natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Generaladvokat G. Cosmas fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Tredje Afdeling) den 20. februar 1997.
However, since the transfer of the undertaking in question took place before the directive took effect in Spain, the directive cannot assist the employees concerned, whatever its material scope might be.
Forenede sager C-274/95, C-275/95 og C-276/95 Ludwig Wünsche & Co. / Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Frie varebevægelser 17. april 1997
Since the Fondo de Garantía Salarial refused to take account, for the purpose of calculating those payments, of the periods of work prior to 19 May 1978, the date of the first transfer of the undertaking, the plaintiffs brought an action which was assigned to the Juzgado de lo Social No 16, Barcelona.
Ved tre kendelser af 20. juni 1995 indgået til Domstolen den 14. august 1995 har Bundesfinanzhof forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af den fælles toldtarif, som affattet i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 3618/86 af 24. november 1986 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 3331/85 om ændring af forordning (EØF) nr. 950/68 om den fælles toldtarif, og af den kombinerede nomenklatur,
'Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses cannot be relied on in relation to a transfer of an undertaking which took place before the directive had begun to produce legal effects in the Member State concerned'
»1) Hovedkriteriet for, om esterificeret kartoffelstivelse skal tariferes i pos.
He proposed that the Court should reply as follows:
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Fjerde Afdeling) den 12. december 1996.
Joined Cases C-274/95 to C-276/95 Ludwig Wünsche & Co. ν Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas Free movement of goods 17 April 1997
Han foreslog heri følgende besvarelse:
Preliminary ruling
11.08 AIV i den fælles toldtarif (og pos. 1108 13 00 i den kombinerede nomenklatur) eller i pos.
(Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Potato starch) (Fourth Chamber)
Ved dom afsagt den 14. december 1994, indgået til Domstolen den 18. januar 1995, har Tribunal de grande instance de Morlaix forelagt Domstolen tre spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 40, stk 3, artikel 1 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 856/84 af 31. marts 1984 og artikel 3a, artikel 7 og artikel 12, litra c), i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984.
The classification of esterified potato starch under heading 11.08 A IV of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3618/86 of 24 November 1986 amending Regulation (EEC) No 3331/85 amending Regulation (EEC) No 950/68 on the Common Customs Tariff (and under subheading 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature, as contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff), or under heading 39.06 ΒI ofOhe Common Customs Tariff (and under subheading 3505 10 50 of the Combined Nomenclature) is primarily dependent on its acetyl content and thus on its degree of esterification Nevertheless, it is for the national court to determine whether the nature of the esterification does not amount to an alteration of lhe potato starch such that it no longer corresponds qualitatively to native potato starch
EARL de Kerlast, en landbrugsbedrift med begrænset ansvar, og mejeriet Coopérative du Trieux og Union régionale de coopérative agricoles, som Coopérative du Trieux er tilsluttet, vedrørende henførelsen til EARL de Kerlast's referencemængde af de mælkemængder, som denne landbrugsbedrift har produceret inden for rammerne af et interessentskab, der var stiftet sammen med en anden producent Kergus, der selv er indehaver af en referencemængde.
A maximum acetyl content of between 0.61% and 0.74% by weight of esterified potato starch does not preclude its being classified under heading 11.08 A IV of the Common Customs Tariff and under subheading 110813 00 of the Combined Nomenclature'
Spørgsmålene er blevet rejst under en sag mellem
Advocate General G. Tesauro delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Fourth Chamber on 12 December 1996.
»1) Artikel 7 i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 857/84 af 31. marts 1984 om almindelige regler for anvendelsen af den i artikel 5c i forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 omhandlede afgift på mælk og mejeriprodukter skal fortolkes således, at stiftelse af et selskab ifølge national ret ikke kan ligestilles med en bortforpagtning, såfremt selskabets formål og retsvirkning alene er ved en overdragelse af en af selskabsdeltagernes referencemængde uden overdragelse af de bedriftsarealer, som er grundlaget for tildelingen afreferencemængden, at realisere referencemængdens markedsværdi til fordel for visse af selskabsdeltagerne, når disse deltagere i deres egenskab af producenter ikke har til hensigt fortsat at drive bedriften.
The classification of esterified potato starch under heading No 11.08 AIV of the Common Customs Tariff (and under subheading No 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature) or under heading No 39.06 B.I of the Common Customs Tariff (and under subheading No 3505 10 50 of the Combined Nomenclature) depends in the first place on its acetyl content and hence on the degree of its esterification.
Artikel 7 i forordning nr. 857/84 kan heller ikke finde anvendelse på et sådant selskabs stiftelse, der ikke kan anses for et middel til en nødvendig strukturel tilpasning som omhandlet i artikel 5c i Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 804/68 af 27. juni 1968 om den fælles markedsordning for mælk og mejeriprodukter, som ændret ved Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 856/84 af 31. marts 1984.
The Common Customs Tariff and the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that a homogenous starch product, intended for human consumption, made up of native potato starch with an acetyl content of between 0.67% and 0.74% by weight, must be classified under heading No 11.08 AIV of the Common Customs Tariff (and under subheading No 1108 13 00 of the Combined Nomenclature).'
2) Artikel 12, litra c), i forordning nr. 857/84 skal fortolkes således, at bestemmelsen principielt indebærer et krav om en faktisk genoptagelse af produktionen foretaget af producenten personligt.
Case C-15/95 EARL de Kerlast ν Union Régionale de Coopératives Agricoles (Unicopa) and Coopérative du Trieux Agriculture
Traktatens artikel 40, stk 3, andet afsnit, er ikke til hinder for, at en medlemsstat tillader, at der med henblik på mælkeproduktion anvendes visse selskabsformer efter national ret som, f.eks. et GAEC med henblik på mælkeproduktionen, når den forbyder andre selskabsformer, som f.eks. interessentskab, for så vidt disse sidstnævnte selskabsformer kan fremme produktionsformer, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med fællesskabsordningen.« «
By judgment of 14 December 1994, received at the Court on 18 January 1995, the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Morlaix, referred to the Court for a preliminary' ruling three questions on the interpretation of Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty, Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 856/84 of 31 March 1984 and Articles 3a, 7 and 12(c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 857/84 of 31 March 1984 agricultural undertaking, against Coopérative du Trieux, a dairy, and Union Régionale de Coopératives Agricoles to which Coopérative du Trieux is affiliated, concerning the imputation to EARL de Kerlast's reference quantity of quantities of milk which it had produced in the context of a société en participation (a joint venture) formed with Mr Kergus, another producer having a reference quantity of his own.
Generaladvokat D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 11. iuli 1996.
Those questions were raised in proceedings brought by EARL de Kerlast, a limited-liability
»Tjenestemænd — afgørelse om anerkendelse af en erhvervssygdom — ophævelse af en forvaltningsretsakt — berettiget forventning — rimelig frist — appel· (Sjette Afdeling)
The second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the Treaty does not preclude a Member State from authorizing, for the purpose of carrying on milk production, recourse to certain forms of company under national law, such as partial GAECs confined to dairy farming, whilst prohibiting recourse to other forms of company, such as sociétés en participation, in so far as the latter may favour forms of production which are not in compliance with Community legislation'
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at sagsøgeren, der siden 1. januar 1989 har været pensioneret, er forhenværende tjenestemand ved Parlamentet, hvor han havde bestridt stillingen som regnskabsfører,
Advocate General P. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered his Opinion at the sitting of the Sixth Chamber on 11 July 1996.
Ansættelsesmyndigheden vedtog den 20. januar 1992 den afgørelse, som var omtalt i konklusionen i afgørelsen af 18. april 1991, der ophævede afgørelsen af 24. januar 1991, hvori det anerkendtes, at sagsøgeren led al en erhvervssygdom.
'(1) The establishment of joint venture companies (sociétés en participation) does not involve a necessary structural adjustment for the purposes of Article 1 of Regulation No 856/84 and the creation of that type of association, in so far as it constitutes a covert transfer of reference quantities, is incompatible with Article 7 of Regulation No 857/84, as amended, with Article 7 of Regulation No 1546/88, which supplements it, and with Article 7 of Regulation No 3950/92.
I afgørelsen af 20.januar 1992 fastsloges det i konklusionen endvidere, at »Henri de Compte ikke er ramt af en erhvervssygdom som omhandlet af ordningen om dækning af risikoen for ulykker og erhvervssygdomme hos tjenestemænd ved De Europæiske Fællesskaber«.
(2) The second subparagraph of Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting the establishment of joint venture companies (sociétés en participation) whilst authorizing the establishment of partial G AE Cs for the management of milk-producing holdings.'
Klagen blev afvist af ansættelsesmyndigheden den 4. juli 1992.
Case C-90/95 Ρ Henri de Compte ν European Parliament Staff case
Den 19. december 1991 fremsatte appellanten i sag T-90/91 påstand om, at Retten annullerede afgørelsen af 18. april 1991, som ophævede afgørelsen af 24. januar 1991, hvori del anerkendtes, at sagsøgeren led af en erhvervssygdom, samt afgørelsen af 23. september 1991, hvorved hans klage af 4. juni 1991 blev afvist.
(Officials —Decision recognizing the existence of an occupational disease — Revocation of an administrative act — Legitimate expectations — Reasonable period — Appeal) (Sixth Chamber)
Den 24. januar 1991 fastslog ansættelsesmyndigheden, at sagsøgeren var ramt af en erhvervssygdom, der medførte en delvis varig invaliditetsgrad på 40%, og besluttede at udbetale ham 9 147 091 BFR.
That decision was taken following disciplinary proceedings initiated as a result of the finding of irregularities in the Parliament's accounts, for which the appellant was allegedly responsible.
Den 18. april 1991 ophævede ansættelsesmyndigheden afgørelsen af 24. januar 1991 med tilbagevirkende kraft. Denne ophævelse var hovedsagelig støttet på Domstolens dom af 21.januar 1987, Rienzi mod Kommissionen, hvorefter en sygdom kun kan anses for erhvervsmæssig, hvis den beror på den pågældendes korrekte udøvelse af tjenesten eller opgaver i forbindelse hermed.
By application lodged at the Court of Justice on 24 March 1995, Henri de Compte brought an appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 26 January 1995 in Joined Cases T90/91 and T-62/92£te CompteνParliament [1995] ECR-SC II-l ('the contested judgment'), seeking to have it set aside, save in so far as it ordered the Parliament to pay him the sum of BFR 200 000 by way of compensation for nonmaterial damage.
Ophævelsen af ansættelsesmyndighedens afgørelse af 24. januar 1991
The contested judgment shows that the appellant, who has been in retirement since 1 January 1989, is a former official of the Parliament, where he was an accounting officer.
I den foreliggende sag måtte sagsøgerens sygdom imidlertid angiveligt bero på anklagerne mod ham, der hovedsagelig vedrørte uregelmæssigheder i forbindelse med den regnskabsførelse, han var ansvarlig for, og som havde ført til disciplinærsag mod ham, samt på den sanktion, sagen endte med.
Shortly after the disciplinary proceedings leading to his downgrading, the appellant requested the Parliament on 14 June 1988 to initiate a procedure for recognition that he was suffering from an occupational disease and entitled to the benefits provided for by the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (the Staff Regulations'), pursuant to the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease ('the Insurance Rules').
Den 4. juni 1991 indbragte sagsøgeren klage over afgørelse af 18. april 1991, som ansættelsesmyndigheden afviste den 23. september 1991.
On 18 January 1988, the appointing authority took a decision imposing on him the sanction of downgrading from Grade A 3, Step 8, to Grade A 7.
Appellanten har under nærværende appel gjort gældende, at Retten bl.a. med urette forkastede hans anbringende om tilsidesættelse af hans berettigede forventning til lovligheden af den ophævede afgørelse af 24. januar 1991, og anført, at Retten derfor uretmæssigt fastslog, at ophævelsen af afgørelsen den 18. april 1991 var sket inden for en rimelig frist.
On 24 January 1991 the appointing authority adopted a decision in which it found that the appellant was suffering from an occupational disease which had given rise to permanent partial
Indledningsvis påpeges, at ophævelse med tilbagevirkende kraft af en begunstigende forvaltningsakt som hovedregel er undergivet meget strenge betingelser.
the decision of 23 September 1991 rejecting his complaint of 4 June 1991.
Uden at det er nødvendigt at træffe afgørelse vedrørende klagepunktet om, at Retten uretmæssigt har fundet, at ophævelsen af afgørelsen skete inden for en rimelig frist og vedrørende de øvrige anbringender, som appellanten har fremført, må den anfægtede dom derfor ophæves, bortset fra den del af konklusionen, hvori Parlamentet dømmes til at betale sagsøgeren 200 000 BFR i godtgørelse for ikke-økonomisk skade, eftersom denne del af dommen ikke omfattes af appellen.
On 4 September 1992, in Case T­62/92, the appellant requested the Court of First Instance to annul the decision of 20 January 1992 refusing to recognize that he was suffering from an occupational disease and the decision of 4 June 1992 rejecting his complaint of 8 April 1992. He also sought an order for Parliament to pay him principally the sum of BFR 9 147 091.
Det fremgår af den anfægtede dom, at på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den ophævede afgørelse af 24. januar 1991 kunne sagsøgeren nære tiltro til dens tilsyneladende lovlighed og kræve den opretholdt. Det bemærkes dog, at det tidspunkt, der er afgørende ved vurderingen af, om der hos adressaten for en forvaltningsakt er skabt en berettiget forventning, er dens forkyndelse, men ikke datoen for dens vedtagelse eller dens ophævelse.
However, on 18 April 1991 the appointing authority revoked the decision of 24 January 1991 with retroactive effect The statement of reasons for that revocation essentially reflects the judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 January 1987 in Case 76/84 Rienä v Commission [198η ECR 315, according to which an illness may be classified as occupational only if it arises in the course of or in connection with the lawful performance of his duties by the official concerned.
I henhold til EF-statutten for Domstolen, kan denne, hvis den ophæver en af Retten truffen afgørelse, træffe endelig afgørelse, hvis sagen er moden til påkendelse.
In the contested judgment, the Court of First Instance dismissed the applications and ordered the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of BFR 200 000 by way of compensation for non­material damage.
Intet i sagen tyder på, at sagsøgeren skulle have fremkaldt afgørelsen af 24. januar 1991 ved urigtige eller ufuldstændige oplysninger.
In the circumstances of this case, the appellant's illness was to be attributed to accusations essentially concerned with irregularities in keeping accounts for which he was responsible which had led to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and also to the disciplinary measure imposed at the end of those proceedings.
Heraf følger, at sagsøgeren efter at være blevet gjort bekendt med afgørelsen af 24. januar 1991 efter dens forkyndelse kunne nære tiltro til dens lovlighed og kræve, at den blev opretholdt.
On 4 June 1991, the appellant lodged a complaint against that decision of 18 April 1991, which was rejected by the appointing authority on 23 September 1991.
Det skal alene fastslås, at ophævelsen af ansættelsesmyndighedens afgørelse af 24. januar 1991, der skete ved afgørelsen af 18. april 1991 og 20. januar 1992, tilsidesætter princippet om beskyttelsen af den berettigede forventning hos adressaten for den første afgørelse, hvorfor de to sidstnævnte afgørelser må annulleres.
In this appeal, the appellant complains inter alia that the Court of First Instance rejected his plea alleging breach of the principle of protection of his legitimate expectation as to the legality of the revoked decision of 24 January 1991 and claims that the Court of First Instance was wrong to find that the revocation of the decision, which took place on 18 April 1991, was effectuated within a reasonable time so far as he was concerned.
Appellanten har nedlagt påstand om, at Parlamentet dømmes til at betale ham 9 147 091 BFR med rente 10% p.a. fra den 24. januar 1991, indtil betaling sker.
The operative part of the decision of 20 January 1992 concluded that 'Mr Henri de Compte has not contracted an occupational disease within the meaning of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the European Communities against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational Disease'.
Det må fremhæves for det første, at når der en gang er skabt en berettiget forventning om en begunstigende forvaltningsakts lovlighed kan denne forventning ikke senere udhules.
It should first be noted that retroactive withdrawal of a favourable administrative act is generally subject to very strict conditions.
For det andet var der under hensyn til de konkrete omstændigheder ikke nogen offentlige interesse, der kunne anses for vigtigere end adressatens interesse i at opretholde en situation, som han kunne anse for afgjort.
According to settled case­law, while it must be acknowledged that any Community institution which finds that a measure which it has just adopted is tainted by illegality has the right to withdraw it within a reasonable period, with retroactive effect, that right may be restricted by the need to fulfil the legitimate expectations of a beneficiary of the measure, who has been led to rely on the lawfulness thereof.
Retten har derfor begået en retlig fejl ved at udtale, at selv om sagsøgeren på tidspunktet for vedtagelsen af den ophævede afgørelse af 24. januar 1991 endnu kunne nære tiltro til
On 10 April 1992 the appellant lodged a complaint against the decision of 20 January 1992. That complaint was rejected by the appointing authority on 4 June 1992.
Da der er tale om en sag, der angår pengebeløb, har Fællesskabets retsinstanser fuld prøvelsesret, hvorfor appellanten må gives medhold i disse påstande.
On 19 December 1991, in Case T­90/91, the appellant requested the Court of First Instance to annul the decision of 18 April 1991 revoking the decision of 24 January 1991 which recognized the existence of an occupational disease, and also
Appellanten må også gives medhold i rentepåstanden, som også henhører under Domstolens fulde prøvelsesret, og rentesatsen fastsættes til 8% p.a. fra den 24. januar 1991, indtil betaling sker.
It is clear from the contested judgment that at the time the revoked decision of 24 January 1991 was adopted the appellant was entitled to have confidence in the apparent legality of the decision and to argue that it should be upheld.
Det hedder i domskonklusionen:
It must, however, be pointed out that the operative time for determining whether the
»1) Dommen afsagt den 26. januar 1995 af De Europæiske Fællesskabers Ret i Første Instans i sagen De Compte mod Parlamentet (forenede sager T-90/91 og T-62/92) ophæves, bortset fra den del af konklusionen, hvorved Parlamentet dømmes til at betale sagsøgeren 200 000 BFR i godtgørelse for ikke-økonomisk skade.
addressee of an administrative act has acquired legitimate expectations is not the date on which the act was adopted or withdrawn but the date on which it was notified.
I sag T-90/91 annulleres afgørelsen af 18 april 1991.
The Court considers that this is the case.
I sag T-62/92 annulleres afgøreben af 20. januar 1992.
In the circumstances of this case, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant provoked the decision of 24 January 1991 by means of false or incomplete information.
Europa-Parlamentet betaler sagsøgeren 9 147 091 BFR med rente 8% p.a. fra den 24. januar 1991, indtil endelig betating sker.
It follows that when the appellant took cognizance of the decision of 24 January 1991 after it was notified to him, he was entitled to rely on the apparent legality of the act and to claim that it should be upheld.
Generaladvokat G. Tesauro fremsatte forslag til afgørelse i retsmødet (Sjette Afdeling) den 18. juni 1996.
It should be noted, first, that legitimate expectations as to the legality of a favourable administrative act, once acquired, may not subsequently be undermined.
Præjudiciel »Socialpolitik — mandlige og kvindelige arbejdstagere — ligebehandling — anvendelse af EF-traktatens artikel 119 eller af direktiv 79/7/EØF — et offentligt elektricitetsselskabs forsikringsordning — efterladtepension — protokol nr. 2 knyttet til traktaten om Den Europæiske Union — begrebet søgsmål· (Sjette Afdeling) protokollen ad artikel 119 i traktaten om oprettelse af Det Europæiske Fællesskab (herefter »protokol nr. 2«) og Rådets direktiv 79/7/EØF af 19. december 1978 om gradvis
Accordingly, the Court of First Instance erred in law in finding that whereas, on the date on which the revoked decision of 24 January 1991 was adopted, the appellant was still entitled to rely upon the apparent legality of the decision and to claim that it should be upheld and that that reliance was subsequently, and very swiftly, undermined in such a way that at the date when the Parliament took the contested decision to revoke, the appellant was no longer entitled to entertain any legitimate expectation as to the legality of the decision revoked.
Ved dom af 30. marts 1995, indgået til Domstolen den 12. maj 1995, har Dioikitiko Efeteio(Forvaltningsappelretten),Athen,forelagt en række præjudicielle spørgsmål vedrørende fortolkningen af EF-traktatens artikel 119,
The contested judgment must therefore be set aside, save in so far as it orders the Parliament to pay the appellant the sum of BFR 200 000 by way of compensation for nonmaterial damage, since that part of the judgment was not challenged on appeal, and there is no need to rule on the complaint that the Court of First Instance wrongly held that the decision was withdrawn within a reasonable period or on the other pleas raised by the appellant
Det første og det andet spørgsmål
In Case T-90/91, the decision of 18 April 1991 is annulled;
Hertil skal blot bemærkes, at artikel 119 forbyder enhver form for lønmæssig forskelsbehandling af mænd og kvinder, uanset hvilken ordning der giver anledning til forskelsbehandlingen.
In Case T-62/92, the decision of 20 January 1992 is annulled;
I denne forbindelse bemærkes at, som Domstolen gentagne gange har fremhævet, kan kun kriteriet om, at arbejdstageren modtager pensionen som følge af arbejdsforholdet mellem ham og hans tidligere arbejdsgiver, dvs. kriteriet om arbejdsforholdet, jf. ordlyden af artikel 119, tillægges afgørende betydning.
The European Parliament is ordered to pay the appellant the sum of BFR 9147 091, together with default interest at the annual rate of 8% to run from 24 January 1991 until the date of actual payment;