natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
79/112/EØF, der har til formål at forhindre, at forbrugeren vildledes med hensyn til levnedsmidlers beskaffenhed, virkninger eller egenskaber.
Having regard to the foregoing and with regard to the aspects of the national rules on the labelling of artificial sweeteners, the Court noted first that the prohibition contained in those rules went beyond the requirements of Article 2 (1) of Directive 79/112/EEC laid down for the purpose of ensuring that the consumer was not mislead as to the characteristics, effects and properties of those foodstuffs.
Domstolen fandt, at det pågældende nationale forbud måtte anses for en "ikke­harmoniseret" regel i nævnte direktivs artikel 15's betydning, således at det alene kan finde anvendelse, såfremt det er begrundet i et af de hensyn, der er anført i artiklens stk. ?..
The national prohibition at issue had to be regarded as a nonharmonized provision within the meaning of Article 15 of the said directive, which could not be applied unless it is justified on one of the grounds mentioned in Article 15 (2).
Såfremt det pågældende forbud har til formål at forhindre illoyal konkurrence, står det imidlertid i klart misforhold til riette mål, som kan nås enten ved generelle regler, der forbyder illoyale kon­kurrencemæssige dispositioner, eller ved et forbud mod angivelser i mærkningen =if syntetiske sødemidler, der alene tilsigter eller medfører en miskredit af sukker.
If the prohibition at issue was designed to prevent unfair competition, it was manifestly disproportionate to its objective, which could be achieved either by having recourse to the general provisions prohibiting unfair competition or by prohibiting only references in the labelling of artificial sweeteners having as their sole intention or effect to denigrate sugar.
5a forbudet ikke tilsigter at oolyse køberne om de eventuelle sundhedsmæssige risici, som anvendelsen af syntetiske sødemidler kan indebære, er det heller ikke omfattet af undtagelsen om beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed.
That prohibition also could not benefit from a derogation on grounds of the protection of public health because it did not seek to inform buyers of the possible dangers to human health of consuming artificial sweeteners.
For så vidt angår rie nationale bestemmelser vedrørende reklame, fandt Domsto­len anledning til at bemærke, at selv om de ikke direkte påvirker indførsler­ne, kan de begrænse disses omfang, fordi de påvirker mulighederne for afsæt­ning af de indførte \jarer.
With regard to the aspects of the rulers connected with advertising, the Court pointed out that although they did not directly determine the volume of imports, they might be of such a nature as to restrict them by virtue of the fact that they affected the possibilities of marketing the imported products.
Det kan ikke urielukkes, at den omstændighed, at den ■»ågældende erhvervsriri venrie er tvunget til enten at ændre formen eller indhol­det af en reklamekampagne, alt efter den pågældende medlemsstat, eller opgive ?t reklamesystem, som han anser for særligt effektivt, kan udgøre en hindring for importen, selv om en sådan lovgivning gælder uden forskel for indenlandske > g indførte \/arer. )omstolen bemærkede i øvrigt, at denne hindring for samhandelen inden for Fæl­Lesskabet følger af forskelle i de nationale bestemmelser, eftersom de angi­/elser, der er forbudt i henhold til den franske lovgivning, er tilladt i andre medlemsstater, uden at riet som ovenfor anført er begrundet i hensynet til imødegåelse af illoyal konkurrence eller beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed.
It could not be excluded that the fact that a trader concerned might be obliged to alter the form or contents of an advertising campaign according to the Member States in which it was to take place or to abandon an advertising system which he found particularly effective might constitute a hindrance to imports even if the legislation concerned applied to domestic and imported products equally.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse: "Direktiv 79/112/EØF, navnlig artiklerne 2 og 15, skal fortolkes således, at det indeholder et forbud mod en national lovgivning, hvorefter enhver anvendelse af ordet sukker eller enhver henvisning til sukkers fysiske, kemiske eller næringsmæssige egenskaber, er forbudt i mærkningen af og reklame for syntetiske sødemidler, selv om disse produkter har tilsvarende egenskaber".
The provisions 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, in particular Articles 2 and 5, must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application to national and imported products of national provisions which prohibit any reference in the labelling of artificial sweeteners to the word sugar or to the physical, chemical or nutritional properties which artificial sweeteners also possess.
13.12.1990 "Frie varebevægelser - import, eksport og handel med råolie og mineralolie produkter - nationalt monopol - priser" (Domstolens plenum)
Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude the application, to imported products, of national provisions which prohibit any reference in the advertising of artificial sweeteners to the word sugar or to the physical, chemical or nutritional properties which artificial sweeteners also possess."
Disse klagepunkter kunne ikke tages i betragtning, da de ikke \iar blevet rejst i den begrundede udtalelse.
He proposed that the Court of Justice should give the following reply to the national court:
Nogle andre klagepunkter, som \jar blevet angivet i åbningsskrivelsen og i den begrundede udtalelse, men som ikke \tar blevet anført i stævningen, kunne heller ikke tages i betragtning.
"The provisions of Directive 79/112/EEC, in particular Articles 2 and 15 thereof, are to be interpreted as precluding the application of a national legislative measure which prohibits use of the word sugar or any reference to the physical, chemical or nutritional properties of sugar in the labelling of artificial sweeteners if the artificial sweeteners also possess those properties."
Reali teten a) Klagepunkterne vedrørende statens enerettigheder med hensyn til import af råolie
Case C-347/88: Commission of the European Communities ν Hellenic Republic - 13 December 1990 (Free movement of goods - Imports, exports and marketing of crude oil and petroleum products - State monopoly - Prices) (Full Court)
Der kunne ikke gives Kommissionen medhold i disse klagepunkter, idet Domstolen lagde vægt på, at grundlaget for statens enerettigheder med hensyn til import af råolie bestemt til raffinering er lov nr. 1571/85.
By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 29 November 1988, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that by adopting Law No. 1571/85 and the measures for its implementation, which partially maintain in effect exclusive import and marketing rights for petroleum products in Greece, certain measures concerning import, export and marketing procedures and a system of maximum consumer prices which restrict the importation and exportation of such products from and to other Member States, the Hellenic Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 30, 34 and 37 (1) of the EEC Treaty.
Lovgivningen om, at staten er eneberettiget til at importere råolie bestemt til raffinering, er således blot udtryk for en bekræftelse af, at staten er tillagt en eksklusiv rettighed, og denne kan ikke ses løsrevet fra det nationale monopol med hensyn til raffinering.
The complaint concerning the prior authorization to trade in petroleum products and those concerning the rules on maximum consumer prices had to be declared inadmissible on the ground that they had not been contained in the reasoned opinion.
Kommissionen havde imidlertid udtrykkeligt anført, at den ikke anfægtede riet nationale monopol med hensyn til raff inering.
The complaints set out in the letter of formal notice and the reasoned opinion but were not contained in the application were also inadmissible.
b) Statens enerettigheder med hensyn til import af og handel med mineralolie produkter
The complaints concerning the State monopoly over the importation of crude oil
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at forhandlerselskaberne i henhold til artikel 9, stk. 4, i lov nr. 1571/85 er forpligtet til at indkøbe deres produkter hos de offentligt ejede græske raffinaderier, for så vidt angår den del af efter spørgslen på det indenlandske marked, der ikke dækkes af det bestående han delsmonopol.
The Court could accept those complaints. It pointed out in that regard that under Law 1571/85, the State has an exclusive right to import crude oil for refining purposes.
Det måtte herefter lægges til grund, at opretholdelsen af de nævnte rettigheder medfører en forskelsbehandling, jfr. artikel 37, stk. 1, af eksportører etableret i andre medlemsstater, uanset spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den af de offentligt ejede græske raffinaderier anvendte råolie er importeret.
It did however point out that, independently of any provision conferring an import monopoly on the State, the fact that the State had a refining monopoly allowed it to control both the volume of imports of crude oil for refining purposes and the conditions under which they were carried out.
21 c) Ordningen med handelskvoter og årlige forsyningsprogrammer
- 21 - confirmed the existence of a privilege which could not be dissociated from the national refining monopoly.
Domstolen bemærkede herom, at programmerne og eventuelle ændringer heri skal godkendes af de græske myndigheder, og at forhandlerselskaberne derfor ikke frit kan fastsætte vilkårene for og omfanget af deres virksomhed, ligesom de ikke frit kan indrette sig efter ændringerne på markedet.
Under those circumstances, the lawfulness in Community law of the Greek State's monopoly of the importation of crude oil could be challenged only if the lawfulness in Community law of the national refining monopoly was also contested.
Godkendelsesordningen måtte derfor antages at kunne lægge hindringer i vejen for handelen inden for Fællesskabet, jfr. artikel 30.
However, the Commission expressly indicated that it did not contest the national refining monopoly.
Domstolen udtalte herefter, at de hindringer for samhandelen inden for Fælles skabet, der følger af de græske myndigheders beføjelse til at godkende forsyningsprogrammerne og eventuelle ændringer heri, ikke kan anses for at have hjemmel i artikel 36.
The Court pointed out in that regard that under Article 9 (4) of Law No. 1571/85, distribution companies are required to obtain supplies from Greek public sector refineries up to a percentage of the needs of the national market corresponding to the unadjusted part of the State marketing monopoly.
Den græske regering havde således ikke peget på noget forhold, der kunne godtgøre, at denne beføjelse er en afgørende forudsætning for at sikre, at Grækenland altid vil kunne opnå en minimumsforsyning af mineralolieprodukter.
It was clear to the Court from that provision that by maintaining the State's rights in regard to the importation and marketing of petroleum products, the Hellenic Republic intended, as it itself admitted, to provide a guaranteed market for the production of the Greek public sector refineries.
d) Procedurerne vedrørende anmeldelse af import- og eksportforretninger
It followed that the maintenance of those rights entailed discrimination within the meaning of Article 37 (1) against exporters established in other Member States regardless of whether the crude oil used in Greek public sector refineries was itself imported or not.
Domstolen bemærkede herom blot, at Kommissionen ikke havde peget på nogen ret lige eller faktiske omstændigheder, hvoraf det fremgik, at den nævnte forpligtelse - der er en handelsordning, som uden forskel finder anvendelse på såvel indenlandske som importerede produkter - vil kunne lægge hindringer i vejen for handelen inden for Fællesskabet.
Moreover, since the Hellenic Republic had not shown that if the rights at issue were not maintained in effect, the public sector refineries would not be able to dispose of their production on the market at competitive prices and thus ensure their continued existence, the argument to the effect that the maintenance of those rights was justified on grounds of public safety had to be rejected.
Domstolen gav heller ikke Kommissionen medhold i dette klagepunkt.
The system of marketing quotas and procurement programmes
Det måtte såleries i morisætning til, hvari Kommissionen havde gjort gældende, lægges til grund, at der i forbindelse med den græske ordning med forbrugermaksimalpriser for mineralolieprodukter ved prisdannelsen sker en inddragelse af en lang række faktorer, der har tilknytning til såvel importerede som indenlandske produkter.
The Court pointed out that the fact that the programmes and any changes made to them were subject to approval by the Greek authorities meant that the distribution companies could not freely determine the extent and conditions of their activities or adapt themselves to the conditions on the market. Consequently, that system of approval therefore constituted a measure capable of hindering intra-Community trade within the meaning of Article 30.
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 23. maj 1990.
The procedures for declaring import and export transactions
- klagepunkterne vedrørende ordningen med fastsættelse af maksimalpriser for mineralolieprodukter, jfr. punkterne a), b) og c) i stævningen.
The Court considered it sufficient to point out in that regard that the Commission had made no claim of law or fact showing that the obligation at issue, which is a trading rule applicable without distinction to domestic and imported products, is likely to hinder intra-Community trade.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 7. november Ï99Ö:
The remainder of the application is dismissed.
Sag C-70/89: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik 13.12.1990
The parties are ordered to bear their own costs."
"MiljØ - traktatbrud - udledning af cadmium" (Domstolens plenum)
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 23 Mav 1990.
I domskonklusionen hedder det:
He suggested that the Court:
Den Italienske Republik har undladt at opfylde sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten, idet den ikke inden for den fastsatte frist ved lovgivning eller administrativt har truffet de foranstaltninger, der er nødvendige for fuldstændigt og korrekt i italiensk
declare inadmissible: the charge relating to the possibility reserved by the Greek Government of revoking the abolition of the exclusive marketing rights for petroleum products; the charges relating to the system of fixing maximum prices for petroleum products, formulated in the application under (a), (b) and (c);
Den tyske lovgivning om varemærker indeholder imidlertid ikke regler om anvendelse af tegnet (R).
He was of the view that the Court should "dismiss the application and order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs".
Under disse omstændigheder skulle riet anførte problem, der drejer sig om for eneligheden af en national forskrift om illoyal konkurrence med fællesskabsreglerne om frie varebevægelser, vurderes alene i forhold til artikel 30.
Case C-70/89: Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic - 13 December 1990 (Environment - Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Cadmium discharge) (Full Court)
Domstolen konstaterede først, at et forbud af den pågældende karakter, som anvendes uden forskel på nationale og indførte varer, kan hindre samhandelen i Fællesskabet, idet det kan tvinge indehaveren af et varemærke, registreret alene i én medlemsstat, til at udforme varens emballage forskelligt, alt efter
By an application lodged at the Court Registry on 7 March 1989, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed time-limit all the provisions needed to transpose Council Directive 83/513/EEC into its national law, the Italian Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty.
For det andet kunne en eventuel fare herfor ikke berettige en så klar hindring for frie varebevægelser, da forbrugerne interesserer sig mere for varernes kvalitet end for varemærkets registreringssted.
Case C-238/89: Pall Corporation ν P. J. Dahl hausen - 13 December 1990 (Free movement of goods - Trade-mark law - Misleading advertising) (Full Court)
Det var også blevet gjort gældende, at anvendelsen af tegnet (R) i en stat, hvor varemærket ikke er registreret, skulle anses som illoyal konkurrenceadfærd over for konkurrenterne, og at fabrikanterne kunne vælge at lade deres varemærker registrere i stater med de færreste krav, såfremt det måtte være tilstrækkeligt for at anvende det pågældende tegn, at varemærket er registreret i én stat i Fællesskabet.
By an order of 29 June 1989, which was received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1989, the Landgericht München [Regional Court, Munich] I referred two questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty.
Endelig tilføjede Domstolen, at når det Mar blevet konstateret, at forbudet ikke var berettiget af hensyn til ufravigelige forbrugerbeskyttelseshensyn eller redelighed i handelstransaktioner, var der heller ikke grundlag herfor i Rådets direktiv 84/450/EØF om vildledende reklame.
The Landgericht considered that the prohibition of marketing sought by Pall had to be granted under German law but it was unsure as to whether such a prohibition amounted to a quantitative restriction within the meaning of Article 30 of the EEC Treaty.
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 30 skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for anvendelsen af en national forskrift om illoyal konkurrence, som gør det muligt for en erhvervsdrivende at opnå forbud mod, at der på en medlemsstats område bringes en vare i omsætning, hvis betegnelse eftei— følges af (R) i en cirkel ved siden af varemærket, når varemærket ikke er registreret i denne medlemsstat men i en anden medlemsstat."
The Court pointed out by way of introduction that the use of the symbol (R) beside the trade mark to indicate that the mark was registered and that, therefore, it was protected in law is a widespread practice in several Member
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet den 9. oktober 199Õ"!
States of the Community. However, the German trade mark legislation contains no rules on the use of the (R) symbol.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse: "Traktatens artikel 30 er til hinder for anvendelsen af en national regel om illoyal konkurrence, som f.eks. artikel 3 i UWG, der indeholder et forbud mod at bringe en vare i omsætning, som bærer tegnet (R) i en medlemsstat, når produktets varemærke ikke er registreret i den pågældende medlemsstat".
Under those circumstances, the problem which arose concerning the compatibility of a national provision on unfair competition with the Community rules on free movement of goods had to be considered solely in the light of Article 30.
Sag C-240/89: Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske Republik 13.12.1990
The Court noted first in that regard that a prohibition such as thew one at issue, applicable without distinction to domestic and imported products, is likely to hinder intra-Community trade inasmuch as it could oblige the owner of a trade mark registered in a single Member State to present its products differently in the light of the place it which they are to be marketed and to set up special, partitioned distribution circuits so as to insure that products bearing the (R) symbol did not circulate in the Member States in which the prohibition at issue was in effect.
"Socialpolitik - traktatbrud - manglende gennemførelse af et direktiv" (Domstolens plenum)
The Court could not accept the argument that the prohibition was justified because the use of the (R) symbol misleads consumers if the trade mark was not registered in the country in which the goods were marketed.
Ved stævning, indgivet den 31. juli 1989, havde Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber anlagt sag med påstand om, at det statueredes, at Den Italienske Republik har tilsidesat sine forpligtelser i henhold til EØF-Traktaten ved ikke inden for den fastsatte frist at have truffet de nødvendige foranstaltninger til i italiensk ret at gennemføre Rådets direktiv 83/477/EØF.
On the one hand, it had not been established that, in practice, the (R) symbol was generally used and understood as indicating that the trade mark was registered in the country in which the product was marketed.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
On the other hand, such a risk could not justify such a serious hindrance to the free movement of goods, because consumers were more interested in the qualities of the product than in the registration of the trade mark.
3eneraladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 20. november 1990.
On the one hand, careful traders having an interest in knowing whether the trade mark had or had not been registered could check in the public register as to the legal status of the mark in question.
Den Italienske Republik bør dømmes til at betale sagens omkostninger, jfr. procesreglementets artikel 69, stk. 2".
On the other, a person who registers a trade mark in a given State is seeking principally to take advantage in that State of the
(Præjudiciel) "Frie varebevægelser - undtagelse - beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed -lovgivning om anvendelse af konserverings- og tilsætningsstoffer i levnedsmidler" (Første Afdeling)
"Article 30 of the EEC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the application of a national provision on unfair competition which enables a trader to obtain a prohibition in the territory of a Member State on the putting into circulation of goods bearing the letter R in a circle beside the trade mark, where the trade mark is not registered in that State but is registered in another Member State."
Ved dom, afsagt den 20. november 1987 og indgået til Domstolen den 15. februar 1990, havde Tribunal de Grande Instance de Marseille stillet et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Rådets direktiv 64/54/EØF og af EØF-Traktatens artikler 30 og 36.
Mr Advocate General Giuseppe Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 9 October 1990.
Sådanne omsætningsforbud for importerede produkter, der indeholder tilsætningsstoffer, som er godkendt i den medlemsstat, hvor produktet fremstilles, men forbudt i importmedlemsstaten, er imidlertid kun gyldige i det omfang, det er foreneligt med kravene i Traktatens artikel 36, således som denne bestemmelse er fortolket af Domstolen.
"Article 30 of the Treaty precludes, in application of a national rule on unfair competition such as that contained in Paragraph 3 of the German Law against unfair competition, that the marketing of a product bearing the symbol (R) should be prohibited in a Member State if the trade mark which the product bears has not been registered in that Member State."
28 godtgøre, at forbudet er begrundet i hensynet til beskyttelsen af befolkningens sundhed, idet de dog kan indhente oplysninger fra de erhvervsdrivende, der kan være til nytte for vurderingen af sagens omstændigheder.
By failing to adopt within the prescribed period measures implementing Council Directive 83/477/EEC of 19 September 1983 on the protection of workers from the risks relating to exposure to asbestos at work other than measures relating to asbestosmining activities, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty;
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
The Italian Republic is ordered to pay the costs."