natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland er området for godstransport ad landevej reguleret ved Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz (lov om godstransport ad landevej, herefter benævnt "GüKG"), som ifølge dens § 7 navnlig skal sikre en økonomisk forsvarlig fordeling af opgaverne mellem de forskellige former for transport ved hjælp af priser, der er markedsmæssigt korrekte, og en loyal konkurrence mellem de forskellige transportformer.
That question was raised in proceedings brought by the Bundesanstalt against Reifff f in order to recover payment of the difference between the transport tariff adopted by the Federal Minister for Transport and the price actually invoiced to Rei ff by a carrier.
Taksterne fastsættes af nævn under hensyn til visse lovbestemte kriterier. Nævnene består af sagkyndige repræsentanter for godsfjerntransportsektoren, der er udnævnt af forbundstrafikmini stèren blandt personer, som virksomheder eller sammenslutninger i den pågældende sektor har foreslået.
In the Federal Republic of Germany the road transport of goods is governed by the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz (Law on the carriage of goods by road), Article 7 of which seeks to ensure an economically reasonable distribution of tasks between the transport means.
Såfremt det fakturerede transportvederlag er lavere end den fastsatte takst, skal transportvirksomheden efteropkræve forskellen.
The Court observed that tariffs were fixed by tariff boards on the basis of certain factors provided by the law.
Såfremt den undlader dette overføres efteropkrævningsadgangen til Bundesanstalt, som har pligt til at efteropkræve betalingen i eget navn hos befragteren.
Those commissions were made up of tariff experts from the relevant branches of the long distance road transport goods sector selected by the Federal Minister for Transport from persons proposed
Det af Landgericht Koblenz forelagte spørgsmål drejede sig om, hvorvidt EØF-traktatens artikel 3,, litra f), artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 85 er til hinder for, at det i en medlemsstats lovgivning fastsættes, at taksterne for godsfjerntransport fastsættes af nævn og efter statslig godkendelse under de betingelser, der fremgår af GüKG, er bindende for alle erhvervsdrivende.
The Court considered that the question put by the Landgericht Koblenz asked whether Articles 3(f), 5, second paragraph, and 85 of the EEC Treaty precluded rules of a Member State which provided that the tariffs for the long distance carriage of goods by road should be fixed by tariff boards and made binding on all parties after approval by the public authority in the circumstances provided for by the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz.
Indledningsvis undersøgte Domstolen, om der på grundlag af en lov som GüKG kan sluttes, at der foreligger en sammenslutning af virksomheder som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85.
The Court considered in the first place whether rules such as the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz led to the inference of an agreement within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty.
For så vidt angår de erhvervsdrivendes rolle har Domstolen tidligere fastslået, at det forhold, at en offentlig myndighed udnævner personer, som er foreslået udnævnt af de faglige sammenslutninger, der direkte er berørt, til medlemmer af et organ, hvis opgave det er at fastsætte priser, ikke udelukker, at der foreligger en sammenslutning som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, når disse personer har forhandlet og indgået en prisaftale som repræsentanter for de sammenslutninger, der har foreslået dem.
As regards the role of the economic operators, the Court had held that the fact that the public authorities appointed persons proposed by the trade organizations directly concerned as members of a body called upon to fix prices did not exclude the existence of an agreement within the meaning of Article 85 of the Treaty where such persons negotiated or concluded an agreement on prices as representatives of the organizations which proposed them.
Domstolen anførte for det første, at de i GüKG fastsatte nævn består af sagkyndige fra de berørte dele af vejtransportsektoren, og at medlemmerne ikke er bundet af instrukser eller anvisninger fra de virksomheder eller sammenslutninger, som har foreslået forbundstrafikmini stèren at udnævne dem.
In that respect the Court pointed out that the tariff boards provided for by the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz were made up of tariff experts from the relevant branches of the road transport sector and were not bound by orders or instructions from undertakings or associations which had proposed them to the Federal Minister for Transport.
Disse nævn kan derfor ikke anses for forsamlinger af repræsentanter for virksomhederne i den berørte sektor.
Such commissions could not therefore be regarded as meetings of representatives of undertakings from the sector concerned.
For det andet måtte det undersøges, om staten ikke havde delegeret sine beføjelser vedrørende takstfastsættelsen til de private erhvervsdrivende.
It was then necessary to enquire whether the public authorities had not delegated their powers in relation to the fixing of tariffs to private economic operators.
I denne sammenhæng fastslog Domstolen, at formålet med GüKG er at gennemføre en optimal trafikbetjening, og at forbundsregeringen har fået pålagt den opgave at tilpasse de forskellige transportformers konkurrencebetingelser og sikre en økonomisk rimelig fordeling af transportopgaverne mellem dem.
In that respect it was to be observed that the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz sought to achieve an optimum road service and entrusted the Federal Government with the task of approximating the conditions of competition between transport means and ensuring an economically reasonable distribution of tasks between the transport means.
I denne sammenhæng har loven udtrykkeligt pålagt forbundstrafikministeren at harmonisere ydelser og priser i de forskellige tranportformer for at undgå en illoyal konkurrence, navnlig mellem transport ad landevej, jernbane og sejlbare vandveje.
For that purpose the law expressly required the Federal Minister for Transport to harmonize services and the charges for the various transport means in order to avoid unfair competition in particular between road, rail and inland waterway transport means.
"EØF­traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 85 er ikke til hinder for en offentlig regulering i en medlemsstat, hvorefter takster for godsfjerntransport fastsættes af nævn og efter godkendelse af en offentlig myndighed bliver bindende for alle erhvervsdrivende; selv om medlemmerne af disse nævn er udpeget af staten efter forslag af de berørte erhvervsdrivende, må de dog ikke repræsentere disse sidstnævnte med henblik på forhandling og ind­gåelse af prisaftaler, men skal være uafhængige sagkyndige, der har til opgave at fastsætte takster under hensyn til overvejelser ved­rørende almenvellet, og staten må ikke dermed give afkald på sine beføjelser, men skal overvåge, at nævnene fastsætter taksterne under hensyn til overvejelser vedrørende almenvellet, og i givet fald skal staten selv træffe afgørelse."
The Court noted that in order to fulfil that task the Federal Minister for Transport had not only the power to set up tariff boards and advisory committees, to determine their composition and structure but could also himself take part in the meetings, to be represented there or to delegate agents from the Bundesanstalt. In addition, if the tariffs adopted by a tariff board were not compatible with the public interest, the Federal Minister for Transport could, in agreement with the Federal Minister for the Economy, himself fix tariffs in substitution for the tariff board.
Generaladvokat M. Darmon fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 14. .juli 1993.
It followed from the aforementioned considerations that under a system for fixing road transport tariffs, such as that established by the Güterkraftverkehrsgesetz, the public authorities had not delegated their powers in relation to the fixing of tariffs to private economic operators.
"EØF­Traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 5 og 85 er ikke til hinder for, at der med henblik på fastsættelsen af taksterne fór fjerngodstransport ad landevej i national lov gives kompetence til nogle nævn sammensat af medlemmer, der udnævnes af det offentlige efter forslag fra virksomheder eller sammenslutninger af virksomheder inden for den berørte sektor, når de pågældende nævns afgørelser skal opfylde visse kriterier, der fastsættes af det offentlige, og det herved præciseres, at hvis disse kriterier ikke opfyldes, bør hævne­nes afgørelser ikke godkendes af det offentlige, der vil kunne sætte sin egen afgørelse i stedet for nævnets, og at nævnets afgørelser under alle omstændigheder vil kunne undergives domstolsprøvelse, idet der kan anlægges sag til prøvelse af beslutningen om godkendelse."
"Article 3(f), the second paragraph of Article 5 and Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty do not preclude State rules which provide that tariffs for the long distance transport of goods by road are to be fixed by tariff boards and are to be made compulsory for all economic agents, after approval by the public authority, if the members of those boards, although chosen by the public authorities on a proposal from the relevant professional sectors, are not representatives of the latter called on to negotiate and conclude an agreement on prices but are independent experts called on to fix the tariffs on the basis of considerations of public interest and if the public authorities do not abandon their prerogatives, making certain in particular that the boards fix the tariffs by reference to considerations of public interest and, if necessary, substituting their decision for that of the boards."
Ved dom af 5. september 1991, indgået til Domstolen den 27. september 1991, havde Arrondissementsrechtbank, Arnhem (Nederlandene), forelagt to præju­dicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 85, stk. 1, med henblik på at få afgjort, om nationale lovbestemmelser, som indebærer en begrænsning af konkurrencen mellem erhvervsdrivende, er forenelige med disse fællesskabsbestemmelser.
"Articles 3(f), 5 and 85 of the EEC Treaty do not preclude national rules from empowering boards composed of members appointed by the public authorities on a proposal from undertakings or associations of undertakings from the sector concerned, to fix tariffs for the long distance road transport of goods, where the decisions of the boards have to comply with criteria laid down by the public authority and if the criteria are not observed the decisions would not be approved by the authority, an administrative decision would be substituted and in any event could be reviewed by the court by means of an action brought against the ratification."
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
(Insurance agents - State rules prohibiting rebates - Interpretation of Articles 3(f), 5 (second paragraph) and 85(1) of the Treaty) (Full Court)
"EØF-traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 85 er ikke til hinder for, at nationale bestemmelser - når der ikke foreligger nogen forbindelse mellem virksomheders adfærd som omhandlet i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1 - forbyder, at forsikringsselskaber, uanset om de anvender mellemmænd, samt sådanne mellemmænd indrømmer økonomiske fordele til forsikringstagere eller til personer, for hvem der tegnes en forsikring."
By order of 5 September 1991, received at the Court on 27 September 1991, the Arrondissementsrechtbank (District Court) Arnhem (Netherlands) referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 3(f), 5 (second paragraph) and 85(1) of the Treaty in order to determine the compatibility with those provisions of national rules the effect of which was to restrict competition between economic operators.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 14. juli 1993
The Court noted that Ohra was an insurance company active in the field of insurance for civil liability, sickness, pensions and life assurance.
Generaladvokaten foreslog Domstolen at besvare de forelagte spørgsmål således:
Insurance companies operating in the Netherlands were prohibited from granting rebates or other financial advantages.
"Traktatens artikel 3, litra f), artikel 5, stk. 2, og artikel 85 skal fortolkes således, at de ikke er til hinder for, at der anvendes nationale regler, som indeholder et forbud mod i forbindelse med en forsikring at yde, tilbyde eller love kommission, returkommission eller anden fordel, der kan opgøres i penge, til andre personer end den mellemmand, i hvis forsikringsbeholdning den pågældende forsikring indgår, når der ikke foreligger adfærd fra virksomheders side, som er forbudt i henhold til artikel 85, stk. 1."
Ohra claimed before the national court that the Netherlands provisions were contrary to Articles 3(f), 5 and 85 of the Treaty.
"Merværdiafgift - sjette direktiv - reklamevirksomhed" (Domstolens plenum)
"Article 3(f), the second paragraph of Article 5 and Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty do not, in the absence of any conduct of the kind referred to in Article 85(1) of the Treaty on the part of undertakings, preclude State rules which prohibit insurance companies, whether or not they operate through agents, and such agents, from granting financial advantages to clients or the beneficiaries of insurance policies."
Såfremt der udelukkende anvendes sådanne andre midler, skal der ved afgørelsen af, om den pågældende transaktion udgør reklamevirksomhed i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, litra e), i sjette direktiv, i hvert enkelt tilfælde tages hensyn til alle omstændighederne i forbindelse med den pågældende ydelse.
"Article 3(f), the second paragraph of Article 5 and Article 85 of the Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that they do not, in the absence of any conduct of the kind referred to in Article 85(1), preclude State rules which prohibit the granting, making available or promising in connection with an insurance policy any commission, rebate or any other financial advantage to persons other than the intermediary to whose portfolio the insurance belongs."
En ydelse vil således kunne betegnes som "reklamevirksomhed", såfremt de anvendte midler er tilvejebragt af et reklame bureau.
Case C-68/92: Commission ν French Republic
Det er dog ikke nogen nødvendig betingelse for at betegne en ydelse som reklamevirksomhed, at den leveres af et reklamebureau.
(Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Advertising services) (Full Court)
Det kan nemlig ikke udelukkes, at en reklameydelse leveres af en virksomhed, som hverken udelukkende eller i overvejende grad beskæftiger sig med reklame, om end dette ikke er særlig sandsynligt.
By application lodged on 6 March 1992 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by excluding a series of economic transactions from the concept of "advertising services" under Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC), the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive.
En salgsfremmende handling - såsom salg af varer til nedsat pris, uddeling til forbrugerne af løsøregenstande, der er solgt til aftageren af et reklamebureau, levering af ydelser til nedsat pris eller gratis eller arrangering af et cocktailparty eller en banket · kan således betegnes som reklamevirksomhed i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 2, litra e), i sjette direktiv, når blot den indebærer overbringelse af et budskab, der skal oplyse offentligheden om den omhandlede vare eller tjenesteydelse og dennes egenskaber med henblik på at øge salget heraf.
The Court noted that the concept of advertising necessarily involved the publication of a message intended to inform consumers of the existence and qualities of a product or service with the aim of increasing sales; although publication of such a message was normally by means of words, it could also be achieved by the partial or exclusive use of other means.
Dette er tilfældet med fremstilling af materiale, der anvendes til en bestemt reklame.
It could not be excluded that an advertising service should be supplied by an undertaking which was not solely or even mainly concerned with advertising, even if that was unlikely.
Den Franske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af med lemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, ved i henhold til en ad ministrativ praksis fra begrebet "reklamevirksomhed" i artikel 9, stk. 2, litra e), i direktivet at udelukke følgende transaktioner: a) et reklamebureaus salg til en kunde af løsøregenstande, der skal ud deles til forbrugerne, b) ydelser leveret af et reklamebureau i for bindelse med forskellige former for demonstrationsarrangementer såsom underholdningsarrangementer, cocktailparties osv. og c) fremstilling af reklamemateriale, selv om alle disse transaktioner enten indebærer overbringelse af et reklamebudskab eller er uløseligt forbundet med en sådan overbringelse.
It was thus sufficient that a promotion campaign, such as the sale of goods at a reduced price, the distribution to consumers of articles sold to the consumer by an advertising agency, the provision of services at reduced prices or freely, or the organization of a cocktail or other party, involved the publication of a message intended to inform the public of the existence and qualities of the product or service the object of the action with the aim of increasing sales, for it to be possible to classify it as an advertising service within the meaning of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive.
Generaladvokat C. Gul mann fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i sagerne C-68/92.
It was the same with any transaction which was inextricably part of an advertising campaign and thereby involved the publication of an advertising message.
C-69/92 og C-73/92 i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 13. iuli 1993.
That was the case with the making of props used for a particular advertisement.
"Merværdiafgift - sjette direktiv - reklamevirksomhed" (Domstolens plenum)
The French Republic is ordered to pay the costs."
(Med hensyn til Domstolens bemærkninger henvises til sag C-68/92)
Mr Advocate General Gulmann delivered his Opinion in Cases C-68/92.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
C-69/92 and C-73/92 at the sitting of the Court on 13 July 1993.
Storhertugdømmet Luxembourg har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i hen hold til Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles
"- by excluding a series of economic transactions from the concept of "advertising services" under Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; by excluding a series of economic transactions (in particular press conferences, seminars, cocktail parties, recreational sessions, and the hiring of areas for advertising) from the concept of "advertising services" under Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Directive, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive; by introducing and maintaining in force, in practice, a system of VAT applicable to advertising services which exclude certain transactions, such as promotional activities, from the scope of "advertising", contrary to the provisions of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive;
Sag C-73/69: Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Spanien
Case C-69/92: Commission ν Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
"Merværdiafgift - sjette direktiv - reklamevirksomhed" (Domstolens plenum)
(Value added tax - Sixth Directive - Advertising services) (Full Court)
Ved stævning indleveret den 10. marts 1992 havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at dét fastslås, at Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i helihólá til EØF-traktaten, idet det har indført og opretholdt en ordning for moms på reklamevirksomhed, som udelukker visse ydelser såsom salgsfremmende foranstaltninger fra begrebet reklame, hvilket er i strid med artikel 9, stk. 2, litra e), i Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF.
By application lodged on 6 March 1992 the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by excluding a series of economic transactions from the concept of "advertising services" under Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and the EEC Treaty.
(Med hensyn til Domstolens bemærkninger henvises til sag C-BB/92)
(For the law, see Case C-68/92).
Kongeriget Spanien har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til Rådets direktiv 77/388/EØF af 17. maj 1977 om harmonisering af med lemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles merværdiafgiftssystem: ensartet beregningsgrundlag, navnlig direktivets artikel 9, stk. 2, litra e), og i henhold til EØF-traktaten, idet det har indført og opretholdt en ordning for moms på reklamevirksomhed, som udelukker salgsfremmende foranstaltninger fra dette begreb, selv om sådanne foranstaltninger indebærer overbringelse af et budskab, der skal oplyse forbrugerne om den omhandlede vare eller tjenesteydelse og dennes egenskaber med henblik på at øge salget heraf.
By excluding from the definition of "advertising services" under Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, the sale of articles in the context of a publicity campaign and services provided in the context of various "public relations" events such as press conferences, seminars, cocktail parties, social functions ..., even though these transactions either involve conveying a promotional message or are inextricably linked to the conveying of such a message, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directive and the EEC Treaty.
Kongeriget Spanien betaler sagens omkostninger."
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs."
Sag C-71/92: Kommissionen mod Kongeriget Spanien
(For the law, see Case C-68/92).