natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det Forenede Kongerige har gjort gældende, at formålet med direktivets artikel 9, stk 1, er opfyldt, såfremt den pågældende person kan gøre brug af de rettigheder, der er nævnt i bestemmelsen.
As regards this article it is sufficient to recall that the obligations accepted by the Member States under Article 102(1) do not create individual rights which the national courts must protect.
henblik på at gøre det muligt for den nationale ret at vurdere, om de personer, myndigheden består af, er uafhængige og upartiske.
According to the order making the reference the regional rules at issue make no distinction as to the origin of the products, nor is their purpose to govern trade in those products between Member States.
Artikel 9, stk 1, i Rådets direktiv 64/221/EØF af 25. februar 1964 om samordning af de særlige foranstaltninger, som gælder for udlændinge med hensyn til rejse og ophold, og som er begrundet i hensynet til den offentlige orden, sikkerhed og sundhed, skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen, bortset fra påtrængende tilfælde, indeholder el forbud mod, at den administrative myndighed træffer en beslutning om udvisning inden der er indhentet en udtalelse fra en kompetent myndighed
Articles 3(c), 52 and 53 of the EC Treaty are not applicable to circumstances wholly internal lo a Member State, such as where a company which has its head office in a Member Stale and pursues its activities there is required to comply with rules whereby the regional authorities of a Member Slate responsible for governing an archipelago forming part of the territory of that State require aü petroleum product wholesalers wishing to extend their activities to that part of the national territory to supply a certain number of islands in the archipelago, having regard to the problems of supplying insular regions.
Det tilkommer den nationale ret i hvert enkelt tilfælde at vurdere, om disse krav er opfyldt.*
Such rules are compatible with Article 85, read in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 5, and with Article 30 of the EC Treaty.
Generaladvokat M.R. Elmer fremsatte forslag tii ¡ifgorelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 12. oktober 1995.
Article 102(1) of the EC Treaty does not give rise to individual rights which the national courts must protect'
2) Bestemmelsen er ikke til hinder for, at den kompetente myndighed udnævnes af den samme administrative myndighed som den, der træffer beslutning om udvisning mv., forudsat at den pågældende kompetente myndighed med sikkerhed kan udøve sin virksomhed i fuld uafhængighed af den administrative myndighed.
'Articles 3(c), 30, 52, 53 and 85 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Articles 5 and 102(1), do not preclude a Member State from imposing a statutory requirement that suppliers of petroleum products to island regions of that Member State supply a minimum number of islands.'
Sag T-507/93 Paulo Branco / Revisionsretten for De Europæiske Fællesskaber Personalesag
Case C-175/94 The Queen ν Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte John Gallagher Freedom of movement for persons
»Tjenestemænd - liste overforfremmelsesværdige tjenestemænd — overflytning til en anden institution — bebyrdende afgørelse — retlig interesse — erstatningspåstand - afvisning* (Første Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Freedom of movement for persons — Derogations — Decisions concerning the control of foreign nationals — Decision ordering expulsion — Prior opinion of the competent authority) (Sixth Chamber) exclusion.
FORSLAG TIL AFGØRELSE
The Secretary of State reconsidered the case but did not alter his decision.
Forenede sager C-46/93 og C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland fællesskabsretten, forudsat at statens forpligtelse, der er grundlaget for den privates ret, i enhver henseende er klar eller klart fastlagt ved retspraksis på området.
By order of 10 February 1994, received at the Court on 24 June 1994, the Court of Appeal referred for a preliminary ruling two questions on the interpretation of Council Directive 64/221/EEC (hereinafter 'the directive*).
Præjudiciel—Bundesgerichtshof—princippet om, at en medlemsstat er erstatningsansvarligfor tab, som er forvoldt private på grund af tilsidesættelser af fællesskabsretten, som må tilregnes staten -tilsidesættelser, som må tilregnes den lovgivende myndighed — betingelser for statens erstatningsansvar — erstatningens omfang
The questions arise in proceedings brought before the Court of Appeal by Mr Gallagher, who is an Irish national, against the order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department (hereinafter 'the Secretary of State') to exclude him pursuant to section 7(1) and (2) of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (hereinafter 'the Act').
En medlemsstat må ikke undergive retten til erstatning for tab, der skyldes tilsidesættelser af fællesskabsretten, de samme begrænsninger som dem, der gælder i tilfælde af lovgivers tilsidesættelse af nationale forfatningsbestemmelser, såfremt disse begrænsninger har til følge, at det i praksis bliver umuligt at gennemføre retten til erstatning.
On appeal, Mr Gallagher argued in particular that, contrary to the requirements of Article 9 of the directive, he had been excluded from the United Kingdom before he could even make representations against the exclusion order or meet the person nominated by the Secretary of State. He also contended that this person was, by virtue of the manner of his appointment, not competent to deliver the opinion required under Article 9 of the directive.
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene som følgen a) i sag C-46/93 (Brasserie du Pécheur):
Mr Gallagher was arrested in the United Kingdom on 24 September 1991.
Sag C-392/93 The Queen / H.M. Treasury, ex parte: British Telecommunications pic praksis umuligt for den private at opnå fuld erstatning af de lidte tab; dette ville være tilfældet, såfremt national ret begrænsede erstatningen til at omfatte goder, der er beskyttet i henhold til loven, såsom ejendomsretten, og modsat udelukkede enhver adgang til erstatning for mistet fortjeneste.
subject of an exclusion order to make representations to a competent authority and requires the Secretary of State, where appropriate, to examine the opinion of that authority and to reconsider the merits of his decision before the individual concerned is removed from the territory of the United Kingdom.
Præjudiciel - High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) - fortolkning af EØF-traktatens artikel 189 og Rådets direktiv 901531/EØF om fremgangsmåderne ved tilbudsgivning inden for vand- og energiforsyning samt transport og telekommunikation
provided for by the directive require that the opinion be duly notified to the person concerned, but the directive does not require the opinion to identify by name the members of the authority or indicate their professional status, since such identification is relevant only for the purpose of enabling the national court to determine whether the members of the authority are independent and impartial.
lian foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene således: h) Statens forpligtelse til at yde erstatning for tab, der er forvoldt private, opstår på det tidspunkt, hvor den skadegørende omstændighed indtræder, såfremt den tilsidesatte bestemmelse er klar i den ovenfor angivne forstand, eller, såfremt retsstillingen er uafklaret, fra det tidspunkt, hvor denne er afklaret ved en afgørelse fra EF-Domstolen, enten ved en præjudiciel afgørelse eller ved en dom afsagt i henhold til traktatens artikel 169«.
The distinction between Article 9(1) and Article 9(2) is precisely that, in situations covered by Article 9(1), the opinion must be obtained before the decision is taken, whereas in situations covered by Article 9(2) the opinion is obtained after the decision has been taken and only at the request of the person concerned, if he has raised objections.
»I. Artikel 8, stk. 1, i direktiv 90/531/EØF skal fortolkes således, at ordregiverne selv skal fastlægge, hvilke teletjenester fra den enkelte ordregiver den i bestemmelsen fastsatte undtagelse finder anvendelse på.
If Article 9(1) were to be construed as the United Kingdom suggests, the distinction between the rule in Article 9(2) and the rule in Article 9(1) would be lost.
Ved afgørelsen af, om bestemte tjenester skal kunne være omfattet af undtagelsen, nårde faktiske og retlige betingelser i artikel 8, stk. 1, i direktiv 90/531/EØF er overholdt, skal der tages hensyn til alle de pågældende tjenesters særegenheder, om der findes substituerende tjenester, prisvilkårene, konkurrenternes stilling på markedet, og om der eventuelt findes begrænsninger i lovgivningen.
By the second question referred, the Court is asked to rule whether Article 9(1) of the directive precludes the competent authority referred to in that provision from being appointed by the same administrative authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion.
1 det omfang, den nationale retsorden tillige giver hjemmel for tildeling af eksemplarisk erstatning, skal bestemmelserne herom uden nogen som helst forskelsbehandling også Tinde anvendelse i tilfælde af tilsidesættelse af rettigheder, som private har i henhold til fællesskabsretten«.
The essential requirements are, first, that it be clearly established that the authority is to perform its duties in absolute independence and is not to be directly or indirectly subject, in the exercise of its duties, to any control by the authority empowered to take the measures provided for in the directive and, second, that the authority follow a procedure enabling the person concerned, on the terms laid down by the directive, effectively to present his defence.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 28. november 1995.
Article 9(1) of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health must be interpreted as meaning that, save in cases of urgency, it prohibits the administrative authority from taking a decision ordering expulsion before a competent authority has given its opinion.
Artikel 7 og 9 i direktiv 90/314/EØF pålægger medlemsstaterne inden den 31. december 1992 at træffe alle foranstaltninger, der er egnede til allerede fra dette tidspunkt at sikre forbrugeren tilbagebetaling af erlagte beløb eller hjemtransport i tilfælde af insolvens eller konkurs hos den rejsearrangørog/eller formidler, der er part i kontrakten.
Article 9(1) of Directive 64/221 does not preclude the competent authority referred to in that provision from being appointed by the same administrative authority as takes the decision ordering expulsion, provided that the competent authority can perform its duties in absolute independence and is not subject to any control by the authority empowered to take the measures provided for in the directive. It is for the national court to determine in each case whether those requirements have been met.'
»- at afvise sagen, for så vidt som der er nedlagt påstand om annullation af afgørelse 93/730/EF med titlen 'adfærdskodeks for aktindsigt i Rådets og Kommissionens dokumenter':
Advocate General M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 12 October 1995.
- i øvrigt at frifinde sagsøgte;
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Præjudiciel — Landgericht Bonn — fortolkning af Rådets direktiv 90/314/EØF om pakkerejser, herunder pakkeferier og pakketure foranstaltninger til beskyttelse af forbrugerne følgerne for en medlemsstat af mangelfuld eller forsinket gennemførelse af et direktiv —forpligtelse til at erstatte det tab, borgerne har lidt — betingelser
Article 9(1) does not preclude the competent authority from being appointed by the same administrative authority as that which, inter alia, takes a decision ordering expulsion, provided that the competent authority in question is in a position to perform its duties in absolute independence of the administrative authority.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 28. november 1995.
It is for the national court to determine in each individual case whether that requirement has been satisfied.'
Han foreslog Domstolen at besvare spørgsmålene således:
Court of First Instance
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling) den 30. november 1995.
(Officials — List of officials eligible for promotion — Transfer to another institution —Act adversely affecting an official — Interest in bringing proceedings — Claim for damages -Inadmissibility) (First Chamber)
Han var af den opfattelse, at spørgsmålene skulle besvares således:
Joined Cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA ν Federal Republic of Germany
»Artikel 3, stk. 1, i Rådets beslutning 88/408/EØF af 15. juni 1988 om størrelserne for den afgift, der i henhold til direktiv 85/73/EØF skal opkræves for sundhedsmæssig undersøgelse og kontrol af fersk kød, skal fortolkes således, at den del af afgiften, der er omhandlet i denne bestemmelse, skal beregnes på grundlag af vægten af det kød, som er opskåret og udbenet.«
Preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Liability of a Member State for damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law which are attributable to that State — Infringements attributable to the legislature — Conditions for State liability — Extent of reparation infringements of Community law attributable to that State, even where the infringement consists in the fact that the legislature omitted to amend a national law so as to bring it into conformity with Community law, provided that the obligation imposed on the State from which the individual's right is derived is precise in every respect or has been clearly specified by the relevant case-law.
Præjudiciel — Supremo Tribunal Administrativo fortolkning af artikel 9, 12 og 95 i EF-traktaten og af artikel 33 i direktiv 77/388/E0F: Rådets sjette direktiv om harmonisering af medlemsstaternes lovgivning om omsætningsafgifter - Det fælles m erværdiafgifts system: ensartet beregningsgrundlag national afgift på
A Member State is not entitled to make the right to reparation for infringements of Community law subject to the same restrictions laid down for infringements of national constitutional provisions by the legislature where those restrictions have the effect of making the right to reparation virtually impossible.
indenlandsk fremstillede og importerede mejeriprodukter, som opkræves af det portugisiske interventionsorgan (IROMA)
A Member State is bound to make reparation for the loss or damage occasioned to individuals as a result of
Sag C-349/95 Frits Loendersloot, tidligere »F. Loendersloot Internationale Expeditie« / George Ballantine & Son Ltd m.fl. Præjudiciel — Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München — fortolkning af artikel 7 i afgørelse nr. 1/80 fra Associationsrådet EØF-Tyrkiet -familiemedlem til tysk arbejdstager med regelmæssig beskæftigelse i en medlemsstat -adgang til arbejde efter tre års lovligt ophold -fastlæggelse af varigheden af det lovlige ophold i tilfælde af afbrydelse
4.(a) (a) criteria for quantifying the loss or damage, provided that the requirements laid down to that end are not less favourable than those applying to similar domestic claims and are not such as to make it excessively difficult or virtually impossible for the individual to obtain full reparation for the loss or damage suffered. Where the national legal system also provides for the award of exemplary damages, the relevant rules must therefore be applied, without any discrimination, even where rights asserted by individuals under Community law were infringed.'
Præjudiciel — Nederlandenes Hoge Raad — fortolkning af EF-traktatens artikel 36 -afsætning!
Preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) — Interpretation of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty and Council Directive 90/531¡EEC on the procurementprocedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sectors
Fællesskabet af alkoholholdige drikke forsynet med varemærke, som af varemærkeindehaveren er anbragt på flasker og emballager — udøvelse af varemærkeretten med henblik på af forhindre en tredjemand i at fjerne de af varemærkeindehaveren anbragte identifikationsmærker, der sætter ham i stand til at opspore lækager i salgsorganisationen og således bekæmpe parallelimport af sine produkter
The obligation on the Member State to make reparation for loss or damage occasioned to individuals arises at the time when the event which caused the damage occurred if the provision infringed is clear in the sense specified above or, where the legal situation is doubtful, at the time when it was clarified by Community case-law, either by a preliminary ruling or by a judgment pursuant to Article 169.'
Præjudiciel - Tribunal de commerce de Pontoise - fortolkning af EF-traktatens artikel 30 og 36 med hensyn til parallelimport af et plantebeskyttelsesmiddel, som var godkendt og beskyttet af samme varemærke i begge de berørte medlemsstater
Article 8(1) of Directive 90/531/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the determination of the telecommunications services, provided by each contracting entity, in respect of which the exclusion envisaged in that article does or does not apply must be made by the contracting entities themselves.
Ira kta t br udssøgs mål- manglende gennemførelse inden for den fastsatte frist af Rådets direktiv 91/371/EØF om gennemførelse af aftalen mellem Det Europæiske Økonomiske Fællesskab og Schweiz om direkte forsikring bortset fra livsforsikring
The words *where other entities are free to offer the same services in the same geographical area and under substantially the same conditions' in Article 8(1) of Directive 90/531/EEC are to be interpreted as meaning that the entities concerned must be not only
Denne publikation udarbejdes af Domstolens Informationstjeneste (L-2925 Luxembourg) med henblik på en hurtig orientering om arbejdet ved Domstolen og Retten I Første Instans.
The Member State concerned is not required to make reparation for any loss or damage which a contracting entity may have suffered as a result of the incorrect implementation of Article 8(1) of Directive 90/531/EEC, since in the present case the infringement may not be characterized as a manifest and serious breach.'
Dommene og de fremsatte forslag til afgørelse offentliggøres senere i »Samling af Afgørelser«, som er eneste gyldige udgave.
Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 28 November 1995.
Gengivelse kan ske med kildeangivelse.
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Originalsprog: fransk Redaktionen afsluttet den 1.12.1995 Katalognr. : DX-AC-95-033-DA-C
Case C-58/94 Kingdom of the Netherlands ν Council of the European Union
Ugen 4. — 8. december 1995
4 to 8 December 1995
Sag C-41/95 Rådet for Den Europæiske Union / Europa-Parlamentet Fællesskabernes budget
Council of the European Union v European Parliament Community budget
Sag C-239/94 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Irland
Case C-41/94 19 Federal Republic of Germany ν Commission of ι he European Communities
Sag C-41/95 Rådet for Den Europæiske Union / Europa-Parlamentet Fællesskabernes budget
Case C-41/95 Council of the European Union ν European Parliament Community budget
»Budget* (Domstolens Plenum) samtlige udgifter, der ikke er en nødvendig følge af traktaten eller af retsakter udstedt i henhold til denne, overstiger maksimalsatsen for forhøjelser i forhold til udgifter af samme art i regnskabsåret 1994.
Treaty or from acts adopted in accordance therewith, exceeds the maximum rate as compared to expenditure of the same type appearing in the 1994 budget.
Ved stævning, indgivet til Domstolens Justitskontor den 17. februar 1995, har Rådet for Den Europæiske Union anlagt sag med påstand om annullation af Europa-Parlamentets formands retsakt af 15. december 1994, hvorved det fastslås, at Den Europæiske Unions almindelige budget for regnskabsåret 1995 endeligt er vedtaget.
By application lodged at the Court Registry on 17 February 1995, the Council of the European Union brought an action for the annulment of the act of the President of the European Parliament of 15 December 1994 declaring the linai adoption of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1995.
Det følger heraf, at Parlamentets formand kun kunne fastslå, at budgettet for regnskabsåret 1995 var vedtaget, hvis en anden sats for forhøjelser var fastsat ved aftale mellem Rådet og Parlamentet.
It follows that, the adoption of the 1995 budget could be declared by the President of the Parliament only if a new rate of increase were fixed by agreement between the Council and the Parliament.
For det første har Rådet gjort gældende, at Parlamentet har tilsidesat EF-traktatens artikel 2Ü3, stk. 4, andet afsnit, og stk. 5 og 6, idet Parlamentet har truffet afgørelse om »ændringer« af poster i Rådets budgetforslag, som vedrører udgifter, der er klassificeret som obligatoriske udgifter, selv om Parlamentet ifølge artikel 203 kun er beføjet til at fremsætte »ændringsforslag« dertil.
First, it alleges that the Parliament has infringed the second subparagraph of Article 203(4) and Article 203(5) and (6) of the EC Treaty by deciding, by way of 'amendments', on headings in the draft budget drawn up by the Council concerning expenditure classified as compulsory expenditure, in relation to which, it may act only by way of 'proposed modifications'.
For det andet har Rådet gjort gældende, at Parlamentet har tilsidesat sin forpligtelse til loyalt samarbejde mellem institutionerne ved ensidigt og vilkårligt at foretage en omklassificering af de obligatoriske og ikke obligatoriske udgifter, hvilket er i strid med de forpligtelser, som Parlamentet har påtaget sig i 1982-crklæringen og 1993-aftalen.
Second, the Council complains that the Parliament has acted in breach of the duty of cooperation in good faith between institutions by unilaterally and arbitrarily proceeding to reclassify compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure.
Hertil har Parlamentet for det første anført, at det fremgår af begivenhederne, som fandt sted under plenarmødet den 15. december 1994, og som både er refereret i protokollen for dette møde og i det fuldstændige forhandlingsreferat, at Rådets formand ikke alene offentligt i Parlamentet gav sin mundtlige tilslutning til den nye sats og derved gjorde det muligt for Parlamentets formand at fastslå, at budgettet var endeligt vedtaget, men også hele tiden, mens formanden skrev under, efter de tilstedeværendes opfattelse opførte sig, som om han var fuldstændig enig med Parlamentets formand.
It is not disputed in the present case that the amount of the appropriations entered in the budget for 1995, as declared by the President of the Parliament, in respect of total expenditure DI her than that necessarily resulting from the
I den foreliggende sag er det ubestridt, at de bevillinger, der er opført på det budget for regnskabsåret 1995, som Parlamentets formand har fastslået er vedtaget, for så vidt angår
The Parliament contends in that regard, first, that it follows from the developments which took place during the plenary sitting on 15 December 1994, as reported both in the minutes of that sitting and in the verbatim record of the debates, that the President-in-Office of the Council not only publicly gave his oral consent to the new rate before the Parliament, thereby enabling the President of the Parliament to declare the final adoption of the budget, but also, in the presence of all those in attendance, behaved throughout the period leading up to the signature of the budget by the President of the Parliament as though he were fully in accord with the latter.
Dette argument kan ikke tages til følge.
That argument cannot be accepted.