natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ved kendelse af 11. marts 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 16. april samme år, har Oberster Gerichtshof forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af traktatens artikel 6, stk. 1.
the safeguards required, in the Member States, of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty for the purpose of protecting the interests of shareholders, nationals of a Member State must also be in a position to seise the courts of another Member State of disputes to which their interests in companies there established may give rise, without being subject to discrimination vis-à-vis nationals of that State.
anvendelse på de fremtidige virkninger af forhold, der er opstået før denne nye medlemsstats tiltrædelse af Fællesskaberne.
Discrimination within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty
Det personelle og materielle anvendelsesområde for traktatens artikel 6, stk. 1
By prohibiting 'any discrimination on grounds of nationality', Article 6 of the Treaty requires, in the Member States, complete equality of treatment between persons in a situation governed by Community law and nationals of the Member State in question.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag, der er anlagt af Stephen Austin Saldanha mod MTS Securities Corporation og Hiross Holding AG, et østrigsk aktieselskab (herefter »Hiross«), hvori sagsøgerne er aktionærer, med påstand om, at Hiross påbydes at undlade at afhænde eller i øvrigt overdrage selskabets aktier i visse datterselskaber til selskabets italienske datterselskab eller til dettes datterselskaber med hjemsted i Italien uden godkendelse på en generalforsamling.
Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty empowers the Council and the Commission, for the purpose of giving effect to the freedom of establishment, to coordinate to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community.
Hiross har for Handelsgericht Wien fremsat en begæring om, at Stephen Austin Saldanha, der er statsborger i Amerikas Forenede Stater og i Det Forenede Kongerige og har bopæl i Florida, og MTS Securities Corporation, der har hjemsted i USA pålægges at stille sikkerhed for sagsomkostningerne i medfør af § 57, stk. 1, i Zivilprozeßordnung (den østrigske lov om retsplejen i civile sager).
It is clear that a provision such as that at issue in the main proceedings amounts to direct discrimination on grounds of nationality. Under that provision, a Member State does not require its own nationals to provide security, even if they are not resident and have no assets in that State.
Det tidsmæssige anvendelsesområde traktatens artikel 6, stk. 1
'The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty must be construed as precluding a Member State from requiring provision of security for costs by a national of another Member State who is also a national of a nonmember country, in which he is resident, where that national, who is not resident and has no assets in the first Member State, has brought proceedings before one of its civil courts in his capacity as a shareholder against a company established in that Member State, if such a requirement is not imposed on its own nationals who are not resident and have no assets there.'
Hertil bemærkes, at uanset at en procesretlig regel som den i hovedsagen omhandlede
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Da tiltrædelsesakten ikke indeholder særlige betingelser for så vidt angår anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 6, skal denne bestemmelse anses for at gælde umiddelbart og at være bindende for Republikken Østrig fra tiltrædelsesdatoen, således at den finder
'The Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the question submitted for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof, Vienna, in so far as the facts underlying the dispute pending before that court predate the Republic of Austria's accession to the European Communities and thus fall outside the scope ratione temporis of the EC Treaty'.
selskabsdeltagernes interesser, henhører under traktatens anvendelsesområde.
In the alternative, should the Court consider that it did have jurisdiction to rule on the question submitted, he proposed that it reply as follows:
De er således omfattet forbuddet mod enhver forskelsbehandling på grundlag af nationalitet.
Case C-144/96 Office national des pensions (ONP) ν Maria Cirotti Freedom of movement for persons
Forskelsbehandling i traktatens artikel 6, stk. l's forstand
Preliminary ruling (Social security — Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (Sixth Chamber)
Med forbuddet mod »al forskelsbehandling, der udøves på grundlag af nationalitet«, indebærer traktatens artikel 6 et krav om fuld ligebehandling i medlemsstaterne af personer, der befinder sig i en situation, som er reguleret af fællesskabsretten, og statsborgerne i den pågældende medlemsstat.
By a judgment of 25 April 19%, received at the Court on 3 May 1996, the Cour du Travail de Bruxelles (Higher Labour Court, Brussels) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Articles 46 and 51 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (hereinafter 'Regulation No 1408/7 Γ).
EF-traktatens artikel 54, stk. 3, litra g), tillægger Rådet og Kommissionen kompetence til i forbindelse med gennemførelsen af etableringsretten i det nødvendige omfang og med det formål at gøre dem lige byrdefulde at samordne de garantier, som kræves i medlemsstaterne af de i artikel 58, stk. 2, nævnte selskaber til beskyttelse af såvel selskabsdeltagernes som tredjemands interesser. Det følger heraf, at de bestemmelser, som på selskabsrettens område vedrører beskyttelsen af
By way of a preliminary observation, it should be noted that the documents before the Court show that the benefit the calculation of which is at issue in the main proceedings consists of a share of an employed person's old-age pension which is granted to that person's separated spouse only where certain conditions analogous to those governing the grant of personal old-age pensions are complied with, in particular the condition that the spouse requesting such share must, subject to certain exceptions, have ceased all occupational activity.
I henhold til en sådan bestemmelse kræver en medlemsstat nemlig ikke en sikkerhedsstillelse af sine egne statsborgere, selv om de hverken har formue eller bopæl i den pågældende stat.
The question was raised in proceedings between Mrs Cirotti and the 'the ONP' concerning the calculation of the share of her husband's employed person's retirement pension to which she was entitled under Belgian law.
»EF-traktatens artikel 6, stk 1, skal fortolkes således, at den er til hinder for, at en medlemsstat kræver, at en statsborger i en anden medlemsstat, som også er statsborger i et tredjeland, hvor han har sin bopæl, som hverken har bopæl etter formue i den første medlemsstat, og som i sin egenskab af aktionær har anlagt sag ved en civilret i førstnævnte medlemsstat mod et selskab med hjemsted dér, skal stille sikkerhed for sagsomkostninger, uanset at dette ikke kræves af den pågældende medlemsstats egne statsborgere, som hverken har formue etter bopæl dér.*
The question asks in essence whether Articles 46 and 51(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 are to be interpreted as precluding the share of an employed person's old-age benefit, which has been granted to his or her separated spouse under the legislation applicable in a Member State, from being recalculated by reference to alterations in an invalidity benefit received by that spouse under the legislation of another
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling
Next, when calculating the amount of the old-age benefits payable to a worker who has been
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
For the calculation of each benefit, the worker must enjoy the benefit of whichever system is most favourable to him.
»Domstolen har ikke kompetence til at besvare det af Oberster Gerichtshof Wien forelagte præjudicielle spørgsmål, da de faktiske omstændigheder, som danner grundlag for den for denne ret verserende tvist, ligger forud for Republikken Østrigs tiltrædelse af De Europæiske Fællesskaber, hvorfor de falder uden for Eftraktatens tidsmæssige anvendelsesområde.«
which a fresh examination of the worker's situation following every alteration of benefits would represent, Article 51(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 excluded a recalculation of benefits in accordance with Article 46 and, hence, a fresh comparison between the national system and the Community system when the alteration resulted from events unconnected with the worker's personal circumstances and was the consequence of general economic and social developments.
For det tilfælde at Domstolen anser sig for kompetent til at besvare de præjudicielle spørgsmål foreslog kan, følgende subsidiære besvarelse:
As the Court pointed out in Case 7/81 Sinatra [1982] ECR 137, any subsequent alteration in one of the benefits implies in principle that a fresh comparison is to be carried out, for each benefit, between the national system and the Community system in order to determine which is the more advantageous to the worker following the alteration.
Sag C-144/96 Office national des pensions (ONP) / Maria Girotti Fri bevægelighed for personer
In a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, it cannot be argued that to apply Article 51(1) to the calculation of the benefit in question would have the effect of altering the purpose and disrupting the scheme of the Belgian legislation, since the latter is not designed, unlike the guaranteed income for elderly persons, to offset the inadequacy of the resources of the person concerned so as to enable him to attain the minimum income guaranteed by Belgian law.
Ved dom af 25. april 1996, indgået til Domstolen den 3. maj 1996, har Cour du travail de Bruxelles forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af artikel 46 og 51 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971, som ændret og ajourført ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2001/83 af 2. juni 1983 (herefter »forordning nr. 1408/71«).
'Articles 46 and 51(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, must be interpreted as precluding the share of an employed person's old-age pension granted to that persons separated spouse under the legislation of a Member State from being recalculated by reference to alterations arising from general economic and social developments in an invalidity benefit received by that separated spouse under the legislation of another Member State.'
Det bemærkes indledningsvis, at det fremgår af sagen, at den ydelse, hvis beregning anfægtes i hovedsagen, består af en del af en arbejdstagers alderspension, som ydes hans ægtefælle i tilfælde af faktisk samlivsophævelse, og som desuden kun tildeles, såfremt de samme betingelser, som gælder for tildeling af personlig alderspension, bl.a. betingelsen om, at den ægtefælle, som fremsætter anmodningen, med visse undtagelser,
'Article 51 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community precludes a recalculation of benefits in the event of alterations, made on account of the general evolution of the economic and social situation, to an invalidity benefit calculated under the legislation of one Member State, overlapping with an old-age benefit, calculated under the legislation of another Member State, which grants a separated spouse a share of the employed person's old-age benefit payable to the other spouse.'
skal have ophørt med en enhver erhvervsmæssig beskæftigelse, er opfyldt.
Case C-208/96 Commission of the European Communities ν Kingdom of Belgium Agriculture
det kan fastslås, hvilken af dem der efter den skete ændring er den mest fordelagtige for arbejdstageren.
It points out that, in so far as the directive is not covered by the existing legislation, two royal decrees must still be adopted in order to complete the transposition.
En sådan ydelse må derfor anses for en »ydelse ved alderdom« som omhandlet af forordning nr. 1408/71, og ydelsesmodtagerens rettigheder skal derfor ifølge forordningens artikel 44 fastsættes efter bestemmelserne i forordningens afsnit III, kapitel 3, som artikel 46 og 51 henhører under.
By application lodged at the Court on 19 June 1996, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action for a declaration that, by not adopting within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 92/119/EEC of 17 December 1992 the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.
Domstolen har dog i samme dom fastslået, at for at begrænse den administrative byrde, som en efterprøvelse af arbejdstagerens stilling ved enhver ændring af de oppebårne ydelser ville betyde, bestemmer artikel 51, stk. 1, i forordning nr. 1408/71, at der ikke skal foretages en fornyet beregning af ydelser i henhold til artikel 46 og altså heller ikke foretages en ny sammenligning mellem den nationale sikringsordning og fællesskabsordningen, når ændringen beror på omstændigheder, som ikke har forbindelse med arbejdstagerens individuelle forhold, men som er et resultat af den almindelige økonomiske og sociale udvikling.
It is, however, settled case-law that a Member State cannot rely on provisions, practices or situations of its own internal legal order in order to justify its failure to respect the obligations and time-limits laid down by a directive.
Ved fastsættelsen af hver af disse ydelser skal den mest fordelagtige ordning for arbejdstageren anvendes.
Article 27 of the directive provided that Member States were to bring into force the measures necessary to comply with the directive before 1 October 1993 and forthwith to inform the Commission thereof.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs'
»Artikel 51 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 1408/71 af 14. juni 1971 om anvendelse af de sociale sikringsordninger på arbejdstagere, selvstændige erhvervsdrivende og deres familiemedlemmer, der flytter inden for Fællesskabet, er til hinder for en ny beregning afydelserne, når der som følge af den almindelige
Advocate General P. Léger delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 16 September 1997.
Det har anført, at i det omfang direktivet ikke er dækket af den bestående lovgivning, skal der endnu udstedes to kongelige anordninger til dets fuldstændige gennemførelse.
Preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division —Annex VII to the Council Resolution on certain external aspects of the extension of the fishing zone to 200 miles as from 1 January 1977 — Failure to adopt formally — Effects on the validity of the quotas awarded in accordance with Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3362/94 fixing for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for 1995 and certain conditions under which they may befished (OJ 1994 L 363, p.
Det har begrundet forsinkelsen af udstedelsen af bestemmelserne med de budgetmæssige følger, som den ene af disse anordninger ville have.
1) — Compatibility of those quotas with the common fisheries policy and, in particular, with Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture (OJ 1992 L 389, p.
Direktivets artikel 27 bestemmer, at medlemsstaterne senest den 1. oktober 1993 sætter de nødvendige love og administrative bestemmelser i kraft for at efterkomme dette direktiv og straks underretter Kommissionen herom.
Case C-157/96 National Farmers' Union and Others ν Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Commissioners of Customs and Excise
Kongeriget Belgien har ikke bestridt, at det indtil
47) - Powers of the Commission - Principle ofproportionality proportionality
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger.*
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Generaladvokat P. Léger fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling1) den 16. september 1997.
Advocate General M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 September 1997.
»1) Det fastslås, at Kongeriget Belgien ikke har overholdt sine forpligtelser i henhold til artikel 27 i Rådets direktiv 92/119/EØF af 17. december 1992 om generelle fællesskabsforanstaltninger til bekæmpelse af visse dyresygdomme samt om specifikke foranstaltninger vedrørende blæreudslæt hos svin, da det ikke inden for den fastsatte frist har sat de love og administrativt fastsatte bestemmelser i kraft, der er nødvendige for at efterkomme nævnte direktiv.
A provision in an employer's pay regulations under which the employee is granted a pay benefit in the form of travel concessions for a cohabitee of the opposite gender to the employee, but refused such concessions for a cohabitee of the same gender as the employee, constitutes discrimination on the basis of gender, which is contrary to Article 119 of the EC Treaty.
Kongeriget Belgien betaler sagens omkostninger.«
Annulment of Commission Decision 96/239/EC of 27 March 1996 on emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy (OJ 1996 L 78, p.
Generaladvokat A La Pergola fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 30. september 1997.
Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Full Court on 30 September 1997.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court should dismiss the application and order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Gyldigheden af Det Forenede Kongeriges tildeling af torske- og hvillingekvoter i område Vila for 1995 i henhold til artikel 3 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3362/94 er ikke afhængig af, om bilag VII til Rådets resolution af 3. november 1976 er gyldigt vedtaget.
Article 119 of the EC Treaty is directly applicable and it is for the national courts to ensure that the disadvantaged group of employees is treated in the same way as the favoured group.'
Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse — High Court of Justice, Northern Ireland, (Queen's Bench Division — bilag VII til Rådets resolution af 3. november 1976 om visse aspekter udadtil ved oprettelsen af en fiskerizone på 200 sømil inden for Fællesskabet fra den 1. januar 1977 at regne — manglende formel vedtagelse — virkninger for gyldigheden af kvoter tildelt i henhold til artikel 3 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 3362/94 af 20. december 1994 om fastsættelse for 1995 af de samlede tilladte fangstmængder for visse fiskebestande og grupper af fiskebestande samt af visse betingelser for fiskeri af disse fangstmængder (EFTL 363, s. 1) — disse kvotersforenelighed med den fælles fiskeripolitik og navnlig med Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3760/92 af 20. december 1992 om en fællesskabsordning for fiskeri- og akvakultur (EFT L 389, s. 1)
Preliminary ruling — Industrial Tribunal, Southampton — Interpretation of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of Directive 75/117/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the application of the principle of equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19) - Right to travel concessions granted to cohabiting partners of
hemmeligt, og som ikke er blevet offentliggjort eller på anden måde stillet til rådighed for parterne.
laying down provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 (OJ 1993 L 253, p.
Sag C-180/96 Det Forenede Kongerige Storbritannien og Nordirland / Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber
1) -Legal basis for grantingauthorized consignor status - Conditions for authorization referred to in An. 398 of Regulation No 2454/93
Under hensyn til alle relevante omstændigheder var Rådets fastsættelse af de pågældende kvoter forenelig med den fælles fiskeripolitik, og navnlig med forordning (EØF) nr. 3760/92, og med proportionalitetsprincippet.
February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40) — Statutory prohibition on women's night working
Annullation af Kommissionens beslutning 96/239/EF af 27. marts 1996 om hasteforanstaltninger til beskyttelse mod bovin spongiform encephalopathi (EFT L 78, s. 47) — Kommissionens kompetence — rækkevidde — proportionalitetsprincippet
Advocate General M.B. Elmer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 2 October 1997.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 30. september 1997.
Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fifth Chamber on 30 September 1997.
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende afgørelse:
Not available as at 9.10.97.
Under hensyn til den bekræftende besvarelse af det fjerde spørgsmål, er det femte spørgsmål — vedrørende eksistensen af og betingelserne for sagsøgernes ret til at opnå erstatning for det lidte tab hos den sagsøgte nationale administration, såfremt fastsættelsen af de pågældende kvoter i forordning (EF) nr. 3362/94 er ugyldig — uden genstand.«
He proposed that the Court should declare the Italian Republic in breach of its obligations and order it to pay the costs.
Anmodning om præjudiciel afgørelse — High Coun of Justice, (¿úeen 's Bench Division — gyldigheden af Kommissionens beslutning 96/239/EF af 27. marts 1996 om hasteforanstaltninger til beskyttehe mod bovin spongiform encephalopathi (EFT L 78, s. 47) - Kommissionens kompetence — proportionalitetsprincippet
Preliminary ruling - Bundesfinanzhof -Interpretation of the Common Customs Tariff, in particular Note 5B of chapter 84 and heading 8543 - Tariff classification of the 'Vista Board' image processingelectronic component which maybe used as a graphics card in a personal computer - Its function in relation to data processing
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum') den 30. september 1997.
Advocate General G. Cosmas delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 2 October 1997.
Han foreslog følgende besvarelse:
Not available as at 9.10.1997
Elmer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Domstolens plenum) den 30. september 1997.
Lenz delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the First Chamber on 2 October 1997. ~~
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
Case C-92/96 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
En bestemmelse i en arbejdsgivers
1) and Art. 398 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993
Han foreslog Domstolen følgende besvarelse:
He proposed that the Court should declare the Kingdom of Spain in breach of its obligations and order it to pay the costs.
Sag C-207/96 Kommissionen for De Europæiske Fællesskaber / Den Italienske Republik
Case C-324/96 Odetti N. Petridi Anonymos Kapnemporiki AE ν Athanasias Simou and Others
Traktatbrud — artikel 5 i Rådets direktiv 76/207/EØF af 9. februar 1976 om gennemførelse af princippet om ligebehandling af mænd og kvinder for så vidt angår adgang til beskæftigelse og erhvervsuddannelse, forfremmelse samt arbejdsvilkår (EFT L 39, s. 40) — retsforskrifter, hvorefter kvinder ikke må arbejde om natten
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows: '(l)(a) Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market do not apply to applications for authorization to place on the market plant protection products imported from another Member State, a European Economic Area (EEA) State or a third State and authorized in those States of origin, where the product is identical to a plant protection product already authorized in the Member State in which authorization to place on the market is sought.