natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I den forbindelse har foreningen af diplomerede turistførere gjort gældende, at bestemmelserne kun finder anvendelse på turistførere etableret i Grækenland, da de udelukkende gælder for dem, der har autorisation til dér at udøve dette erhverv.
The first question which needs to be examined, therefore, is whether rules of the kind at issue in the main proceedings may, in the circumstances referred to in Article 59, affect the right of selfemployed tourist guides from another Member State freely to provide services.
Det må fastslås, at sådanne bestemmelser ved obligatorisk at henføre en turistførers tjcncsteydelscsforhold som led i gennemførelsen af rejseprogrammer i denne stat under en arbejdskontrakt i national rets forstand, berøver turistførere med hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat muligheden for at udøve deres virksomhed i den første medlemsstat som selvstændige.
It should be noted that such rules, in mandatorily characterizing as an employment relationship, for the purposes of national law, a relationship involving the provision of services by a tourist guide in connection with the operation of tourist programmes in the State concerned, deprive a tourist guide from another Member State of the possibility of working in the first Member State as a selfemployed person.
En bestemmelse af den art er følgelig en hindring for friheden for turistførere, der har hjemsted i andre medlemsstater, til at udføre sådanne tjenesteydelser som selvstændige.
In that regard, contends that those rules apply only to tourist guides established in Greece, since they refer only to those who are licensed to pursue the profession of guide in that State.
Den blotte omstændighed, at turistførere, der er hjemmehørende i en anden medlemsstat, ikke behøver en sådan autorisation, når de ledsager en gruppe turister i Grækenland, giver ikke grundlag for at konkludere, at de ikke kan have interesse i, for al kvalificere sig bedre, at erhverve et sådant diplom og hermed opnå autorisation til at udøve erhvervet dér. I et
In its view, such a licence, which presupposes possession of a diploma, cannot be required of tourist guides from another Member State when they accompany a group of tourists to Greece.
Den forelæggende rets andet spørgsmål går ud på, om en sådan hindring kan være berettiget af almene hensyn til at bevare arbejdsfrcden på det følsomme område tjenesteydelser på turistområdet, som Den Hellenske Republik som turistland har en naturlig og begrundet interesse i at regulere ved lov.
thereby prevent any adverse effects on tourism, and consequently on the country's economy. In that regard, the Greek Government itself pointed out that the rules at issue were adopted in order to ensure the proper functioning of the national economy.
forelæggelseskendelsen, at de er blevet indført for at regulere konflikter, der længe har bestået mellem turistførerne og turist- og rejsebureauerne, og således undgå, at turismen, og dermed landets økonomi, lider negative følger heraf. I den forbindelse har den hellenske regering selv påpeget, at formålet med at indføre bestemmelserne var at sikre en velfungerende indenlandsk økonomi.
In its second question, the national court asks whether a barrier of that kind can be justified by reasons relating to the general interest in maintaining industrial peace in the sensitive area of the supply of tourist services, in respect of which the Greek State, as a country for which tourism is important, has a reasonable and justifiable interest in intervening by regulation.
Opretholdelse af arbejdsfreden som middel til at bringe en kollektiv konflikt til ophør og således undgå, at en økonomisk sektor og dermed et lands økonomi lider negative følger deraf, må imidlertid betragtes som et formål af økonomisk art, der ikke kan betragtes som et alment hensyn, der berettiger en restriktion af en grundlæggende frihed, der sikres ved traktaten.
However, maintaining industrial peace as a means of bringing a collective labour dispute to an end and thereby preventing any adverse effects on an economic sector, and consequently on the economy of the State, must be regarded as an economic aim which cannot constitute a reason relating to the general interest that justifies a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty.
Ifølge Domstolens faste praksis kan den frie udveksling af tjenesteydelser, som er et grundlæggende princip i traktaten, kun begrænses ved regler, der er begrundet i tvingende almene hensyn, og som gælder for enhver person eller ethvert selskab, der driver virksomhed på modtagerstatens område Det er navnlig en betingelse, at restriktionerne er egnede til at sikre opnåelsen af del formål, som de forfølger, og de må ikke gå videre end nødvendigt for at nä delte mål.
Furthermore, none of the parties which have submitted observations in these proceedings has contended that, in order to maintain industrial peace, it was necessary to impose on tourist guides from other Member States restrictions on working as selfemployed persons in connection with the operation of tourist programmes organized in Greece by travel and tourist agencies.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet, om opretholdelse af arbejdsfrcden kan være cl tvingende hensyn af almen interesse, som berettiger de i hovedsagen omhandlede bestemmelser, fremgår det af
In particular, the restrictions must be suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.
Ingen af de parter, der har afgivet indlæg i denne sag, har hævdet, at det var nødvendigt for at opretholde arbejdsfreden at begrænse selvstændig virksomhed, der udøves af turistførere med hjemsted i andre medlemsstater som led i gennemførelsen af rejseprogrammer organiseret i Grækenland af turist- og rejsebureauer.
With regard to the question whether maintaining industrial peace may constitute an overriding reason relating to the general interest which justifies the rules at issue in the main proceedings, it is apparent from the order for reference that those rules were adopted in order to settle long-standing disputes between tourist guides and travel and tourist agencies and
»1) Der foreligger en hindring som omhandlet i EF-traktatens artikel 59 i forbindelse med bestemmelser i en medlemsstat, der, ved at stille krav om en obligatorisk, formelig arbejdskontrakt mellem parterne, hindrer turist- og rejsebureauer, uanset hvor de er etableret, i som led i gennemførelsen af de rejseprogrammer, de iværksætter i denne medlemsstat, i al indgå en kontrakt om tjenesteydelser med en turistfører, som er autoriseret til al udøve sit erhverv dér, og som har hjemsted i en anden medlemsstat.
The rules of a Member State which, by prescribing a mandatory legal form of employment relationship between the parties, prevent tourist and travel agencies, wherever they are established, from concluding, in connection with the operation of tourist programmes organized by them in that Member State, a contract for the provision of services with a tourist guide from another Member State who L· licensed to pursue his profession in the first Stale constitute a barrier for the purposes of Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
Han foreslog Domstolen folgende besvarelse af det præjudicielle spørgsmål:
Such rules cannot be justified by reason* relating to the general interest in maintaining industrial peace as a means of bringing a collective labour dispute to an end and thereby preventing any adverse effects on an economic sector, and consequently on the economy of the Stale.'
af tjenesteydelser, som denne bestemmelse medfører, udgør ikke et lovligt middel til at sikre arbejdsfreden for tjenesteydelser på turistområdet, der for el turistland er el særligl følsomt omrade.«
The barrier to freedom to provide services entailed by that provision is not a lawful means of maintaining industrial peace in the area of the supply of tourist services, a sensitive area in a country for which tourism is important.
Præjudiciel »EF-traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3 —forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 — selektivt distributionssystem — tæthed som betingelse for, at del kan håndhæves overfor udenforslående* (Sjette Afdeling)
Preliminary ruling (Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty - Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 — Selective distribution system — 'Imperviousness' of the system as a precondition for its enforceability against third parties) (Sixth Chamber) which a selective distribution system, even if enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious.
Ved kendelse af 4. okiober 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 13. februar 1996, har Landgericht Hamburg forelagt et præjudicielt spørgsmål om, hvorvidt det er en betingelse for, at et selektivt distributionssystem, der har opnået en fritagelse i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 af 12. december 1984, kan håndhæves over for udenforstående, at systemet er tæt.
By order of 4 October 1995, received at the Court on 13 February 1996, the Landgericht (Regional Court) Hamburg referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the 'imperviousness' of a selective distribution system enjoying exemption under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 as a precondition for its enforceability against third parties.
Spørgsmålet er blevet rejst under en sag om illoyal konkurrence anlagt af VAG-Handlcrbcirat eV (herefter »VAG«), som er den tyske sammenslutning af forhandlere, der er autoriseret af Volkswagen AG, mod selskabet SYD-Consult. YD-Consult.
That question was raised in proceedings concerning unfair competition brought by VAG­Händlerbeirat eV (hereinafter 'VAG'), the German association of concessionaires approved by Volkswagen AG against the company SYD­Consult.
I henhold til den pågældende tyske retspraksis er et selektivt distributionssystem således kun bindende for parterne og kan kun håndhæves over for udenforstående, hvis det er absolut tæl, idel der i så fald er formodning for, at såfremt en udenforstående erhverver varer, der er omfattet af systemet, skyldes det, at en autoriseret forhandler har brudt aftalen.
In answering that question, it must be made clear, first, that according to the order for reference the German case­law relied on by VAG has been developed in connection with disputes in which producers of goods called on approved distributors to fulfil their contractual commitments and is based on the view that an approved distributor can be required to fulfil his commitments only if the selective distribution system is impervious in all respects, since otherwise he would be placed in an unfair competitive situation as compared with third parties.
Med sit spørgsmål ønsker den forelæggende ret reelt at få oplyst, om bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, og bestemmelserne i forordning nr. 123/85 skal fortolkes således, at de er til hinder for en national retspraksis vedrørende illoyal konkurrence, hvorefter et selektivt distributionssystem, der har opnået en fritagelse i henhold til de nævnte bestemmelser, kun kan håndhæves over for udenforstående, hvis det er tæt.
By that question, the national court seeks essentially to ascertain whether Article 85(3) of the Treaty and Regulation No 123/85 must be interpreted as precluding the application of national case­law on unfair competition under
For det andet bemærkes, at Domstolen i dom af 13. januar 1994, Cartier, fastslog, at det ikke er en betingelse for, at et selektivt distributionssystem er gyldigt i henhold til fællesskabsretten, at det er tæt.
According to that case­law, a selective distribution system is thus binding on the parties and is enforceable against third parties only if it
af vilkårene i en aftale eller forpligter aftaleparterne til at tilpasse aftalen til forordningen, men hjemler blot mulighed for, at de erhvervsdrivende inden for automobilbranchen i et vist omfang kan indgå salgs- og serviceaftaler, som trods visse vilkår om eneret og om forbud mod konkurrence ikke omfattes af forbuddet i artikel 85, stk. 1.
parties to adapt the content of their agreement but is limited to providing economic agents in the motor vehicle industry with certain possibilities enabling them to remove their distribution and servicing agreements from the scope of the prohibition contained in Article 85(1) despite the inclusion in those agreements of certain types of exclusivity and no-competition clauses.
Det følger heraf, at cl selektivt distributionssystem, der ikke er tæt, og som derfor i henhold til en national retspraksis vedrørende illoyal konkurrence ikke kan gøres gældende over for udenforstående, kan være gyldigt i relation til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
Second, it must be borne in mind that, in paragraph 28 of the judgment of 13 January 1994 in Cartier, the Court found that the imperviousness of a selective distribution system is not a condition for its validity under Community law.
Det kan således ikke udledes af Carticr-dommcn, at en national retspraksis vedrørende illoyal konkurrence, hvorefter et selektivt distributionssystem, der ikke er tæl, ikke kan gøres gældende over for udenforstående, er uforeneligt med bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1.
That finding was based in particular on the consideration that, in order to appraise the lawfulness of an agreement under Article 85 of the Treaty, it is not necessary to enquire whether the conditions are fulfilled for that agreement to be capable of being enforced against third parties by means of an action for unfair competition.
Det fremgår i øvrigt af de nævnte to domme, at forordning nr. 123/85 ikke kan fortolkes således, at den forbyder en erhvervsdrivende, der ikke er tilsluttet et officielt salgsnet for et bestemt bilmærke, og som ikke er befuldmægtiget mellemhandler, jf. forordningens artikel 3, nr. 11, at fremskaffe nye køretøjer af dette mærke via parallelimport og at drive uafhængig virksomhed med salg af disse køretøjer.
It follows, moreover, from those two judgments that Regulation No 123/85 cannot be interpreted as prohibiting a trader who is outside the official distribution network for a given make of motor vehicle and is not an authorized intermediary within the meaning of Article 3(11) of that regulation from acquiring new vehicles of that make by way of parallel imports and independently carrying on the business of marketing such vehicles.
For det tredje bemærkes, at hvad der gælder for bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 1, så meget mere må gælde for bestemmelserne i traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, og bestemmelserne i en kommissionsforordning om anvendelse af denne traktatbestemmelse på kategorier af aftaler og samordnet praksis, såsom forordning nr. 123/85.
It follows that a selective distribution system which is not impervious and cannot therefore, under national case-law on unfair competition, be enforced against third parties may be valid under Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Som det endnu engang blev fastslået af Domstolen i dommene af 15. februar 1996 i sagerne Grand garage albigeois m.Π. og Nissan France m.fl., indeholder forordning nr. 123/85, der er en gennemførelsesforordning til traktatens artikel 85, stk. 3, ikke nogen bindende forskrifter, der direkte påvirker gyldigheden eller indholdet
Hence it cannot be deduced from the Cartier judgment that national case-law on unfair competition under which a selective distribution system that is not impervious is not enforceable against third parties is incompatible with Article 85(1) of the Treaty.
Endelig bemærkes, at forordning nr. 123/85, som Domstolen endnu en gang fremhævede i dommen af 20. februar 1997 i sagen Fontaine m.fl., i overensstemmelse med den funktion, denne forordning skal opfylde ved anvendelsen af traktatens artikel 85, kun vedrører kontraktforholdet mellem leverandørerne og deres godkendte forhandlere, idet den fastsætter, under hvilke betingelser visse aftaler mellem disse indbyrdes er retmæssige efter traktatens konkurrenceregler, og ikke kan berøre tredjemands - herunder uafhængige handlendes — rettigheder og forpligtelser i forhold til de kontrakter, som er indgået mellem bilfabrikanter og deres eneforhandlere.
Finally, as the Court reaffirmed in the judgment of 20 February 1997 in Fontaine and Others, Regulation No 123/85, in accordance with the function assigned to it in relation to the application of Article 85 of the Treaty, concerns only contractual relations between suppliers and their approved distributors and specifies the conditions under which certain agreements between them are lawful having regard to the competition rules of the Treaty, and it cannot affect the rights and obligations of third parties in relation to contracts concluded between vehicle manufacturers and their concessionaires, in particular those of independent dealers.
»Hverken bestemmelserne i EF-lraklalens artikel 85, stk 3, eller bestemmelserne i Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 123/85 af 12. december 1984 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 85, stk 3, på kategorier af salgs- og serviceaftaler vedrørende motorkøretøjer, skal fortolkes således, at de er l'd hinder for en national retspraksis vedrørende illoyal konkurrence, hvorefter et selektivt distributionssystem, der har opnået en fritagelse i henhold til de nævnte bestemmelser, kun kan håndhæves over for udenforstående, hvis det er tæt.*
Third, it should be noted that what is true for Article 85(1) of the Treaty must, a fortiorì, be true for Article 85(3) of the Treaty or for a Commission regulation, such as Regulation No 123/85, concerning the application of that provision of the Treaty to certain categories of agreements and concerted practices.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 27. februar 1997.
As the Court also pointed out in Grand Garage Albigeois and Others [1996] and in Nissan France and Others [1996], Regulation No 123/85, as a regulation applying Article 85(3) of the Treaty, does not lay down any mandatory provisions directly affecting the validity or the content of contractual provisions or oblige the contracting
Han foreslog Domstolen folgende besvarelse:
The Court ruled:
»Fællesskabsretten er ikke til hinder for at anvende cl princip i national ret om illoyal konkurrence, hvorefter et selektivt salgssystem kun er bindende for tredjemænd, hvis det er læt.«
'Neither Article 85(3) of the EC Treaty nor Commission Regulation (EEC) No 123/85 of 12 December 1984 on the application of Article 85(3) of the EEC Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements is to be interpreted as precluding the application of national case-law on unfair competition under which a selective distribution system, even if enjoying exemption under those provisions, is not enforceable against third parties unless it is impervious.'
Sag C-56/96 VT4 Ltd / Vlaamse Gemeenschap Fri bevægelighed for personer
Case C-56/96 VT4 Ltd ν Vlaamse Gemeenschap Freedom of movement for persons
Præjudiciel »Fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser — national lovgivning* (Sjette Afdeling) medlemsstats] myndighed« i direktivets artikel 2, stk. 1, første led.
Television broadcasting — Establishment — Evasion of domestic
Efter en gennemgang af ordlyden af direktivets artikel 2, stk. 1, nåede Domstolen frem til, at begrebet en medlemsstats myndighed der benyttes i stk. 1, første led skal forstås således, at det nødvendigvis omfatter en personel kompetence over for tvradiospredningsorganerne.
By judgment of 14 February 1996, received at the Court on 26 February 1996, the Raad van State (Council of State), Belgium, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling a question on the interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 (hereinafter 'the Directive').
Det fremgår af hovedsagens akter, at den nationale ret med delte spørgsmål, der er forelagt før afsigelsen af dommen af 10. september 1996 i sagen Kommissionen mod Det Forenede Kongerige, i det væsentlige ønsker oplyst, cflcr hvilke kriterier det skal afgøres, om tvradiosprcdningsorgancr hører under en medlemsstats myndighed i direktivets artikel 2, stk. l's forstand.
It is apparent from the documents submitted to the Court that, by this question, raised before the Court delivered its judgment of 10 September 1996 in Commission ν United Kingdom [1996] ECR 1-4025, the Raad van State in effect seeks to ascertain the criteria for determining which broadcasters come within a Member State's
Det bemærkes, at Domstolen i denne dom har behandlet spørgsmålet om fortolkningen af begrebet »myndighed« i udtrykket »tvradiosprcdningsorganer, der hører under _BAR_cn
The question has been raised in an action for annulment brought by VT4 Ltd (hereinafter 'VT4') against a decision adopted on 16 January 1995 by the Flemish Minister for Culture and
sammensætning af programmerne træffes.
Jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 2(1) of the Directive.
hører under den medlemsstats myndighed, i hvilken det er etableret.
particular the place where decisions concerning programme policy are taken and the programmes to be broadcast are finally put together.
Traktaten indeholder således ikke et forbud mod, at en virksomhed gør brug af retten til fri udveksling af tjenesteydelser i tilfælde, hvor den ikke udbyder tjenesteydelser i den medlemsstat, hvor den er etableret.
In Case C-222/94 the Court examined the interpretation to be given to the term 'jurisdiction' in the phrase 'broadcasters under [a Member State's] jurisdiction' contained in the first indent of Article 2(1) of the Directive.
1 tilfælde, hvor samme tv-rudiosprcdningsorgan har flere driftssteder, hører organet under den medlemsstats myndighed, i hvilken det har midtpunktet for sin virksomhed.
As the Court held in that judgment, the Directive contains no express definition of the phrase 'broadcasters under its jurisdiction'.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
The Treaty does not prohibit an undertaking from exercising the freedom to provide services if it does not offer services in the Member State in which it is established.
»Artikel 2, stk 1, i direktiv 89/552/EØF af 3. oktober 1989 om samordning af visse love og administrative bestemmelser i medlemsstaterne vedrørende udøvelse af tvradiospredningsvirksomhed skal fortolkes således, at et tvradiospredningsorgan hører under den medlemsstats myndighed, i hvilken det er etableret I tilfælde, hvor et tvradiospredningsorgan er etableret i mere end én medlemsstat, hører det under den medlemsstats myndighed, på hvis område organet har midtpunktet for sin virksomhed, særlig dér, hvor afgørelserne om programpolitikken og den endelige sammensætning af programmerne træffes.*
After analysing the wording of Article 2(1) of the Directive, the Court concluded that the concept of jurisdiction of a Member State, used in the first indent of that provision, had to be understood as necessarily covering jurisdiction ratione personae over television broadcasters.
Den medlemsstat, under hvis myndighed et tvradiospredningsorgan hører, som omhandlet i artikel 2, stk. 1, i Rådets direktiv 89/552/EØF af 3. oktober 1989 om samordning af visse love og administrative bestemmelser i medlemsstaterne vedrørende udøvelse af tv-radiospredningsvirksomhed, er den medlemsstat, som organet er etableret i.
Where a television broadcaster has more than one establishment, the competent Member State is the State in which the broadcaster has the centre of its activities. It is therefore for the national court to determine, applying that criteria, which Member State has jurisdiction over VT4's activities, taking into account in
Såfremt et tvradiospredningsorgan er etableret i mere end en medlemsstat, hører det under den medlemsstats myndighed, på hvis område organet udøver den centrale del af sin virksomhed, nærmere bestemt dér, hvor det træffer beslutningerne vedrørende programpolitikken og den endelige sammensætning af det program, der skal sendes.
'Article 2(1) of Council Directive 89/552/EEC of 3 October 1989 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member Slates concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities is to be interpreted as meaning that a television broadcaster comes under the jurisdiction of the Member State in which it is established.