natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Europa­Parlamentet mod Rådet for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Fri bevægelighed for personer Sag C­369/90 6 M. V. Micheletti m.fl. mod Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria Fri bevægelighed for personer Sag C­370/90 7 The Queen mod Immigration Appeal Tribunal og Surinder Singh Ex parte: Secretary of State for the Home Department Fri bevægelighed for personer Sag C­9/91 8 The Queen mod Secretary of State for Social Security Ex parte: The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Socialpolitik Sag C­270/91 10 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Den Italienske
Case C-295/90 European Parliament ν Council of the European Communities Free movement of persons Case C-369/90 Micheletti and Others ν Delegación del Gobierno en Cantabria Free movement of persons Case C-370/90 The Queen ν Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh Ex parte: Secretary of State for the Home Department Free movement of persons Case C-9/91 The Queen ν Secretary of State for Social Security Ex parte: The Equal Opportunities Commission Social policy Case C-270/91 Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic Agriculture Case C-243/91 Belgian State ν Taghavi Free movement of persons
Sag C-102/9Ì 13 D. Knoch mod Bundesanstalt für Arbeit Fri bevægelighed for personer Sag C-2/9G 16 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber mod Kongeriget Belgien Miljø Sag C-236/S0 18 R. Mai er mod Freistaat Bayern Landbrug C-131/9Ì 20 BV "K" Lire Air Service Europe mod NV Eulaerts og den belgiske stat Fiskale bes emmelser
Case C-102/91 Knoch ν Bundesanstalt für Arbeit Free movement of persons Case C-2/90 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium Environment Case C-236/90 Maier ν Freistaat Bayern Agriculture Case C-131/91 "K" Line Air Service Europe BV ν Eulaerts NV and Belgian State Taxation
Retten i Første instans
Before the Court of First Instance
Sag T-66/89 Publishers Association mod Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case T-66/89 Publishers Association ν Commission
Sag C-105/91 24 Kommissionen mod Grækenland Sag C-157/9I 24 Kommissionen mod Nederlandene Forenede sager C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85, f 125/85, C-126/85, C-127/85, C-128/85, C-129/85 . 25 A. Alströir m.fl. mod Kommissionen Sag C-306/88 26 Rochdale Borough mod S.J. Anders Sag C-I91/90 26 Generics (UK) Ltd m.fl. mod Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd Sag C-304/90 27 Reading Borough Council mod Payless DIY m.fl.
Case C-105/91 22 Commission ν Greece Case C-157/91 22 Commission ν Netherlands Joined Cases C-89/85, C-104/85, C-114/85, C-116/85, C-117/85, C-125/85, C-126/85, C-127/85, C-128/85 and C-129/85 23 Ahlström and Others ν Commission Case C-306/88 24 Rochdale Borough Council ν Anders Case C-191/90 24 Generics (UK) Ltd and Others ν Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd Case C-304/90 25 Reading Borough Council ν Payless DIY and Others Case C-2/91 26 Staatsanwaltschaft beim Landgericht Berlin ν Meng Joined Cases C-15/91 andC-108/91 26 J. Buckl & Söhne and Others ν Commission Case C-169/91 27 Council of the City of Stoke­on­Trent and Others ν Β & Q Case C-201/91 27 Grisvard and Others v Assedie Case C-123/91 28 Minalmet v Brandeis Case C-251/91 28 Teulie v Cave Coopérative Agricole "Les Vignerons de Puissalicon" Case C-162/91 29 Tenuta il Bosco v Ministero delle Finanze Case C-79/91 29 Knüfer and Others v Buchmann 21/92
Jag C-295/90: iuropa-Parlamentet mod Rådet for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
Case C-295/90: European Parliament ν Council of the European Communities - 7 July 1992
Fri bevægelighed for personer - direktiv 90/366/EØF om opholdsret for ;tuderende - hjemmel - Europa-Parlamentets beføjelser" Domstolens plenum)
(Free movement of persons - Directive 90/366/EEC on the right of residence for students - Legal basis - Prerogatives of the European Parliament) (Full Court)
'ed stævning indgivet den 28. september 1990 havde Europa-Parlamentet inlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Rådets direktiv 90/366/EØF.
By an application of 28 September 1990, the European Parliament requested the annulment of Council Directive 90/366/EEC.
lirektivet var udstedt med hjemmel i EØF-Traktatens artikel 235, mens ommissionen havde foreslået, at det blev udstedt i medfør af artikel 7, tk. 2.
That directive had as its legal basis Article 235 of the EEC Treaty, although the Commission had suggested that it should be based on the second paragraph of Article 7.
uropa-Parlamentet gjorde gældende, at Rådet ved ikke at vælge den korrekte jemmel havde tilsidesat Parlamentets beføjelser i forbindelse med ovgivningsproceduren, idet Parlamentet skal inddrages i denne i henhold il artikel 7, stk. 2, efter den såkaldte samarbejdsprocedure, mens det i rtikel 235 kun kræves, at der indhentes udtalelse fra Europa-Parlamentet.
In support of its application, the Parliament argued that, by omitting to select the proper legal basis, the Council had failed to respect the prerogatives of the Parliament in the legislative procedure, since the second paragraph of Article 7 provided for the Parliament's participation via the cooperation procedure, whereas Article 235 required only that it be consulted.
omstolen bemærkede, at der ved det pågældende direktiv - på et område der r omfattet af Traktaten, nemlig erhvervsuddannelse, jf. artikel 128 - var dstedt bestemmelser med henblik på at forbyde forskelsbehandling på rundlag af nationalitet, jf. hjemmelen hertil i artikel 7, stk. 2.
The Court first of all pointed out that the directive in question established for an area covered by the Treaty, namely that of vocational training, which was the subject of Article 128, rules which prohibited discrimination on grounds of nationality, as provided for by the second paragraph of Article 7.
omstolen bemærkede endvidere, at det ikke kunne antages - som Rådet havde jort gældende - at der ved direktivet blev indrømmet studerende en ret til ri bevægelighed, svarende til den der tilkommer vandrende arbejdstagere, om var mere vidtgående end retten til at tage bopæl med henblik på rhvervsuddannelse, og at direktivets formål og indhold som følge heraf akte ud over Traktatens artikel 7 og således krævede, at man benyttede rtikel 235 som hjemmel.
The Court could not accept the Council's argument that the directive in question conferred on students a right of free movement similar to that conferred on migrant workers, which went beyond the right of residence for the purposes of vocational training, and that consequently the objective and content of the directive exceeded the scope of Article 7 of the Treaty and for that reason the directive required Article 235 as its legal basis.
Domstolen udtalte herom, at retsakter, som dstedes i medfør af Traktatens artikel 7, stk. 2, ikke nødvendigvis kun kal regulere de rettigheder, der følger af artikel 7, stk. 1, men også kan ngå andre aspekter, som det forekommer nødvendigt at regulere af hensyn il den faktiske udøvelse af disse rettigheder.
Finally, the Court held that the different elements in the directive in question were connected with the effective exercise of the right of residence of students for the purpose of vocational training. In particular, the right of residence conferred on spouses and dependent children was an indispensable factor in the effective exercise by students of the right of residence, as was expressly pointed out in the eighth recital in the preamble to the directive.
Rådets direktiv 90/366/EØF af 28. juni 1990 om opholdsret for studerende annulleres.
90/366/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right annulled;
Det annullerede direktiv har fortsat retsvirkninger Indtil ikrafttrædelsen af et direktiv, som er udstedt med den korrekte hjemmel.
The effects of the annulled directive shall continue to have force until the entry into force of a directive adopted on the appropriate legal basis;
Generaladvokat F. G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 20. ma.i 1992.
Mr Advocate General Jacobs delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 20 Mav 1992.
Generaladvokaten foreslog følgende afgørelse:
He proposed that the Court should:
Rådets direktiv 90/366 af 28. juni 1990 om opholdsret for studerende annulleres.
Declare Council Directive 90/366 of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence for students void;
Det fastslås, at direktivet fortsat har retsvirkninger, indtil der i stedet udstedes en retsakt med den korrekte hjemmel.
Declare that the effects of the directive shall be maintained until it has been replaced by a measure adopted on the correct legal basis;
¡Præjudiciel) 'Fri bevægelighed for personer ­ fri etableringsret ­ berettigede ­ dobbelt ¿tatsborgerskab" ¡Domstolens plenum)
If the persons concerned were able to produce one of the documents referred to in Directive 73/148 in order to prove that they were nationals of a Member State, other Member States were not entitled to dispute that status on the ground that the persons concerned were also nationals of a non-member country, the nationality of which, pursuant to the legislation of the host State, took precedence over that of the Member State.
/ed kendelse af 1. december 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 14. december ;amme år, havde Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria (Spanien) orelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål om fortolkningen af EØF­Traktatens irti kel 3, 7, 52, 53 og 56, såvel som af Rådets direktiv 73/148/EØF om > phævelse af rejse­ og opholdsbegrænsninger inden for Fællesskabet for itatsborgere i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til etablering og udveksling af Jenesteydelser. ¡pørgsmålet var blevet rejst under en sag mellem de ovennævnte parter i inledning af en afgørelse truffet af de spanske myndigheder, der havde ifvist at udstede en endelig opholdstilladelse for en statsborger i EF til licheletti, som har dobbelt statsborgerskab, nemlig argentinsk og ita­iensk, således at han kunne etablere sig i Spanien som tandlæge.
"The provisions of Community law on freedom of establishment preclude a Member State from denying a national of another Member State who possesses at the same time the nationality of a non-member country entitlement to that freedom on the ground that the 1 aw of the host State regards him as a national of the non-member country."
íomstolen anførte hertil, at det vel i henhold til folkeretten henhører inder hver medlemsstats kompetence at fastlægge betingelserne for at opnå ig miste statsborgerskab i det pågældende land ­ en kompetence, der skal idøves under overholdelse af fællesskabsretten ­ men det henhører ikke inder en medlemsstats lovgivning at begrænse virkningerne af, at en anden !3dlemsstat har tildelt et statsborgerskab, ved at kræve en yderligere letingelse opfyldt for at anerkende dette statsborgerskab med henblik på døveisen af de grundlæggende friheder i Traktaten.
"The relevant Community law, in particular Article 52 of the EEC Treaty, must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from denying a national of another Member State the right to exercise freedom of establishment on the ground that he possesses at the same time the nationality of a non-member country in which he had his habitual residence, his effective residence or his last residence."
år den pågældende derfor fremlægger et af de dokumenter, der er omtalt i irektiv 73/148 som bevis for statsborgerskab i en medlemsstat, har andre ledlemsstater ikke ret til at bestride dette med den begrundelse, at de ågældende ligeledes har statsborgerskab i et tredjeland, som i henhold til pholdsstatens lovgivning går forud for statsborgerskabet i medlemsstaten.
Case C-370/90: The Queen ν Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Surinder Singh Ex Parte: Secretary of State for the Home Department - 7 July 1992
■omstolen besvarede det stillede spørgsmål således:
(Reference for a preliminary ruling)
•'æilesskabsrettens bestemmelser vedrørende fri etableringsret er til hin­er for, at en medlemsstat afviser at yde denne frihed til en statsborger i ι anden medlemsstat, som samtidig er statsborger i et tredjeland, med den egrundelse, at han ifølge lovgivningen i opholdsstaten anses som statsbor­er i et tredjeland."
(Free movement of persons - Right of residence of the spouse of a national of a Member State who returns to establish himself in his country of origin) (Full Court)
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet de 30. ianuar 1992.
- 7 for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 52 of the Treaty and of Council Directive 73/148/EEC.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
Mr Surinder Singh, an Indian national, married a British national in 1982.
7.7.19S (Præjudiciel) "Fri bevægelighed for personer - ret til ophold for en ægtefælle til en statsborger i en medlemsstat, der på ny indrejser og etablerer sig i denne medlemsstat" (Domstolens plenum)
Mr Singh appealed against the deportation order, claiming that he had a right of residence under Community law as the spouse of a British citizen who herself had a Community law right to set up in business in the United Kingdom.
Ved kendelse af 19. oktober 1990, der indgik til Domstolen den 17. december 1990, havde High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) forelagt Domstolen et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af Traktatens artikel 52 og Rådets direktiv 73/148/EØF.
The Court ruled that a national of a Member State who had gone to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person pursuant to Article 48 of the Treaty and who returned to establish himself in order to pursue an activity as a selfemployed person in the territory of the Member State of which he was a national had the right, under Article 52 of the Treaty, to be accompanied in the territory of the latter State by his spouse, a national of a non-member country, under the same conditions as were laid down by Regulation No 1612/68, Directive 68/360 or Directive 73/148.
I 1982 indgik Surinder Singh, der er indisk statsborger, ægteskab med en britisk statsborger. Efter at have udøvet lønnet beskæftigelse i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland indrejste de to ægtefæller på ny i Det Forenede Kongerige med henblik på dér at udøve en selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed.
Admittedly, as the United Kingdom submitted, a national of a Member State entered and resided in the territory of that State by virtue of the rights attendant upon his nationality and not by virtue of those conferred on him by Community law.
Efter at der var blevet truffet en foreløbig retsafgørelse om skilsmisse i en sag anlagt mod Singh, begrænsede de britiske myndigheder imidlertid hans opholdstilladelses gyldighedsperiode og afslog at meddele ham permanent opholdstilladelse i hans egenskab af ægtefælle til en britisk statsborger. Senere blev der truffet bestemmelse om Singh's udsendelse fra Det Forenede Kongerige.
However, the present case was concerned not with a right under national law but with the rights of movement and establishment granted to a Community national by Articles 48 and 52 of the Treaty; those rights could not be fully effective if such a person could be deterred from exercising them by obstacles raised in his or her country of origin to the entry and residence of his or her spouse.
Domstolen udtalte i sagen, at en statsborger i en medlemsstat, der er udrejst til en anden medlemsstat for dér at udøve en lønnet beskæftigelse, jf. Traktatens artikel 48, og som på ny indrejser og etablerer sig i den medlemsstat, som vedkommende er statsborger i, med henblik på at udøve en selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, i henhold til Traktatens artikel 52 i denne medlemsstat har ret til at lade sig ledsage af sin ægtefælle, der er stats borger i et tredjeland, på samme vilkår som dem, der fremgår af forordning nr. 1612/68, direktiv 68/360 eller direktiv 73/148.
"Article 52 of the Treaty and Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services, properly construed, require a Member State to grant leave to enter and reside in its territory to the spouse, of whatever nationality, of a national of that State who has gone, with that spouse, to another Member State in order to work there as an employed person as envisaged by Article 48 of the Treaty and returns to establish himself or herself as envisaged by Article 52 of the Treaty in the State of which he or she is a national. A spouse must enjoy at least the same rights as would be granted to him or her under Community law if his or her spouse entered and resided in another Member State."
Domstolen besvarede det forelagte spørgsmål således:
He proposed that the Court should answer the question referred as follows:
"EØF-Traktatens artikel 52 og Rådets direktiv 73/148/EØF af 21. maj 1973 om ophævelse af rejse- og opholdsbegrænsninger inden for Fællesskabet for statsborgere i medlemsstaterne med hensyn til etablering og udveksling af tjenesteydelser skal fortolkes således, at en medlemsstat i henhold hertil er forpligtet til at tillade indrejse til og ophold på sit område for en ægtefælle - uanset dennes nationalitet - til en statsborger i medlemsstaten, som sammen med ægtefællen er udrejst til en anden medlemsstat for dér at udøve en lønnet beskæftigelse, jf. Traktatens artikel 48, og som på ny indrejser og etablerer sig, jf. Traktatens artikel 52, i den medlemsstat, som han eller hun er statsborger i.
"Where a married woman who is a national of a Member State has exercised Treaty rights in another Member State by working there and her husband enjoyed a right of residence under Community law in that other Member State, and where she then establishes herself in order to work as a selfemployed person in the Member State of which she is a national, Community law, in particular Directive 73/148/EEC, entitles her husband to enter and remain in that Member State under the conditions laid down in that directive."
Ægtefællen skal mindst indrømmes de samme rettigheder som dem, vedkommende ville blive indrømmet efter fællesskabsretten, såfremt hans eller hendes ægtefælle indrejste og tog ophold i en anden medlemsstat."
Case C-9/91: The Queen ν Secretary of State for Social Security Ex parte: The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) - 7 July 1992
Generaladvokat Giuseppe Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse for Domstolens plenum den 20. ma.i 1992.
(Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Social policy - Directive 79/7/EEC - Equal treatment for men and women -Contribution periods) (Full Court)
"Såfremt en gift kvinde, der er statsborger i en medlemsstat, har udøvet sine rettigheder i henhold til Traktaten i en anden medlemsstat ved dér at udøve en erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, og hun derefter etablerer sig i den medlemsstat, som hun er statsborger i, for at drive selvstændig erhvervsvirksomhed, har hendes ægtefælle - når denne har haft opholdsret på grund lag af fællesskabsretten i den anden medlemsstat - i henhold til fælles skabsretten og navnlig direktiv 73/148/EØF ret til at indrejse og tage ophold i førstnævnte medlemsstat på de i dette direktiv fastsatte betingelser." gelser."
That question had been raised in connection with an application for judicial review made in the High Court by the EOC for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the United Kingdom State pension scheme unlawfully discriminated against men on the ground of their sex, inasmuch as it required men to pay contributions for 44 years and women for 39 years in order to qualify for the same full basic retirement pension, and inasmuch as a man working between the ages of 60 and 64 paid contributions whereas a woman in the same situation did not do so.
(præjudiciel) "Socialpolitik - direktiv 79/7/EØF - ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder -bidragsperioder" (Domstolens plenum)
A different pensionable age for men and women could not be maintained without altering the existing financial equilibrium, unless such inequality with respect to the length of contribution periods was also maintained.
Ved kendelse af 3. december 1990, indgået til Domstolen den 14. januar 1991, havde High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål om fortolkningen af artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF.
In those circumstances, to exclude from the derogation discrimination concerning contribution periods, determined according to pensionable age, was thus contrary to the very objective of Article 7(1).
Spørgsmålet var blevet rejst i forbindelse med en begæring om domstolsprøvelse, som EOC havde indgivet til High Court med henblik på at få fastslået, at pensionsordningen i Det Forenede Kongerige indebærer en ulovlig forskelsbehandling af mænd på grundlag af deres køn som følge af, at mænd ifølge ordningen skal betale bidrag 1 44 år og kvinder 1 39 år for at opnå ret til samme fulde grundbeløb i arbejdsophørspension, og af, at mænd mellem 60 og 64 år, som arbejder, indbetaler bidrag, mens kvinder i samme situation ikke gør det.
"Article 7(l)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as authorizing the determination of a statutory pensionable age which differs according to sex for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and also forms of discrimination such as those described by the national court which are necessarily linked to that difference."
Domstolen bemærkede, at direktiv 79/7/EØF udtrykkeligt tilsigter en gradvis gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder med hensyn til social sikring.
He proposed that the Court reply to the question referred as follows:
Den gradvise gennemførelse afspejler sig i en række undtagelser, herunder undtagelsen i artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), og viser sig ved, at der Ikke er fastsat en bestemt tidsfrist for opretholdelsen af undtagelserne.
"Where a Member State has fixed a pensionable age differing according to sex for the purposes of the grant of old-age and retirement pensions (65 years for men and 60 years for women), that Member State may still, on the basis of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7, derogate from the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 4(1) of the directive by requiring:
Den forskellige pensionsalder for mænd og kvinder kan nemlig ikke opretholdes, uden at den eksisterende finansielle balance ændres, hvis forskellen i bidragsperiodernes varighed ikke også opretholdes.
(i) that men pay contributions for five years longer than women for the same old-age or retirement pension;
Under disse omstændigheder ville det være i strid med selve formålet med bestemmelserne i artikel 7, stk. 1, at udelukke undtagelser, for så vidt angår forskelsbehandling med hensyn til bidragsperioder, der fastsættes på grundlag af pensionsalderen.
(ii) that men who continue in gainful employment until the age of 65 continue to pay contributions until that age, when women over the age of 60 are not required to pay such contributions, regardless of whether they continue in gainful employment after that age, unless such unequal treatment of men can be eliminated by the national court without unduly jeopardizing the coherence or financial equilibrium of the national social security system concerned."
Domstolen besvarede spørgsmålet således:
Case C-270/91: Commission of the European Communities ν Italian Republic - 8 July 1992
"Artikel 7, stk. 1, litra a), i Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december
(Agriculture - Failure to fulfil obligations - EEC Directives - Failure to implement within the prescribed time limits) (Full Court)