natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Domstolen fandt ikke, at princippet om beskyttelse af den berettigede forventning, som anført af Busseni, var til hinder for ved en retsakt at tillægge krav stiftet forud for retsaktens ikrafttrædelse rang af privilegerede for dringer.
In its second question, the national court sought to ascertain whether the recommendation could have the effect of conferring a preferential rank on debts owed to the ECSC which arose prior to its adoption.
Den nationale rets tredje spørgsmål var i det væsentlige, om den i henstillingen indeholdte frist for staterne til at træffe nationale gennemførelsesforanstaltninger, som var fastsat til den 1. januar 1988, er bindende.
In that connexion, the Court noted that, as was clear from the seventh recital in the preamble, the Commission had intended by means of that provision that the preferential right conferred by the recommendation should be capable of being exercised in proceedings Involving competition between creditors still in progress at the date of its actual Implementation, in order to ensure the most extensive possible recovery of debts arising from the application of levies in the years preceding its adoption.
Herom bemærkede Domstolen, som tidligere fastslået, at det fremgår af selve ordlyden af Traktatens artikel 189, stk. 3, at de medlemsstater, som et direktiv er rettet til, som følge af direktivet er forpligtet til at opfylde et bestemt mål inden udløbet af den i direktivet fastsatte frist.
Contrary to the contentions of Busseni, the principle of legitimate expectations could not, the Court held, preclude the conferment of a preferential status on debts which arose prior to the entry into force of the text which established it, in view of the fact that, as the Court had already ruled, such a principle could not be extended generally to prevent new rules from applying to the future effects of situations which had arisen while previous rules were still in force.
Under hensyn til dette princip, der også finder anvendelse på henstillinger i henhold til EKSF-Traktaten, tilsidesættes fællesskabsretten ved at en medlemsstat undlader at træffe nationale gennemførelsesforanstaltninger til en henstilling. stilling.
In its third question, the national court asked, in substance, whether the time-limit of 1 January 1988 laid down by the recommendation for its implementation by Member States was mandatory.
Dette må dog Ikke forringe retsstillingen for andre kreditorer end staten, idet deres krav skal fyldestgøres 1 henhold til den geldende nationale konkursorden uden hensyn til henstillingen.
The result of that principle, which applied to recommendations under the ECSC Treaty, was that any failure by a Member State to implement the recommendation within the time-limit laid down therein amounted to an infringement of Community law.
Henstillingens artikel 4, 2. afsnit, skal fortolkes således, at EKSF under iagttagelse af de ovennavnte betingelser og forbehold, kan krave, at samtlige EKSF's fordringer på virksomheder som følge af de i EKSF-Traktatens artikler 49 og 50 omhandlede afgifter tillægges rang af privilegerede fordringer, uanset hvornår fordringerne er stiftet, når de efter den nationale konkursorden kan anmeldes i konkursboet. kursboet.
The second paragraph of Article 4 of the recommendation must be interpreted as meaning that the ECSC may claim preferential treatment, in the circumstances and subject to the conditions specified above, in the case of all debts owed to it by undertakings in respect of the levies referred to in Articles 49 and 50 of the ECSC Treaty, irrespective of the date on which they arose, if those debts are provable in the liquidation of the undertaking in accordance with the provisions of national law governing the rights of creditors.
Henstillingens artikel 4, 1. afsnit, skal fortolkes således, at fristen 1. januar 1988, der er fastsat i henstillingen, er bindende, hvorfor fristoverskridelsen er en tilsidesattelse af fallesskabsretten."
The first paragraph of Article 4 of the recommendation must be interpreted as meaning that the time-limit of 1 January 1988 is mandatory in nature and that failure to comply with it amounts to an infringement of Community law. ^
Generaladvokat Jean Mischo fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 28. november vm:
Mr Advocate General Jean Mischo delivered his Opinion at the sitting on 28 November 1989
(præjudiciel) "Socialpolitik - ret til familieydelser i tilfalde af krav i henhold til national ret i beskæftigelseslandet om opfyldelse på dennes område af de fastsatte betingelser" (Domstolens plenum)
The time-limit laid down by Article 4 of Recommendation 86/198/ECSC for the entry into force of national provisions necessary for the implementation of that recommendation is mandatory.
Ved kendelse af 21. juli 1988, der indgik til Domstolen den 8. august 1988, havde Bayerisches Landessozialgericht forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål ved rørende fortolkningen af artikel 3, stk. 1, og artikel 73, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71.
The Court has no jurisdiction, however, to express an opinion on the consequences in national law of a failure to comply with that time-limit \
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag, hvori Giovanni Bronzino, der er italiensk statsborger, og som udøver en lønnet beskæftigelse i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, har nedlagt påstand om annullation af en afgørelse fra Kindergeldkasse, Nürnberg, hvorved det blev afslået at yde ham børnetilskud i henhold til Bundeskindergeldgesetz (lov om børnetilskud) for tre af hans bdrn, der er bosat i Ercolano, Italien, hvor de er tilmeldt arbejdsformidlingen som arbejdssøgende.
Case C-228/88 Giovanni Bronzino ν Kindergeldkasse - 22 February 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Social policy - Entitlement to family benefits when the national law of the country of employment requires the conditions laid down to be fulfilled within its own territory) (Full Court)
Afgørelsen fra Kindergeldkasse, Nürnberg, blev begrundet med, at Bronzino's børn ikke inden for Bundeskindergeldgesetz' geografiske anvendelsesområde står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen som arbejdsløse, hvilket er en betingelse for, at der kan ydes børnetilskud, for så vidt angår børn mellem det fyldte 16. og 21. år, der er arbejdsløse.
By order of 21 July 1988, which was received at the Court on 8 August 1988, the Bayerisches Landessozialgericht [Higher Social Court of Bavaria] submitted a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Articles 3 (1) and 73 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council.
Ved det præjudicielle spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale retsinstans afgjort, om artikel 3, stk. 1, og artikel 73, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 eller andre fællesskabsretlige bestemmelser skal fortolkes således, at når lovgivningen i en medlemsstat indeholder bestemmelser om, at visse former for børnetilskud kun kan ydes, såfremt det pågældende medlem af en arbejdstagers familie står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen inden for lovgivningens geografiske anvendelsesområde, skal denne betingelse anses for opfyldt, såfremt familiemedlemmet som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen i den medlemsstat, hvor vedkommende er bosat.
That question was raised in a dispute concerning the refusal of the Nuremberg Family Allowance Fund to grant Mr Bronzino, an Italian worker employed in the Federal Republic of Germany, the allowance provided for by the Federal law on family allowances for dependent children in respect of his three children residing in Ercolano, Italy, where they were registered with the employment office as seeking employment.
Domstolen bemærkede indledningsvis, at den tyske regering under sagen havde erkendt, at de pågaldende ydelser har karakter af familieydelser, for så vidt de har til formål økonomisk at bidrage til, at familier kan bære deres for sørgerbyrder, for så vidt angår børn mellem det fyldte 16. og 21. år, der er arbejdsløse.
The Fund's refusal was based on the fact that Mr Bronzino's children were not at the disposal of the employment office as unemployed persons within the territory covered by the federal law in question, a condition for the grant of the allowance for unemployed dependent children aged over 16 but under 21.
Den tyske regering anførte herved, at den omtvistede ordning har til formål at imødegå de vanskelige forhold på arbejdsmarkedet i Forbundsrepublikken, hvilket måtte udgøre en tilstrækkelig begrundelse for kravet om, at den arbejdssøgende skal stå til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen i Forbundsrepublikken.
In its question, the national Court sought in substance to ascertain whether Articles 3 (1) and 73 (1) of Regulation No. 1408/71, or any other relevant provision of Community law, had to be interpreted as meaning that where the legislation of the Member State which provided certain family benefits laid down, as a condition for the grant of those benefits, that an unemployed member of the worker's family had to be at the disposal of the employment office for the territorial area in which that legislation applied, that condition was to be regarded as fulfilled where the
Den tyske regering gjorde endvidere gældende, at artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71 kun er en bestemmelse, der forbyder egentlige krav om bopæl på den pågældende medlemsstats område, hvorimod bestemmelsen ikke angår andre objektivt begrundede betingelser som den omtvistede.
The Court emphasised, in the first place, that although the Federal Government acknowledged that the allowance in question constituted a family benefit inasmuch as it was intended to help families to bear the cost of looking after their children who were over 16 but under 21 and unemployed, it considered that Article 73 covered only typical family benefits, that is to say those subject to conditions corresponding, as a general rule, to a social burden for the worker's family without being connected, as was the case of the contested allowance, to a specific status in the State granting the benefits.
Domstolen udtalte herom, at artikel 73 i forordning nr. 1408/71 finder anvendelse på familieydelser, der begrebsligt er defineret i forordningens artikel 1, litra u), i).
According to the Federal Government, the allowance provided for by the federal law in question constituted a measure intended to deal with the critical state of the employment market in the Federal Republic, which justified the requirement that persons seeking employment should be at the disposal of the employment office In that country.
Børnetilskud i henhold til Bundeskindergeldgesetz måtte anses for omfattet af dette begreb, da de har til formål Økonomisk at bidrage til, at familier kan bære deres forsørgerbyrder, for så vidt angår børn, der er arbejdsløse.
The Federal Government also considered that Article 73 of Regulation No. 1408/71 merely abolished the territorial reference to conditions of residence and did not apply to other objectively justified conditions such as the condition referred to above.
Domstolen bemærkede endvidere, at artikel 73 har til formål at forhindre, at en medlemsstat nægter at udbetale familieydelser på det grundlag, at arbejdstagerens familiemedlemmer er bosat i en anden medlemsstat.
The Court pointed out that Article 73 of Regulation 1408/71 applied to the family benefits defined in Article l(u)(i) of that regulation.
Et sådant krav vil således kunne afholde arbejdstagere i Fællesskabet fra at udøve deres ret til fri bevægelighed, hvorfor det opstiller hindringer for arbejdskraftens fri bevægelighed.
The benefits at issue in this case were covered by that definition since they were intended to help families bear the financial burden of looking after children who were unemployed.
Den tyske regering havde mod denne fortolkning gjort gældende, at såfremt artikel 73 finder anvendelse på børnetilskud i henhold til Bundeskindergeldgesetz, vil arbejdsformidlingskontorerne i Forbundsrepublikken ikke kunne fri gøre sig fra deres forpligtelse til at udbetale disse ydelser til arbejdstageren ved at anvise det pågældende familiemedlem et arbejde.
Next, the Court pointed out that Article 73 was designed to prevent a Member State from being able to refuse family benefits on account of the fact that members of the worker's family resided in a Member State other than that providing the benefit.
Domstolen bemærkede om dette argument, at det vil kunne være relevant, for så vidt angår arbejdslØshedsydelser, men at det savner relevans, for så vidt angår udbetaling af familieydelser til forældre til børn, der er arbejdsløse.
Such a refusal could have deterred Community workers from exercising their right to freedom of movement and would therefore have constituted a barrier thereto.
Domstolen tilføjede, at vanskeligheder som følge af anvendelsen af forordning nr. 1408/71 som dem, den tyske regering havde henvist til, er uden betydning for fortolkningen af en af forordningens bestemmelser, således som denne følger af forordningens ordlyd og målsætning.
It followed that the condition whereby, 1n order to claim entitlement to certain family benefits, a worker's child had to be at the disposal of the employment office of the Member State providing the benefits, a condition which could be fulfilled only if the child resided in the territory of that State, came within the scope of that provision and, consequently, had to be regarded as fulfilled where the child was at the disposal of the employment office of the Member State in which he resided.
"Artikel 73 i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, skal fortolkes således, at indeholder lovgivningen i en medlemsstat bestemmelser om, at visse former for børnetilskud kun kan ydes, såfremt det pågældende medlem af en arbejdstagers familie som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen inden for lovgivningens geografiske anvendelsesområde, skal denne betingelse anses for opfyldt, såfremt familiemedlemmet som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen i den medlemsstat, hvor vedkommende er bosat."
The Federal Government argued against that interpretation of Article 73 that if that provision were applicable in this case, the employment office in the Federal Republic would be quite unable to discharge its obligation to pay the benefits in question to the person concerned by offering employment to the family member in question.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 17. oktober iWT
The Court pointed out that this argument, which might be relevant in regard to unemployment benefits, could not be relied upon in order to object to the payment of a family benefit granted to the parents of an unemployed child.
Han foreslog heri følgende besvarelse: "Artikel 73, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 skal fortolkes således, at en vandrende arbejdstager har krav på familieydelser i beskæft igeIsesmedlemsstaten for familiemedlemmer, der er registreret som arbejdsløse og arbejdssøgende i en anden medlemsstat, også selv om det i henhold til den nationale lovgivning i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten er et krav, at disse betingelser foreligger opfyldt på medlemsstatens eget område."
Furthermore, drawbacks such as those relied upon by the Federal Government and resulting from the application of Regulation No. 1408/71 could not call in question the interpretation of one of the provisions of that regulation, based on its wording and its purpose.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag, hvori Antonio Gatto, der er italiensk statsborger og arbejdsløs og bosat i Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland, har nedlagt påstand om annullation af en afgørelse fra Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, hvorved det blev afslået at yde ham børnetilskud i henhold til Bundeskindergeldgesetz (lov om børnetilskud) for hans datter, der er bosat i San Pietro di Carida, Italien, hvor hun er tilmeldt arbejdsformidlingen som arbejdssøgende.
" Article 73 (1) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 must be interpreted as meaning that a migrant worker is entitled to family benefits in the State of employment in respect of family members registered as unemployed and available for work in another Member State, even though the national law of the State of employment demands that those preconditions be fulfilled in its own territory. "
Afgørelsen blev begrundet med, at Gatto's datter ikke inden for Bundeskindergeldgesetz' geografiske anvendelsesområde står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen som arbejdsløs, hvilket er en betingelse for, at der kan ydes børnetilskud, for så vidt angår børn mellem det fyldte 16. og 21. år, der er arbejdsløse.
Case C-12/89 Antonio Gatto ν Bundesanstalt für Arbeit - 22 February 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) (Social policy - Entitlement to family benefits when the national law of the country of employment requires the conditions laid down to be fulfilled within its own territory) (Full Court)
Ved det præjudicielle spørgsmål Ønskede den nationale retsinstans afgjort, om artikel 74, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71 skal fortolkes således, at når lovgivningen i en medlemsstat indeholder bestemmelser om, at visse former for børnetilskud kun kan ydes, såfremt det pågældende medlem af en arbejdstagers familie står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen inden for lovgivningens geografiske anvendelsesområde, skal denne betingelse anses for opfyldt, så fremt familiemedlemmet som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen i den medlemsstat, hvor vedkommende er bosat.
By order of 22 November 1988, which was received at the Court on 13 January 1989, the Bundessozialgericht (Federal Social Court) referred a question to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 74 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council.
De præmisser, der ligger til grund for Domstolens besvarelse af dette spørgsmål, er de samme som i dommen i sag C-228/88, hvorfor der henvises til referatet af denne dom.
That question arose in a dispute concerning the refusal of the Federal Employment Office to grant Mr Gatto, an unemployed Italian worker residing in the Federal Republic of Germany, the allowance provided for by
"Artikel 74 i Rådets forordning nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, skal fortolkes således, at indeholder lovgivningen i en medlemsstat bestemmelser om, at visse former for børnetilskud kun kan ydes, såfremt det pågældende medlem af én arbejdstagers familie som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen inden for lovgivningens geografiske anvendelsesområde, skal denne betingelse anses for opfyldt, såfremt familiemedlem met som arbejdsløs står til rådighed for arbejdsformidlingen i den medlemsstat, hvor vedkommende er bosat."
In its question, the national court sought in substance to ascertain whether Article 74 (1) of Regulation No. 1408/71 had to be interpreted as meaning that where the legislation of the Member State which provided certain family benefits laid down, as a condition for the grant of those benefits, that an unemployed member of the worker's family had to be at the disposal of the employment office for the territorial area in which that legislation applied, that condition was to be regarded as fulfilled where the unemployed member of the family was at the disposal of the employment office of the Member State 1n which he resided.
Generaladvokat F.G. Jacobs fremsatte forslag til afgørelse den 17. oktober
Since the arguments put forward by the Court in reply to that question were identical to those in Case C-228/88, reference is made thereto.
Han foreslog heri følgende besvarelse: "Artikel 74, stk. 1, i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 skal fortolkes således, at en arbejdsløs har krav på familieydelser i den medlemsstat, hvor han senest udøvede beskæftigelse, for familiemedlemmer, der er registreret som arbejdsløse og arbejdssøgende i en anden medlemsstat, også selv om det i henhold til den nationale lovgivning i beskæftigelsesmedlemsstaten er et krav, at disse betingelser foreligger opfyldt på medlemsstatens eget område."
" Article 74 (1) of Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 must be interpreted as meaning that an unemployed person is entitled to family benefits in the State in which he was last employed in respect of family members registered as unemployed and available for work in another Member State, even though the national law of the first State demands that those preconditions be fulfilled in its own territory. 0_
20.2.1990 Traktatbrud - tilsidesættelse af artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning (EØF) nr. 170/83 og af forordning (EØF) nr. 2057/82, sammenholdt med artikel 1 i forordning (EØF) nr. 6/85 - fangstkvoter for rødfisk og fladfisk for de færøske farvande tildelt Den Franske Republik for 1985. Generaladvokat: F.G. Jacobs. Processprog: fransk.
Commission ν France - 20 February 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Infringement of Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83 and Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 in conjunction with Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No. 6/85 - Fishing quotas allocated to the French Republic for 1985 for catches of redfish and flatfish in the waters of the Faroe Islands.
Sag C-251/88 Kommissionen mod Tyskland
Case C-251/88
22.2.1990 Anmodning om prajudiciel afgørelse fra Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht.
Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 95 of the EEC Treaty - Special consumption tax and single supplementary special registration tax on cars with a cylinder capacity in excess of 1800 cc imported from other Member States.
Fortolkning af EØF­Traktatens artikel 48 og af artikel 13, stk. 2, litra a), og artikel 73 i forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 ­begrebet vandrende arbejdstagere ­ pensionist udøvende deltids­unde rvisningsvi rksomhed. Generaladvokat: G. Tesauro. Processprog: nederlandsk.
Bestuur der Sociale Verzekeringsbank ν G.J. Kits van Heijningen - 22 February 1990 (Reference for a preliminary ruling) Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht Interpretation of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and of Articles 13 (2) (a) and 73 of Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 - Concept of migrant worker - Retired worker engaged in teaching on a part-time basis.
Sag T­51/89 Tetra Pak Rausing mod Kommissionen
Tetra Pak Rausing ν Commission - 21 February 1990
21.2.1990 Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 88/501/EØF af 26. juli 1988 om en procedure i henhold til EØF­Traktatens artikler 85 og 86 ­ BTG­licens ­ kartonemballage (tidligere sag 327/88). Generaladvokat: H. Kirschner.
Application for the annulment of Commission Decision 88/501/EEC of 26 July 1988 relating to a proceeding under Articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty - BTG Licence - Cardboard packaging (Previous case number 327/88)
Processprog: engelsk.
Case C-158/88
21.2.1990 Traktatbrud ­ artiklerne 1, 2 og 4 i Rådets direktiv 69/169/EØF af 28. maj 1969 om harmonisering af lovgivning om fritagelse for omsætningsafgifter og punktafgifter ved indførsel i den interna­tionale rejsetrafik. Generaladvokat: M. Darmon.
Commission ν Belgium - 21 February 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Articles 30 and 36 of the EEC Treaty - Council Directives 64/432/EEC and 64/433/EEC of 26 June 1964 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in bovine animals, swine and fresh meat -Requirement of prior authorization for the import of live animals and fresh meat.
21.2.1990 Traktatbrud ­ EØF­Traktatens artikler 30 og 36 ­ Rådets direk­tiver 64/432/EØF og 64/433/EØF af 26. juni 1964 om sundheds­mæssige problemer vedrørende handelen med fersk kød Inden for Fællesskabet ­ krav om importtilladelse for levende dyr og fersk kød. Generaladvokat: M. Darmon. Ρrocessprog: nederlandsk.
Commission ν Italy - 22 February 1990 Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Infringement of Article 95 of the EEC Treaty -Failure to adopt the provisions required to permit non-taxable persons who Import goods from another Member State which have been supplied by an Individual, to deduct from the VAT due on importation the proportion of the VAT paid in the Member State of exportation which is still contained in the value of the goods at the time of importation.