedrørende levnedsmidler i hvert fald skal være angivet på medlemsstatens nationale eller officielle sprog, medmindre forbrugerne rent faktisk bliver informeret på sådanne andre måder, som en domstol finder passende.
That question was raised in proceedings between Aher-Waggon GmbH ('Aher-Waggon') and the Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Federal Office ofAviation; Aviation;
De obligatoriske oplysninger i henhold til direktiv 79/112/EØF skal være omfattet af mærkningen af levnedsmidlerne og kan ikke lovligt formidles på andre måder som f.eks. ved hjælp af skilte ophængt på salgsstedet.«
Council Directive 83/206/EEC of 21 April 1983 ('the Directive'). The Directive sets limits based on the relevant standards adopted by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
Sag C-389/96 Aner-Waggon GmbH / Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland Frie varebevægelser
Those standards are set out in Annex 16/5 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago in 1944 ('the Convention').
Præjudiciel »Foranstaltninger med tilsvarende virkning — direktiver om støj fra luftfartøjer — strengere nationale krav — hindring for indførsel af et luftfartøj — beskyttelse af miljøet* (Femte Afdeling)
registration in national territory of aircraft previously registered in another Member State conditional upon compliance with stricter noise standards than those laid down by the Directive, while exempting from those standards aircraft which obtained registration in national territory before the Directive was implemented.
11992 købte Aher-Waggon et propeldrevet fly af mærket Piper PA 28-140 i Danmark, hvor det havde været registreret siden 1974.
In 1992 Aher-Waggon bought in Denmark a propeller-driven Piper PA 28-140 aircraft which had been registered in that State since 1974.
Ved kendelse af 25. september 1996 har Bundesverwaltungsgericht forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 30.
It should be noted at the outset that the Directive merely lays down minimum requirements, as is shown by the words 'in accordance with requirements which are at least equal to the applicable standards' which appear in Article 3(1).